Latest column for The Villager. I've been thinking about this idea for a while now. Wondering if there might be a book in here somewhere.
“Oh, Captain, my Captain.”
In 1989, those words launched a thousand teaching careers. The movie was Dead Poets Society, the star was Robin Williams, and the quote – from a Walt Whitman poem eulogizing Abraham Lincoln – was the dramatic high point of the classic inspirational teacher movie. That beloved genre, filled with heartwarming stories of passionate educators guiding reluctant young people to academic success and self-discovery, is a time-honored institution in film and television.
The primary draw of these movies is the shared common experience of viewers. Everyone has a favorite teacher, and most people have a story about one who made a difference, opened their minds, turned them around, and even changed their life. We all have that one class, that one year, that one teacher, that one moment which is an indelible and heartwarming memory to share. And that’s one key reason the inspirational teacher story is so popular and is remade so many times.
The earliest on-screen version of this familiar story is probably Goodbye, Mr. Chips, first made in 1939 and remade in 1969. The next two most well-known versions of onscreen teacher heroes both featured Sydney Poitier. In 1955, he starred as a tough kid and reluctant, rebellious student in the Bronx who is ultimately inspired by the tough love of his teacher. Poitier returned to the genre at the front of the classroom in 1967 as the tough love teacher who brings a group of British hooligans to education and maturity through self respect in the classic To, Sir, with Love.
The 1980s and 90s can be considered the Golden Age of the great teacher film with a seemingly endless string of heroic public servants inspiring groups of ambivalent and rebellious youth through a mixture of tough love, witty banter, and mutual respect. From Richard Dreyfus finding his true calling as a music teacher, not a musician, in Mr. Holland’s Opus to Michelle Pfeiffer and Hillary Swank playing the savior teacher to inner city youth in Dangerous Minds and Freedom Writers, every year seemed to produce another rendition of the same old story. And the inspirational, but often wise-cracking, teacher hero is not just on the big screen. Going back to the 1970s, television has seen numerous iterations of the hero Welcome back Kotter to Abbot Elementary.
The primary problem with the classic teacher movie is a predictable formula based on false narratives and unrealistic expectations. The teacher wins over a bunch of disengaged, unmotivated kids and inspires them to love learning and excel in a very short time. That’s true even when the films are based on true stories, as in Stand and Deliver, where it appears the teacher Jaime Escalante takes a group of underprivileged students with no math background, and in one year inspires them to take and pass the AP Calculus exam. In fact, Escalante built his program over many years with students who’d shown an aptitude but had never felt they belonged in the class.
In Dead Poets Society the students are urged to “seize the day” and “make their lives extraordinary,” but writer Elizabeth Grace Mathew suggests “the boys were actually thriving before Mr. Keating got there.” They were, in their own small ways, rebelling as all adolescents do, but still achieving. Their inspirational teacher actually leads them to tragic results. In a New York Times column, teacher Tom Ford cautioned viewers that “It’s as if all the previously insurmountable obstacles students face could be erased by a 10-minute pep talk. This trivializes not only the difficulties many real students must overcome, but also the hard-earned skill and tireless effort real teachers must use to help those students succeed.”
The inspirational teacher stereotype has even been held up to brilliant mockery in films like Bad Teacher starring Cameron Diaz as the title character who is motivated to push her students to success on state tests simply to fund her breast implants, which she hopes will win her a wealthy husband so she can quit the job she actually hates. In an article for The Atlantic, writer Eleanor Barkhorn actually praises Bad Teacher as “Finally, a film that takes down the destructive myth of the hero instructor.”
There is much we can learn and be inspired by through fictional teachers in film and television. There are also many destructive myths and misleading assumptions rooted in the inspirational teacher story. So, keeping in mind that these stories are first and foremost simply entertainment, we should all remember it’s never as simple as Lights, Camera, Teach!
Wednesday, September 27, 2023
Thursday, September 7, 2023
Artists ask Where’s the Money?
This week's column for The Villager:
“Like, where’s the (bleep)in’ money?”
Leave it to hip hop icon and pop culture philosopher Snoop Dog to clarify the issue regarding the streaming of digital content and the related labor strikes by writers and actors that has currently brought film and television production to a screeching halt. As the nation took the day off this week in honor and celebration of labor, it’s worth pondering the very real labor situation happening in the entertainment industry. For a segment of workers who contribute nearly $100 billion to the economy every year, the issue of compensation in a rapidly changing world of artificial intelligence and digital streaming is a watershed moment.
Snoop Dog went a bit off script recently while at a Milken Institute event where he was on a panel discussing the fiftieth anniversary of hip hop culture and rap music. As the panel discussed his career and the business side of hip hop and the recording industry, Snoop paused to pose a simple logical question. “I mean, can someone explain to me how you can get a billion streams and not get a million dollars? That don’t make sense to me. I don’t know who … is running the streaming industry, if you’re in here or not, but you need to give us some information on how …. to track this money down ’cause one plus one ain’t adding up to two.”
Snoop noted how when he began his career, there was a tangible way to track the money. If the record company sold a million albums at $9.00, then there was a set amount of money and the artists received their percentage. Snoop and countless other artists now ask how data can show that people watched, say, 300,000 hours of a show, but the artist isn’t receiving commensurate money for that huge consumption of the goods.
