IOWA CITY, Iowa – It isn’t the popular opinion, but all of the Patriots should make the White House visit. If it isn’t for something else planned, there are only reasons for the players to go meet President Trump.

The twist is that by attending they could still convey a message, and possibly a significantly more powerful one.

Earlier this week the University of Iowa Athletic Department held a town hall meeting for its student-athletes. The focus on the meeting, discussing diversity and inclusion. As thoughts were shared, the New England Patriots players who have decided to skip the White House visit were mentioned.

The topic brought about a critical response, from both perspectives. Some felt it hurt the team for the players not to attend, others said they have every right not to go. The media around the much anticipated visit was even brought into question.

Overall, the reaction to the players pledging their absence was that they need to make a statement against what they feel is wrong and that by not attending they will do so. Notable Patriots players Martellus Bennett, Devin McCourty, and LeGarrette Blount all have expressed that they will not attend, citing President Trump or the government as their reasoning.

Others have joined the list of players choosing to stay away. Dont’a Hightower’s reason was he had already attended in college; he also did not attend when the Patriots won Super Bowl XLIX. Alan Branch decided to be with family and Chris Long didn’t give any more reason than he didn’t want to go.

The players holding out because of their disgust or anger with the new President came as no surprise. Many athletes have expressed their displeasure with the President and his actions over the campaign and into office.

Results from many of those who spoke out was what ultimately lacked. High profile statements have a cause and effect. One side will feel empowered while the other will lash back at whatever the statement was, just as it happened when players announced they wouldn’t visit the White House or when Colin Kaepernick sat during the national anthem.

The difference for these players, and the reason why they should still attend, is that they are public figures. They have abilities and opportunities that the average American citizen doesn’t have.

Whether someone is for or against President Trump they have an opinion. And the players have made theirs’ clear, but these players are also being given a chance that everyone else isn’t. A chance to speak to the President himself, in person.

Blount, who has been outspoken about feeling unwelcome in the White House, has the opportunity to meet face to face with the person so many Americans are frustrated with. He has a chance to express his concerns to the source of what many see as the problem. By not attending, he doesn’t have that.

These players can use the White House visit to spread their message to the ultimate target. They have the ability to be ambassadors to the President for the American people. They can be a more direct route than many of the politicians that are also causing frustration.

Being able to stand up for what you believe says more about ones character than letting the opponent win. Not attending sends a message but it brings no tangible results along with it. Speaking to the President does.

The old fashion way of solving problems is to talk it out. Today it is easier to avoid a problem or to speak out with no result than it is to go to the source. Discussion can solve problems; an idea the country was built on.

By these players attending, they would be able to tell the story of how the President acted with them. Was he rude, as many think would happen, or was he willing to talk? Did the President listen to the concerns of the players or did he allow it to go in one ear and out the other?

There would be no more powerful a message to the American people than a professional athlete, someone who to many is a role model, telling them how the President acted and what he said. Being able to say that he listened, or didn’t.

If the Super Bowl Champions, New England Patriots players could return and tell the American people they expressed their thoughts directly to the President it would leave a lasting impact. A message to stand up for themselves but also that discussion to work things through is much stronger a weapon.

The town hall for the student-athletes ended with similar words from the panel. Finding the people who can help tell the message and confronting it head on. Issues today need to be solved by working them out, face to face.

The post All of the Patriots Should Go to the White House appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Movies have a powerful ability to emphasize parts of the world that may not get the most attention. Following this directive, Jackie takes one of the most infamous events in American history and puts a spotlight on an often overlooked figure in the story. Jackie Kennedy was famous for her youth, looks, breathy accent, and seemingly inherent put-togetherness.

Director Pablo Larrain‘s film shows a far more vulnerable humanity that was never seen in the First Lady during her numerous historic television appearances. Natalie Portman, the vehicle through which we experience this contemporary version of Jackie Kennedy, gives a performance that proves to one-up her gonzo effort in Black Swan.

Jackie begins one week after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Jackie Kennedy is giving an interview to a reporter, albeit what she ensures will be a carefully edited one so as to protect both her and her late husband’s public image. The movie switches back and forth between the tense discussion between the two and the events of the tragedy as they relate to Jackie herself.

The film pays due diligence in terms of American iconography; shots include a surprisingly kinetic view of the assassination, little John John during the funeral procession, and of course Jackie’s pink suit. The only difference is we see these in a far more personal light.

We see Kennedy’s injury in grisly detail, we witness the conversation where the children learn about where their father is, the suit is scored with blood marks. Larrain knows the strength of his film lies in showing these recognizable images and casting the stark light of Jackie’s reality over them.

Natalie Portman portrays her character’s struggle with believable agony while the actions she takes to ensure her husband’s legacy elevate the character to near-mythic proportions. We are shown that the First Lady was far more complex than the restrained elegance she was often limited to in her public interactions.

While attempting to ensure her husband will be remembered for more than just being killed, we see Jackie struggle with what even constitutes a legacy. In a moment of bitterness she asks strangers if the names Garfield or McKinley mean anything, referencing previous presidents who were assassinated.

