Galaxies Apart: Race Depictions in the Two Star Wars trilogies

Science fiction has proved throughout the history of the cinematic genre that it is primarily progressive in nature. While basic human problems like love, betrayal and the search for truth are often present, the genre usually features an inclusive future in which humanity bands together as a species as a result of extraterrestrial contact. There is, perhaps, no better example of this than Star Wars (1977) and its subsequent sequels (1980) and (1983). However, the Star Wars prequels contain various racist stereotypes which are offensive, even when applied to various alien species, such as the depictions of Jamaicans as Gungans, Asians as Nemoidians, and Jewish/Arabic people as Watto. This is opposing to the inclusive depictions of various aliens without utilizing racist stereotypes in the original trilogy.

 

The original trilogy featured an epic science fiction adventure set against the backdrop of a galactic civil war that forced various alien species to band together and rebel against the rule of an oppressive imperial force. However, with the advent of the newer prequel trilogy, has George Lucas installed a racist undertone to the beloved saga or can the stereotypes be attributed to lazy film making or audience interpretation and application of stereotypes from themselves to the screen?

The Star Wars saga remains the subject of intense study in the critical film history field. However, most of this study is largely contained to either the effects on the industry that the 1977 A New Hope had (Belton 121) or a mythological reading of the saga that is largely based on the fact that Lucas borrowed elements of major mythological texts for the sci-fi epic. (Silvio 1) Any reading of the saga outside of these two fields has remained elusive. As a result, the chance to read into the blockbuster hits as something other than technical achievements or myth presents a great opportunity to shed light on a rarely touched on subject. As Ebert states “...it is hard to stand back and see it as a simple motion picture.” (2) The films contain such dense themes, that the opportunities, which is often overlooked or ignored, are vast.

The original Star Wars trilogy tells the story of Luke Skywalker, a young man who finds himself tangled up in a massive galactic war between the rag-tag Rebel Alliance and the oppressive Galactic Empire. Luke discovers that his father played a major part in the rise of the Empire and after the murder of his foster family, he accepts the ways of the Jedi in order to oppose the Empire. Through the span of 3 films, Luke discovers the ways of the force and restores the Old Republic to the ways of old. While the rebels fight to restore the galaxy to the ways of the Old Republic, which featured a group of protectors known as the Jedi Council. The destruction of the Republic and the Jedi Council is chronicled in the newer Star Wars trilogy where the audience witnesses the rise of the Empire.

This Empire is contrasted by the rise of rebellion. The inclusive group features able bodied men and women (notable leader Princess Leia, sister to Luke). The rebellion was not only gender-inclusive, but also racially (Lando Calrissian, an old friend of Han Solo and major participant in the Rebellion) and species inclusive (Admiral Ackbar who plays a pivotal role in the final battle, and Chewbacca, a main character who is animalistic in nature). They fight for equality in the galaxy and represent an anti-military sentiment which was largely personal in nature. This personal aspect of the rebellion works with the inclusiveness to produce a group which has life's best interest in mind.

 

Clearly, the rebellion features characters who the audience can further connect with. The personal closeness that one experiences with both the main characters, as well as the varying supporting cast increases the power that the rebellion holds. While the Empire holds vast military power and armaments, the rebellion holds the sense of community and personal justice.

While the Rebel Alliance features species from numerous planets and star systems who fight against oppression, the Empire prides itself on a strictly militaristic regime which controls numerous aspects of the galaxy. Immediately one can recognize the similarities between the Empire and the Nazi party of early twentieth century Germany. Both rose to power under a charismatic leader (just how charismatic Emperor Palpatine is, is depicted in Episodes I through III), both are comprised of Caucasian men with little to no inclusion of woman or other races (or species). More shockingly, both partake in stark examples of genocide. The Nazi's exterminated thousands largely based on religion and race in concentration camps while the Empire killed millions, through the destruction of Alderaan, Princess Leia's home planet and home to millions. Earlier in the Empire's creation, the Jedi Council was devastated through a mass extermination due to their religious beliefs (the Jedi and it's counterpoint the Sith follow the ways of the Force).

Much like the Rebellion, the Old Republic was also inclusive in nature. It featured a galactic senate where delegates debated the fate of the galaxy equally. Thousands of planets were represented and featured a multitude of species. But not only was the senate inclusive, but the Jedi council was also largely comprised of various species, with the most powerful being Yoda, an alien creature with vast knowledge. This Jedi council also featured an African American Jedi known as Mace Windu, another extremely powerful and knowledgeable representative which preceded the largely white male comprised Empire.

