The Representation of Armenians in Cinema

The representation of Armenians in cinema has often been problematic.

The culture, like all other minority groups, lends itself to stereotypes and exaggerations. In films and television shows, we are often referred to as being part of a criminal organization or mob, or as Spike Lee’s Inside Man points out, Armenian culture is undistinguishable.

It’s often a surprise for audiences when Armenians are either mentioned or referred to, but it’s only rarely when the representation of Armenians is authentic.

Sideways is a film that prominently features an Armenian family, the Erganians. The film represents Armenians, not as a way of poking fun at the culture, but to enlighten viewers about their traditional culture. Sideways concerns itself with Miles (Paul Giamatti) and Jack (Thomas Haden Church) who take a trip to Santa Barbara a week before Jack’s wedding. Miles, the film’s antihero is a failed author who still obsesses himself with his ex-wife, who divorced him several years before. Miles hopes their trip together will result in male bonding, which include playing golf and visiting vineyards. Jack, however, is much more playful than Miles, and hopes their trip will result in him hooking up with a girl before his wedding. The film, written and directed by Alexander Payne, makes us laugh during situations which otherwise wouldn’t be funny.

Alexander Payne comes from a Greek background. In Nebraska, where he was born, his parents owned a Greek restaurant. In addition, his first name is actually Constantine and their family’s last name was anglicized from Papadopoulos. I’d imagine “Directed by Constantine Papadopoulos” would be a tough sell in the film world. In either case, it’s apparent that culture has played a significant role in his personal life, particularly growing up in a state on the Great Plains of the Midwestern United States. That’s primarily why his representation of Armenians in the film doesn’t consist of exaggerations.

It’s interesting to note that the film explores the notion of feeling trapped, which is expressed throughout the film in a number of ways. Miles, in some sense, is trapped in his lifestyle based on decisions he has made. The specific life path he has chosen has now left him feeling trapped as he seeks escape in other activities (writing a novel, becoming a wine connoisseur). There’s also the suggestion of the life of wine in its own bottle. The poster of the film shows a wine bottle tipped over sideways and shows a cartoon sketch of Miles and Jack trapped inside the bottle. In the film, Miles mentions his prized bottle of wine, a 1961 Château Cheval Blanc. There’s the suggestion that certain wines must be opened during specific time periods, further hinting that wine itself represents entrapment. In the end of the film, after going through a meltdown, Miles opens his bottle, providing audiences with a sense of release, now that the wine has “escaped” from its tight space. Jack, on a similar note, feels trapped in his life and upcoming marriage. The trip for him becomes an excuse to be with a girl before he gets married, but as the film progresses, he reassess his plans and wonders if marriage is right choice for him. In this sense, we are provided with an understanding of how marriage will further trap him, and to a lesser extent, how the Armenian family is at risk of being responsible for this entrapment.

Alexander Payne has claimed that one of the decisions to use an Armenian family was that it would localize the film. In other words, because Armenians are such a significant part of Los Angeles, their presence grounds the film in realism and makes the film inherently unique. It’s another effort in adding culture to the film, in addition to the world of wine that the film portrays.

In a number of scenes throughout the film, Jack comments on Christine, his fiancée. Jack’s comments toward her family all emphasize the family’s strict adherence to tradition. Jack tells Miles, “Christine’s dad has really been talking to me about getting into the family business, showing me the ropes… which is something, considering how long it took for him to get over my not being Armenian.” These sorts of comments show us the importance of culture and tradition in Armenian families. In the end of the film, when Jack marries Christine, their traditional wedding consists of all the ingredients; Armenian priest, bowing their heads together.

Sideways is a rare film in that its representation of Armenians is not only accurate but also authentic to its culture. The film itself is entirely accurate in its representations. The filmmaker himself made up the wine list for the film and all locations used are actual locations in and around Santa Barbara, including the Hitching Post and Kalyra Winery. The representation of Armenians in the film shows us this sense of authenticity as well. There are no caricatures with these characters. The church is a traditional Armenian church, the home in the film is typical of an Armenian family, and even the cars at the wedding are representative of the Armenian culture. The parking lot consists of black BMW and Mercedes-Benz cars. It’s never excessive, but it’s entirely accurate in its portrayal.

Sideways provides audiences with a window into the world of wine, leaving them thirsty for a glass of Pinot Noir after the film is over. In that sense, we can see how we are exposed to worlds with cinema. The Armenian family in this film, similarly, offers a look inside Armenian culture, regardless of how brief. The fact that the representation of Armenian culture is so authentic allows viewers with a sense of who we really are, rather than an exaggeration based on stereotypes.

Alexander Payne is one of the greatest filmmakers working today, primarily because of his focus on human stories. If nothing else, he has portrayed Armenians in an objective light, sharing the Armenian culture with the world.

Schindler's List... for Armenia

There have been endless discussions regarding Steven Spielberg and a proposed film on the topic of the Armenian Genocide.

This discuss began several weeks ago ago when an article appeared claiming the famed director would direct a film on the topic, and soon thereafter, numerous websites began reporting that the project was confirmed. The avalanche of rumors starting kicking high gear and became difficult to ascertain whether this was all speculation or if truth existed somewhere between the lines.

The articles were shared within the Armenian community and many were grateful that such a project was finally coming together. In some cases, many felt like this was “justice” in and of itself, because we would finally share the Armenian story with millions around the world.

