Changing Education Paradigms

It is an incontrovertible fact that education is a fundamental part of life. Education gives developing minds the tools necessary to push society forward. It is a tradition that transcends recorded history and can be found, in one form or another, within every culture on Earth today. Ancient Egyptians often established schools for princes and scribes that included lessons in history, math, writing, reading, astronomy, music, science, and medicine. So, why is it that several thousands of years later, arguably the most advanced country on Earth has a laughable education system at best?

When one mentions the American school system today, the subject is usually accompanied by scoffs and palms to the face. The education system has not kept up with the rapidly changing world we live in. Advancement in computer technology coupled with increased globalization has resulted in a system of education that is outdated and unable to provide students with the tools necessary to solve issues that threaten humanity. This system has branded within the minds of millions of students the notion that there is only one answer to every problem, it has shunned collaboration and rebranded it as “cheating”, and above all, it has marginalized many of the skills that are essential to solving the world’s problems. So, what needs to be done?

In his 2008 lecture, entitled “Changing Education Paradigms”, Sir Ken Robinson explains that almost every country on Earth is in the process of reforming education and that those countries are attempting to “meet the future by doing what they did in the past.” We have to change the entire concept of what an education system is and more importantly, what it does. It is imperative that we “shift the paradigm” as Robinson says. The children of tomorrow must not be taught what to think but rather how to think for themselves. The ability to think for oneself and to think outside the parameters of a given situation is referred to divergent thinking.

Politically, the reformation of an entire way of thinking is easier said than done. Nevertheless, as someone who has experienced the system in question more recently than the majority of United States politicians, I believe that my opinion is most certainly valid. What is politically difficult is usually economically difficult by nature, but when the future of our world hangs in the balance and quality of education is the deciding factor, what can hold economic priority over education?


My experience with the K-12 system has opened my eyes to what needs to change. To safeguard our future and usher in a new age of global harmony we must begin to think for ourselves while also training ourselves to work with others if we hope to solve the problems of tomorrow.

A Case for Libertarianism

Half a century and the events of 9/11 began to solidify within the minds of many citizens, the world over, that Islam is a violent, extremist religion. Yet, as the United States recovered from the heinous attacks and a global, collective interest with the religion demanded a better understanding of the region of the Middle East and Islam by association, the reality and truth surrounding that culture soon came to light. This is not to say that Islam has escaped the stigma from within which it has been placed by the Western world, and that is the point. However, today, more so than the last several decades at least, the religion of Islam has arrived at a much better place of understanding within the minds of millions of citizens, the world over.

Similar to the way in which Islam has been distorted by social stigma and political divisiveness, the socio-political ideology of libertarianism has been distorted as extreme and radical as well. What has been revealed and what continues to be revealed about the true nature of Islam needs to happen to Libertarianism. When one boils down the philosophy of libertarianism to its root principles, it becomes clear that libertarianism is in fact heavily representative of the founding principles of the United States itself and very much deservant of its unofficial title as America’s third political party. Moreover, when observed within a heavily politicized sphere, such as Hollywood, the continued, unfair stigmatization of libertarianism not only becomes more apparent but the justification of that stigmatization begins to be broken down, for the content and stories coming out of hollywood is associative to many of the principles, notions, and values libertarians cling to.

Just as the study of the history of Islam brings with it, a deeper understanding of the religion and the rejection of a preconceived notion of radicalism, so to does an understanding of the history of libertarianism bring with it the idea that the philosophy is American and has been here from the beginning and before.

The history of Libertarianism has in many ways, grown alongside the history of human civilization, beginning with divides between Ancient Greek schools of thought. However, the history of Libertarianism in the United States can very well attribute its origins to the founding of the country itself and even to those who lived before the creation of the U.S. Two Englishmen, John Locke and Thomas Paine, are considered to be the founding fathers of Libertarianism and it is within their writings that the, since consolidated, principles of Libertarianism can be found in their purest form.