The Jedi council works to promote peace rather than blatant abuse of their power. The inclusiveness of the council matched with the peace keeping efforts of the Jedi allows the audience to feel closely connected. However, this feeling is ultimately ignored due to the stupid actions of the council as a result of being “clouded by the dark side.”

The Empire is eventually dismantled through the efforts of the Rebellion and the Old Republic is reestablished. Thus, the audience can discern that a main theme in Star Wars is inclusiveness of a galaxy, rather than the strict impersonal ways of the Empire. While this rings true in the original trilogy, with the last chapter depicting the Empire's last breath against a strengthened Rebellion, the prequel trilogy has received extreme criticism due to racist undertones.

The prequels feature the destruction of an inclusive society which is replaced by a racist Empire. The senate is lead into this fate by a charismatic white leader who eventually dismantles the senate. The senate appears as a gullible bunch of fools incapable of knowing when they are being tricked. The inclusive Jedi Council is also tricked into a war by the same man, who ultimately exterminates all but a few of them. Arguably, the only right minded person in the prequels is Chancellor (read future Emperor) Palpatine.

However, this is not the main point of criticism in the prequel trilogy. The underlying message of pro-white society pales in comparison to the blatant depiction of racist stereotypes applied to various alien races. Almost all of the aliens in the prequels feature Earth-like accents, as well as numerous stereotypical character traits. This is a large departure from the aliens depicted in the original trilogy. Almost all of them (including a main character: Chewbacca) have unique languages and characters which increased the “In a galaxy far, far away” feel of the originals.

The clearest example of the racist representations was also the “first 100% digitally generated lead in a live action movie” (Kleinman 46). Jar-Jar Binks is one of the most universally hated characters in the history of film and for good reason. The character depicts a lame Jamaican accent and a goofy stride. He is silly, annoying and clearly comic relief. However, the comic relief is lost with the clearly racist depiction of his entire race. The entire Gungan race seemingly acknowledge their low intellectual levels and clumsy movements. All feature the Earth-like accents and barely survive a battle with thousands of battle droids. George Lucas provides audiences with an entire race of offensive stereotypes. The leader is a large character who has a strangely unique (read different from Jamaican) Americanized accent. He also wears tribal robes and a foreign head dress.

The Gungan are clearly reminiscent of the “Sambo” character in the early 1900s. The Gungans are lazy, carefree and depicted as largely unintelligent, much like African Americans in early 1900s media. This depiction falls nothing short of offensive. This depiction, which has existed for quite some time, is noticeable even when applied to an alien.

However, the Gungans are not the only offensive denizens of the prequel trilogy. The leaders of the Trade Federation (the opposing side in the clone wars) are clearly reminiscent of Asian stereotypes. Their accents, actions and even ceremonial robes mirror racist Asian tropes. These Nemoidian are depicted as the semi-intelligent leaders (also tricked into war by the Chancellor) of a robot army. At this point the stereotypes become painful.

Asians are often depicted as being highly intelligent and technological in nature. Paired with the Asian clothing and clearly Asian accents provide a clearly offensive depiction of an entire race. The Nemoidians also appear rather xenophobic towards the foreign Jedi when they entered their ship. This is stereotypical of various Asian cultures. The Chinese depiction of the aliens “[Portrays] a business landscape filled with nepotism... and, more recently, illegal campaign contributions. (Brooker 19)

The audience is also introduced to a bug-like alien named Watto, who is selfish and materialistic in nature. He has a hook nose and overall appearance of “...a caricature of a Jewish journalist published in a Viennese magazine called Kikeriki at the turn of the last century” (Williams 9) However, not only is he Anti-Semitic, but also Anti-Arab. He features a middle eastern accent, resides on a desert planet, has chin stubble and cheats at games.

 

Watto is caught cheating at a game, making bets and owning slaves. His entire existence is largely contained within his own self. He only cares about himself, and is willing to disregard women and children in the process. Oppression of women and children is stereotypical in the media's representation of various middle eastern cultures.