Jackie finds her own legacy in searching for her husband’s. The movie goes to great lengths to ensure our understanding that her efforts to elevate the White House in terms of cultural relevance and style were more than just mere vanity projects.

The film occasionally gets heavy-handed in its delivery with select moments that seem to preach directly at the audience. Those segments do not detract from Portman though, as she is the vehicle through which we experience this affecting struggle for remembrance. While the role certainly delivers some showy moments, Portman shines in the less flashy sections; her portrayal tops mere imitation and seeks to create a wholly new character that had not been discovered until now. The late John Hurt also makes an appearance as a priest close to the family, and it is in their discussions we see Jackie wrestle with many of the the opaque conflicts crashing through her mind.

The film is worth it simply for Portman, who has a legitimate shot at a second Oscar. Its import in strengthened further given that it follows the trend of recent movies that provide insight into lesser seen or understood facets of well-known stories. This is especially important in an America that is finally giving credence to many points of view that were previously ignored, misunderstood, or forgotten entirely.

In Iowa City, Jackie is playing only at Film Scene.

The Movie Dude reviews limited release movies, independent films, and smaller theatrical films. 

The post The Movie Dude: Jackie appeared first on KRUI Radio.

Arun Chaudhary answers this question and more as the first official White House videographer on the second day of the Witching Hour festival at the Englert in Iowa City.

Chaudhary began his speech joking that although now he’s “the most artsy guy in the White House,” he used to be “the most political guy in art school.” He then dived right into the content of his Power Point, explaining that because the digital age we live in is so different from what people have ever seen before, the way we present politics should change, too.

And he has a point – following President Barack Obama, who hired him in the very beginning of his 2008 campaign, the filmmaker has had a chance to see how storytelling works in today’s politics, and has aimed to focus less on the “sleek,” finished look of political photography and more on the backstage, personal, and human aspects of a politician. The main point with which Chaudhary led his talk was the fact that today, with all this instant access of information, people first have to care about something before they look it up. He says, “we need to make politics compelling.”

Chaudhary broke the rest of his speech into two parts, (and this is where the talk’s title begins to make more sense): Authenticity and Authorship.

The filmmaker explained that authenticity had quite a bit to do with narrative. “Put facts into an emotional framework,” he said, as he talked about the narrative he found in our president. He talked about how in order to be authentic and grab attention, he focuses not on what is happening, but about how the character reacts and changes as a response, how the narrative of a politician shows a hero’s journey.

Chaudhary also showed us his recent work as creative director of Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign, calling him “the time stamp of authenticity.” For this campaign he basically took the message Sanders was trying to relate to the American people, that “someone gives a shit about you,” (in Chaudhary’s own words), and applied this narrative for everything media. He showed us a “404 Page Not Found” video featuring the senator standing against a brick wall, telling us to “scoot” to the bottom of the page to get back to the homepage. This video is a perfect example of the narrative in authenticity Chaudhary was explaining – this nice old man cares to personally guide us back to “home,” which follows Sanders’ initial message, and there is nothing staged or fake about it.

Authorship was the next step. Chaudhary’s style is very “hand-painted,” as he said. He wanted to be sure to be as real and gritty with the public and show as much truth and “behind-the-scenes” of Obama and Sanders’ personalities as possible, and we audience members were lucky enough to learn how he did just that. As a cinema major at the University of Iowa, I took avid notes that I am going to share with you now in points:

• A bit of humor makes the dark things seem more okay.

• Authorship in an editing timeline: Cutting audio and video together without overlap reminds a viewer that he or she is watching something from real life.

• “Editing is the ruthless suppression of being insignificant.”

• Be gritty, not glossy. Don’t stage, capture.

• Videos do not educate! Film is art, which represents ideas and points, but words educate. Represent to capture attention, then explain.

• Before you can have an idea, you need a notion.

• Match form to content, not content to form. Chaudhary showed a good example of this in a video comparing George Allen to a prescription drug. The video could be no longer than 15 seconds, which forced the creative way they showcased the content.

• Connect to the people and today’s culture.

• “The medium is the message” (Marshall McLuhan)

• Facts can be superfluous

• Propaganda is making the mundane seem extraordinary. Chaudhary’s grit comes from making the extraordinary seem mundane.

All this takes part in Chaudhary’s definition of authorship.

I feel really grateful to have been able to experience this talk – Arun Chaudhary is a very talented filmmaker as well as a funny, charming speaker who gave me a real look at a type political media most have never seen before. I do believe that soon politics will catch up to the rest of the rapidly evolving world, and it was very exciting to see the man who did it first.

If you’re curious to see what else Arun Chaudhary has done, check out Revolution Messaging or his Tumblr page. To keep up otherwise, follow him on Twitter!

The post Witching Hour: Authenticity and Authorship: Political Storytelling in the Digital Age @ The Englert 11/05/2016 appeared first on KRUI Radio.