Both John Locke and Thomas Paine were english-born philosophers. Although they were both politically active and outspoken about libertarian values, it was John Locke who truly first laid the foundation for the birth of American Libertarianism. John Locke is most famous for his philosophical writings on human nature and the “self.” His first widely published work entitled, The Two Treatises of Government, outlined the optimal role that government should play based on Locke’s experience as a physician and philosopher and his assessment of human nature through those lenses.

|[The Government has the] right of making Laws with Penalties of Death,

and consequently all less Penalties, for the Regulating and Preserving of

Property, and of employing the force of the Community, in the Execution

of such Laws and in defence of the Common-wealth from Foreign Injury,

and all this only for the Publick Good.|

This minimalist approach to the role of government went on to inspire American revolutionaries such as Thomas Paine himself. Moreover, Locke’s writings are widely referenced, although indirectly, in the Declaration of Independence itself, further reinforcing the notion that libertarianism is at the very ideological foundation that the United States was founded upon and further rendering any stigmatization of the philosophy, simply ludacris. Locke also ultimately concluded that every human is born as a sort of “blank slate”, or tabula rasa as he specifically refers to it, and that from the moment a human is born, everything that human experiences helps to determine how he or she will operate within the world. Therefore, Locke understood the importance of belief in a higher power as to foster moral values within these “tabula rasas.” For this reason, Locke vehemently abhorred the idea of atheism as an otherwise extraordinary tolerant person contextually. To Locke, God and the belief in God, represented a promise of moral high ground within society and a disbelief in a higher power would lead to the degradation of human spirit and human decency. Locke went so far as to explain that it’s not important that you call this ambiguous higher power “God” but that the importance lies within the belief in something greater than oneself. Having said that, Locke did not simply believe in God for the sake of ensuring humanity’s prosperity. Locke was a staunch believer in the cosmological argument, as so many of his predecessors were, which used the order of cosmological events, change, motion, and contingency as evidence to suggest the existence of a higher power. This is extremely significant because it suggests that from its inception and from those who lead to its inception, libertarianism was cultivated within a healthy blend of scientific inquiry, religious moral authority, and individual autonomy. So it is within this blend of beliefs, both in humans as a blank slate(naturally neutral) and the idea of a higher power which keeps human nature in check, that the idea of Libertarianism really begins to form for it is within religious freedom, the protection of the rights of the individual that Libertarians place their principles.

Libertarianism has germinated from within these origins to become a growing socio-political, as well as economic, framework from which much of the modern world has been built. As mentioned previously, John Locke’s ideas both reached many and were built upon by many. Thomas Paine was one such individual who both lived during and through the American Revolution. Moreover, Paine did, in fact, exist as a sort of propagandist on the side of the revolutionaries during the war. At a pivotal moment in the war, when Washington’s army was on the verge of chaos and disbanding, it was Paine who delivered a speech to rally the troops.

|“The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves,

each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a

contract with each other to produce a government: and this is

the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and

the only principle on which they have a right to exist.”|

It is within this speech, meant to stir the hearts of American patriots, that Locke’s influence on Paine and the libertarian values that Paine carried on, becomes clear. Paine’s explanation here helps to reinforce one of the key tenets of libertarianism, that of the place for government in the life of an individual . He speaks of governments existing as a result of the individual peoples deciding that it should exist. It was not thrust upon them, but instead decided to be necessary by the individuals collectively. Paine’s prose maintains the usage of terms such as individuals, each, and his own so that the idea that a government is a social contract by individuals, not some homogeneous body, is undeniably clear. Paine is truly genius in his prose here because he is doing two things simultaneously. Firstly, as aforementioned, he has solidified the nature of how governments(the thing these troops are fighting to establish) are brought about. Secondly, Paine is urging the troops to consider each and every one of their fellow men, a tactic most effective in coaxing troops to holdfast to a cause.

