In Taxi Driver, there were jarring red lights, honking horns, and cussing lowlife scum. In Wall Street, there were greedy stockbrokers and more cussing lowlife scum. In God of Carnage, there were misbehaving parents and pretentious artifacts of wealth being destroyed left and right. Now, we add In Arabia We’d All Be Kings, with an entire cast of lowlife scum, to the pile of artworks that portray a nasty, gritty New York. Their New York is reality, but we’d all like to reject that reality and substitute a prettier one, right?

Enter the iconic Breakfast at Tiffany’s. It takes place in Manhattan. There’s not a bum in sight. How could that be? Breakfast at Tiffany’s was released in 1961, right when the city was teetering on the brink of slipping into decay. Nothing in the film suggests that in ten years time (around the time of Taxi Driver) that this beautiful city would become a cesspool.

Holly Golightly is a socialite seeking a wealthy man to marry. At first her intentions seem very good, she wants to help her brother Fred with the money she’d gain from marrying up. But she keeps cooking up new plans to marry wealthy men much to chagrin of her neighbor Paul, who is less financially inclined but loves Holly genuinely.

Unlike Veronique from God of Carnage, who measures her wealth in her unique, expensive possessions, Holly thinks wearing diamonds at her age would be horrendously tacky and her apartment has bare-bones furnishings. Though she (sometimes desperately) desires money, Holly doesn’t resort to turning tricks like Iris of Taxi Driver or DeMaris of In Arabia We’d All Be Kings. She also easily disentangles herself from men, unlike Darien in Wall Street. Holly seems to be a self-made woman, a classy lady who believes she owns herself. In this way, she seems to embody the ideal New York, independent and somewhat aloof and gorging on all things “classy.”

Everything about Breakfast at Tiffany’s breathes “high class,” from Holly’s tasseled earplugs, to the costumes, to the cinematography. Everything in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is aesthetically pleasing to the eye and ear. None of the camera shots have overly saturated, bright colors; everything is soft and nice to look at. Unlike Taxi Driver with its harsh lights and red filters, Breakfast at Tiffany’s is soft and pretty; its cinematography is almost feminine like Holly herself.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s epitomizes wealthy New York, even though Holly herself is not particularly wealthy. She aspires to wealth through marriage and she is very much an independent being. She drinks milk out of wine glasses and Tiffany’s is her safe haven. Through the delicate light of the camera, there’s not an inkling of thought that New York was about to take a dive off the deep end. The ending is hopeful instead of happy, like New Yorkers themselves.

Albeit not originally set in New York City, The God of Carnage by Yasmina Reza is the epitome of the wealthy class in NYC. The lower classes have to worry about feeding their children, sending their children to school, not losing their job, not losing their homes. The upper class on the other hand? Oh they sit around, eat pastries and drink rum in the afternoon; they socialize.

In The God of Carnage, both families have more money than they know what to do with. The Vallons (Veronique and Michel) own rare, irreplaceable, and expensive art books. They buy tulips for the house and Michel owns rum from years ago. The Reilles (Annette and Alain) come from the same community and Alain is a big-shot lawyer. Without anything better to do during the day, these two families congregate to discuss the actions of their two sons: Ferdinand Reille hitting Bruno Vallon in the face with a stick and therefore knocking his teeth out. Although originally social and professional, this “meeting of the minds” is anything but so; it’s chaos, it’s carnage! After throwing up, drinking, random calls from the mother, and random calls from Alain’s phone, entropy ensues. One might think that it would be “couple vs. couple,” but it was more like “every man for himself.” Is that not the way of the upper class? There’s a great example from Stone’s Wall Street, when Darien leaves Bud because she’s used to being a lone wolf, out only for money and pride, not love. Each character switches sides regularly, and not only that, but each seem extremely dedicated, if not addicted, to their job.

