In Sean Penn’s Into the Wild (2007) the audience is brought to the realization that escaping the restraints of society is possible. By following the real-life story of a wanderer, Penn illustrates the benefits of rebelling from societal expectations without ignoring the costs that come with separating from social life.

The film centres around twenty-two year old Chris McCandless’ (Emile Hirsch) two-year journey across the United States to reach “ultimate freedom” in Alaska. The film begins in Alaska when Chris finds an abandoned bus and lives off the land in isolation for six months. In the first few scenes we see Chris hunt and trap, cook and survive in the wild. The rest of the film is a series of flashbacks showing his journey to escape civilization. The use of flashbacks allows the audience to effectively connect his present reflections to particular moments of his past experiences (Hayward, 2006).

The first flashback brings us Chris’ graduation day from Emory University two years prior. After the ceremony Chris, his sister Corrine (Jena Malone) and his parents go to a formal dinner to celebrate. During the dinner we see a stark contrast to the rough and tumbled Chris shown in Alaska; formally dressed, hair swept back and sitting up tall at a swanky restaurant, Chris expresses his future goal to attend the prestigious Harvard Law. We find out in the next scene that this goal was simply a lie to please his parents. Brought up a wealthy family in West Virginia, Chris chooses to reject the superficial lifestyle he sees ingrained in society and longs for a world that is not bogged down by money and material goods. Chris donates his life savings of $25,000 to Oxfam International and takes off for freedom in the West. We see Chris free from responsibility on the open road with the subtitle “Chapter 1: My Own Birth.”

So how can we make sense of Chris’ reaction to society and need for “ spiritual revolution away from poisoned civilization”? With global growth of industry and technology the Western world has gained access to an abundance of material goods and seemingly limitless opportunities for a ‘happy’ life. By equating material goods to happiness and fulfillment it is safe to say we live in a consumer driven society where certain credentials are necessary to hold your career and overall social status. Consumerism has been explained as a sort of “conspicuous consumption” a competitive advantage, a sort of ‘keeping up with the Jones’ to display income (Veblen, 1970). Veblen (1970) explains in his work “Theory of the Leisure Class” that the wealthy, who control much of society, remain in power by frivolous spending and ability to spend time in “conspicuous leisure” (ie. higher education or athletics) to portray high status. Furthermore, in order to be active consumers the lower classes must work to the point that they are too busy for individual thought or challenge the social hierarchy (ibid).

After returning from Mexico (where he illegally crossed) Chris spends one night in Los Angeles, California. Now back in the context of urban life, Chris no longer looks free but rather limited by his dirty appearance and homeless status. When asking a businessman for the time he is ignored and relies on the city shelter for food and accommodation rather than a friendly neighbour. The stigmatization of the homeless within urban walls and societal identities causes Chris to be chained down by his social status. According to Velbem (1970) the leisure class contains and promotes poverty by the creation of proper norms of consumption in which all social classes feel they can (and should be) a part of while “ reducing their available energy, to such a point as to make them incapable to the effort required for learning and adoption of new habits of thought” (p. 140).

In the industrial surroundings and societal walls the wanderer experiences judgement and isolation rather than freedom and spiritual discovery.

The lower class and homeless of LA pursue the consumerism ideal and are constrained by its structure. Within societal walls to not take hold of supposed equal opportunity to success is to be ‘unmotivated’ or a failure. An example of this philosophy can be seen in such films as Pursuit of Happyness (2006). While Chris Gardner (Will Smith) puts value in societal discourse of success he fights to achieve happiness within structural norms (improving education, networking, improving wardrobe).

Conversely, in Into the Wild we see Chris McCandless reject conservative ideas of success altogether. Both films depict real life searches for happiness and fulfilment yet the protagonists find it through very different means. It must be noted that Chris Gardner came from a working class family while McCandless was of upper-middle class and had a University degree to fall back on thus giving him certain liberties. However, the point is in McCandless’ choice to leave those material advantages that some may say are limitations of a modern, rational society.

Max Weber (2003) writes that there is an emphasis in society of economic efficiency and the use of calculable, formal rationality in everything we do. Without having expressive or emotional meaning (substantive rationale) as motivation for our decisions there forms an ‘iron cage’ of control where human life is trapped in a rule based control of our actions. McCandless’ decision to leave his seemingly bright future behind to travel to Alaska and live off the land is by social standards an inefficient rationale. This is seen when one man asks Chris why he doesn’t he have a job or ‘make something of [himself].” By building up no money or experience Chris’ travels have no economic gain and therefore have no value in consumer driven society.

Throughout the film the narration explains the lies and deceit Chris feels from the lives of his parents. In his travels he meets with relatives in LA and finds out his parents relationship was an affair and never officially united in marriage. He finds company in two travelling hippies Jan (Catherine Keener) and Rainey (Brian Dierker), which share their relationship troubles with him instead of masking realities for fear of judgment. The realness of Jan and Rainey exemplify real human emotions and are almost parents to his new birth out of society and into the wild. This also presents a re-evaluation of the institution of the family and how roles of others in our lives are constructed out of necessity.

