Satirical or humorous articles are sometimes mistaken for real news--no matter how ridiculous they sound. However, through this funny and unconventional way these authors make comments about aspects of our society. If you have seen Saturday Night Live, then you have an idea of what I'm talking about. The show's purposes is the same as written satire, to make fun/shed light on current affairs. For a long time, when something outrageous happened, people tuned in to SNL to watch what they would say about it.

Hillary Clinton Quietly Asks Bill If He Still Finds Her Electable

Only a few days after Barack Obama's reelection, rumors started swirling again about the possibility of Hillary Clinton trying to be the Democrat's Presidential candidate for 2016. This article pokes fun at the debate about whether or not Bill thinks she could win the election, if she ran, and disguising it as a marital problem. Instead of asking if Bill still finds her desirable, she asks if he still finds her electable. Instead of talking about their marriage, she talks about how effective is their partnership. This stems from facts and rumors alike that have been compiling themselves throughout the years, since the presidency of Mr. Bill Clinton himself. First of all, we have his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and we also have the rumors of her using him as a trampoline for her own political aspirations, among others that would take too long to write.

Man Takes Day off Work to Help ABC with Ratings Dip

Every week, for a reason I still don't know, entertainment news sites and, according to this article, Yahoo! like to post the ratings of the shows that aired during the week. To top it off they make it sound, like the show is going to disappear if someone doesn't watch it soon! With headlines reading: "OUAT (Once Upon a Time) takes a drastic drop in ratings!", but when you read it it's more like this Sunday 500,000 people decided to watch football instead of watching fairy tale characters kick ass. This satire takes the Chicken Little desperation and puts it on another level, by saying it's ridiculous the amount of importance and sense of impeding doom they put into those real articles.

Live-Tweeted Breakup Becomes Live-Tweeted Murder

Taking a crack at social networking today, where every mundane detail of our lives is published for the whole Internet to see, this satirical article reveals how stupid we actually look, when we are live-tweeting or live-whatever-the-hell something that doesn't concern us. If I look at my Facebook wall, at any given time, there are going to be status updates like: "Just got up! Good morning!" or pictures of food they just made. I'm not saying it's always ridiculous--just sometimes. If you're at a restaurant, and you ordered chocolate cake, and they bring you a three-tiered chocolate cake on fire, take pictures and post them; I want to see that! But, I don't want to see the bowl of soup you bought from the cafeteria. In that aspect, I kind of ran with it, but the article does point out how over-invested we are into putting our lives and the lives of others, as a source of entertainment or information.

* New York Times - Reality Sets In
* Washington Post - Helping the Phillipines will require a massive relief effort
* Chicago Tribune - America's tallest building title goes to New York
* Primera Hora - Un paraiso llamado Puerto Rico

On the editorial, aptly titled, Un paraíso llamado Puerto Rico, Jay Fonseca criticizes how Puerto Ricans only wish to emulate star athletes or beauty queens, instead of intellectuals, who have also brought pride to the island. Between the intellectuals he mentions are: Eduardo Lalo, a writer who recently won the Rómulo Gallegos Award for his novel Simone; Segundo Cardona, the architect who designed Haiti's new cathedral; and Yahaira Sierra Sastre, who is one of the people in charge of preparing for a future expedition to Mars, among others. He also argues that we should spend less time doing banal things (like playing Candy Crush), and spend more time doing investigations or developing something new because this way we can transform Puerto Rico into a real paradise.

Although I agree we should spend more time making our island better and I think he's well-informed about the island's situation, I don't think he realizes that the whole "our-society-is-following-the wrong-kind-of-role-models" situation doesn't only pertain Puerto Rico. It's in our norm (as people) to admire people wealthier or with more power than us. Why do you think people are obsessed with exaggerated figures like the Kardashians or Maripily? Because even if they seem like ditsy, they still have more money than what average Joe and Jane will see in their lives, they hold some pull with their fans and their opinions, and they have business empires under their names.