Alain, one might say, is a workaholic, meaning that he can never, separate his work life from his home life. The same can be said about Bud. In the beginning of the movie, his small, cramped room has an unmade bed and a desk full of papers, books, and a computer. Basically, the only difference between his room and his cubicle is that in the cubicle, there are other men. Alain, even when talking about his son’s “animalistic” behavior, he can’t put his phone down. He constantly picks up, caring more about the lawsuit and media than his own son and wife. This, I feel, is accurately portrayed of the upper class: addicted to work yet they fret over the little things and don’t see the big picture.

Under the façade of wealth, power, and civility, the upper class in The God of Carnage, are mean, nasty, self-centered people. Wall Street is extremely similar. I hope that in some work, either a book or movie, will show the upper class in a good light, much like Breakfast at Tiffany’s.

America was initially supposed to be a classless society, one where everybody got an equal opportunity to succeed and thrive, right? At least that’s what my parents thought when they were trying to win the visa lottery to come to NYC. I can just picture their innocent, naive faces filled with all these fantastic hopes and dreams of the city as they boarded the plane to NY. God I wish I were there just so I could slap them back to sanity and tell them to lower their expectations, because this myth of “a classless society” in America was some EPIC hogwash.

NYC is filled with immigrants that all share the same goals of wanting to make money and rise to the top. That’s right, I said it: the top. And that must mean that there’s a bottom, as well as an in-between. Simply put, NY, just like the rest of America, has class division. We’ve got the elite upper class that accumulates wealth and dominates this capitalistic society, the middle class that produces that wealth and owns nothing but a few private belongings, and the lower class that can barely make it through the life without the constant worry of a financial burden.

There’s no way that a true New Yorker could picture his city without having an image of a minority group of millionaires dominating our marketing system. It’s just not going to happen. And I’m not going to say all, but a handful of people view the upper class in a negative light. We see the rich as either those that were born into wealth and didn’t work a single day in their life, or simply those that acquired their money through illegal practices. And I believe that it is largely the media that is responsible for shaping this perception of ours of the rich in NY.

Take Oliver Stone’s movie “Wall Street” for example. It’s about an ambitious young stockbroker, Bud Fox, who would do anything just to work with his idol, Gordon Gekko, a legendary Wall Street broker. Gekko was part of the upper class; he had too much money if you ask me (if there is such a thing), yet he was constantly greedy for more. He would destroy anyone and anything that stood in his way of getting what he wanted. He took advantage of the innocent, desperate, working class Bud and made him do insider trading for him. In return, Bud got a taste of the “good life” which he then gave up once he realized Gekko’s true colors.

Oliver Stone’s movie reinforces our perception of the rich who are thought of as incapable of making money the honest way through the characters of Gekko and Bud. His movie shows how corrupt the upper class can be and how far they are willing to go to get what they want. And this is why movies like “Wall Street”, along with other forms of media, are part of the reason why the upper class has a negative connotation.

Christopher Columbus once said, “Riches don’t make a man rich, they only make him busier.” Columbus’s quote correctly demonstrates that for most, getting money will not lead to satisfaction- it will only lead to the want of more money.

When I think of Uptown New York City, wads of cash, mansions, limousines, and snobbish people come to mind. In my head, a rich person lives extravagantly– too extravagantly. I imagine a rich New Yorker to be the kind of person who struts the streets like they own them and who always assumes superiority (and who of course throws and attends lavish parties).

Moreover, I tend to associate the wealthy with arrogance, deceit, and ruthlessness. While many receive their wealth and status from hard work, I think so many more rise to wealth as a result of under-the-table dealings, cheating, and stepping on others. There are also a good number of those who receive their share from generous inheritance.

In a dog eat dog society competitors do whatever it takes to get ahead. And I think that at a certain point, even those who have risen from hard and honest work may get so absorbed in moving forward and getting farther and farther ahead that they will do so by any means, including cheating, lying, stealing, etc. After all, so many others have done it with impunity, why can’t they? This again relates to Columbus’s quote, as the rich have the tendency to want more and more (even though they probably have more than enough money to guarantee their great-great-great-great grandkids a luxurious life).

