Throughout this seminar class, we have watched many movies that revolved around the New York setting, with each film uniquely conveying its own message about this fascinating city. My favorite work, however, was definitely Wall Street by Oliver Stone. It depicted the corporate world of NY and revealed a very important truth about it: becoming a success in such a competitive environment often requires resorting to corruption and getting ones hands dirty. It’s unfortunate, but it’s inevitable, and like they say: it is what it is, right?

Stone literally (and accurately) portrayed Wall Street as a jungle: there exist people like Bud Fox, who are the vulnerable prey trying hard to survive and make a living, and then there are people like Gordon Gekko, who are the voracious predators destroying and eating anyone in their way just to make it big in the city.

And with such a jungle-like atmosphere inescapably comes the application of Charles Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. Unlike Gekko, Bud was unfit for working in such a risky, dangerous, competitive world. On the other hand, Gekko, the opulent and legendary stockbroker who Bud aspired to become, took advantage of Bud, who was so desperate to become affluent like him, and got him to do insider trading for him.

In the end, Bud lost everything he ever really cared about. He lost his girlfriend, Darien, betrayed his father and led him to a heart attack, compromised his moral integrity, and was arrested and looking at jail time for insider trading. But what ever happened to Gekko you might ask? Nothing. What a joke! It’s sad, but truth of the matter is that rich people have money, and that equals power. And with this power comes privilege. Simple.

I really appreciated this movie for it showed how greedy the human mind really is (even though we often don’t want to admit it). One quote that really spoke to me from Wall Street was when Michael Douglass notoriously stated: “Greed is good.” And in class, I couldn’t help but notice that many people viewed this quote as something negative; after all, greed is bad, right?

But honestly, if you really think so, you’re just being a HYPOCRITE! Just like fear, anger, sex, and rivalry, greed is ALSO a natural human instinct. Greed is actually the mere gathering of resources that allow an organism to survive and reproduce, and the more the better! These resources range from food, to water, to shelter. Without these things, the organism dies. And in this capitalistic society, money becomes a very important resource for survival, because without it we can’t provide for ourselves.

And this is exactly what I loved about the movie: it showed the true nature of the human mind that we all possess and don’t like to admit we have.

When I think of a “sell out” you know who pops right into my mind? Iggy Azalea, pure and simple. This renowned female rapper ironically begins her hit song “Fancy” with the lyrics “First things first, I’m the realest.” Ummmm…all I have to say to that is: HA! I agree to disagree. Iggy was born and raised in Australia, and moved to Miami at the age of 16 to pursue her rapping career where she met rapper TI, who produced her first single “Glory.” And now, this girl raps about growing up on the streets, having a tough life, being in the “murda business,” and being associated with some other things that don’t even pertain to her life.

I have to admit, she can come up with some good rhymes, and her music is catchy (hence the reason her singles were on the Top 100 Hits twice in a row), but her songs lack meaning and veracity. She sings about things that she doesn’t believe in and has never experienced, and therefore, her songs are of no value and deliver no important message to listeners whatsoever. Iggy creates commercially successful music that is solely for the purpose of appealing to the American public, and consequently compromises her true identity and values. She even avoids rapping in her Australian accent, and instead, chooses to take on what many critics call a “southern black girl” accent. And that’s exactly what I call a sell out.

But don’t get me wrong, there is such a thing as producing a form of art that can make one a lot of money and at the same time, convey a meaningful idea to audiences. Movies such as Wall Street and Taxi Driver are examples of two great works in which producers Martin Scorsese and Oliver Stone managed to accomplish both of these goals without being sellouts. Both of these films revealed the type of life that New Yorkers living in different areas of the city and time periods had undergone. In Wall Street, for example, Stone’s movie depicted the corruption, greed, and competition that was, and still is prevalent on Wall Street through the characters of Bud Fox and Gordon Gekko. And in Taxi Driver, Scorsese portrayed the filthy, perilous, and prostitution-filled Times Square before Disneyfication through the eyes of post-Vietnam veteran, Travis Bickle.

Without a doubt, these movies were very lucrative, with Taxi Driver making $28 million, and Wall Street $44 million. Both of these great films conveyed the unfortunate and true message that in New York, it’s all about survival of the fittest and that “a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do to make it in this city.” Some people become pimps, some turn to prostitution, and others simply resort to cheating people out of their money. These two ingenious producers (who did I mention were born AND raised in New York) successfully created two exceptional movies that were prosperous and entertaining, and had most certainly delivered an important message to their audiences.