Although Chris abandons formal rationale and avoids much of modern society, he experiences relationships along his journey most notably in the Colorado Desert known as Slab City, a place where wanderers often stop for the winter and living on the outskirts of modern society is acceptable. Although the wandering community shifts and is unconventional, it is still a community where Chris reunites with Jan and Reiney and forms a friendship with a young woman.

The last relationship we see of Chris is with foil character Ron Franz, an old sad man who has not experienced much life outside work and family. With the death of his loved ones Mr. Franz has reached the isolation that Chris is about to experience in Alaska. On Chris’ departure Mr. Franz tears up and says he’s going to miss him. Chris then assures him that “joy comes from more than human relationships. You have to change the way you see things.”

However once alone in Alaska, Chris realizes that his whole joy in life has been in the journey rather than the destination. It seems that although Chris may not experience the limits that are apart of social life in Alaska, he also lacks the benefits of cohesion and bonding that is key to human existence.

In the end of the film Chris slowly starves to death and is somewhat trapped in isolation. He writes a final note saying he has lived a happy life and we see his last look to the sky before he dies with a content, peaceful look on his face.

The mise-en-scène of Into the Wild is characterized by beautifully shot scenery, and changing perspectives. Generally, Into the Wild falls under the codes and conventions of a road movie : “[road movies] implies discovery, obtaining some self-knowledge ; conventionally the roadster is male and it is his point of view we see.” (Hayward, 2006, p.85) However, although the film centres on Chris’ thoughts on the world, his point of view is analysed through the narration of his sister Corinne as well as himself. The double narration gives the audience both Chris and Corinne’s perspectives of Chris’ life and motivations for leaving.

Also used effectively is the alternate use of camera shots. The use of subjective camera shots (or point of view shot) allows the viewer to see into Chris’ eyes at critical points in the plot to experience his emotions of fear, joy and panic (Hayward, 2006). Penn uses aerial and extreme long shots making him appear smaller and overwhelmed by his surroundings; these shots greater emphasize Chris’ isolation and make him vulnerable to the viewer (Barsam, 2007).

In one scene where he talks to an apple and explains it is the best apple he’s ever tasted, Chris looks straight at the camera, bringing us into the moment and allowing him to share his joy with the audience. It is has been noted by some that to keep this one shot was a mistake in keeping with the tone of loneliness (Newton, 2008). Although Chris is solitude in his travels, his interactions in Slab City, with Mr. Franz and others along the way are what keep him content. Therefore, I interpreted the eye contact to the camera as the only means to fully express his joy to the audience; this illustrates what Chris realizes in his final days: “happiness is only real when shared.”

The soundtrack written by Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam speaks as a sort of third narration of Chris’ experiences on the road. Within each song are emotional riffs and descriptive lyrics that further articulate the protagonists experience (ie. “Leave it to me to find a way to be…I know all the rules but the rules did not know me”).

Since his death in 1992, Christopher McCandless’ journey has become somewhat of a cultural phenomenon (Christian, 2006); his journey has been of topic in television shows, inspiration for songwriters and explored in the 2007 documentary The Call of the Wild. Tourists have visited the “magic bus” in Alaska where Chris lived his last days. One Alaskan ranger wrote that he was foolish to go into the wild so unprepared and feels McCandless was committing to death upon his arrival (Christian, 2006).

It seems that Chris’ search for meaning may have been a form of what Durkheim (2003) called “anomic suicide”; a way to permanently escape the limitless social malaise of a limitless society (p.147). The film, however, leaves us with the idea that the rapids were too high to cross and McCandless died from starvation or poisoning.

We will never know whether Chris McCandless’ death was suicide or simply due to the forces of nature. Nevertheless, his jump into the wild, whether seen as brave or naïve, has touched an inner desire shared by many hardworking, time-constricted viewers: the desire to be free from social responsibility, identity and judgements attached to class.

After watching this film viewers are urged to re-evaluate the value of material goods as a means of achieving happiness. Into the Wild explores the common search for personal fulfillment and the need to find our own balance between the realities and illusions of contentment, successes and human needs.

As Rap music was becoming successful all over the world, just as punk music had done to change the language culture of people being themselves; so this new genre music was to have the same effect of changing people's view of themselves in the world, but with far more reaching consequences. The language of music is so powerful that eventually it can reach other art forms such as film.

The Punk genre was about rebellion of youth that shocked a whole generation because of Punk's in your face attitude.

Rap music was rebellion of another kind. It was there primarily for Black youth to create there own music expression of a political establishment they felt had left them behind in society. This rap music form went far much deeper than this though, it was linked with a Black Male Machismo, due in part to gang crews firstly from districts in New York that spread to Black Inner Cities States all over America and eventually all over the world.

The language of Rap film was at the beginning to show the world what Rap musical expression was all about. The Rap beat, fashion style, Graffiti Art, and if the will be it, the political turmoil of inner city crime and violence.