A character like Jar-Jar Binks may have never existed in the mind of late 1960s George Lucas. That was someone who was far more interested in exploring the possibilities of film as an experimental artistic medium. Instead, we receive this character in the 2000s era prequel trilogy, the goal of which is marketability. The original trilogy contained a tale which felt unique, but also familiar in it's characters and themes. The prequels trade this for Lucas' search for an Empire of his own. He trades in storytelling for a loose story arc accented by a major marketing scheme. Thus, the lazy film making that Lucas presents creates characters whose main goals were marketability and action figure deals, but only achieve offensive stereotypes cheaply painted on CGI pallets.

Lucas was, at one point, far more interested in telling a vast epic, rather than making money. “A handwritten note on Lucas's yellow pad, dating from early 1975, stresses... a complete world. Customs, friends, enemies, goals, family, responsibilities, rules, religions. His aim was familiarity tinged with strangeness.” (Brooker 30) This proves that Lucas did have an artistic vision when creating the Star Wars universe. Yet through the success of the original trilogy and subsequent extended universe, he allowed material gain to seep into the creative process.

Thus, at some point, Lucas gained power similar to that of the Emperor and allowed the allure of monetary gain to overcome his sense of storytelling. The split is quite clear. The masterpieces that are the original films remain significant in today's world. However, the prequels only remain as clear examples of betraying a fan-base in order to sell merchandise.

While Lucas may not be inherently (or consciously) racist, he devolved into a lazy film maker. Thus, the stereotypes that are offensive are appealing in the fact that people can realize that they are stereotypes. In his mind, it allows more people to relate. Instead, it provides a sour tone to the entire saga and destroys his legacy.

But how can Lucas get away with these stereotypes? At some point in the production of the prequels, someone must have stood up against such portrayal. Lucas fought largely to control every aspect of his films, thus canceling out whatever judgments anyone may have on set. Thus the actor putting on “alien-face” (rather than black-face) reserves his judgment in honor of the film makers artistic vision. Thus, at some point, these stereotypes must be eradicated through the judgment of both the people on set and those viewing the films. The prequels were harshly judged by critics and audiences alike. However, many bought into the marketing and the Star Wars brand. Sadly, these actions enable film makers to take liberties. If the stereotypes are both harshly judged by audiences and those on set, the film maker is forced to think creatively, thus eliminating the stereotypes.

While the Star Wars saga is focused on a vast epic which contains a varying cast of races and species, the depictions of some aliens (exclusively in the prequels) are racist. While the originals focus on love, power, the search for self and honor as main themes, among others, the prequels simply give in to cheap marketing schemes which ultimately betray both fans of the saga and fans of film in general. The lazy film making results in downright offensive portrayals, yet the original films should be celebrated for the magnificent films that they are. The prequels fall miles short of the originals, and unfortunately, that degrades the entire saga. One can only hope that the prequels fade from existence so that the original trilogy survives for the great masterpieces that deserve to be.

Bibliography 

Belton, John. American Cinema, American Culture. Mcgraw Hill. New York, New York; 2009. Book

Brooker, Will, and British Film Institute. Star Wars. Basingstoke [England]; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. /z-wcorg/.

Brooker, Will. "Readings of Racism: Interpretation, Stereotyping and the Phantom Menace." Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 15.1 (2001): 1. Web.

Kleinman, Dennis. "Star Wars: Hands Across the Galaxy?" Cinefantastique 34.3 (2002): 46-7. Web.

Nama, Adilifu. "R is for Race, Not Rocket: Black Representation in American Science Fiction Cinema." Quarterly Review of Film & Video 26.2 (2009): 155-66. Web.

Silvio, Carl, and Tony M. Vinci. Culture, Identities, and Technology in the Star Wars Films : Essays on the Two Trilogies. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2007. /z-wcorg/.

Williams, Patricia. “Racial Ventriloquism” The Nation. July 5, 1999. Web.

The Hollywood (role)model: Marketing tactics of an impressionable game industry

With game budgets soaring to record heights, it's apparent that a large portion of that money goes, not towards the advancements of technology or elevation of form and content, but rather towards promoting a product. The concept is simple. You get the name of the game, and sometimes the name of the developer/distributor, out into the public which helps generate revenue and sales. In theory, the more money you put up, the better sales of the game. With the game market being a consumer driven and competitive market, it is no surprise that these budgets will start to grow over time. For Rockstar's Grand Theft Auto 4, the budget was a reported $100 million. Rockstar went as far as producing 4 trailers, at least 12 teasers and an oversized mural on the side of a building in New York City. Thus, these “game development budgets” are vastly inflated by the cost of large budget Hollywood film marketing tactics. The game industry has looked up to Hollywood as the benchmark for marketing, but is the end goal of this evolution problematic?