I do not watch many films, but of the ones I have watched I think that the movie Wall Street (Stone 1987) is a great representation of my perception of Uptown New York City. The movie illustrates the story of an over ambitious stockbroker, Bud Fox. As a stockbroker, Bud works hard and honestly. However, Bud is unsatisfied with his current rank and so he becomes involved with Gordon Gekko, a dishonest multimillionaire. Due to pressure from Gekko and Bud’s unwavering determination to get to the top, Bud illegally takes part in insider trading. Bud’s compliance with Gekko shows the eagerness of the lower classes to become rich. Bud traded his moral values for money and I think a lot of people in our society have done the same. Because Bud eventually pays the price of his actions by going to jail, Oliver Stone shows that justice, even in NYC, is attainable, and although some may get away with cheating for a short while, their triumph will end eventually.

Gekko’s plan to wreck the Blue Star Airlines Company for a multimillion-dollar profit paints the rich as pitiless, greedy, and unsatisfied, a similar relation to the one I often draw. Also, not only does Stone represent rich New Yorkers through Bud and Gekko, Stone also shows Uptown NYC as the center of money and importance. In fact, there are several scenes where the busy streets and tall skyscrapers are shown with an air of grandeur.

It is interesting to note that this film is timeless- it is still relevant in today’s NYC and probably will continue to be so for the next 100 years. I think this film accurately portrays my idea of wealthy New York as it demonstrates that once you’re in the “game” it’s hard to get out and nearly impossible to be a player if you are unwilling to cheat and crush those beneath you.

Stepping off the subway, Arlene and I look at the GPS on our phones confused, trying to figure out which way INTAR Theatre is. As we look up at all the bright signs, we figure it must be toward all the other theatres on Broadway. Suddenly the blue dot seems to be getting farther and farther away from the pinpoint at INTAR. Puzzled, we turn around and start heading toward the pinpoint. After walking several blocks, we finally reach 500 W. 52 St. Now how do we get to the 4^th floor? Should we listen to Professor Healey’s warning about the creepy elevator? Sweat dripping from our foreheads, we decide that the elevator can’t be thaaaat bad. We push the button for the 4^th floor, but the elevator seems to be moving down. Unexpectedly, the door opens to a brick wall with a note apologizing, “Sorry for the inconvenience. You’ll be getting to your floor right away.” The door closes and up we go. When the elevator door opens again to a room, I let out a big sigh of relief. We are greeted and handed a playbill, then find ourselves seats in a sketchy waiting area. What has Professor Healey got us into?

David Koteles play, Teach Teacher Teachest, is a captivating adaptation of Eugene Ionesco’s The Lesson. The three actors were able to turn a small room into what felt like a huge theatre. The set was used as a jungle gym, a house, and a classroom all in one. The interactive play made us all laugh until ours bellies ached, but it definitely had some hidden meanings as well. Behind all the jokes, the truth about the American education system was revealed. The professor would ask the student questions and when she would say an answer that he didn’t approve of, which wasn’t necessarily wrong, he would call her stupid. He would make up absurd answers to his own questions that didn’t even make sense. I guess that is what school feels like sometimes, when you try your hardest but still get the answer wrong. For instance, on my chemistry quiz last week, I did all the work for a problem right but rounded my answer wrong and received a 0/10 for the entire problem. Sometimes all your effort doesn’t matter and the play really captivated the struggles of being a student.

The play ends both dramatically and comically when the teacher smashes a watermelon, which represents him killing his student. This made me think about the faults in the education system. Many students feel so uncomfortable going to school every day that they get depressed. This is an obviously sign that something isn’t right. Students shouldn’t have to choose between their grades and their mental and physical health. As a student, the play really appealed to me. Although it was really funny and I enjoyed myself, it allowed me to think about the difficulties of being a student and opened my eyes to the reality of our education system.