In the beginning the new musical film expression was linked with American Independent cinema that stuck to the rap/hip-hop physiology in dealing with problems that faced a black community, till Hollywood got hold of its lapels and bought in a more adult orientated version of urban American independent cinema. The one thing that has always been there in Rap/Hip-Hop Cinema is the link of the Black Male Machismo (Tough Men).It is as if Hip-Hop/Urban cinema must show Black Male Aggression always in relation to Violence. This could be shown in the gun, shop robbery or with just a fist in a boxing punch-up. The damaging effect of this is that the cultural analysts and theorists always write about this Machismo toughness in the context and rhetoric of the psychological brain of the Black male in society. These forms of expression will always be linked with racial stereotypes in history.

In Black Hip-Hop/Urban Film we always link Machismo with the Black Male. We rarely see or hear solutions that nurture this machismo toughness.

John Singleton came out with his debut film “Boyz in the Hood” in 1991. He was a mere Twenty Three years of age when he wrote and directed this masterpiece. This film was the first in a trilogy of films that looked at the role of the Black urban male who has to deal with a whole range of obstacles in an environment of Bleak Violence and toughness. The film came out at a time when the genre of Hip-Hop (now Rap music's new name) and inner city life were becoming more merged together. Urban film was being linked with the Hip-Hop aesthetic portraying the Black Male as Violent, and Street-Sassy.

Black Males were joining gangs because it gave them status on the streets, which had been denied in family life and society status.

This was a doctrine all about survival for the fittest first, consequences later.

Occasionally black American males were being gunned down in their own neighbourhoods and rarely could you find films that offered solutions to these problems of Gang violence. What's more, Film Directors of these urban films would want to always up the ante for violence on the screen from a previous film that had become popular.

Allen and Albert Hughes (Twins) wrote and directed Menace II Society in 1993. They were both 20 years of age at the time. This film's success as an urban film can lay claim to a film like Boyz in the Hood; its depiction of inner city violence on the screen though was more gruesome than Boyz. Some parts of the film looked like a horror movie. If you want proof of this you only have to look at the Video/DVD cover to realise this.

A written statute discovered in 1820 showed an attempt to organise the cities criminal underworld into a fixed structure and some kind of hierarchy. More documents discovered over 22 years later describing initiation rites for new members and also how the families of imprisoned members were to be taken care of. It was not long before the newly organised Camorra began to invade all aspects of Neapolitan society.

Despite these attempts to centrally organise the Camorra it has never been a coherent whole like the Sicilian Cosa Nostra. It is made up of a loose confederation of numerous family clans with each group acting independently and controlling all activity in a particular territory. However, there is some minimal co-ordination between the clans in an attempt to avoid outright war. It is currently estimated by the Italian police that there are around 150 clans with over 6,700 members in Naples and the surrounding areas. The clans have an endless recruiting ground among the poor and disenfranchised who live amongst the downtrodden housing estates on the outskirts of the city

Competition between the different clans for lucrative rackets and new territory often erupts into feuds. In 2004/5 the Scampia feud, as it became known in the Italian press, erupted between the Di Lauro Clan and a splinter group called the “Scissionisti” which resulted in over 100 street killings. The following year 12 were killed in 10 days after running battles between 20 different clans. More than 1,000 extra police were despatched to Naples to control the anarchy but in 2007 there were over 120 Camorra related murders.

Apart from the organised crime staples of drug trafficking, loan sharking, prostitution, protection rackets and illegal gambling the Camorra have also infiltrated legitimate industries. According to an Italian Trade Organisation the criminal organisation controls the milk, fishing, coffee and garment industries and owns over 2,500 bakeries in Naples.

Disastrously for the population of the southern region of Campania, of which Naples is the capital, garbage disposal has also come under the Camorra’s dominion. In consort with corrupt local officials and industrialists the crime syndicate has for years been illegally disposing of sensitive materials. Great damage has been caused to the environment and continues to be done as rubbish is often dumped and burnt in public spaces. Toxic waste has been mixed with cement to make buildings throughout the region as a result of the Camorra having major construction contracts as well as waste disposal. And a long running garbage crisis has occurred in the city with rubbish piling up in the streets because there is no longer any room in any of the regions landfills.

The Camorra has been able to grow almost unimpeded and with apparent impunity mainly due to its strategy of political patronage. They are often sought out by ambitious politicians, eager to utilize the clans grip on the local community to get elected. In return the family clans use their political connections to protect and assist their members and bring benefits to their territory. The heads of the major Camorra clans are power brokers in both local and national politics.

            An example of too much violence is the movie ‘Rambo.’  This movie is about a war in the Vietnam area.  This movie features Sylvester Stallone who is extremely violent.  There are many casualties in this film and it is very gory.  The movie shows people being blown into two pieces, kids being thrown into fires, people dieing from genocide, soldiers being blown up by land mines, and innocent families being pulled apart.  I think that it is important for the American people to be exposed to what is happening in the world around us, but I also believe that we don’t need every last detail of the gory images happening around the world.  I think that an important message can get across without showing every last drop of blood that was put into the making. 

            In the past 100 years, our world has erupted suddenly.  We have experienced everything from nudity on national television, to racial slurs being used in the everyday vocabulary.  I know that I don’t want my children to be experiencing some of these everyday things, so I believe that we should tone down this violence being spread across America.