The desperate need for such a film to be made has resulted in well-known media outlets reporting on this rumor. Steven Spielberg will not be producing this film, and I can assure you that he found out he would be “directing” the film around the same time you did. The rumor likely emerged because of his involvement with the USC Shoah Foundation, a nonprofit organization he established to record testimonies of survivors and witnesses of genocide. The picture that has been floating around of him with Carla Garapedian during a gala for the Armenian Genocide Digitization Project is likely another cause, perhaps giving off the impression that discussions have begun on a potential project.

The truth is that such a film would be welcoming. There is nothing better than sharing Armenian culture with the rest of the world, and having an influential filmmaker involved with such a project will undoubtedly reach a wider audience. The problem is that such a film shouldn’t be treated any more differently than other projects, but that seems impossible considering the Armenian community is adamant about the film. In fact, Atom Egoyan’s Ararat, which was concerned with the after effects of denial was met with criticism from the Armenian community. They felt like his film wasn’t the film we “deserved.” The problem is that a film on the topic of the Armenian Genocide isn’t the only way or most effective way to reach an audience.

There has been a wave of young Armenian filmmakers in recent years and many of them dream about making the quintessential Armenian Genocide film. There seems to be a race about who can get there and make that film. The purpose of cinema and its potential is to work together and produce a body of work – not just one really powerful film – that will form Armenian cultural identity; standing on a stage and winning an Oscar for a film on the topic of the Armenian Genocide should not be their only aspiring goal.

The illusion that we need such a film to bring us on the level of other ethnicities is foolish. Schindler’s List was a touching film on the tragedies of the Holocaust – and perhaps one day, we will have such a film – but because Armenian filmmakers are rare, and good storytellers are even rarer, we should be working toward a more refined goal, which is to produce work that accurately depicts Armenian culture.

If all Armenian creative artists and filmmakers each made poignant films, rather than become so enamored at the thought of such a film, we would perhaps do more good than any Armenian Genocide film could do. Iran, this past year, produced one of the most universal films in decades, portraying their culture and citizens without being political. The film, A Separation, focused on a husband and wife who are separating and their everyday problems. I ask, then, why we don’t focus on such films; that is, small, intimate and human films.

The 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide is fast approaching, and Armenians filmmakers should not be working on one film that could potentially be great. They should all come together and tell a multitude of stories.

The Digital Revolution

In 2010, Michael and Mark Polish picked up a Canon 5D and shot a feature film on the streets of Paris.

The twin brothers had no budget, no permits, and for lighting, they used their iPhones.

Their case is a perfect instance of the embracing digital cinema and the positives of the recent shift from film to digital. There’s a certain sense of accessibility that has been made available with digital cinema. The tools and resources are out there for the taking. It’s simple for filmmakers to come up with excuses and reasons for not being able to make their films, such as an undeveloped screenplay or lack of good resources. If the Polish brothers show us anything, it’s that we need to stop making excuses. The shift to digital cinema also makes way for smaller, more independent projects, such as the Polish brothers’ For Lovers Only.

The impromptu filmmaking style the Polish brothers adopted for this film is homage to the French New Wave filmmakers, who also disregarded the rules and conventions of cinema. The film was distributed through iTunes (talk about changing the scope of film distribution) and made over $500,000 through digital sales. If Armenians are going to establish a sense of identity for their nation, if Armenian cinema is to reemerge, embracing digital cinema and rewriting the rules for production and distribution remains their only hope.

I see a hopeful future for independent filmmakers, but I am much more concerned with young Armenian filmmakers. I’m more interested in the creative storytellers who are sitting in their homes with wonderful ideas, who think they don’t have the means to express themselves. In today’s world, filmmakers need to be less concerned with quality. If you don’t have a camera as good as the Canon 5D, use a camcorder you have around your house. If you don’t have a camcorder, use something as simple as your iPhone.

The simple fact of the matter is the business of cinema is changing. It’s being influenced and driven with digital technology (for better or for worse). We’re going through a revolution, a digital revolution, and once we have emerged with all the rules in place, the shape of cinema will have been forever changed. We will be experiencing films and stories from around the world the same way we consume media on YouTube.

In fact, YouTube has shown us that we can all be consumers, producers and distributors. We can be our own production studio. The only thing standing in their way is themselves.

The Unconstitutional Bill

The public denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offense in France. The Armenian Genocide bill, however, which calls for a similar law on behalf of Armenians in France, was determined unconstitutional.

In both instances, public denial would be punishable with a €45,000 fine or one year in jail, or both. In French law, if the public denial of the Holocaust is considered constitutional, it’s illogical for similar denial of the Armenian Genocide to be considered unconstitutional.

Nicolas Sarkozy has long supported such a bill for the Genocide, and after pressure from many Armenians, including singer Charles Aznavour, he pushed for the passing of the bill. There have been experts who have analyzed why he would act on this bill at this specific moment of time, and many of claimed that his support for the bill is because of the potential electoral votes he would receive from the Armenian population during the elections.

Turkey has continuously threatened to cancel multi-billion dollar contracts with France and have declared that their relation with France will be destroyed in the event that the bill does pass. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has even made childish claims, stating that he would never visit France if the bill does indeed pass.