In the present day, it seems as though the aforementioned history of Libertarianism has been somewhat forgotten or altogether ignored. This becomes ever apparent when one reads or hears about libertarianism mentioned in today’s media. The philosophy is often likened to conservatism and often subsequently dismissed as falling within the realm of the right(which is also the driving problem plaguing libertarianism within politicized spheres of influence such as Hollywood). However, libertarianism possesses several principles that merge the two-party line, more often than not. In an excerpt from an article published by The Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, the libertarian perspective is poignantly described

|“[A libertarian is someone striving for] peace, prosperity,

and social harmony are fostered by “as much liberty as

possible” and “as little government as necessary.”|

Along with this description, The Institute for Humane Studies also reinforces the notion of libertarianism as a historically tried and tested philosophy. Like Paine, during the American Revolution, the institute’s description reinforces the founding principles of and it becomes apparent that these principles are also the principles of the founding fathers themselves/ Again, libertarianism is nothing new. It is as though these principles were instilled within the roots of the country, were forgotten, and are now as they become more prominently displayed in society.

|“With a long intellectual tradition spanning hundreds of years,

libertarian ideas of individual rights, economic liberty, and

limited government have contributed to history-changing

movements like abolition, women’s suffrage, and the civil

rights movement. Libertarian is not a single viewpoint, but

includes a wide variety of perspectives. Libertarians can range

from market anarchists to advocates of a limited welfare state,

but they are all united by a belief in personal liberty, economic

freedom, and a skepticism of government power.”|

As further evidence of the rise of libertarianism in the United States, one needs only to look at the last three American presidential elections, the candidates that considered themselves libertarians in those races, and the followings that they generated. The three most famous figures that fit those descriptors are Senators Ron Paul and Rand Paul(Ron Paul’s son), and governor Gary Johnson. These three political figures were actively advocating for libertarian values and principles on the presidential candidacy stage and generated sizable followings(relatively) because of it. In several interviews during the 2016 presidential election circuit, the former governor of New Mexico and libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson was asked several times what a libertarian was. Johnson’s reply was simple. He asserted that a libertarian was both fiscally conservative and socially liberal. When considered, in tandem, with the historical analysis of John Locke and Thomas Paine’s founding concepts, Johnson couldn’t be more correct. Libertarians advocate for laissez-faire economy both across state lines, as well as internationally, while also utilizing the government to protect the individual rights of each and every citizen.

Despite its rise in socio-political popularity, libertarianism is still fiercely stigmatized within several heavily influential corners of society. One such corner, the entertainment industry(centered in Hollywood)is a prudent case study in which to observe this gross misrepresentation of libertarianism and, frankly, hypocriticism at play. Hollywood is particularly relevant in this phenomenon because of the fact that several prominent content creators within Hollywood are self-described libertarians. One pertinent example of this can be found within the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Their membership within the libertarian party is particularly significant because of the influence that their show has on American society. Along with being a generator of pop-culture references, the show is a socio-political commentary through and through. Parker and Stone’s trademark, if one had to be applied to them, is that they pull no punches. They are notorious for openly and crudely attacking anyone and everyone through their show, regardless of political or any other affiliation. Matt Stone is even quoted saying,“I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.” They’re abandonment of affiliation with either political party reinforces the very idea that libertarianism is almost void of politics and is instead, simply, American. In the same vein, and more relevant to film specifically, both Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn are self-described libertarians. In 2016, the year of one of the most divisive presidential elections in recent history, the pairs’ political affiliations were used as cannon fodder, against them. Their presence and representation throughout the award season was relatively low, despite Hacksaw Ridge being heavily renowned by critics and audiences alike. This misrepresentation, by demographically left-wing Hollywood elites, of the principles of libertarianism reveals a terrible bias within the industry that's made worse when considering the subject matter of projects like Hacksaw Ridge. The film itself followed a pacifist soldier that went to great lengths to heal, not harm. It was an inspirational story and represented the power a single individual possesses. Yet, it was defamed because two people affiliated with it held libertarian beliefs that the society surrounding Hollywood deemed to be too “far right.”