New York- the city that never sleeps, the city of lights, and the place to be if you want to “make it”! These are long held beliefs about what New York is all about. My idea of “Uptown”/wealthy New York consists of busy streets, elite artwork, and of course- specific types of people; high-class, well-dressed people walking around, or even riding around, the city. Unfortunately, I also have this image of people who just can’t get enough, people who are always craving more. I have always believed that wealthy/“Uptown” New Yorkers are people who have either acquired their wealth through corrupt means or have been lucky enough to have rich parents.

Oliver Stone’s Wall Street accurately epitomizes my idea of “Uptown”/wealthy New York. The setting of the movie helps in creating this “Uptown New York” feeling. The movie starts with everyone rushing through the morning commute and busy streets to get where they need to be. The clothing of these people also adds a sense of how the people in wealthy New York are dressed. Most of the businessmen are wearing suits and ties while the businesswomen are wearing business-casual clothing with heels. When I am in the subways, I can almost predict if someone is heading to a wealthy city building just by how they are dressed. Similarly, Stone makes it very obvious that the people who are a part of wealthy New York must fit a certain “standard”. This standard ranges from how the people are dressed to how the people act.

My idea of wealthy New York consists of people who are never happy with what they have. Gordon Gekko is an epitome of my idea of a wealthy New Yorker. He has more than he needs; he has a wife, a side-chick (Darien), and a job on Wall Street. Still, he wants more and declares that he “makes the rules” (Stone, Wall Street). Not only does he believe that the world revolves around money, but also he has an enormous ego. His ego drives him to believe that “greed is good” (Stone, Wall Street). Comparable to many other “Uptown New Yorkers”, he thinks that greed is the driving force of success. Gekko is willing to do whatever it takes to have money because that is ultimately all he cares about.

As a native New Yorker, I have always paid close attention to what separates an average New Yorker from a wealthy/rich New Yorker. As a child, I always wanted my family to drive the best car and wear the best clothing. However, I now accept that this was and continues to be my idea of what wealthy New Yorkers do. Stone also affirmed my conclusion that these wealthy New Yorkers are never happy with what they have. My image of “Uptown”/wealthy New York will always consist of people such as Gordon Gekko.

As a young girl my parents always told me “If you work hard, you’ll be able to have anything you want in the future.” Which essentially meant that working hard will equate to lots of money and money buys a whole lot of things. Although I now see many flaws in this statement, and realize that not everyone who works hard lives a life of luxury, I nevertheless made a conscious decision to believe that the people who do live an extravagant lifestyle in wealthy New York are indeed people who have worked hard their whole lives and continue working hard to sustain their standard of living (yes I know there are people who have their wonderful lives handed to them, but this belief is what keeps me going so I’m sticking with it).

With this mindset drilled into my head and simultaneously observing artwork that is all about class structure, I grew a certain appreciation for Charlie Sheen’s character Bud Fox in Wall Street. Although Bud didn’t exactly have a legal and honest way of going about his job, he had a dream of transforming himself from being a little boy who lived in middle class Queens to being one of the big guys on top in Uptown Manhattan. His life once he reached that goal of being wealthy was portrayed by Oliver Stone just like I would have imagined it: Bud had a new office with a beautiful view, he had lunch in expensive restaurants, and he had a gigantic penthouse designed with large pieces of artwork. If that didn’t scream wealthy New Yorker I don’t know what would.

However what really stood out to me about this particular film was that Stone also depicted Bud and the other wealthy New Yorkers in the film such as Gekko as men who almost never stopped working. Constantly on the phone, or in a meeting, or on the computer, Bud and Gekko’s characters made one thing very clear: They would NOT have the millions they had if they didn’t work their butts off. Yes they were also greedy liars, and cheaters, but maybe that also comes along with the uptown New York package. Maybe you do have to lose some morals along the way to the top because maybe there’s no other way up there. Maybe this film spoke to me because it reminded me why I stopped thinking like the young girl I was and made me realize that as much as my parents wanted me to live life like the fancy people in uptown New York do, I did not.