Nicolas Sarkozy has had a longstanding opposition for Turkey to join the EU. François Hollande, his rival in the presidential elections, also supports the Armenian Genocide bill and has claimed that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide will be important for Turkey’s membership to the EU. It’s therefore unlikely that either candidate would be willing to create such major conflict and potentially harm all relations with Turkey over the mere 100,000 votes they would potentially receive on behalf of the Armenian population.

The French Senate had previously approved the bill 127-86 in January before the Constitutional Council of France declared that such a law would be unconstitutional. Nicolas Sarkozy claimed he would revise and resubmit the bill, but progress has ceased because of the upcoming French elections. In some sense, supports of the bill can be optimistic for its future. Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande have both expressed their support for the passing of the bill. In fact, François Hollande even has plans on constructing an Armenian Genocide Museum in Paris by 2015 – the 100th commemoration of the tragic events.

The passing of the bill in France would stop Turkey from exporting its denial laws. The denial of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey is seen as an insult to “Turkishness” and is treated as a criminal offense under their penal code. The difference here, however, is that the Turkish government prevents its citizens from supporting the truth. In France, such a law would prevent citizens from denying an actual historic occurrence.

There have been a number of experts who have explained France’s decision to support the Holocaust instead of the Armenian Genocide. These experts believe that France has a law against denial of the Holocaust because they had a firsthand connection with the Holocaust and that they feel a sense of responsibility on their part. In either case, we need to protect both genocides, instead of providing an advantage to one or the other. If a law exists in France that claims the public denial of the Holocaust is within the boundaries of freedom of expression, then the same should apply for the Armenian Genocide.

There is no doubt that the tragic events that took place in 1915 were genocide. In fact, we don’t need a bill or law that criminalizes denial of the genocide or imposes a jail sentence and fine for those who express their opinion. The problem lies with favoring and France’s decision to call the Armenian Genocide bill unconstitutional, while having a similar law in place for another genocide.

Armenia's Position in World Cinema

The film festival season has been over for several weeks, and one in specific, I feel, showcases films from around the world better than others.

The AFI Film Festival included films from all around the world, showcasing international films in world cinema. These film festivals are opportunities for film lovers to catch up on films from diverse countries in a forum that allows audiences to see films that could potentially never even see a release in the United States. The participating films and countries for this year included Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (2011, Turkey), Alps (2011, Greece), The Forgiveness of Blood (2011, Albania), among others.

These films are all part of their respective nations, and national cinema becomes a complicated term to discuss when explored in depth. Jiro Dreams of Sushi (2011, Japan) and Kinyarwanda (2011, Rwanda) are perfect examples of this complication. The films both won the World Cinema award, even though their filmmakers are both American. The films are still considered to be Japanese and Rwandese, respectively, because of their origin of finance.

These films, and national cinema in general, play a significant role in globalization, and cinema itself provides us a look into other cultures. These films teach us about their cultures and share their identity with the rest of the world. This is particularly important with countries such as Armenia, which are not major tourist destinations in comparison to other countries.

In the case of national cinema, funding and financial support from governmental institutions help establish such film culture. The Armenian State Committee of Cinema helped shape Armenian identity in the early years of Armenian cinema, providing us with exceptional films and filmmakers, but since then, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain governmental funding.

The current state of the industry seems to be focusing on television shows rather than motion pictures. This shift is undoubtedly because of production costs; television shows are being produced for little or no money, allowing a separate forum for exploring engaging stories.

The notion, however, that a feature film will be expensive to produce is false. Iran’s film that participated at the AFI Film Festival was, A Separation (2011, Iran). The film was produced for $500,000 (Kinyarwanda was produced for a mere $400,000) and was one of the most talked about films of the festival. The film is about real people in real situations, exploring Iranian culture and identity through melodrama. So, what’s the real reason that the Armenian nation never participates with a film? If a film can be produced with such small budgets, where are the stories that we can share with the rest of the world?

The filmmakers from Armenia have spread across the world and many of them are perfecting their craft in other nations. The filmmakers still working in Armenia are then faced with difficulties in financing the projects. That’s precisely where governmental funding should kick in, decreeing a fixed amount of finances to various filmmakers. In a digital world, production costs drop dramatically, and instead of making one or two major films, we can now afford to produce five or six (or more) films on small budgets and through a digital workflow.

These organizations can further advance Armenian film culture and allow its filmmakers to become part of international cinema. In the same manner that films from decades ago explored the cultural changes at the same, the cinema of the present can explore the rapidly evolving climate and emphasize individual potential.

If Armenians can shift their focus from television back to cinema and take their creativity and ingenuity to motion pictures, we can establish an international presence in world cinema.

PHONY 2012

Joseph Kony is a bad guy. This much we know and can all agree.

The Ugandan war criminal, who runs the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), an organization known for kidnapping children, turning them into sex slaves and soldiers, is the subject of a viral film that has generated over 85 million views in less than three weeks. Jason Russell, the director of the film, KONY 2012, calls for immediate action and tells his audience "KONY MUST BE STOPPED." The 30-minute film was released on YouTube on March 5 and hundreds of people have voiced their support for the cause with tweets and shares.

The filmmaker's goal has been to raise awareness and have people worldwide know Joseph Kony by name... among other things.

Joseph Kony is currently number one on the International Criminal Court's most-wanted list, so again, there's no question about the fact that he is a criminal. The problem, however, comes on the part of Jason Russell himself and whether his film is meant to educate viewers and raise awareness or simply commercialize these conflicts.

KONY 2012 fails in addressing the fact that Kony and his band haven't been active in Uganda for years now. The LRA has moved onto other countries, but the film doesn't urge action outside of Uganda. The film instead portrays Ugandans as helpless victims at a time when Kony isn't their biggest concern.

The film also fails in educating its audience about the conflicts. Jason Russell, who interestingly enough was detained last week for masturbating in public in San Diego, uses his five-year-old son, Gavin, as means of simplifying these issues. In showing his son images of Kony, he points out that Kony is the "bad guy," whereas others, such as Jacob Acaye - a former child abductee from Uganda - is a "good guy." In effect, the filmmaker treats his audience as five-year-olds, oversimplifying these issues as if we, like his son, are uneducated about the world.

The film fails in educating its viewers about the conflict in Uganda and rather uses filmic techniques, such as rapid editing, to emotionally exhaust its viewers. The film repeatedly tells its audience that we must "stop at nothing" and takes us on an emotional roller coaster. In using an emotional narrative rather than an educational one, Jason Russell convinces his audience to donate to his efforts by having viewers purchase a $30 "action kit," which will go toward bringing Kony to justice. This itself becomes questionable; if a filmmaker wants to raise awareness through a documentary film, he wouldn't use an emotional narrative to persuade his viewers to donate money to him. The film, however, does just that; by the time the filmmaker asks you for $30, you're wiping away the tears in your eyes just to grab your wallet.

The backlash the film has received claims that a significant portion of the money donated to the project goes to travel expenses and filmmaking rather than efforts in helping find Kony. There have been several open letters to the filmmaker, asking where the donated money actually, but we'd assume the filmmaker has too busy masturbating in public to immediately have answers for us.

In addition, the timing of the film and its title, KONY 2012, is more concerned with commercial interests than anything else. In effect, the filmmaker commercializes the Ugandan conflict in which thousands of people have lost their lives. The title of the film itself speaks to the upcoming presidential elections, drawing attention to itself, as if he were selling us a product rather than making an educational film.

There's no question whether the subject of the film, Joseph Kony, deserves to be brought to justice. It's clear that he and his organization is responsible for thousands of deaths; what's questionable is how we use cinema and documentary films to bring attention to these conflicts and issues. In the case of one filmmaker, he feels the need to commercialize off these issues. In simplifying these conflicts and making Kony the clear "bad guy," he urges his audience to do the right thing and donate money to him, which he assures us will "stop Kony."

This Film Will Be Subtitled

The increasing difficulties that Armenian national film culture faces – in particular, a lack of resources and finances – is an obstacle that prevents us from creating films. There are, however, other difficulties that keep us from sharing the films we already have with the rest of the world. In this sense, these problems are self-inflicted.

These difficulties come in the form of a lack of programming in theatres and a lack of subtitles on home media. The most important thing, in terms of having Armenian films seen, is access. The lack of access prevents audiences from seeing films that are part of Armenian culture and restricts Armenian culture in establishing a sense of identity.

The older generation remembers watching Armenian films as they were released. They also grew up watching older films on television, such as Pepo. These films were engrained into their sense of culture. They grew up knowing these characters and stories and anticipated new film releases. The younger generation, however, and the Diaspora, in particular, is less familiar with these films. The lack of access to these films keeps us from seeing these works and learning from them.

The production of more films will shape Armenian national film culture, but that itself will take time. The other option we have in shaping Armenian film culture is to share the films that we currently have with audiences. If the Alex Theatre, for instance, began programming Armenian films and screened a film a month, audiences would be reintroduced to these films. The older generation would flock to the theater to see films they haven’t seen in years, whereas the young generation will have an opportunity to see films they otherwise never knew existed.

There are a number of revival theatres that program and screen films of all cultures. There are film festivals that focus on programming international films for audiences. The only opportunity, at the present moment, that allows classic Armenian films to shine on the big screen is the Arpa International Film Festival. If we could, however, interest theatres to begin programming Armenian films, this will create a venue for sharing these films.

This, then, brings up the question of, how these films would be screened. This ties into the second problem we face, which comes in the form of our only other way of consuming media; DVDs. These films, many of which are available on DVD, lack an option for subtitles. If theatres begin screening these films, DVDs are one of their few options, unless a print of the film is available. The lack of a subtitle option, however, becomes problematic. This prevents non-Armenians from discovering Armenian cinema; all foreign films available online can be purchased and watched, regardless of language, because almost all are equipped with English subtitles. The few Armenian films we have on DVD lack an option of subtitles. This problem – which is an easy fix – prevents us from sharing these films with the rest of the world.

The resolution of these issues, both of which have simple solutions, will allow the current line of films reach a wider audience. These films have been ignored, but if given a chance, these films will captivate audiences, now more than ever, because of their minimalism. These are measures we can take upon ourselves, because instead of being the source of these problems, we can take responsibility and make sure the rest of the world sees what we have to offer in terms of cinema.

Film Preservation

There’s no way of knowing how much of cinema has been lost.

The belief is that approximately 75 percent of silent cinema has disappeared, while an equally high number of sound films made in the United States before 1950 have been damaged or destroyed.

These numbers serve as a striking reminder of the importance of film preservation.