To define the background of the movie business is some what like asking what came first the chicken or the egg. The first movie or "motion picture" ever created was that of a horse galloping for 16 frames. What makes up a movie? A movie is basically a bunch of pictures projected at a fast rate, which is why some people refer to it as a "motion picture". "The 16 frame motion picture was made by Edward James muggerridge who later changed his last name to Muybridge to use the Saxon spelling"(Franklin institute). "In early June of 1878, Muybridge made his first successful serial photographs of fast motion at Stanford's California stock farm. The photographs were of a horse running and another horse trotting; they were developed on the spot so as not to be accused of doctoring the images" (Franklin institute). Edward made this motion picture to scientifically answer a popularly debated question during this age. People were debating if all four legs of a horse are ever off the ground at the same time. Edwards's motion picture answered this question and it opened the door to the worlds leading form of entertainment.

"At the movie high tide in the 1946, before television invaded us, 80 million people a week went to movies. It was the community habit" (Jack Valenti). However when the television came around, people going to the movies dropped noticeably. The most popular movie genre during that time were "R" rated movies typically about war and were deemed horror. Some movies we watch today can affect society in many, many ways like violent and horror movies. These movies make people lose their grip on reality and develop mental health issues. In these "R" rated movies there would always be propaganda and not the good propaganda either. War movies usually had big physically fit men as sergeants and they would sometimes if not always be smoking cigarettes when depicted in these movies. When tobacco companies realized the rise in there product sells they were happy because they had found the biggest form of advertisement. No later had movie produces put more smoking actors in there films that the audience asked for more. The producers and directors gave them more by putting the use of drugs into there movies to make them more enjoyable or laughable or "cool" no matter the reason they were corrupting and manipulating the youth without even knowing it, or did they?

Horror movies are among the most disturbing and unrealistic movies out there. Why people are drawn to these movies is questionable and confusing. I believe that people are drawn to these movies because it gives us a rush gets us pumped and our adrenaline flowing.

"Horror movies originate from fictional work that portrays the dark side of life with the primary aim of frightening and terrifying its audience. By presenting horrifying images, of several incorporating sub-genres and repeated themes, such as vampires and werewolves, demonic possessions, evil children, cannibals and zombies, alien invasion and mind control, film makers create a world where the worst nightmares become true" (Sarah). These factors are what drive us to watch these movies because of the intense rush and out of curiosity. Horror movies like these may sometimes have such an impact on someone that they act out and loose there grip on reality. These are what adult audiences experience now imagine what a child or minor would feel, but this also has an effect on how the person was raised so it all falls into place.

Drug movies often place audiences in uncomfortable positions because they might have had personal experiences with drugs or other illegal substances. These movies have a higher impact rate on the youth because to them it's all about being the life of the party. Drug movies do teach the young audiences too like the movie "Blow" which shows the life story of George yung who started out into the drug business but it ultimately caught him in the long run. These movies have a low impact rate on adults because they have already experimented or know the truth about these substances but the young don't because they are innocent and need to mature.

"One dwells on science fiction" (Ozzy), because it is not a genre but a setting. It is a setting because science fiction movies are thought up to overcome normal laws of physics and this is why so many people are drawn to science fiction. Some people are so drawn to it that they will wait all night in line just to get into the movie "Star wars" and they even dress up as the characters. The impact of science fiction is powerful because science fiction movies pretty much make anything possible like flying, or controlling fire which are talents everyone in the world would love to master because we all love to be admired and adored and having these powers would make us feel adored. When you watch any movie you sometimes leave the realm of reality and begin to think if it's possible to fly like that or to control fire but the truth is that we can't. Although movies like these with strong impacts can be devastating because one might be so into the movie that they try to fly or try to control fire and end up hurting themselves and others. One must always be careful and be aware of not to mix reality with fiction.

Movies have been around now for more than century and have and will continue to impact us and future generations. From when it was born in 1878 to one of its key turning points in 1970 where the IMAX wide-screen format premiered in the Fuji Pavilion EXPO ‘70in Osaka, Japan to present day visual masterpieces like beowulf the film industry has come a long way in a
short century. I'm certain that we will continue to make awesome movies each time clearer sound, picture and detail until one day we might be able to "jump" into a movie via a holographic helmet that will sit you right in the middle of the movie or join in. Who knows it's just an idea but that's how the film industry came to be, because of an IDEA.

In the year known as “The year that changed movies”, 1999 saw an upheaval in Hollywood culture. With releases such as, Magnolia, Run Lola Run, Dogma, Matrix, American Beauty, Fight Club and several others, we saw movies all dealing with something greater than ourselves. For further information on these movies specifically, I suggest the book A Matrix of Meanings, part of the “Engaging Culture Series”. These films address the concept of searching, something Hollywood has become, a place of searching. These films are giving Americans questions and making them look for the answers on their own. This is fantastic for believers as us, who know where the search for truth will end, with the Author of Truth. It has grown into entertainment that makes people think. Unlike one Walt Disney who said, “I'd rather entertain people and hope they learned something, than teach people and hope they were entertained.” These words embodied the thinking of 20th century film, and 1999 then revolted into a new era of filmmaking that teaches and thus entertains. It is this reason that the movie theatre is being called the new church of America. Now I also must clarify this last statement. Notice the “c” in church is lower case; this statement is not trying to say that movies are going to take over the Church at all or that it threatens church in anyway. All this is saying is that like Church, the movies are becoming a place to search for the divine.