Game marketing, at one time, was reserved for simply the hardcore gaming subculture. While trailers play a large part of game promotion today, print ads targeting those core gamers of the 80s and 90s era were assigned to gaming magazines. These gaming magazines created a unique culture before the internet existed in the form it is in today. Back then, magazines were the only way that a sub-culture, such as gaming, could spread and share news of the industry. It was a tool of unification. Yet these magazines and print ads have largely died out. The overtly sexual and violent ads that were common place in gaming magazines have now disappeared in favor of other marketing schemes.

Game magazines, like other forms of print, are on the road to extinction. Gamepro, a popular gaming magazine that had been in production for over 20 years, recently discontinued its services. With the rise of gaming as an international entertainment industry, hardcore gaming magazines are less and less viable. The delayed reporting of events and cost of subscription have been easily edged out by free internet sites like Kotaku, which reports on events and announcements as soon as they break. Game magazines are also primarily targeting hardcore members of the game community, thus shrinking their demographic.

However, gaming magazines aren't all gone. Some have realized a way around this shrinking demographic problem. The number 1 magazine subscription in the male 18-24 demographic is Game Informer. The magazine, which has a staggering 5 million subscribers, has managed to survive despite having the age of Gamepro. This could largely be due to the fact that Game Informer is offered with Gamestop's Power Up Rewards card. According to a 2011 Colloquy report the premium "Power up members average 3x the spend of non-members, helping us skew our marketing dollars to the most engaged and profitable customers" Thus, unsurprisingly, the newest issue of Game Informer (Issue 226) does not feature print ads for games, but rather ads for Gamestop, tech industry learning institutes and the military. 

While these are all ads targeting the 18-24 male demographic, the absence of gaming ads is still quite puzzling. Out of the 7 ads featured in the Issue 226 Game Informer, a 100 page magazine, only one of the ads is for a game. This simply boils down to demographics and the contact that gamers have with non-gamers in their household. The holiday season is when Gamestop does the most sales. Last year, Gamestop did a record $3.02 billion. The 18-24 male demographic, which largely makes up the hardcore gaming market, are the proprietary consumers of Gamestop year round. However, during the holiday season, this demographic is edged out by families who sink massive amounts of money into the gaming industry due to the casualization of gaming (Portable games, popular games, the Wii etc.) Having worked at Gamestop for over a year, I was trained to pay more attention to the families rather than the hardcore gamers. We were told to push the magazine as a stocking stuffer for kids while utilizing the card as a money-saver for the parents. That magazine, which is now featuring less of the overly sexual and violent game ads of the past, now feature ads which parents can enjoy. An ad for the Marine Corps is more appealing to a parent (who is inevitably plagued by the moral panic of video games causing social degradation) than an ad for any violent game.

Let's ignore the paradoxical and uniquely American jingoistic implications of the above statement and focus on what this means for parents who buy a subscription for their kids. While the kids will enjoy the articles on the games, which provide far more marketing ability than a simple print ad could ever strive for, the parents can take comfort in “positive” ads being displayed in the magazine. As a result, the parents are locked into a subscription due to a perceived sense of comfort, as well as saving money on games (with the rewards card) and the child's desire to stay up on news without exposure to the internet. Gaming magazines have largely shifted from being primarily for hardcore gamers and more towards families. The hardcore market is no longer the prime target for print ads. Marketing of triple A games has ignored the hardcore gamers in favor of reaching as many people as possible. This can be seen in the Call of Duty franchise with the dropping of various tactical gameplay elements to appeal to the ever growing younger audience. The evolution of the internet has forced the hardcore market from specialty magazine isles in Barnes and Noble and onto sites like Youtube and Reddit. 

Due to the shift from print to the internet, the gaming market has had to adapt. The game industry has looked to the Hollywood film industry and has adopted a far more compelling way to market a product.

Trailers, often times done on a scale as large as the game itself, provide both a way to promote a product and a compelling emotional narrative. This maturing is due to the growth of the game culture and added significance of large expos like E3. In the past, trailers had either displayed gamers interacting with a game or gimmicky videos that would appeal to the occasional mass audience. They featured an “attitude” that can only be described as the Early 90s mindset of “radical.” It should be noted, that with the introduction of casualized motion gaming, that the involvement of gamers in trailers have come full circle.

Hardcore games, with trailers devoid of gamer interaction, have looked towards Hollywood for compelling trailers.

Starcraft and Starcraft 2, games which puts you into the seat of an intergalactic general to manage resources and carry out a war, is decidedly non-narrative. The connection built from interaction isn't created due to an emotional tie to a character, but rather the immersion of the experience. The game has transcended a narrative or gaming experience and has become a full blown E-sport. Yet trailers for Starcraft 2 present a Hollywood built narrative instance that is rarely representative of the final product. (It should be noted that Starcraft 2 does feature a storyline based mission system, but is fairly transparent. I've been playing since release and haven't touched the single-player campaign.) 

Along with the Old Republic, these trailers bring up the problem of false advertising. Both trailers would seemingly present a product that is either a triple A narrative game or the latest Hollywood modern epic. They are great, yes, but don't give a viewer any type of idea as to what the original product will be. Would it not be for gameplay demos, uneducated gamers and parents would be plaguing the game industry with accusations of false advertising.

While Starcraft is a decidedly hardcore game with a specific audience, the Sims has even become subject to Hollywood style trailers. The Sims 3, a mass appeal game with a broad demographic, has even put out trailers that rarely captures the gameplay experience.

While a trailer like this utilizes actual gameplay to make up the trailer, it is still decidedly Hollywood: emotional, appealing, funny and backed by a pop song. It is impressive, but relies on the fact that a gamer has heard of the Sims and is aware of the gameplay style it entails.

The interesting exemption from these examples comes from sports games like the recently release WWE '12:

This shows real gameplay, but also interaction from the game's stars and athletes. This type of trailer points towards a more “name brand” type of marketing which is largely targeting a specific audience.

So do these trailers point towards a more mature industry? These cinematic pieces are appealing. The chills I felt after watching all three of those trailers would be enough to make me stand out at midnight and buy the game, but is there a problem there? The gaming industry is looking towards the film industry for cues. Games are a different medium than film and offers an entirely different experience. While the marketing is strong for games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, Assassin's Creed and any of the other numerous franchises out there, the industry could start to stagnate. The artistic recognition that gamers so desperately seek is at risk of being undermined by the most popular and best selling franchises in gaming. While the tasteless print ads of the past decades have died out and gaming taking a more big budget approach, the industry should be heading towards a point of innovation where the form and content meld into an impressive piece. However, the attention to form and content has yet to be fully realized in the mass gaming industry and for good reason: Gaming is still a very young medium.

So, much like film, the industry has begun to polarize. Big budget games have taken the big share while smaller indie games have grown into a small but innovative space. Games like Braid and Flower utilize the narratives and gameplay in a way that complement each other. While these games are innovative and push the medium forward, they lack the appeal and marketing that triple A games have.

The marketing tactics of the industry may point to where the industry is leading. Hollywood film, has for the most part, become stagnant and outright devoid of artistic merit. Films like Transformers and Avatar bring in huge amounts of money but undermine the medium as a serious art form. The serious innovation in form and content isn't coming from Hollywood, but rather the indie film market. The game industry is becoming a miniature representation of the film industry. The widening appeal of triple A games and the Hollywood-like production of game trailers could lead to a system where producing big budget games and expensive trailers is rewarded, even if it contains a tired formulaic approach.

As with indie film occasionally hitting it big with a financial success, the indie game market has it's moments. Devoid of the inflated marketing costs of triple A titles, indie games like Minecraft do well. Minecraft, which utilizes the self-driven and nostalgic narrative specific to the player with the first person exploratory gameplay has managed to sell over 4 million units, has become a phenomenal success without utilizing marketing tactics. Minecraft has benefited from, what many believe to be the future of marketing, word of mouth.

So while the Hollywood film industry has pushed for the destruction of the internet with net neutrality killers like SOPA and PIPA, the game industry is presented with an opportunity to sink less cash into marketing and more into providing a compelling experience. Hollywood's inability to recognize the problems with their products has stifled innovation and forced them into pushing legislation that will ultimately harm them and their consumers. This isn't the role model that gamers want for their industry. Games offer an experience like no other art form, and while marketing has evolved considerably over time, the industry needs to step back and realize the potential of their medium. Instead of looking towards the popular film industry, game developers should push for the advancement of their art form without risking financial security. 

The next evolution in marketing is seemingly player driven and largely socialized. The future of game marketing is as uncertain as gaming as an art form. We could see player word of mouth being the definitive next step or we could see the continuation of popularized mass audience cinematics. Perhaps we will see a synthesis of both, presenting gaming as the unique medium it undoubtedly is.