In Martin Scorsese’s film, Hugo, we learn about this significance. Hugo is essentially a film history lesson wrapped up in a family film in 3D. The filmmaker shows us the importance of acknowledging our past and never forgetting our history. In the film, the title character Hugo is a young orphan living in the walls of a train station in Paris. Hugo stumbles upon Georges Méliès, who runs a toy shop in the train station, but little does the boy know that Méliès was one of the pioneers of cinema. So, while Hugo tries to preserve the legendary filmmaker’s history, the filmmaker himself tries to forget his past.

In the early years of cinema, films were filmed on an unstable, flammable cellulose nitrate film base, which required careful and proper storage to prevent decomposition. There was no real concern from the studios to save these films, mainly because they deemed many of their films insignificant.

In Scorsese’s film, we learn that Méliès even went so far as to scrap the cellulose in his film to make a few extra dollars. It’s heartbreaking just to think of such a thing – a legendary filmmaker in need of money resorts to destroying his films, many of which laid the groundwork for cinema!

In general, this is never a major issue for the general public. In fact, a lot of people might be unaware of this phenomenon. The fact is that films must be stored under proper conditions, or else they will deteriorate over time.

In today’s society, we strive for the highest picture quality possible because of high-definition television. The notion of film preservation then becomes a concern for all of us. If we are to have the highest image quality possible, we must turn to original negatives of a specific film, but as often is the case when those negatives have deteriorated, all we are left with are lower quality prints.

That’s precisely the case with Armenian films as well.

The DVD copies of Armenian films claim that the films have been “digitally restored,” but the original negatives to most of these films no longer exist. The film is then restored from later prints. This works like photography; the further away we move from an original print, the lesser the quality will be. These films instead are being transcribed into digital, with no real restoration going into them.

In 1990, Scorsese established The Film Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving films. This however ins’t enough; for every film we save, thousands disappear. In a number of decades, we could (and will) potentially lose a number of classics.

So, while Scorsese and other filmmakers are saving a number of films – and rightfully so – who’s caring for Armenian films?

The problem is there isn’t so much we can do, as a public. The preservation and restoration of these films requires a great deal of time and money. The most important thing we can do is raise awareness. If a film from an Armenian filmmaker is screening in a local cinema, try to make the trip and see the film on the big screen. In a short number of years, revival houses and repertory theatres will be few and far between.

If you see an Armenian film on television, and take the time to stop and watch the film – and hopefully fall in love – you might recognize its imperfections. There might be scratches, skips, and jumps between frames, all because its print hasn’t been properly cared for. If the original print no longer exists, we could be left with a damaged film, one that could never be properly restored.

I fear that if Armenian films aren’t already dead, they soon will be. If the negatives of these films are still out there, we need to act now.

The Trouble with Oscar

The Los Angeles Times ran an article a week before Oscar Sunday which claimed the majority of Oscar voters were "overwhelmingly white." In their survey, they claim Oscar voters are 94% white and 77% male. In addition, blacks make up only 2% of the group whereas Latinos are less than 2% of the group. This isn't exactly news, it's something we have all pretty much known, but these statistics officially show us something is a little wrong with the picture.

The members of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences have always been considered conservative, and while they have been showing a little more attention to independent and mainstream films (such as Inception), it's only done so to appeal to the younger demographic. In the end, the Oscars generally play their picks extremely safe. In this year's nominations, they went with typical "Academy" fare with Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, despite the fact that most critics dismissed the film. The film, which focuses on a family after 9/11 and explores a father and son relationship, was obviously memorable enough for those "old white" Oscar voters.

The Oscars, however, still managed to pull in 39.3 million viewers on Sunday. The world tunes into the Oscars because they consider this to be the biggest and most important film event of the year, despite the fact that the Oscars are the biggest and most important public relations event of the year. The problem with the Oscars, however, isn't that they continually pick an overall "safe" film. The Oscars don't like taking risks or going outside their comfort zone; in addition to their staggering statistics, Oscar voters were declared to have a median age of 62, with only 14% of the membership being younger than 50! So, it's no real wonder why actors like Michael Fassbender were grossly overlooked for their work last year. Michael Fassbender starred in Shame, a film in which he plays a man addicted to sex. The pitch of that film alone shows us why he was overlooked; Oscar voters are just too damn old and don't care. They rather play it safe and go with films that make them feel good. That's why films like Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close are still getting nominated.

The real problem with the Oscars, however, is how their voting process works. It's extremely complicated (probably so the "safest" film wins) but Oscar voters aren't required to watch all nominated films to vote for Best Picture. Now, it's pretty much impossible to keep tabs on 5,765 members, but it's also absurd to think that these voters don't need to watch these films before voting. These voters are all sent screeners of these films, but in a year where nine films were nominated for Best Picture, most of which ran over two hours in length, it's easy for voters to skip to films that have received the most acclaim. This, however, prevents them from seeing all the work that specific year and overlooking films they might otherwise vote for. I have a real world example for this. I worked for a man last year (who just so happens to be a white male over the age of 70) who told me he voted for The King's Speech last year. I wasn't bothered by the fact that he voted for that particular film, but was extremely troubled by the fact that he didn't even see many of the other contenders. In fact, last year The King's Speech faced stiff competition from The Social Network, so if you're not going to watch all the other films nominated, it might strike you to at least watch The Social Network, the one another film being praised by others. Instead, he decided to skip on The Social Network (it didn't seem like his type of film) and he voted for The King's Speech. The biggest problem I have with this is that he ended up watching The Social Network several months later and preferred it over The King's Speech.

So, how many times has this happened in the history of the Oscars? It's disturbing to know that a film can gain a lot of momentum because of nasty marketing campaigns and sway voters into voting for that particular film, while they skip over all the other nominees. In this real world case, I found out first hand the Oscars have a serious problem, and while it doesn't really matter who wins, it's still a little disturbing to know that a film will go down as Best Picture illegitimately.

The G-word

In 1915, during the early years of World War I, political and intellectual leaders of the Armenian community of the Ottoman Empire were rounded up and murdered. These killings carried on until 1923 and resulted in the death of 1,500,000 people. These events are often either labeled as massacre or genocide. Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-Jewish scholar, coined the word “genocide” in 1943 as means of describing these killings. In discussing these events, Congressman Adam Schiff makes the assertion that “words matter.” The word used in describing these killings reflects viewpoints on the matter. In other words, the word “genocide” comes with heavy implications. The decision in describing these killings as genocide suggests that there was a deliberate decision in destroying the Armenian population. The oh-so-scary G-word is often missing from conversations and politicians often call these events tragic killings or massacres. The question remains whether the United States will recognize the Armenian Genocide as such, considering their unwillingness in using the word, and whether the Turkish government will cease denial and admit that the killings were, in fact, genocide.

The killings that took place during this time period were a systematic destruction ordered at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish nation acknowledges the deaths but refuses to consider them "genocide." Turkish officials instead claim that there were killings on both sides, and that the murders that took place on their part was done as a response to the Armenian people, who were rebelling against the Ottoman Empire. The photographic documentation that exists, however, coupled with eyewitness accounts and judgments made on behalf of historians who consider these mass killings to be a genocide suggest otherwise. There are, however, continuous efforts made on behalf of Turkish officials to avoid these responsibilities. Their refusal of owning up to their past has led to denial of the genocide. In fact, discussing the Armenian Genocide in Turkey is punishable under law. The following is Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which highlights Turkey’s suppression of free speech.

1. Public denigration of Turkishness, the Republic or the Grand National Assembly of Turkey shall be punishable by imprisonment of between six months and three years.
2. Public denigration of the Government of the Republic of Turkey, the judicial institutions of the State, the military or security structures shall be punishable by
imprisonment of between six months and two years.
3. In cases where denigration of Turkishness is committed by a Turkish citizen in another country the punishment shall be increased by one third.
4. Expressions of thought intended to criticize shall not constitute a crime.

This denial has infected the United States as well. The United States is careful with their description of these mass killings. Turkey's lobbying firms convince legislators and representatives to avoid using the word "genocide." The reason for this is because the United States has an important ally in Turkey, and a result, going against Turkey and admitting the genocide can be harmful.

“Turkey engages in a form of international bullying, threatening to cut diplomatic ties or install economic sanctions, to dissuade nations of recognizing the genocide.”

France, who has recognized the Armenian Genocide now for several decades, recently passed a bill criminalizing public denial of the Armenian Genocide. Turkey's Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, claimed the bill was against free speech and even claimed he would never visit France again if the bill was passed. Turkey released a statement after the passing of the bill, claiming relations between their nation and France had now been impaired. This provides us with further understanding of how Turkey is involved in "international bullying" in support of their interests.

In his online video, Congressman Bob Livingston urges Congress to vote against the Armenian Genocide Resolution, calling Turkey an "indispensable ally" and claiming recognition of the genocide will hurt our relationship with Turkey. In addition to absurd claims - he calls Turkey a secular democracy, despite the fact that it is illegal to openly discuss the Armenian Genocide in the nation - Bob Livingston supports the denial of the Armenian Genocide for Turkish interests. In his public video, he even claims that "nobody" other than historians know the details of these events; however, the International Association of Genocide Scholars has reached out to Congress in the past in attempts of having them adopt the Armenian Genocide Resolution. Condoleezza Rice has never once used the term “genocide” when describing these events, despite her efforts in playing a decisive role in the conflicts with Darfur. In a public hearing, Congressman Adam Schiff pressed Condoleezza Rice on this topic, repeatedly asking her if she believed these killings were genocide. The then-Secretary of State refused to use the word genocide and claimed:

“I think that the best way to have this proceed is for the United States not to be in the position of making this judgment, but rather, for the Turks and the Armenians to come to their own terms.”

In addition to Bob Livingston, a number of others have ignored the Armenian Genocide issue because of interests that relate directly to Turkey. George Bush's ignorance on the topic was simply because of United States-Turkey relations. The then-President remarked:

“The resolution on the mass killings of Armenians beginning in 1915 is counterproductive. Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a Democratic ally in the Muslim world.”

There should be dialogue and understanding between both nations, but the United States is responsible for standing up and acknowledging these events as genocide. There have been a number of presidents who have expressed their desire for recognizing the genocide, but little has been done after assuming office. Congressman Adam Schiff has continuously supported the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and has discussed the importance of using the word "genocide" when speaking on these topics: [Barack Obama] has said, and rightfully so, words matter. This word, genocide, matters more than almost all others, because encompassed within that single word is a crime of enormous magnitude; the deliberate to destroy an entire people. Denial of genocide is the final chapter of genocide. “

President Barack Obama had been open about his feelings toward the Armenian Genocide prior to his election. The then-Senator of Illinois made several statements on these events:

"The United States deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully… I intend to be that President.”