You know the saying “People tend to only remember the bad things in life but forget the good”? Well after watching a bunch of movies in my seminar class about NYC, in which NY was portrayed in a positive and negative light, the only movie that I can still vividly recall is “Wall Street”, directed by Oliver Stone. This movie truly left its mark on my perception of NYC, for now this metropolis carries a negative connotation, and embodies a society filled with corruption, greed, and people who will do just about anything to rise in social status.

I always thought of my city as the epitome of the American Dream, full of jobs and equal opportunities for everyone. However, Stone blatantly showed that when it comes to New York, such lofty expectations are far from accurate. Through the character of Bud Fox (an ambitious junior stockbroker), I learned that it is possible to achieve the American Dream, but it comes at a price. One must be willing to “bend the rules,” betray peoples’ trusts, sacrifice one’s own moral integrity, and ultimately, become a corrupt individual. Bud Fox was sick and tired of being part of the middle class; he idolized his hero, Gordon Gekko, a notorious Wall Street player and aspired to rise in the social ladder and become rich like him. But despite the fact that Gekko was loaded with money (literally), he was still greedy for more. He took advantage of desperate Bud, who was willing to do anything to get rich, and convinced him to do inside trading for him. In return, Bud got a taste of the “good life.” Soon, however, Bud came to the realization that Gekko wasn’t a friend, but rather a greedy, selfish bastard! But Bud was late; he had already lost the girl he liked, betrayed his father, and was going to prison. This movie just proved to me that NYC is actually dominated by the money-hungry, corrupt elite and that it takes getting one’s hands “dirty” to be able to make it BIG in this city.

Similarly, the movie “Taxi Driver”, directed by Martin Scorsese offers a dark view of NY through the story of former US Marine, Travis Bickle. Travis had insomnia and as a result, became a nighttime taxi driver. Travis described the defiled city of NY as one full of slums, filthy criminals, and prostitutes. The setting of the film (Times Square before Disneyfication) conveyed that people in the city, especially from the lower class, will go to just about any lengths to survive. People will rob others, kills others, and resort to prostitution just to make a quick buck.

So in short, I learned one thing from both these movies: it’s all about survival of the fittest when it comes to New York City…and that’s the cold truth! Here, becoming a success doesn’t come easy; we have to work hard to succeed, some more than others. And to make it, and I mean really make it to the top, we may perhaps have to compromise our morals and break some rules along the way.

I’ve never gone to any opera before, but I’ve heard a lot of interesting things about them. Like how they’re filled with the elite, pretentious and well dressed, elderly folks. I’ve also heard that opera is dying out and losing its big name because it fails to target the younger and non-upper class audiences. I went to the Metropolitan Opera House a few days ago for the first time to see Carmen with all of these stereotypes already in my head, just to find that such generalized perceptions of the opera are actually quite deceiving.

Carmen was essentially all about some beautiful and hard-to-get woman (obviously named Carmen), who manipulates men to get what she wants. One second she declares her love for someone, the next she gets bored and moves on. Frankly, Carmen was successfully able to piss me off, along with the other men that she was driving crazy. She was extremely demanding, making Don Jose fall head over heels for her and then asking him to run away with her and forget all of his responsibilities as a loyal soldier. And when she finally got what she wanted, she had the nerve to tell him to go back home because her love for him was fading.

Even though I felt bad for Don Jose, he too was no better than Carmen. One minute he was declaring his love for Micaela and how he was going to marry her, and the next minute, he falls in love with Carmen! (Men…and they say women are the complicated ones.)

I have to admit, during the first 20 minutes of the opera, I was falling asleep because nothing really drastic had yet transpired. But then when Carmen and Micaela were introduced, I was immediately drawn to their characters. Carmen has a lot of pizazz and feistiness to her. All the men were craving her, but she ignored them and did her thing. I think that Carmen symbolized female power, and therefore, this opera would truly appeal to many feminists. Conversely, Micaela was Carmen’s foil. It seemed as if she was desperate for Don Jose’s love, which was obviously unrequited. She had a beautiful voice, so strong and harmonious (I think I liked her more than Carmen).

The ending, in my opinion, didn’t come as a shocker because Carmen’s death was previously foretold when she and her friends were reading their fortunes. The death was very Shakespearean if you ask me, a mix of Othello and Romeo and Juliet. Hence, this opera would also appeal to a fan of Shakespearean literature.

Admittedly, I do have to concur with the stereotype that the rich people view the opera more because the sad truth of the mater is that opera tickets are very expensive. But I don’t feel like the opera, however, is only meant for the elderly and educated. An opera is more like a movie, except instead of talking as the main form of dialogue, people sing. And everyone watches movies, so why should the audience for an opera be any different? Additionally, operas aren’t only for people who speak a certain foreign language, but for everyone because usually opera houses provide English subtitles. Would I go to see Carmen again? Probably not; but would I go to see another opera again? Most definitely!