Streaming of digital content, as opposed to the sale of CDs, is the problem which first arose in 1999 when the company Napster established the practice of digital file sharing. This was much like illegally copying cassette tapes in the 70s and 80s, only easier and far more extensive. But Steve Jobs and Apple’s innovation of iTunes leveled the playing field. Jobs and Apple, while making millions with their new technology, also guaranteed artists they would receive payment for downloads. That was a game changer – and one more example of a true visionary. Jobs was a ruthless businessman, but he also had the spirit of an artist.
The actors and writers are striking for numerous reasons. Working in the arts can be a precarious position because it’s rarely a full time job with a company providing benefits year to year. Thus writers and actors depend on the income of residuals during the time between gigs. And if the company continues to make money from the product during that time, the artists should as well. When Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David sold the syndication rights for Seinfeld, they earned a staggering sum of $225 million. That, of course, is evidence of just how much more money the networks made by endlessly showing reruns. That’s why just two years ago, Netflix paid $500 million for Seinfeld, NBC Universal paid $500 million for The Office, and WarnerMedia paid $425 million for Friends. Clearly, these networks make huge outlays for content, knowing they will earn massive returns on their investment.
In the era of data science, the industry has the ability to track penny for penny how much a piece of art is earning. They also have a responsibility to be transparent in their use of new technologies, including streaming and AI, another aspect of the strike. One problematic development is the industry’s use of AI to regenerate images and likeness of an artist, but suggest that it’s not really the artist so doesn’t deserve compensation. Author Jane Friedman had a truly dystopian moment earlier this year when someone used AI to write books in her style and subject matter and begin selling them on Amazon in her name. Initially Amazon refused to take them down, though the company shockingly relented when her professional organization intervened on her behalf.
As a writer and teacher of literature, I know all too well the value of the creation and the history of compensation for writers and artists. In the spirit of Labor Day, it’s worth talking about fair compensation for workers, especially creators. Artists deserve their share, especially because there is no art without them. As Snoop Dog would say, “that’s fo’ shizzle.”
“Like, where’s the (bleep)in’ money?”
Leave it to hip hop icon and pop culture philosopher Snoop Dog to clarify the issue regarding the streaming of digital content and the related labor strikes by writers and actors that has currently brought film and television production to a screeching halt. As the nation took the day off this week in honor and celebration of labor, it’s worth pondering the very real labor situation happening in the entertainment industry. For a segment of workers who contribute nearly $100 billion to the economy every year, the issue of compensation in a rapidly changing world of artificial intelligence and digital streaming is a watershed moment.
Snoop Dog went a bit off script recently while at a Milken Institute event where he was on a panel discussing the fiftieth anniversary of hip hop culture and rap music. As the panel discussed his career and the business side of hip hop and the recording industry, Snoop paused to pose a simple logical question. “I mean, can someone explain to me how you can get a billion streams and not get a million dollars? That don’t make sense to me. I don’t know who … is running the streaming industry, if you’re in here or not, but you need to give us some information on how …. to track this money down ’cause one plus one ain’t adding up to two.”
Snoop noted how when he began his career, there was a tangible way to track the money. If the record company sold a million albums at $9.00, then there was a set amount of money and the artists received their percentage. Snoop and countless other artists now ask how data can show that people watched, say, 300,000 hours of a show, but the artist isn’t receiving commensurate money for that huge consumption of the goods.
Streaming of digital content, as opposed to the sale of CDs, is the problem which first arose in 1999 when the company Napster established the practice of digital file sharing. This was much like illegally copying cassette tapes in the 70s and 80s, only easier and far more extensive. But Steve Jobs and Apple’s innovation of iTunes leveled the playing field. Jobs and Apple, while making millions with their new technology, also guaranteed artists they would receive payment for downloads. That was a game changer – and one more example of a true visionary. Jobs was a ruthless businessman, but he also had the spirit of an artist.
The actors and writers are striking for numerous reasons. Working in the arts can be a precarious position because it’s rarely a full time job with a company providing benefits year to year. Thus writers and actors depend on the income of residuals during the time between gigs. And if the company continues to make money from the product during that time, the artists should as well. When Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David sold the syndication rights for Seinfeld, they earned a staggering sum of $225 million. That, of course, is evidence of just how much more money the networks made by endlessly showing reruns. That’s why just two years ago, Netflix paid $500 million for Seinfeld, NBC Universal paid $500 million for The Office, and WarnerMedia paid $425 million for Friends. Clearly, these networks make huge outlays for content, knowing they will earn massive returns on their investment.
In the era of data science, the industry has the ability to track penny for penny how much a piece of art is earning. They also have a responsibility to be transparent in their use of new technologies, including streaming and AI, another aspect of the strike. One problematic development is the industry’s use of AI to regenerate images and likeness of an artist, but suggest that it’s not really the artist so doesn’t deserve compensation. Author Jane Friedman had a truly dystopian moment earlier this year when someone used AI to write books in her style and subject matter and begin selling them on Amazon in her name. Initially Amazon refused to take them down, though the company shockingly relented when her professional organization intervened on her behalf.
As a writer and teacher of literature, I know all too well the value of the creation and the history of compensation for writers and artists. In the spirit of Labor Day, it’s worth talking about fair compensation for workers, especially creators. Artists deserve their share, especially because there is no art without them. As Snoop Dog would say, “that’s fo’ shizzle.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)