Many people see the most recent movies coming out and believe that this trend is completely Christian. And I can see why they think this, with movies such as, “The Passion”, “Constantine”, “Bruce Almighty”, “Saved”, and “Kingdom of Heaven” all coming out within the last couple years. And most people also feel that this movement was begun with “The Passion”. This is in a sense a good observation, but it seems as though to take this point of view on, is to look at it backwards. For years (basically as long as they have existed) movies have been under attack by the Christian Organization. All The Passion really accomplished, and I don't mean to sound trivial because it is a huge accomplishment, was to show Hollywood that there is a new era of filmmaking, where the Christian audience will not automatically shun whatever product is made, as in 1988. So this is just one path, another avenue of exploration that Hollywood is traveling, and don't expect it to stay forever. It is a piece of the great quest Hollywood began in 1999.

Now is an exciting time for Christians in Hollywood, Christian movie goers and non-believers. Marvel as God works through his servant Hollywood to touch the lives of hundreds of millions throughout the world. A word of caution though, do not be discouraged if Hollywood strays from the Christian route and wanders onto other paths. Please do not revert back to our old ways of disgust and hatred revolving around what many Christians thought to be a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Just know it is but a part of the search that we all must take, and again we all know where the search for truth leads, to the Lord our God.

This article discusses the issue of race in movies. Specifically, it analyzes how white and black characters are portrayed differently in the movie, Be Cool, written by Peter Stienfield and directed by F. Gary Gray. Be Cool is a comedy sequel of the movie Get Shorty. The movie stars four white actors: John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Danny DeVito, Vince Vaughn, and three black, or non-white actors: The Rock, Christina Milian, and Cedric the Entertainer.

Chili Palmer (John Travolta), with his ever so poised attitude and strong build, is the star of this movie. Chili decides to leave the movie industry to pursue the music business. In the first ten minutes of the movie, Chili's friend is killed by the Russian Mafia. Chili heads to his friend's wife, Edie Athens (Uma Thurman), to offer his services in assisting her run the record label. Throughout the movie, Chili and Edie eventually become romantically involved. The romance has to wait however. Their time is occupied by the young pop star that will be the savior of the record label, Linda Moon (Christina Milian), dealing with her pretentious manager, the manager's gay, aspiring actor bodyguard, Russian mobsters and an Ivy League gangster music producer and his entourage.

“Hollywood has arguably done more to integrate Blacks into productions than any other mass medium. Yet exclusion of minority actors from certain roles and actions persists”. This movie is a confirmation of this fact.

This movie depicts three of the four white characters as poised and in control of their immediate situations. For example, Chili Palmer is the essence of a well rounded man. He speaks confidently, is not afraid of the opposition, and in the end, he gets the girl. Chili is in control of every situation he encounters. As Robert Entman and Andrew Rojecki argue, “Black-white conversations almost all involve hierarchical relationships with the white in charge of critical decisions and the direction of the plot”. This movie is a true depiction of this fact in most every scene.

Edie Athens loses her husband in the first ten minutes of the movie and with Chili's help, immediately regains her footing in the music industry without shedding a tear. She is depicted as a stereotypical all-American white woman. She is blond, sexy, warm, and non-confrontational, and a lovable woman. Edie and Chili, the two leading white characters, become romantically involved.

Raji (Vince Vaughn) is a white man playing a character that, as the other characters proclaim, “Thinks he is black.” Raji's character is an obvious attempt by the writer to create humor in the movie. Raji's character, however, is a reminder of the depictions in the movie Ethnic Notions by Marlon Riggs, where white people adorned exaggerated costumes and language in order to portray black people. In Raji's effort to be black, he speaks in slang, barely completing a coherent sentence without using profanity. His attire consists of suits, hats, and he dresses, as Chili Palmer says, “Like a Pimp.” He has no respect for women, particularly his client, Linda Moon, and is out to get what he wants by any means necessary.

All of the black characters in this movie are in supporting roles. Sinclair "Sin" Russell (Cedric the Entertainer) is a black rapper with an entourage of gangsters. The fact that Sin has an Ivy League education is certainly not the stereotypical black man; however, his positive traits seem to be overshadowed by the fact that he is a gang banger. Several scenes almost make a mockery of the fact that he is an intelligent black man.

In one scene the Russian Mafia uses racial epithets towards Sin. The head member of the Russian says, “Be Cool, N****r!” to Sin. As Joe R. Feagin noted in The Continuing Significance of Race: Anti-Black Discrimination in Public Places, “The most common black responses to racial hostility . . . are withdrawal or a verbal reply” . Sin chose the verbal reply,

”How is it that you can disrespect a man's ethnicity when you know we (black people) have influenced nearly every facet of white America; from our music, to our style of dress, not to mention, your basic imitation of our sense of cool . . .walk, talk, dress, mannerisms. We enrich your very existence, all the while contributing to the gross national product through our achievements in corporate America. It's these conceits that comfort me when I'm faced with the ignorant cowardly, bitter and bigoted who have no talent, no guts; people like you who desecrate things you don't understand, when the truth is you should say, thank you man and go on about your way . . . “.

During this verbal retort, the camera zooms in on Sin's face, possibly an effort to get the audience to absorb the words. Although a valiant effort on the part of the producers to get this message across, “Creating a color-blind society on a foundation saturated with racism requires something more than simply proclaiming that the age of brotherhood has arrived”. After shooting the Russian, Sin comments, “Racial Epithets, why does it always have to come down to that? Makes me sad for my daughter.”

Dabu, Sin's right-hand man, is another attempt by the writer to add humor to the movie. Dabu has a strong desire to kill someone; however, when he holds a gun, often times it discharges without any intent of his own. He tends to display cross-cultural attributes, from drinking tea with a pinky finger in the air to wearing a bullet proof vest with his pants barely above his thighs. In one scene Sin and his group of friends are outside of a club talking to Chili Palmer after going to get Mongolian Barbecue. Dabu is so smitten by the character, Linda Moon (Cristina Milian), that he is completely focused on her while eating his food and begins slurping as if in a sexual manner. In that scene, Dabu displays the stereotypical sex-crazed black man.

In addition to Dabu, Sin's entourage is a group of black men portraying the stereotypical gun-toting gang bangers who threaten people in order to get what they want. Their wardrobe consists of bandanas, pants worn well below the waist in order to show their boxers, plenty of jewelry on their necks and wrists, and their mouths full of slang.

In the beginning of the movie Linda Moon is an aspiring singer who has grown to hate the music business because of her experiences with her current manager, Raji. Linda Moon comes across not as a black or a white character, but more of a neutral role. Although a minority, she plays a role that may have been portrayed by a white female as well, without much change to the dialogue, wardrobe or scenes.

The Rock is a gay bodyguard who is searching for his big break in the movie industry. His appearance alone tends to be threatening until he shows his only significant feature, the raised eyebrow. Although “The Rock” and “Gay” in one sentence alone seem to be an oxymoron, he portrays the stereotypical black gay man with ease.

White and black characters are treated similar in respect to the names they are given. Chili, Sin, Raji, Dabu, are all slang names and all of which you would associate with black characters.

Some of the roles and situations in this movie, when seen by the typical white American, are likely to reinforce anti-Black stereotypes. The black characters, outside of the black police officer, are essentially framed as lazy, careless and cold gang bangers. This is the common view of all black men that the media portrays to the typical white American.

In one scene, Sin's entourage drives up to his house in three black hummers with expensive rims, with the music playing extremely loud. Annoyed, Sin dismisses this behavior by saying, “. . .must you live up to the stereotypes?” Sin's white neighbor shakes her head and hurries into her house shortly after the cars arrive. Inside of one of the cars is a kidnapped program director who the audience assumes is in charge of the music that is played on radio stations. Sin proceeds to threaten the man into playing his records. As this occurs, Sin's daughter walks out on the porch. While the men, under the order of Sin, greets Sin's daughter, the camera moves to the back of the men to show low waisted pants, boxers showing, all have weapons stuck in the back of their pants.

Entman and Rojecki argued that “White racial thinking now spans a spectrum that runs from racial comity and understanding to ambivalence, then to animosity, and finally to outright racism”. “The bulk of whites exhibit ambivalence that may be tipped toward comity or hostility depending on the interaction of political climate, personal experience, and mediated communications”. “At one end of the spectrum are white people who believe it is not possible to generalize about African American individuals any more than about whites. At the other end of the spectrum are full blown racists who believe blacks and whites are fundamentally different”.

How would seeing the movie, Be Cool, likely affect the sentiments and schemas of a typical, racially ambivalent White American? The characters and scenes in this movie are heavily stereotypical of black people. This movie may bring a since of confirmation of what a typical white American might think about black people, based on what they have seen in the media. For many white Americans, the media is the only way many white Americans see black people so their schemas are influenced by these images. According to Travis L. Dixon, Cristina L. Azocar, and Michael Casas, “African Americans are typically relegated to a depiction as perpetrators while being underrepresented as officers and victims on local television news”.

One may argue that the character Raji is a negative depiction of a white man and may influence whites to believe that it isn't just blacks. However, “Whites already know that members of their group come in all moral and intellectual shapes and sizes.”. So a character like Raji is not likely to have a real affect on their current thinking about their own group.

Given that the stereotypical black man is heavily portrayed in the movie, Be Cool, a typical white American seeing this movie could either remain as ambivalent or be moved from ambivalence to animosity. “Racial animosity occupies an important step short of racism. Although those exhibiting animosity often get labeled as racist, they do not see their stereotyped anti-black generalizations as adding up to a natural racial order that places whites on top and legitimizes discrimination“.

