‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ Season 2: An emotionally intense and relentlessly brutal return to Gilead
Disclaimer: This review contains some spoilers for this season and previous episodes of The Handmaid’s Tale.
Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of Ball State Daily's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
205 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
Disclaimer: This review contains some spoilers for this season and previous episodes of The Handmaid’s Tale.
by Emily Reuben Disclaimer: This review contains some spoilers for this season and previous episodes of The Handmaid's Tale. The Handmaid's Tale really is a wild ride, and Season 2 doesn't stop pulling the punches. We have hangings, mutilations, beatings, a whole array of terrible things really. Why do we watch this again? Because despite all the horrible things that happen, the show is brilliant. Not only is the political commentary relevant (very relevant), the show is beautifully shot, (mostly) well written, and features amazing actors that really bring the characters to life. As long as the show keeps delivering on these things, I will be watching. But will it keep delivering? Season 2 is definitely entertaining, but it is certainly not without its faults, and many of the writing decisions are largely divisive among viewers. However, despite some gripes here and there and the controversial season finale, The Handmaid's Tale remains one of the most beautiful, well-crafted shows currently streaming.
Image from Dragon Age Wiki
We're back witches, with another magical episode of the Coven Podcast. This week, we're looking at the issues surrounding Channel Awesome. From sexual harassment, rape scripts, mismanagement, and non-apologies for all this, it seems to be one of YouTube's many sinking ships. Is this a symptom of the greater issues with YouTube? With Hollywood? How did it get this bad? Is there any surviving this scandal? We'll examine the Channel Awesome Implosion as a what NOT to do when faced with such a wide-ranging scandal. Let's talk about the State of the YouTube: will it survive as a platform? Are we all just being nostalgic for the good old days? Are these issues just growing pains?
In the video aggregate site’s most recent response to controversies surrounding former content producers, Channel Awesome has seemingly revealed the identity of a sexual predator who used to work in association with the company.
By Emily Reuben Shaky, handheld cinematography has become increasingly popular in cinema. Audiences tend to like real, seemingly truthful situations in their media, and what better way to achieve this by using a shooting style anyone can achieve with a smartphone? This style of filmmaking places audiences directly into the action and seems all the more real and relatable. Typically we see this style in the horror genre (think Blair Witch or Cloverfield), but what about other genres? More specifically, what about documentaries? While documentaries are not typically based around fictional characters and elaborately crafted narratives, this style can be seen in documentary film. We call this technique cinema vérité. Cinéma vérité (literally: “true cinema” in French) is a film movement from the 1960s that aims to capture real people and situations in as truthful a light as possible. This is done with minimal editing, authentic dialogue, and minimalistic camerawork (typically handheld).
by Emily Reuben With the sudden surge of teens in the headlines, I think it’s appropriate to highlight another documentary that showcases activism by American youth. This week we are going to look at a film that highlights the perils faced by young people when they are not listened to: Netflix’s Audrie and Daisy. The documentary focuses on Audrie Pott and Daisy Coleman, two high school students who both experienced cyberbullying, vandalism, and exclusion after being sexually assaulted. Audrie Pott, a student at Saratoga high school in California, had gone to a party with a group of peers. While she was unconscious, a group of boys violated her and shared pictures of the assault amongst their peers under the guise of “a prank.” After the images of Audrie circulated around her school, other students taunted her. It’s no secret that sexual assault is a major issue in our society. What is even more terrifying, however, is the added effect social media has on the victims after the fact. In the case of Audrie and Daisy, pictures were shared amongst their high school peers and intense cyberbullying ensued, going so far as to provoke Audrie Pott to take her own life. Daisy and her friend Paige Parkhurst were sexually assaulted in the house of some older boys who had given the pair alcoholic drinks. One of the boys was a star on the high school football team and the grandson of a local politician. Despite confessions of giving alcohol to the pair and having sex with the girls, the people who assaulted Daisy and Paige had their case dismissed. No one in any position of power believed what these girls were saying. The legal system did not care that these girls aged 14 and 13 said that they were raped and assaulted. At one point in the documentary, the sheriff insinuates that Paige and Daisy were “making a lot of things up that really didn’t happen…” He then went on to insinuate that the reason the girls were making this up was to get attention and because society pressures girls to be pretty, popular, and well-liked. After the charges were dismissed, the entire incident became a national headline, even reaching the point where the hacktivist collective Anonymous threatened to bring justice to Daisy’s town if the justice system would not. Daisy and her family finally got their day in court and no charges were filed. After the courts found the boys innocent, the online hate started pouring in. People in Paige’s town started making threats, vandalizing Paige’s house, lost her mother a job, and ultimately ended up burning her house to the ground.
The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board.