What I don't agree with is that Fonseca thinks that the answers to our problems as a society lie in us, like it's a New Age mantra. Of course, we do hold the power to do more, but most of these intellectuals are succeeding outside of Puerto Rico or with studies they gained also outside of the Puerto Rico. So our problem does not lie in the fact that people spend too much time writing about their mundane lives on Facebook instead of posting a "selfie" with the caption: "Look who's trying to cure diabetes!!!!!!", or talking about celebrities instead of having an in-depth discussion about the new book an author, no one knows about, published, or not knowing who these people are. It's more about the opportunities that our government doesn't provide, making it harder for us to be our best selves right here, between our shores. I understand he's not saying we should not celebrate our accomplishments in music and sports, instead he's saying that that shouldn't be the only things we care about. "Mi punto no es que no celebremos el deporte, ni la música, ni la belleza, sino demostrar que hay héroes dignos de emular en nuestra Isla a quienes gente común puede llegar a imitar."

In true Fonseca form, his language begins with an expository tone, with a few biting remarks, until it ends up being completely persuasive. Also true to form is the level of passion that is infused into the article, which is the tale-tell sign that he truly cares about our situation, regardless of whether or not you agree with him.

The items on my personal list represent things that irk me to no end, but I would probably just roll my eyes and continue on my merry way. If I'm already mad, then that's a different story. However, the social side represents the things that are either rampant problems in our society or problems that affect other people--not just me. From what I can see on the social list, I value respect for others very highly, so when somebody messes with that, they're already on my bad side. I think people are less empathetic now, and that affects how we deal with our daily lives. 

An example of the social column would be about something I heard today, as a matter of fact. One guy was saying that his girlfriend had two dogs and that they were always in the way, and he joked that when dogs are in the way you kill them and bury them. I couldn't believe that was coming out of his mouth. Two years ago, I lived through seeing my beautiful dog Sparky get sick from one day to another. He became skin and bone, baffling his vet who was giving his all to save him.Those last three weeks of his life, I spent them taking care of him, day and night. It was the most heartbreaking situation. I had never seen the life leave someone's eyes, until that happened. So from that, I don't understand how he would say something like that, specially since his girlfriend probably loves those dogs more than she does herself. For me, the thought of someone killing a dog just because they're existing is utterly wrong, terrible and sad. How can we live in a society so heartless?

Even though I am a Disney fan, I think it has been a long time since I put down my rose-colored glasses. However, Disney's role in my life hasn't diminished one bit. I still sing along to the classic movies' songs, get excited for new movies, and I still watch the classics.

Mickey Mouse Monopoly is a documentary that tries to show that Disney is not as pure, as it appears. After watching it, I have to agree that Disney holds a lot of pull in what our kids think, want and how they behave, but also in popular culture, in general. Like they mentioned, the Walt Disney Corporation (not the Walt Disney Animation Studios) own ABC, ABC Family, Disney Channel, Disney Junior, Disney XD, ESPN, Lifetime (and all of its movie channels), among other things. So they do have a lot of say in what we and our kids watch.

Disney has had problems with how they represent certain parts of society, specifically minorities, which is something that is not uncommon in the world of media. It's wrong, but it happens. I have to be honest most of the things people point out as demeaning or racist went over my head when I was a kid. When I was older, I noticed how Native Americans were portrayed in Peter Pan. The crows in Dumbo, however, I thought they were from the South--not that they were African-Americans, but I do concede on this one. Then, there are the hyenas from The Lion King. I think it's a stretch to think they represent African-Americans. Why? Well, I only saw an African-American woman (Whoopi Goldberg), a Latin American man (Cheech Marin) and an American man (Jim Cummings) voicing the hyenas--not a stereotype like in Peter Pan or in Dumbo. As you can see, not all of the actors are part of minorities, and the ones that are part of them are not part of the same one.

I do not mind analyzing Disney critically, so watching a documentary saying that there are racist undertones in the characterization of minorities in their films is not something that fazes me. However, I did not like that the documentary skimps out on some things. Regarding Latino representation, although I'm pretty sure people want more (including myself), up until 2001 there were three Disney movies that either took place in Latin America or talked about Latin American culture. These were: Saludos Amigos, The Three Caballeros and The Emperor's New Groove. In The Three Caballeros, Donald Duck learns about Latin American culture and the species of birds that live there through birthday presents he opens throughout the movie, and he meets two friends--Panchito, the rooster (from Mexico) and José (from Brazil). This film, the 6th Walt Disney animated feature, stunned a lot of people because it didn't show a downtrodden Latin America, instead it showed its modern cities. Also on 2001, Disney released Atlantis: The Lost Empire, which featured along its characters a doctor of African-American and Native American descent, as well as a Puerto Rican teenage girl as a mechanic. Granted, this documentary came out in 2001, so there was no time to add these characters or for kids to know them either. The point is that, although Latino representation is scarce, it's not all Chihuahua related.