Although the movie industry has made great strides in reaching comity between white and black roles, the efforts are still lacking. Society still tends to instinctively provide white actors with highly coveted roles and black actors in highly stereotypical or supporting roles.

If teenagers do not belong to a group, some may feel like misfits, such as Cady in "Mean Girls". When Cady first arrives she is very different to all the other students at the school. She wears unusual clothes, which are not seen as "cool", has a different attitude and does not know any of the rules, such as where to sit in class. In many ways for Cady this is a brand new way of life, things she did not have to do in Africa, such as to ask for a lavatory pass, are obvious things to do in America.

There are many reasons why teenagers may want to infiltrate a group, such as peer pressure, pressure to fit in with society or simply because they have shared interests and hobbies as other people in the group. In "Mean Girls" ,originally, her so-called friends push Cady into joining the "Plastics" as they tell her it will be "fun" to find out about what they talk about behind closed doors. Cady suffers from peer pressure from Damien and Janice, as at first she does not want to fit in with the plastics and is against the idea, but they pursuade her into thinking it is a good plan. However after the leader of the plastics steals the boy Cady had her eye on, Cady quickly decides to take revenge on her by wedging her way closer into the group. Cadys then realises after a while that she enjoys being in the plastics, everyone knows her name and everyone wants to copy her style.

To fit in with their chosen groups, many people have to change be it their appearance, personality or likes and dislikes. Teenagers may feel pressure to change what they look like to fit in with the others around them, as they think if they are different or unique they will not be acceptable. For example in "Mean Girls" when Cady first arrives she is a misfit and is forced to eat her lunch in a toilet cubicle, as she does not fit in with any of the groups.

When Cady begins to join the plastics she changes her whole image; her hair styles, her clothes, her make-up and her whole attitude to life. She almost becomes a clone of the other three plastics. To fit in with others many people find they have to sacrifice their individuality, they feel under pressure to look, talk and behave like the other members. If people are pressured to fit in with others around them, everyone ends up fitting into an exact category, and no one is individual and unique.

There are many messages incorporated into this film, one of the most important is that you should always stay true to yourself and shouldn't have to change for anyone. This is shown throughout the film in many ways, such as Cady being miserable in the plastics and at the end, when she is back to her normal self, she has more friends and is happy, as she feels comfortable as she is. It is once said in the film that " she knew it was better to be in the plastics hating life, than to not be in the plastics at all." This is a perfect example of the pressure teens feel to fit in, they will even be miserable just so they can be liked.

Some other messages in this film are; that infact it doesn't matter what you look like, people like you for the way you are; making fun of someone is pointless, it doesn't make you or them feel better; and that nobody is perfect no matter what clothes they wear or how many friends they have.

In conclusion, there are many ways, in which society forces teenagers to feel the need to fit in with others, but youths should feel confident in them selves and not have to turn into clone-like stereotypes. Everyone should have the right to feel confident in his or her individuality.

If we didn't have action movies, people wouldn't be going to the movies as much because people love violence. Also it would change the movie industry a lot because action movies are a big part of it. People aren't usually exposed to violence in real life like the movies, so they just love to see good guys shoot it up with bad guys. Movies are good entertainment, because it's the only way we can see things that are outside of our reality. People just love to see the down and out good guy overcoming all odds, shooting it up with tons of bad guys.

This is a chart of top three highest grossing action movies of all time. The numbers are in the millions of how much the movies made. Entertainment Insiders (2007 March). So this proves that action movies are very popular to the majority of people. Violence helps movies sell tickets.

Here is another chart that shows the top violent movies for the past ten years. Dahl, Delavigna (2006). As you can see from this chart, millions of people flock to see an action movie, despite its violent content. A movie being violent doesn't stop people from seeing it, it just makes them want to see it more.

Action movies can have many different meanings, which can be hard to figure out, but a lot of times that makes the movie better. It keeps you on your toes, and when you least expect it, you find out what the movie was all about. A majority of the time these movies lead up to a final battle at the end, with the main good guy fighting the main bad guy, and there usually is a sequel if the movie is successful. Movies like Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Beverly Hills Cop, and the James Bond movies fall into this category.

What makes a movie work? Most of the time it is the characters .Wells(2006) stated “ The action characters in movies can act very dramatic or serious to influence their parts(pg. 2).” Also their acting ability can make the movie a success. Violence helps move the story along better. Usually movies will have at least one comedic character, and others are always doing something, like fighting against each other, car chases, explosions, or gun battles. Something is always going on to keep the action moving.

Action movies are good entertainment for the American people. Movies are a good way for people to escape reality and to look into a life that they would like to have or wouldn't see everyday. They play a big role in entertainment today. When people go out on the weekend, a majority of the time they are going to the movies. If you think about it, how would this world be if we didn't have movies? We would be losing a large quality of entertainment in today's world. People would have to stay home all the time. We wouldn't have much a need for television either because movies play a big role in television today too.

Home video is also a large part in the movie business, because if an action movie doesn't do well in the theaters, it can make it up in sales for at home. Movies at home is now becoming more popular than at the theater because of cheaper price, plus it is a convenience for them to watch a movie right from their own living room.