Logan Paul made huge waves when he released his now infamous vlog where he filmed a corpse in Japan’s Suicide Forest. Despite his public apology Paul has continued to remain in the public eye,drawing attention from various sources such as The New York Times, Daily Mail, and Business Insider. This widespread attention has forced many to consider the powerful influence YouTubers have on their audiences.
by Emily Reuben Logan Paul made huge waves when he released his now infamous vlog where he filmed a corpse in Japan’s Suicide Forest. Despite his public apology Paul has continued to remain in the public eye, drawing attention from various sources such as The New York Times, Daily Mail, and Business Insider. This widespread attention has forced many to consider the powerful influence YouTubers have on their audiences. But what about the impact vloggers like Logan Paul have on filmmakers? To answer this question, we spoke with Jeremy Rubier, a French-Canadian filmmaker who has traveled the world for the past ten years to create new videos. Jeremy has created videos for various companies, including Red Bull and Vice. His new short film, Toyooka, is a direct response to Logan Paul’s controversial video.
by Emily Reuben The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board. In recent weeks, high schoolers have been making headlines across the country for walking out of school and participating in demonstrations against gun violence. No, I’m not going to cover a documentary on gun violence. Instead I want to focus on children in the news, but not as subjects; these are the children actually writing the headlines for publication. The short documentary When Kids Wrote the Headlines: The Children’s Express/Y-Press Story details an Indianapolis program that allowed children as young as 10 to work alongside their slightly older peers under the watch of reporters for the Indianapolis Star. The kids didn’t just work on local stories though. They went all around the world talking to world leaders including Supreme Court judges, Presidents, and young people living in Cuba and in the run-down suburbs of Paris. These kids were doing work many professionals don’t get the opportunity to do. WFYI Indianapolis states that during the program’s 24 year run, “More than 1,750 young Hoosiers ages 10 to 18 learned the craft of gathering information and presenting it in print and broadcast reports that were used by The Indianapolis Star, WFYI and other media outlets.” That’s invaluable real-world experience that is simply not offered in a typical classroom environment. These children’s stories were getting printed on the front page of the Indianapolis Star right along side the articles written by professionals in the prime of their careers. It’s really hard not to feel amazed by what the team of kids were able to do in the program. Several former participants in the program were interviewed for the making of this documentary, and it is really interesting to see what some of these kids went on to do after being involved in Y-Press. Counting attorneys, ministers, accountants, non-profit founders, and even a producer at Vice News, Children’s Express definitely has some distinguished members among its alumni. For all of the great things highlighted in this story, the whole documentary cannot help but be tinged with a sense of sadness. Be it the opportunities given to kids, the amazing work they were able to do, the personal growth that came with the work that they did, or the successful careers the kids took up after their time at Y-Press, unfortunately the program ended in 2012 when the economy forced the paper to shutter the program to save money. Y-Press most certainly offered valuable professional skills to Indianapolis children, and it’s incredibly disheartening that such an educational, impactful program had to shut it’s doors. Luckily children are inserting themselves back into the news cycle again in 2018. If anything, this documentary shows the power of children when they organize and work together. It also shows how empowering young people to tell stories that are relevant to their experiences can shift a lot of people’s perspectives. Today, our youth is making strides towards change, be it in the form of writing headlines or protesting in the streets. Yet despite their efforts, there is still a stigma against children and teens becoming involved in news or politics. To me that’s absurd. We need to encourage the younger generation to speak out and make a difference, not silently conform to what they are told is correct. With the defunding of Y-Press many children are losing the opportunity to speak and tell stories. They are losing the opportunity to report, question, and speak with others in a professional setting. In a time where ethical journalism is so desperately needed and voices are so often silenced, the loss of Y-Press is a major loss. Hopefully we will see programs like these emerge again and give children the opportunity to tell their stories and get involved. If you’re interested in viewing content produced by Y-Press, be sure to check out the archive. Looking for more interesting documentaries? Good because I have an unhealthy amount of recommendations! Be sure to check back next week for more Documenting Docs!
The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board.
The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board.