“There was a genocide that did take place against the Armenian people."

“The facts are undeniable… I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution, and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.”

“The United States must recognize the events of 1915-1923, carried out by the Ottoman Empire, as genocide. The Bush Administration’s refusal to do so is inexcusable.”

The views of Barack Obama have changed since he was sworn into office. The President has silenced himself in regards to this issue, much like others have, including George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Bob Livingston. The President has done little in terms of encouraging dialogue on these events, and has even shied away from using the G-word. The President revealed a statement on day of remembrance of the Armenian Genocide in 2010, recalling on the atrocities that took place nearly a century ago. The one word missing from his statement, however, was the word "genocide," which he has refused to use since coming into office. Congressman Adam Schiff's claim that "words matter" seems to be reflected in the way certain politicians use their words, and the word that goes missing in their conversations is the G-word. In addition to citing Turkey among his top five international friends, Obama has refused to consider the recognition of the Armenian Genocide because of the relations the nation has with Turkey. The man who once said the refusal of recognizing the genocide was "inexcusable" now sides with the presidents who came before him:

“What I want to do is not focus on my views right now, and focus on the views of the Turkish and the Armenian people. If they can move forward and deal with a difficult and tragic history then I think the entire world should encourage them.”

Bibliography

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1513

http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=1233

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwR83GZjwdo&feature=related

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-president-barack-obama-armenian-remembrance-day

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR44/035/2005/en/7af4fffc-d47d-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/eur440352005en.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1C9Wdcmmsk

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123880012474888429.html

The Price Is Right

Whitney Houston's passing on February 11 didn't shock the world. The death that was heard around the world might have been a surprise for those who hadn't heard from her in years, but her passing was expected considering her long-standing history with drugs. It's unfortunate, of course, considering the impact she had made on the music industry and the talent that she had shared with the world... but there's no way anybody was shocked when they found out Whitney Houston was "found" dead in the Beverly Hills Hotel.

The various news outlets that broke news of her death claimed the cause of death had not yet been determined, and although her fans probably hoped drugs weren't involved, as soon as details starting pouring in that she had been found in her bathtub, possibly underwater, things starting getting pretty clear. The music legend, who had lived quite an insane life, no doubt died as a result of drug overdose... and that's fine. It's no big deal. It's unfortunate, it's sad, but it was also expected.

In fact, it also wasn't a shock that her album sales on iTunes went up after her death. The same thing happened with Michael Jackson when he "suddenly" died. The big surprise, however, was not news of her death or the fact that her music sales jumped, but news that the price of her albums were hiked up immediately after her passing... just hours after her death, to be exact. It's not only disgusting, but it also goes to show how money hungry and business-minded conglomerates can be.

Whitney Houston's "The Ultimate Collection" on iTunes in the UK went from $7.85 to $12.50 and "The Greatest Hits" went from $12.5o to $15.67. The issue was met with controversy, obviously, but Apple claims this was not done on their part. Instead, the blame seems to be pointing toward Sony, who owns the rights to much of Whitney Houston's music.

Sony released a statement, claiming all of this was just a "mistake," blaming the price hike on an employee.

The statement claimed that the products were "mistakenly mispriced on the UK iTunes store on Sunday. When discovered, the mistake was immediately corrected. We apologize for any offense caused."

In the same way that Whitney Houston's death wasn't a big shock, the same can be said for Sony's excuse regarding the matter. It's not a big surprise that they would blame the entire "inconvenience" on an employee, but the simple fact of the matter is that they saw an opportunity and decided to squeeze in a few extra bucks.

This is exploitation at its finest.

Stepan Partamian: The Public Intellectual

In a society that has the desperate urge to voice their opinion, those few individuals who share with us credible discourse that goes against the norm are often ignored or misunderstood. This is precisely the case with Stepan Partamian, an important figure in the Armenian community, whose teachings and criticisms of Armenian culture is often misunderstood by the general public. Stepan Partamian has authored numerous books and hosts a television show in which he expresses his views with his audience, but his controversial approach in being brutally honest often makes him seem like a radical. In addition, his physical appearance - a bald head with a long, disheveled beard - make him less likable in the eyes of his conservative audience. It's no wonder, then, that because image plays a crucial role in our society, an individual with such a physical appearance and with "radical" views - one that is outside the norm and not expected in Armenian culture - will be misunderstood.

Stepan Partamian is a figure unlike other public intellectuals; thus, in considering him as one, the term itself should be analyzed. In The Decline of the Public Intellectual, Stephen Mack defines the function of public intellectuals in society.

“So, is there any way of conceptualizing something called the public intellectual that is consistent with democratic values? Of course there is, but it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it.”

In this regard, the function of the public intellectual is of more importance rather than their qualifications. This suggests that an individual’s work reveals if he or she is deserving of such a title. Partamian, despite being a prominent figure in the Armenian community, is less known to the general public. Partamian, who is a graduate of film and television from California State University, Northridge, may seem unfit to be considered a “public intellectual” especially in comparison to other individuals such as Noam Chomsky. Partamian - unlike other men and women who would be considered public intellectuals - doesn't do much of his work in an academic setting. Instead, he boldly addresses the public in front of television cameras on his television shows. The question, then, is what makes Stepan Partamian a public intellectual.