Regarding African-American representation, I would add Uncle Remus from Song of the South (1946), an animated/live-action movie, but that would be poking a bear with a stick. What we need to know is that there was an African-American former slave who told stories about Br'er Rabbit and Br'er Fox, among other animals, to a little boy. The animated part of this movie inspired the ride Splash Mountain in Magic Kingdom and Disneyland, which features the Academy Award winning song, Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. The problem with this movie is that people didn't like the portrayal of former slaves in the live-action part of it, and it is deemed as racist, due to its unclear timeline in history, since there's no clear indication that the movie takes place either before or after the Civil War. From what I've read, what irritated a lot of people was that Disney was trying to be ambiguous about their stance on segregation and civil rights, and it ended up backfiring. I haven't seen it, as a whole, because Disney hasn't re-released it--I've only seen the animated parts of it and Uncle Remus singing Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah--so I can't redeem it or condemn it.

I would also like to point out that there are plenty of voice actors who are African-American who were not cast in a racially demeaning role or portrayed offensively. For example, Mufasa was voiced by James Earl Jones, one of the greatest actors ever. Other examples are: Sarabi, young Nala and Rafiki from The Lion King; Rita, Francis and Roscoe from Oliver & Company; Mushu from Mulan; four dinosaurs from Dinosaur (I will not mention them because I'm pretty sure almost no one will recognize them). As a note, all of these examples are from movies before 2001.

Last but not least, regarding women representation, the early movies do show these princesses as perfect homemakers, but with the Disney Renaissance the animated female characters changed. You don't see Ariel, Belle, Jasmine, Pocahontas, or Mulan cleaning up after anybody, not even attempting to be a housewife. I will only talk about Belle because I think the documentary didn't do her justice. Belle is not a sweet, little girl that lets people push her around. If she doesn't want to do it, she just doesn't. We see this from the beginning, when she rejects Gaston's offer for marriage, and we see it again when she keeps defying Beast every step of the way. He says she'll starve, if she doesn't eat with him; she goes downstairs and eats anyway. He forbids her to go to the West Wing; she goes to explore it. He says she'll be there forever; she escapes. Belle is not nice to Beast, not until she heals him, as a thanks for saving her from the wolves. That's when she starts being nice. If she thought that being nice could change a person, she could have stayed with Gaston, whose idea of what a woman should be is frankly terrifying. The documentary talked about Beast, when they should have really been talking about Gaston.

Michael Eisner's (former Disney CEO) quote, about only caring about the money, was one of the few things I learned.The quote sounds awful any way you twist it around, but he was the head of the company and this is Corporate America, so even if I don't like it, it's sad to say it doesn't surprise me that much. However, I do want to note that he, of course, will not care about the art or the legacy that these films will leave, but he's not involved in the creative process anyway; he's just the one with the money to fund them. If they would have asked somebody from any of the many studios, under the Disney Company wing (Pixar, Ghilbi, DisneyTOON, Walt Disney Animation Studio, among others), they would have answered differently; they know how much their stories affect other people. In another documentary I watched about the rise of Pixar Studios, I think it was John Lasseter who said something along those lines, and that was his reason for worrying so much about the products they present.

My point of view didn't change, after viewing the documentary. I do think that the way some women were portrayed was wrong or inaccurate and that they did base some characters on racial or cultural stereotypes, but Disney's representation has been changing throughout the years--especially since the Disney Renaissance. For example, Brave not only shows a princess that does not have a prince, but it also features the dynamic of the mother-daughter relationship, which I think only The Little Mermaid's sequel touched upon before. The difference being that Melody (Ariel's daughter) is not an official princess; Merida is. I understand why people berate them, but at least they're changing their ways. (And we're only talking about animated movies from the Walt Disney Animation Studio--not all the movies under the Disney Company's wing). After 2001, there was even more change with movies like Brother Bear and Lilo and Stitch (specifically the character of Nani). I'm not saying that, from then on, everything they did was mistake-free, but the audience can see the difference between how the early movies were and how they are now. The name Disney is attached to this movie called The Princess Diaries, which catapulted Anne Hathaway into Hollywood. During this movie's sequel, when Mia and Lily are looking at eligible bachelors, there's one who Mia thinks is very handsome. Joe, the queen's bodyguard, says that the bachelor's boyfriend thinks so too, to which Lily and Mia respond: "Right on!" From the times I've seen it on cable, this part has never been "edited" out, and that fact--along with the very existence of this scene--proves to me that this is not the same company as before.