In a world full of stigma and misinformation, it has become abundantly clear that historical analysis and hard evidence are in increasingly short supply and yet, are needed now more than ever. For, this is also an era of unprecedented amounts of readily available, non-vetted information. It is within this era that we most risk losing our foundation as a country. Libertarianism is American. It is made up of American values and American ideas. Despite what many media outlets may convince one to believe, American values and ideas make the country stronger. The rights of the individual, religious freedom, an economy unabridged by wreckless regulation and taxation (the very causes that led our founding fathers to declare their independence from Britain) are the backbone the country draws its strengths from. If we continue to attack or even dismiss those things within our society that are traditionally and historically American, then this country will inevitably fall from its glory. We are one nation made up of many individuals. This is not to say every aspect of libertarianism is wholly applicable to the American society of today(to say that about any belief system is simple lunacy) but to not see the value in rescuing libertarianism from the stigmatization with which it has been branded and embracing portions of its tenets is, for lack of a more gracious label, completely ignorant.

On A Course for Goodness

Are humans inherently good or inherently bad? This is a question asked by droves of people throughout every age of humanity. The answer to this question has also informed the social, political, and economic systems of the world, along with religions the world over. As a filmmaker, I’ve recently been thinking about the core structure of the stories being told by filmmakers and pondering whether or not, when viewed as a whole, they reflect an answer to this question. These stories are coming from humans, so they must reflect something about humans. Do the stories we tell act a commentary on the good or bad aspect of human nature? If it is true that art imitates life, then within the films and stories we consume(which are about humans), there must be some indication of the nature of humanity.

The stories from films that we know and love as well as the new stories being told by new movies being made now all have structural parallels. In other words, there is a basic structure that most films made in the Western world, follow. This has been known for sometime and these parallels can largely be traced back, and are often credited to, Joseph Campbell, author of The Hero with a Thousand Faces in 1949. Campbell’s book was revolutionary when it was published because it provided a lens through which all human storytelling could be viewed. In short, Campbell’s book outlines his idea that the same baseline story has been told since the inception of storytelling. Going back to the first cave paintings(discovered in the Chauvet cave in France), one could argue that his theory could be applied to the stories being told on the walls of that cave.

Along with bringing a new lens through which to view the stories we tell, Joseph Campbell’s theory was viewed as a goldmine by Hollywood production companies and distribution studios and was used as such. This idea that a formula could be applied to something as lucrative as movies was extremely tantalizing to these entities and they embraced a more formulaic approach to storytelling in the films they produced from that point forward. However, as corporate as their motivations were, the powers that be in Hollywood did, inadvertently most likely, begin to cultivate a sort of through line or "so what?" point to storytelling, at least within the realm of cinema. That through line was the idea that people go to the movies to see good humans, or heros, and follow their struggles for success. This has often been ridiculed or dismissed by many moviegoers today as bland homogenization. However, one cannot deny the sort of  interconnectedness that storytelling has gained from the embrace of Campbell's ideas. At the root of his ideas is the simple idea of the hero's journey. The hero's journey is the name Joseph Campbell has given to the idea of story itself and his notion of the optimal story. A flow chart that Campbell created to showcase this theory explains in very basic terms what a story needs to be successfully received by an audience. Most importantly, a story needs a goal-oriented character who overcomes incredible odds. If modern science is any indicator, it would seem Joseph Campbell's assessment of human receptiveness of particular story elements, such as a protagonist overcoming a goal and succeeding, is accurate, for his assessment is most definitely in line with what seems to be true human nature. It seems that we are innately wired to receive joy from the success of others within our species. 

Recent anthropological evidence uncovered within the remains of ancient pre-human when considered in tandem with chimpanzee and Bonobo ape behavior suggest that humans are not only the most naturally altruistic species on Earth but it is that altruism that led the species to being far more advanced than any other species on the planet. A report by Scientific America synthesized the study done by a collection of researchers, spanning over various fields:

"If human nature is simply the way we tend to act based on our intuitive and automatic impulses, then it seems that we are an overwhelmingly cooperative species, willing to give for the good of the group even when it comes at our own personal expense."

It would seem that the stories being told do indeed reflect our human nature accurately. For humans are, by nature, cooperative, self-sacrificing, and at their core, good. 

An Argument for More Globalism

If one were to study a map of the Homo Sapien’s migration and settlement of the Earth, one would discover that it took our prehistoric counterparts over one-hundred thousand years to traverse the distance between modern day Africa and modern day North America. Today, if an American businessman needs to meet with his associate in Johannesburg, he can travel from LAX to South Africa in under twenty-four hours. Large and rapid advancements in technology, coupled with an educational focus on tolerance and coalition is transforming the world into a place of synergistic interactions. It is in said interactions that we safeguard our future and survival as a species.