Not only do action movies provide good entertainment for people, it also gives them a chance to see parts of the world that they have never seen before. Someone might see a movie and might decide that they want to visit where the movie took place. So it is a good way to see new places.

Many people criticize action movies, because they have sex and violence in them, but if you think about it, if they didn't, who would go to see them? A majority of the time in action movies the good guy does most of the killing. In movies like “Die Hard” “Lethal Weapon” and “Independence Day” the good guys did more killing than the bad guys did (Ozawa, 2007) Should we ban all movies just because a few of them are too violent? Does everyone that sees a violent action movie go out and kill people? Violence in the movies has no consequences in real life, so what harm does it cause? The first amendment and the 1952 case of Burstyn vs. Wilson protected rights for movies to show almost anything that they wanted to. It expressed that movies are made to make money and to entertain, and they are for no other reason.

Action movies will always be criticized because they are blamed for what happens in real life. Munger, D(2005) says “Research has consistently shown that exposure to violent content in the movies leads to aggression (pg.3).” But people should know that they are not realistic. Price, J (2002) says “Violence is in movies, games, and on television, and it is getting to younger children easier (pg. 1).

It is always a possibility that children might be doing something that they see in a movie, but that isn't the same for all children. Is it either the lack of parental involvement, or is it our violent culture that makes children violent? While teenage boys are perhaps the biggest lover of action movies, they have said that they have no desire to kill anyone (Fordyce n.d.). The way the world is should be the teacher for them. Parents should be responsible enough to teach their kids right from wrong, so if they don't like what their kids are watching on TV, turn it off. Mostly it is the lack of parental involvement that are making their kids violent, not the violence in the movies.

Ozawa(2007) stated that “Violence in movies can make some kids aggressive, but they can learn about the world from that(pg. 7).” There is no evidence that they are being aggressive because they saw it in a movie or on television They could be learning to be aggressive from other kids that they go to school with and center it to other kids, which isn't always the case. Not only that, aggression can't always be a bad thing. People who play sports have to be aggressive to win.

Fordyce, F(n.d.) says “Violent problems are rooted in home life and not in entertainment mediums.”(pg. 6) The normal teenager knows right from wrong and a movie is not going to influence him differently. Plus if we are telling a story like it actually happened, it is best the have the events portrayed in the movie perfectly, so people can understand the true nature of the story. Movies like “United 93” or “Pearl Harbor” needed to be showed exactly how they happened to show audiences what people in the situation went through. War movies need to be violent because there is no such thing as a non-violent war. To portray the events as they actually happened, the movie needs to be violent.

Dahl, Delavigna(2006) stated “On days with a large audience for a violent movie, violent crime is significantly lower(pg. 2). Also, the people that are seeing the movies cannot commit crimes while they are watching the movie. Most of the crimes are committed at night, and people usually see movies at night, so people cannot commit a crime if they are at the movie theater.

There is no real evidence that violence in movies in connected with violent people. Violence is a learned behavior. People make their own choices about what they do and should blame movies for their behavior. Movies shouldn't suffer just because a few people made bad choices. If parents are concerned about what their kids are seeing, than they shouldn't let them go.

Here is a chart that shows the number of people in millions that saw violent movies on the day compared to how many assaults happened on the on the same day out of 100,000 people. Dahl, Delavigna(2006). As you can see, people tend to commit their crimes on the weekend, such as people like to see violent movies on the weekend. But that just means that people prefer the weekend to commit crimes. So there is no evidence that people commit crimes just because they saw it in a movie.

When there is a big action movie at the theaters, kids want to go see it, so if they are at the movies, they don't have time to commit crimes. If you think about it, movies are a deterrent. It keeps kids off the streets and into the movie theater.

Millions of people see movies at a time on the weekend, so they can't be killing each other while they are at the theater. If parents want to blame movies for their kids' violent behavior, then when they know that a movie is going to be violent, they should leave them at home. They should watch their kids at home when they are watching television and make sure they aren't watching things that will influence them. They should teach them about violent behavior and the consequences of it.

Also, they should tell them that the movies they are watching aren't real and they shouldn't imitate their behavior. Parent will always have someone to blame besides themselves. It is also possible that the movies are making kids susceptible to violence, by seeing it in the movie they might realize they might not want to do something like that.

Action movies today are and will continue to be a good source of entertainment for people. People love violence, and they will always line to see movies with good guys against bad guys. Movies are blamed for violence, but there isn't enough evidence that movies are where they are learning it from. There is lots of violence in this world, but people should think twice before they commit a crime, and not blame movies for it.

If parents think that a movie is too violent for their children, turn it off. They should teach their kids right from wrong and keep an eye on them. Don't blame movies for their behavior, instead, teach them the consequences of violence. Watch the movie before they see it and see if it is appropriate for them. Don't let them see rated “R” movies until they are old enough.

Just because a few kids are violent, doesn't mean that we should ban all violent movies. There will many more good action movies in the years to come, and people will always enjoy them.