From pop to rock, from musicals to country, I have a seemingly eclectic taste in music. My taste in music is powered by my love for the lyrics; of course, I love the music behind it, but I think I love good storytelling a bit more. Having to choose only one song that I really like is my own Sophie's Choice. Choosing a song that I hate, though, is also hard because I usually don't pay attention to the genres or artists I don't like. If it's my choice, I don't listen to them because if I do, even if I utterly hate them, I will eventually memorize the song. That's not good.

And the victors of the 1st (ever) Hunger Games of Music are:

This song is from Demi Lovato's newest album, Demi. I have been listening to this one on repeat, along with others, for almost two weeks now. I like that it talks about that one true love that you don't have. The lyrics transport you to a forest filled with sameness, but the person who can guide you through it all is not there. Yet that person is all you need. 

She wrote it for her best friend, who committed suicide when she was thirteen, yet when I hear it, although I do hear the sadness and desperation, I relate it to a person who is not there not because they left, but because they haven't arrived. You don't know who this person is, yet you want them there because they'll make everything better, somewhat similar to what you hear in John Mayer's Love Song for No One. I think this is easily among her best songs because lyrically you can see how much he still means to her, but because the listener can relate it to other experiences, like I have. The music is haunting, but beautiful, and it brings out the depth of this song's message.

I can't say enough how much I dislike Justin Bieber's music, and I will never understand what his fans see in him. However, I respect that they like him, and I would never insult them over something that they like. Hey, I've been there! I get it! Like you already know, I listen to pop music a lot; it's basically my go-to music, while I'm driving, so it's no surprise that I will stumble across his music. Those are not happy times. I remember the first time I heard this song. My dad was driving me to the train station, since I didn't have a car back then, and when I heard it I wanted to smash my head into the window. As lyrics go, I think they're nonsense. I'm trying to be polite here, but a slew of very colorful and explicit words come to mind, when I hear the countdown to his falsetto, and, as a Disney fan, I want to grab Buzz Lightyear from this song and never give him back. Just no.

If the trick was for his fans to imagine themselves as his girlfriend, then it worked for them, but not for me. If anyone comes and sings this to me--and I'm not talking in a jokingly manner--I would either not say a word and just walk away, or say too much, like a butt-face miscreant insult. The thing about this song and him, as a musician, is that I can't take him seriously. How do you want to do more than just your mere fifteen minutes of fame, and still come out with a song that seems to have been written by a twelve year old? I think that's an insult to twelve-year-olds everywhere, so for that I apologize. The fact is this insipid song was written by four people. Did it really take all of these minds to come up with wonderful lines like: "Imma make you shine bright like you're laying in the snow. Burr."? Brilliance, right? One of the greatest songs, in my opinion, is Bohemian Rhapsody, and that was written by one person, Freddy Mercury.

I think that, for someone that likes to pretend he's a grown up, he should pull up his big boy pants (literally), and do something more meaningful. Swaggie. Bleh!

I'm very surprised at the results. Not because I'm not happy person, since I know that I generally am, but because the first thing I started to write about was my worries. A lot of the words in the "exasperating" column seem harsh, but they're out context, so you'll have to take my word for it when I say I'm not as crazy as it sounds. It's no surprise that, when I start talking about the book I'm reading, dogs or Christmas, happy words are going to come out. I didn't notice, while writing it, but I went from the things that sometimes keep me up at night to the things that make me smile. I wrote seven paragraphs, and most of the words in the "exasperating" column are from my first three paragraphs.