Charlie Chaplin, speaking as a fictitious dictator, put it best, “The airplane and the radio have brought us closer together.” It is within the utilization of inventions such as these that we see globalization in its purest form. Everyday, humans from different parts of the world communicate and meet with each other. In doing so, the population is exposed, both consciously and subconsciously, to the many cultures of the world. The fact that in the year 2015 people are utilizing technologies that depend on levels of global collaboration the likes of which people living in the 1920s would not have been able to perceive, only strengthens the assertion that the world is and has been moving, however gradually, toward total globalization.

There is no aspect of human culture that is not being affected by the increasingly universal nature of the Earth. The global economy is no exception. In an article entitled “Why Globalization is Good” published by Forbes magazine, author Robyn Meredith explains that, contrary to popular belief, globalization is universally beneficial from an economic standpoint. Unlike foreign aid, foreign direct investment remedies poverty in a way that is profitable for all parties involved. “It’s remarkable what a few container ships can do to make poor people better off. Certainly more than $2 trillion of foreign aid, which is roughly the amount (with an inflation adjustment) that the U.S. and Europe have poured into Africa and Asia over the past half-century”

Humans have abandoned convictions of intolerance and put aside petty differences in order to help each other, several times, throughout history. The frequency of these conjunctive occurrences has recently increased, specifically within the past century. At a time when Nazism engulfed most of Western Europe, many of the world’s countries, all with diverse cultures, banded together against the threat of Adolf Hitler and ultimately achieved victory in the bloody conflict of World War II. A speech given by United States president Ronald Reagan reinforces this notion of a “unifying common enemy.” “Perhaps we need some outside universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world”

How do we continue to build on this cosmopolitan concept? We must look to education to continue the trend of globalization . Humans are not born with prejudice, animosity, or bigotry. These traits are taught. Through proper education these traits can be untaught and replaced by an understanding and respect for the world and it’s ever changing peoples, cultures, religions, and creeds.

Whether one is speaking in economic, social, political, historical or educational terms, the sentiment that globalization is beneficial to the entire planet is incontrovertible. In an era where nuclear annihilation is a very real possibility and said possibility is due to infinitesimal differences between cultures, it becomes essential for the human race to not only understand each other's cultures and traditions but to accept them as well. It is with the establishment of global tolerance that we secure our survival as a species.

The Oscars

With the Oscars just about a week away, it seems appropriate to write a post analyzing the award show. Being that I am currently attending film -school I would be remiss to not share my thoughts on the spectacle. In many ways, this post will be a pseudo-continuation of my previous post regarding the responsibility that goes along with celebrity. The simple truth is that the increased politicalization of the Oscars, due to droves of celebrities using the podium to plug their political agenda, has left many Americans feeling fine with missing the award show that is supposed to be a celebration of the magic of film and recognition that many members of a film crew don’t normally receive.

In an article published in Paper Magazine by Jael Goldfine, the author reports on recent data released regarding viewership of the Oscars. In recent years, the number of viewers of the Oscars broadcast has plunged to record lows:

“Out of a representative survey of American adults, only 20% knew what movie was named best picture in 2018 (the answer, Guillermo Del Toro's The Shape of Water). Between 1-4% of adults thought it was Call Me By Your Name, Darkest Hour, Dunkirk, Lady Bird, Phantom Thread, The Post and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri — but an impressively apathetic 58% had no idea or didn't care to even guess.”

This data is incredibly significant because it represents the true voice of the consumers, or would be consumers, of this content and not the Hollywood elite or the cast and crew that worked on the film, that are normally the spokespeople, biased at that, for the content. Jael continues by extrapolating on the reason for the data results.

“This new data might just reaffirm for the nth time what we already know about the Oscars — that they desperately need to speak to a wider audience if they want to keep their cultural pedestal.”