In his career, however, Stepan Partamian has been heavily involved in spreading cultural awareness, emphasizing the importance of moral values. In addition to having founded the Armenian Arts Funder, an organization that promotes artistic excellence in various disciplines, he has authored several books, including, Yes, We Have and Ayo, Menk Enk, which discuss contributions made by Armenians around the world. Partamian is also working on a larger project, known as Gifts to the World: A Compendium of Armenian Contributions to Humanity, which is due for release in April 2015, on the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Stepan Partamian has shaped public discourse with his broadcasts and commentaries. Partamian's intention has been to educate the Armenian community and raise awareness of their own culture. This primarily comes from his resentful feelings toward the community itself; he feels that as a collective group, the Armenian community is ignorant and they refuse to educate themselves with important cultural issues. In particular, because Armenia was the first Christian nation, many Armenians feel that it is the obligation of every Armenian to believe in God. These people believe that in order to be a "good" Armenian, they must consider themselves Christians. Stepan Partamian, however, points out that these same people are hypocrites; they themselves don't go to church or read the bible, but instead wear crosses as a symbol of their Christianity. Stepan Partamian suggests that our ignorance refrains us from being educated and that we are naturally close-minded individuals who follow tradition with no reason.

In his article, How to be a public intellectual, Christopher Hitchens claims that the title “public intellectual” is one that must be earned from others. In other words, a person is not a public intellectual simply by declaring themselves as such. The public intellectual must be a title that others bestow upon an individual. In his article, he defines the term itself.

“What, then, are the uses of the term “public intellectual”? It assists us in defining someone who makes his or her living through the battle of ideas. It often helps us to learn something about a foreign culture or state…”

Stepan Partamian, regardless of his controversial opinions, and despite the fact that many people from the Armenian community might not consider him a public intellectual, is a person who bases his beliefs on his ideas. In his fight to educate the Armenian community, his discourse sheds light on the culture itself.

Stephen Mack continues outlining the tasks of a public intellectual in his article.

“Put more prosaically, public intellectuals perform an important social function...

A public intellectual is not a paid publicist, not a spinner, not in the pocket of a narrowly defined purpose. It is, of course the temptation, another one, of the public intellectual to cozy up to that which he or she should be evaluating critically. I think perhaps, too many White House dinners can blunt the edge of criticism…

So the public intellectual needs, it seems to me, to puncture the myth-makers of any era, including his own, whether it's those who promise that utopia is just around the corner if we see the total victory of free markets worldwide, or communism worldwide or positive genetic enhancement worldwide, or mouse-maneuvering democracy worldwide, or any other run-amok enthusiasm. Public intellectuals, much of the time at least, should be party poopers."

Stepan Partamian, more so than any other public intellectual in today's society, can be labeled a "party pooper." In a time of celebration, such as Christmas, his broadcasts focus on our flaws and shortcomings. The general public often considers him as being nihilistic in this sense, considering his criticism toward our culture. Partamian, however, resorts to such controversial extremes to grab the attention of his viewers - reigning in on their parades and celebrations to point out their flaws. Partamian is instead trying to highlight the importance of culture, by showing us our flaws. It’s because of this criticism that positions himself as a public intellectual.

Stephen Mack adds:

“…if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs.”

In The Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual, Stephen Mack discusses religious intellectuals and emphasizes the role of public intellectuals.

“Presidents, poets—and public intellectuals--have invoked his words to remind Americans of something fundamental about themselves: that they are a people defined not by race, not by ethnicity, but by moral purpose.”

The essence of Stepan Partamian’s discourse is one based on such moral purpose. The viewpoints he sets forth in his writings and broadcasts are based on his criticism of the Armenian people, but are concerned with ethical values. In broadcasts, Amote’ (It’s Shameful) and Bari Luys (Good Morning), he scrutinizes cultural values from an ethical perspective. In specific, he questions why the Armenian community is more proud that Kim Kardashian is an Armenian rather than other noteworthy figures in society. In his closing statements, he uses the phrase Bari Luys (Good Morning), as if he has just “enlightened” his audience. Partamian, in his broadcasts and his writings, is enlightening and educating his audience, and poses questions about our culture and why we are more concerned with insignificant issues. This shows us that his beliefs hail from a set of values.

In discussing the public intellectual’s work, Stephen Mack notes, “the measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.” Stepan Partamian is blunt; he points out what is wrong with our culture and points out our ignorance. The simple fact is that people don’t want to be told they are ignorant. Stepan Partamian believes that education is knowledge and knowledge is power. This is all done in benefit of educating ourselves.

The Armenian community believes he taints our image, disregarding his true intentions. In contrast, he is arguably more proud of his heritage than any other Armenian; so proud, in fact, that he wants to conserve our culture.

Stepan Partamian knows that our culture is consumed with television and therefore uses the medium to share his viewpoints. It's clear, then, that whether or not his audience is listening or if they agree with him, the public intellectual should be discussing issues that are of significance. In some instances, Partamian's words fall on deaf ears, but his discourse criticizes important issues. The people who criticize him buy his books, attend his lectures, and tune into his broadcasts, and despite the fact that they consider him controversial, they are still aware the issues he raises are significant to their culture. Stepan Partamian is misunderstood, without doubt, and his audience deems him controversial, but they will also agree that they’re hearing things worth talking about.