It's not the first time I do a stream-of-consciousness writing session. I actually do them quite a lot, especially when I have writer's block. I think it's fun, even though when I strike the wrong key or something I want to change it or use the wrong word I get a bit frustrated. The first time I did this I had no idea how to let the thoughts flow from my head to the page without thinking about it. With practice, it's pretty easy to open the gates and let the words come out. I do admit I've got a "monkey, monkey, underpants" situation, where one thought leads to another even if they don't make sense to anyone but me.

Through this exercise, I confirmed what I've always thought about myself. Even if I'm stressed and want to yell at the wind, I still make a point to see the happiness--the silver lining, if you will. I find it funny that even though I started talking about the bad, I ended up talking about the good. Maybe my weird thoughts are onto something.

Remember yourself.

Here we have one movie I had no clue about, but now I need to see, and another movie that I was looking forward to seeing, but now I'm not so sure anymore. The reviews for these two movies, 12 Years a Slave and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2, were good at hooking the reader on their respective's films' premises. The summaries were short, sweet and concise, and as a plus they didn't spoil the movie, which is something I’m wary of when I’m reading a film review.

The reviewer of 12 Years a Slave, Paul MacInnes, was impressed by the performances of Paul Giomatti, Michael Fassbender and Benedict Cumberbatch. He compares this Toronto film festival movie with last year’s Oscar-nominated blockbuster of a similar theme, Django Unchained. I think it’s a smart move to compare the Quentin Tarantino directed film with this one because it gives the reader something to refer back to, especially considering the success the Tarantino film garnered last Christmas. I can’t say whether or not I agree with the reviewer because I haven’t seen the film, but my interest has been piqued, and I'm curious to see if the film will live up to its glowing review.

On the other hand, the review of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 wasn't as glowing. From what I can take from Tom Russo's review, he's basically calling the movie a rehash of concepts found in other successful animated films like The Croods, The Lorax and Wreck-It Ralph. He also points out that there's no reason for this sequel, since for him there was no reason for the characters to go to that island in the first place; in other words, he's saying this movie was unnecessary. I'm not sure if I believe him, since there are times critics destroy movies in their reviews and they turn out to be classics or cult-favorites. I'm not saying this is a Citizen Kane or a Ghostbusters, but we can't take every word the reviewers say to heart. I'll judge the movie when I see it, but I'm not going to go see it in theaters; I'll just wait for it to be on Netflix, no rush.

My reviews are similar to these two, however my Les Misérables review has more information in it than a regular spectator would get out of watching the movie one time. I think I could have delved into talking more about the actor's specific performances instead of talking about them as an ensemble. My Chronicle review was shorter than the first one, but it's probably because I didn't like it, so I didn't have too much to say.

Chronicle is a story about three Seattle teenagers that gain superpowers, like telekinesis and the ability to fly, after coming in contact with an unknown object they found in a hole. Bullied Andrew, his cousin Matt and popular boy Steve bond over these newly found abilities, while they discover that the more they exercise them, the more control they have of them. However, Andrew's rough home life and outcast status in school make him start using his powers for darker purposes, instead of only mischief like his friends, and they don't know if they'll be able to stop him.

This movie, Josh Trank's directorial debut, is presented through what's called "found footage," which means that the events shown are snips from different video sources like security cameras or cellphone cameras. It gives the effect that these events happened in reality and that they were recorded on the spot. If I'm not mistaken, I think The Avengers used this technique at different points of the final battle scene, but Chronicle uses it in the entirety of the film, not just a part. Even though this technique is very interesting and it adds a layer of realism to the film, I think, if not edited correctly, it can make the movie very choppy, creating "plot holes" and sacrificing character development in the process.

The actors' performances--Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell and Michael B. Jordan--are not subpar. They did exactly what they set out to do--portray three normal teenage boys, whose lives have completely changed by gaining superpowers, something every little boy dreams about. However, they could have been explored more deeply, specially Andrew's; it feels like the director and his team missed an opportunity there.

The disappointment, for me, comes from the fact that I expected more out of the film. The premise is interesting and it hooks the audience for a moment, but it's not enough. It needs either more action, more drama, more analysis, more something, so by the middle of the movie I'm not checking my phone over and over, wondering when the movie is going to end.