As Jael says, the Oscars have become incredibly exclusive in both content of the films being showcased and within the content of the award shows and the speeches given by Hollywood big names. With much of the middle of the country in support of the president, you can’t blame those populations for tuning out of the Oscars which has historically bashed Trump unrelentingly. With the Oscars are slated to air without a host this Sunday, it may be a happy return what the Oscars are truly about, the love of film.

The Responsibility of Celebrity

In the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, also known as the golden age of Hollywood, a “studio system” was in place that involved actors signing on with studios to star in films made only by that specific studio. This system gave birth to the notion of “star power” or the ability for a signal actor to pull in audiences with their real world persona alone. As a result, actors of that era, such as Humphrey Bogart and James Stewart, were more or less mum on their political views, avoiding saying anything that would alienate, no doubt cultivated by the studio executives in private meetings with the actors. One New York Times article reflects on the persona of James Stewart and explains that it was only later, as he retired from the realm of acting, did he engage in politics openly and even avoided commercial attention when he could help it,

|“Mr. Stewart shunned publicity, but was invariably

good-humored with interviewers. In later years, he

was a leading spokesman for conservative political

and economic causes and a frequent campaigner for

Republican political friends.”|

The author’s recording of the apolitical nature of Stewart here, instantly helps to paint a stark contrast with the celebrities of today, for where Stewart waited until his limelight had more or less extinguished, to fully thrust himself into the political realm, the celebrities of today often use said celebrity to thrust themselves within that political realm and even sometimes use their influence to further advance those affiliations.

Starting in the 1960s, no doubt forming alongside the Civil Rights Movement and the breakdown of the exclusivity clauses within actors’ contracts, actors began to be more outspoken about their socio-political affiliations and agendas. Today, that trend has only magnified. Leonardo Dicaprio, for example, has created an entire foundation that revolves around international relations with the ultimate goal of slowing, stopping, and reversing the effects of climate change caused by human pollution. This initiative is, no doubt, largely evident in Dicaprio’s mention of the issue within his Oscar acceptance speech at the 2016 Oscars. While this effort by Dicaprio seems to be a bipartisan, global initiative, there are many celebrities that, arguably, take advantage of their fame in more subjective, arguably morally irresponsible ways. What variety of celebrity manipulation a star is engaging in depends on the answer to the following question, Is the star using a presently valid celebrity OR are they “dredging” up their past celebrity in order to thrust themselves into the limelight to bellow buzzwords and soundbites in order to plug their thoughts? If it turns out to be the latter option, then a certain suggestion of disingenuousness is immediately established, regardless of the star or the issue at hand. One prime example of this lies within the dealings of actress Alyssa Milano. Milano reached a high level of celebrity when she starred in the show Charmed, which aired between 1998 and 2006. Now, she’s most recognizable as the spokesperson within UNICEF commercials. However, Milano continues to ride the celebrity she gained from Charmed to constantly launch politically bias commentaries. Looking at Leonardo Dicaprio as an example in tandem with someone like Alyssa Milano is particularly interesting because it begins to build a spectrum of celebrity manipulation.

An article published by Huffington Post author David Sable entitled “The Power of Celebrity in Politics” explores this phenomenon through the lens of the 2016 presidential election cycle. In the article, Sable attempts to muffle the political power of celebrities by using the 2016 presidential race as an example of multiple hollywood stars coming out in support of Hillary Clinton with their efforts ultimately resulting in a Clinton defeat. Sable concludes by suggesting celebrity power is often exaggerated,

|A quick search and count will tell you that Clinton out celeb’d Trump

by an exponential factor. From Katy Perry to Jennifer Lopez. From the

Kardashians to Tyler Oakley. From Lady Gaga to Beyoncé. From LeBron

James to Alex Rodriguez... she had all bases covered...age, race, actors,

singers, athletes...all tweeting, posting, hashtagging...even doing thinly

veiled public service announcements across multiple platforms to ostensibly

turn out the younger vote. So what happened? Clearly the millions of views

garnered by the stars didn’t do the trick... it didn’t bring out the masses or

ignite any passion for action.|

While Sable’s suggestion seems valid at face value, he is oversimplifying a widespread occurrence by using one instance as the “end all be all.” Moreover, the last line of the excerpt is false, given that a passionate action was very much taken by masses, the country over.