Fantasy Booking Introduction

I had a wrestling related dream the other night. I was at college with CM Punk and Daniel Bryan and we all lived together. I remember that the place was rather large and Bryan was complaining about not getting a fair shot. So I called up Vince McMahon and said that I would be willing to walk away from the company if Bryan hadn't gotten a fair shot. Note that I had no idea what my job was with the company. I woke up right as Mark Henry and Bryan were to have a match.

I sat there, curled up in bed and thought about what I would do with the company. If I had my choice, my dream job would be head writer. I know that nearly everyone who wouldn't cut it as an actual wrestler would choose writer or booker the next best dream job with the WWE by default. But admittedly I have a real aspiration for it. I am currently going to school for film at a good university. One that pushes the independent filmmaking route with a strong theoretical background. It isn't one of those tech schools that simply put you on an accelerated course with no direction.

My first films started out like every other film student's work. To put this in perspective for non-film students, nearly 95% (a rough estimate) of all film student work contains one or more of the following: murder, suicide, hit-men, cigarettes, drugs, sex, nudity, swearing, love, voice-overs etc. It gets tedious viewing work after work that is nearly all the same. But this is something that most film students go through. At least in my experience, they start to branch out and think creative. They start thinking of a message that they want to convey first instead of coming up with a concept and then pasting whatever meaning they can to it.

My first film was about a kid who committed suicide and didn't know he was dead until he disappeared. My second film was about a straight edge gang which was supposed to mirror the yakuza. (I have been involved in the hardcore straight-edge music scene since I was a teenage and am a fan of yakuza films.) So my work was, admittedly, really shitty. Neither piece is available and have been since destroyed.

However, I eventually matured and started working on other stuff that was more personal. I am the type of person to take whatever interests I have and start to critically analyze the work. I've read more books and articles on media studies and specific subjects (for example: The Interactive Narrative Logic of televised Pro-Wrestling) Thus, with this maturing I am left asking the question that many “smart” wrestling fans ask themselves. Why do I watch this?

What I really mean is “Why do I watch the WWE?” To be quite honest, I think it is due to the availability of it. I love Chikara and many independents, but I simply can't keep up with them without spoilers. But when I think about this question, Chikara founder Mike Quackenbush's words seem to resurface. In an AVClub interview, he said “I’ve often said that wrestling is art; but for now, it seems consigned to remaining low art. It’s a male soap opera. We’ve got to earn our place at the grown-up table.”

Much like gaming, another art medium that I view as having real potential but is often viewed as “low-brow”, I want to be able to defend pro-wrestling for the best it can be. Unfortunately with WWE, and TNA which I don't watch regularly, these best moments are few and far between.

So, I decided to start this blog. I hope to find some sort of understanding in the art form that is pro-wrestling through fantasy booking and perhaps some other critical analysis. Part of this is also feeding into that dream job as head writer for the WWE. With that being said, I want a real discussion with these posts. I am an active member of /r/squaredcircle over on Reddit and enjoy a lot of the real good discussion there. So if what I say works or doesn't work, let me know. Send me suggestions and if my ideas would garner a reaction. I enjoy hearing from people and want to create an interesting dynamic here.

Introduction

Welcome to Box Robots. My name is Adam Evans and I started up this blog not to re-post cute things i found on the internet or to keep an online journal for all to read, but rather to talk critically about the things I love. Often we, as a society, enjoy something and accept it for what it is. We consume the work and then move on. However, for me, many works seem to linger within my mind long after the piece has been consumed.

So, naturally, i seek to dissect and evaluate these pieces of art for not just what they are, but what they can tell me about myself. The art-forms i discuss and dissect will be varied. Film, video games, pro-wrestling, TV and music are all ingrained in what i am. I hope that you, the reader, allow me to ramble and ponder. I hope that you remain open to the work i present and the argument i frame it in. My email address (adam.evans727@gmail.com) will always be available for you to discuss whatever you want. Whether you agree or disagree, the best i can hope for is garnering a reaction from readers.

As for the formatting of the site. Right now, it is pretty rough, however i am working on making it far more dynamic. Since the work i will be discussing is varied in interest level, you can sort the content based on the label system. My work will be sorted into categories based on interest (Film, Video Games, Pro-Wrestling, General, etc.) 

Thanks for reading. 

-Adam