From Victor Hugo’s eponymous master novel and the adaptation of it in musical form by Claude-Michel Schöenberg and Alain Boublil, comes this Oscar-winning film adaptation of Les Misérables by director Tom Hooper (The King's Speech). It’s not the novel's first film adaptation, but it is the first to be based off the musical, as well as the novel. The project was announced by producer Cameron Mackintosh, at the end of the musical’s 25th Anniversary Concert at the O2, after that the film was followed by the speculations of who were the actors who’d be part of its stellar cast. The film is the first time the actors in a musical are singing live instead of matching their voice to a playback recording. This movie had a lot to prove, and it set out to do it.

The story of Les Misérables can be divided in three interrelated stories—almost in a Russian doll style (a story within a story). The first one is about  convict Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman, X-Men)—or prisoner 24601—who spent the last nineteen years of his life being a member of a chain-gang in Toulon, as part of his sentence for stealing a loaf of bread and trying to escape several times. He is given a yellow ticket of leave by the unwavering, law-abiding officer Javert (Russell Crowe, Gladiator), which means he will be on parole forever because he has been deemed a dangerous man. When he arrives to Digne and meets the town’s bishop, he has to decide what he’s going to do with his life. His choices set off a chase of cat and mouse between Javert and himself.

The second story is set eight years later, and it starts off with one of Monsieur Madeleine’s factory workers, Fantine (Anne Hathaway, The Devil Wears Prada), being fired and thrown to the streets, having to fend for herself, because she has an illegitimate child and she's paying a pair of innkeepers (Sacha Baron Cohen, The Dictator, and Helena Bonham Carter, The King’s Speech), to take care of her.

The third story starts in 1832 in Paris with a group of students and activists in favor of the Republic, known as Les Amis de l’ABC, who are planning a revolution against the government. Their leader is Enjolras (Aaron Tveit), with Combeferre (Killian Donnelly) and Courfeyrac (Fra Fee) as second and third in command; or the trio better known in the book as the chief, the guide and the center. Marius (Eddie Redmayne, My Week with Marilyn), one of the members of Les Amis, finds himself—unknowingly—in between a love triangle, when both Cosette (Amanda Seyfried, Letters to Juliet) and Éponine (Samantha Barks) have feelings for him. 

This is a movie about choices—between law and morality—about love and, ultimately, about forgiveness. Among its themes, we can find the protagonists' relationship with God, the character's personal struggles to do what is right (whatever they think that is), and how far people will go for the ones they love. Les Misérables is a complex movie, full of nuances that take time to uncover, and it can easily be dismissed as nothing more than a movie that can tug the heart’s strings. 

Avid fans will be likely to point out that the movie has some "plot holes," however the film is already two hours and a half long, and it's an adaptation. During the transfer from one medium to another, it's going to lose some details, but that's nothing new. The book is 1,400+ pages long, if they decided to put everything in, how long would that movie be? Ten hours, at least? Instead they should focus on the many good qualities it has like the historical accuracy in the costumes, the breathtaking CGI (Computer-generated imagery) crane shots, the music, or the new song composed by the original team that created the musical--just to name a few. 

Although some critics and fans alike have some problems with the casting, I’m pleased with it, and it's one of my favorite qualities of the film. I like that there’s a mixture of A-list actors, West End actors and one Broadway actor. What most people don’t know is that all of them have ties to either musical theater or the musical Les Misérables itself. For example, all the West End actors (Donnelly, Fee and Barks) have played characters in the stage-version, with Donnelly and Barks playing Courfeyrac and Éponine, respectively, in the 25th Anniversary concert. Each of the actors brought out something special out of their characters, and I, sincerely, believe that the movie wouldn't be what it is without this specific cast.

The live-singing while filming, although it was a feat for the actors, paid off in the end. It gave the actors more liberty in terms of range of emotion, instead of having to stick to the emotion the playback was giving. This added pungency to the film and added a layer of realism to the characters.

As a last note, if you don't like musicals, or if you get the feeling you'll ram your head into a wall when you listen to people singing for long periods of time, then this is not the movie for you; you can probably count with your hands the times something is actually spoken. If you don't care about that, then I invite you to watch this story about love, hope and forgiveness. It's a movie that deserved all it got and probably more. It also opened up the possibility for other musicals to be adapted into movies, after what this movie pioneered to do.

Les Misérables Cast's Oscars Performance
Hugh Jackman - Suddenly
Cast - One Day More (Oscars Version)