To suggest that celebrities should not voice their political opinions is incontrovertible a suggestion of lunacy for as citizens of the United States, they can and should be vocal. However, when a celebrity clearly uses their celebrity without being fact checked, retorted, or rebutted in any official way, we run the risk of celebrities, and specifically celebrities that have exited the limelight only to return to spread an agenda, spreading misinformation quickly and widely. As a free nation that depends on an educated, misinformation at that scale should be public enemy number one.

Why do we go to the Movies?

Why do we go to the theater? Whether it be for film or theater, attending a production showcased at a theater offers us, as humans, many desirable things: Experiencing emotion along with other humans, seeing other humans go through the same struggles that we encounter throughout our lives, even vicariously seeing other worlds that we will never be able to visit ourselves, through the human characters, gives us some level of satisfaction. However, what would happen if those experiences were played out by non-humans? What if everything we saw in the movies, and I’m speaking specifically about live-action productions, was computer-generated? What if the human characters we saw weren’t actually human? Would the empathetic dimension or the emotional resonance of the experience change? This would have been the type of question asked by a group of friends, who just saw a sci-fi movie in the 80s or 90s, only to be dismissed moments later as products of technology too temporally far away to concern themselves with. That is no longer true. We are in an age in which the very idea of actors could be threatened and, as the audience, we have the responsibility to assess the importance of the inclusion of real flesh and blood humans, not just renderings, in our stories.

Over the past few years CGI technologies within motion pictures have become so advanced that the parameters and rules of thumb that exist within the film and television industries, as formulas that maximize profitability, are about to be thrown out of the proverbial window. As one example of this, many predict that the theory of the “Uncanny Valley.” A theory within the field of robotics, but can also be applied to the critical study of cinema, that refers to the phenomenal unpleasantness of seeing a photorealistic human rendering on screen, won’t be valid anymore. The Uncanny Valley is so named due to the way the data points of the theory are allocated. As photorealism of a human character created by CGI goes up, audience acceptance of the character as a human goes down, at least that’s how it’s been since the inception of the theory. In this way, three-dimensional animated films such as Disney’s Frozen or DreamWorks Animation’s How to Train Your Dragon features human characters with obviously cartoonish models allowing audiences to accept them as human characters in a fantastical world, seperate from said audience. These worlds also usually require the characters to constantly perform acts impossible for human actors to complete successfully so that animation benefits the story being told and it benefits the animators to give the a sort of cartoonish stylization. However, when animation leaves the realm of big-eyed and vibrantly colored characters and delves into photorealism, the “selling” of the characters becomes harders, unless you can do what the creators of Rogue One did.

The Uncanny Valley’s validity is dependent on the ability of a human to differentiate between the organic and inorganic portrayal of humans. However, an article by GQ magazine writer Stuart Mcgurk showcases the very real concern that goes along with the notion that humans inevitably won’t be able to tell that difference,

| “It raises, of course, interesting questions about the future of acting. CGI is no longer about a thesp playing the odd motion-capture monster, but playing CGI humans. Just last year, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story brought Peter Cushing back from the dead 22 years after he had met his maker. Holby City actor Guy Henry played the role, with Cushing's likeness digitally mapped on later.” |

Mcgurk asserts that soon we won’t be able to tell the difference between human actors and CGI characters created to portray human characters. Mcgurk goes on to question the financial and market decision-making that goes on with something like this. Will actors be able to sell their likeness instead of their talent? An interesting question, but it misses the bigger picture.

Before producers and studio executives engage in the mad rush of figuring out how to take advantage of this surge of technology, I think it would be more constructive for them to consider why people go to the theater in the first place. Moreover, as consumers of this particular brand of media, we alone have the power to shape its direction. When portrayal of different races and sexual orientations was determined, by the masses, to be imbalanced, we as consumers decided to champion increased representation, in film and television, for these groups. Since then, the industry has made great strides in this area. Now, in a time when live-action acting could go extinct, we have the power to bring about that sort of change again. In fact, we have a responsibility to do so.