By Emily Reuben The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board. Recently I talked about Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will, and no, we still aren’t done with her yet. This time we are going to look at her less controversial and infinitely more interesting film: Olympia. Olympia is a two-part documentary that covers the 1936 Olympic Games held in Berlin. This was an interesting time for Germany, and the whole world really, who would be entering World War II in the few years following the film’s release. Like I discussed in my article on Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl’s filmmaking was so revered by Hitler that she was granted complete creative control. This is also the case with Olympia. Riefenstahl worked directly with organizers of the Olympic Game so that she could craft the best possible film. And what she did craft is indeed excellent. Now full disclosure; I hate sports. I can’t watch most sports films without falling asleep, and any sports game I’ve been to has been “eh” at best. So I fully admit that someone out there can probably point out some equally important and well-done sports documentaries. But when I say Olympia is a expertly-crafted and interesting film, I truly do mean it. I may not like sports, but very rarely did I become disengaged with the action on screen. Each athlete is filmed with such careful precision that details each and every movement in a captivating way. I mean, Riefenstahl manages to make divers appear as if they are diving into the sky, which is really cool to see. She really was dedicated to shooting not only a documentary, but something beautifully engaging. Say what you will about Riefenstahl, but she is an incredibly adept filmmaker. Case in point, the opening sequence of the documentary. Instead of jumping directly into the games, Riefenstahl places an emphasis on the immense timelessness of the games. Statues of ancient Greek athletes are clad in smoke and dissolve into one another as the shots transition. These otherwise lifeless statues are given movement and life through her careful editing, and eventually the statues fade into real athletes. It is examples like these unique editing choices, nearly perfect shot composition, and interesting juxtapositions that arguably make Olympia one of the greatest sports documentaries of all time. It would be a crime to not talk about the infamous Jesse Owens sequence. Let me tell you, watching Jesse Owens literally destroy the competition during the 200m competition is one of the most satisfying things I have ever watched. There is something so appealing about a African-American man showing up the competition in front of Adolf Hitler. In fact, it’s worth mentioning that for a film made by Hitler’s filmmaker, Americans are shown succeeding in a lot of the sports. You would think that Riefenstahl would steer away from showing Germans being defeated, but this simply wasn’t the case. It’s clear that she had a very strong dedication to showing the entire event in all its glory. Now don’t get me wrong, Hitler appears semi-frequently. Riefenstahl makes a point to show Hitler’s reactions to certain events. But while Hitler is shown occasionally, it’s debatable if she gives him the same praise she offered him in Triumph of the Will. Yes, he certainly is shown in a pretty good light, one of the key reasons she was filming was to make Germany look powerful and capable, which she does to an extent, but she never does this by censoring events or overplaying a certain figure, like Hitler’s, influence. No, the film is first and foremost about the Olympics, not Nazi Germany, and that is largely why this film is still so easily enjoyable. After the film’s release and great success, Riefenstahl aimed to get a job in Hollywood. According to a BBC article:
It’s Women’s History Month! What better way to begin than by highlighting the work of a Nazi filmmaker? No, I’m not kidding.
By Emily Reuben The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board. It’s Women’s History Month! What better way to begin than by highlighting the work of a Nazi filmmaker? No, I’m not kidding. Now let me explain my choice to cover her. Let’s say you really dislike someone. You think they’re arrogant, annoying, mean and a handful of other synonymously awful things. But here’s the catch: that person is still insanely talented. You may hate them, but they can dance, act and direct, and that makes you angry. That basically summarizes my feelings towards Leni Riefenstahl. She’s responsible for crafting Nazi propaganda for Hitler, but at the same time is an incredibly talented filmmaker. In fact, Riefenstahl is the first female filmmaker to garner international attention. Of course one of the first famous female filmmakers would be a Nazi. Despite my dislike of her as a person, we do need to talk about dear old Leni. Riefenstahl grew up in Germany in the first decade of the 20th Century. Initially working as a dancer who was talented enough to tour Europe at 22, she started starring in various films (specifically in the “German Mountain Film” genre) at the age of 24. Obviously she had a lot going for her, so how exactly did this talented young women become one of history's most controversial filmmakers? After being inspired by one of Hitler’s speeches, Riefenstahl contacted the man himself and the two began correspondance with one another. Riefenstahl’s first film Das Blaue Licht or “The Blue Light” impressed Hitler so much that he actually asked her to film the annual Nuremburg Rally. The result of Hitler’s request is Sieg des Glaubens or “Victory of the Faith,” a film that Riefenstahl later deemed unimpressive. When Hitler next asked Riefenstahl to create Triumph des Willens, better known as Triumph of the Will, Riefenstahl was given assurance that no one would meddle in her work giving her unwavering support and artistic freedom. To quote an article by Kara Peterson from St. Edwards University,
In August of 2005, Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf of Mexico. Thousands of homes were destroyed, cities were left underwater, and numerous people were stranded. By all accounts, Hurricane Katrina is one of the most deadly natural disasters in United States history. However, even more tragic than the storm was the government’s treatment of those affected and its disregard for human life.
by Emily Reuben The opinions and views expressed in Documenting Docs are those of the author and do not reflect the opinion of Byte or Byte’s editorial board. In August of 2005, Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf of Mexico. Thousands of homes were destroyed, cities were left underwater, and numerous people were stranded. By all accounts, Hurricane Katrina is one of the most deadly natural disasters in United States history. However, even more tragic than the storm was the government’s treatment of those affected and its disregard for human life. When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts first aired in two parts on HBO in August 21 and 22, 2006 to shed light on the tragedy that was Hurricane Katrina. Director Spike Lee is no stranger when it comes to highlighting government inaction and the treatment of the lower class and minorities. Many of Lee’s films, even his non-documentary films like Do The Right Thing and Chi-Raq, address similar themes. Lee is one of my favorite directors not only because of his great storytelling but also because of his bluntness; he never shies away from making pointed statements about the treatment of African-Americans. While this has caused some controversy, most of it seems to stem from non-black audiences that feel uncomfortable with the statements being made. To give you a better idea of just how ridiculous many of the criticisms directed towards Lee are, I would like to highlight a comment made by Lee in Rolling Stone’s article, Fight the Power: “Spike Lee on ‘Do The Right Thing’”. When asked by the interviewer what Lee’s favorite reaction to the film was, Lee responded with this: