Author Archives: Devon Khan

#FoodSwag

Posted on by
Reply

#FoodSwag: Michael Zaslowsky, Simon Toybis, Devon Khan, Isadore Betesh

 

The theme behind #FoodSwag’s video is to portray interaction through food.  We start at Ray’s Pizzeria, then we transition to a halal food cart and end with Shake Shack.  Pizza, halal food, hamburgers, and fries are all common foods that every New Yorker eats, unless something prohibits us from doing so.  Throughout the video these limitations are noted through geography and religion.  However, as New Yorkers, we don’t actually realize the limitations of food that some people have to go through.  By eating with different people we realize the limitations that others face.  The video touches on a few things, but there are many more limitations.

Pertaining to interaction, New Yorkers fail to realize how much food serves to help people interact with each other.  When we go to eat, we usually eat with other people and end up taking and hour to eat our meal because we are spending fifty minutes speaking with each other.  Our group, #FoodSwag took meal conversations a little deeper and portrayed different ethnicities and religions through our meals.  This just shows the scope of conversations that revolve around food because food is the one thing every culture can speak about.  People love food.

Even though New Yorkers in the city eat out a lot there are many places they haven’t gone.  Some people don’t know what halal is and some still haven’t been to other well known places like Shake Shack, Five Guys, Two Bros, and more.   For this reason, New York can always be an adventure and a new place, which is why we decided to make our video seem touristy.  There can only be a handful of New Yorkers that have been all over New York, and because New York is so ethnically diverse we are always experiencing new things.

As New Yorkers we fail to realize the role food plays in our lives other than the purpose of keeping up full and sustaining our lives.  Our group, #FoodSwag, stresses the role of food through conversations and learning about each other.  The range of food available in New York is unbelievable, which is one of the reasons New York is a great place to live in.

 

 

Questions the group has:

Is it clear, through the video, what points #FoodSwag are touching on?

As New Yorkers can you relate to any of the characters?

Are there any times where the video isn’t believable?

 

Digital Media Project Proposal- The Food Of NYC

Posted on by
Reply

Our group, #FoodSwag, is doing our project on the different foods of NYC. We will go to three famous NYC food locations; 53rd and 6th Halal, a famous pizza place (Not yet determined), and Shake Shack. We will taste the foods, analyze the cultures they come from, and analyze the impact they have on our society. We chose this subject because we are food connoisseurs and love exploring the different places to eat in NYC. Other people can learn from our experiences about where to eat. We will bring our different cultural expectations of food to these foods. We will explore the taste and cultural significance of these places.

#FoodSwag- Devon Khan, Semyon Toybis, Michael Zaslowsky, Isadore Betesh

Figaro Swag

Posted on by
Reply

Hey guys, this is my video mashup.  Disclaimer: All lines are from Barber of Seville and I do not own the Barber of Seville.  Rosina and Figaro are played by my brother and sister.  Count Almaviva and Dr. Bartolo are performed by yours truly.  The songs at the beginning and end are “Ah Drinkah” by Ravi B and “Catch meh Lovah” by KI and 3veni respectively.  Enjoy.

Destroying Barriers

Posted on by
Reply

As societies grew and spread, race has been a major issue.  The acronym W.A.S.P. was created, where the first letter stands for white. On the opposite end of the spectrum were people of color who were projected as slaves.  However, as progress ensued, these ethnic misinterpretations were slowly broken down.

In today’s culture, race still plays some sort of role in everyday life.  Immigrants leave their country for better lives and come to America, but instead of diversifying the people in their environment they end up in locations where people of the same nationality reside.  This is understandable because people feel more comfortable with people of their race; however, this fear creates unseen barriers in cities.  For example, there are “white, Chinese, and brown” parts of Queens and that is how the majority of residents define their area.  I’ve heard stories of people walking into the “white” part of Queens and being stared at weirdly because it was “obvious” they didn’t belong.

The barriers we indirectly create have a lot to do with stereotypes that still exist.  Stereotypes have some truth to them sometimes, but as a generalization of a specific group is wrong.  Some people don’t realize the seriousness of stereotypes because a lot of them are created in environments where we are comfortable like around friends and family.  Even stereotypes that are thought of as good like “Brazilians are the most beautiful people on earth” can create standards that every person is judged by because of a few people.  In this way, stereotypes have created a misrepresentation of people.  People are judged by their ethnicity rather than their individuality.

Even though there is cultural misinterpretation, people today are trying to fix this.  Many people have friends that are of different races and backgrounds, which give them a broader idea of what different races are like.  In doing so, they develop a sense of understanding towards other people’s races.  For example, a lot of kids with nannies have seen me playing cricket and are able to identify the sport.  However, to people that are ignorant, cricket is regarded as a reason to make fun of a certain group of people.  The main reason certain people are oblivious to the cultures of other people is because they have not learned about them or refuse to.  For this reason, I believe the only way to fight misrepresentation of groups and individuals is to grant everyone exposure to different cultures.

Viewer vs Critic

Posted on by
6

Suicide seems like a weird topic for a play, let alone a business.  In “Suicide Incorporated,” Andrew Hinderaker, does just that.  From Charles Isherwood’s review I felt that the Hinderaker did a decent job in his production.  Charles Isherwood wasn’t on either side of the spectrum in his review, he pointed out what he liked and things he didn’t like.  His review seemed a bit on the positive side though, which is kind of ironic since suicide is the main issue.

As a viewer, I felt Charles Isherwood enjoyed the production.  He noted it was “brisk and enjoyable” and had some humor in it.  He also seemed to enjoy the acting of the cast, all of which were males.  His overall tone was positive when he described his experience with the play.

His criticism came when he became a critic.  He pointed out the obvious flaws in creating that type of business.  He also mentioned that one would have to buy into the belief that this type of organization could belief even with all the legal problems surrounding it.

The two sides that Isherwood presents is interesting because that is the way I sometimes think.  There’s the viewer and critic that everyone has inside them.  When watching a production, the viewer ultimately determines if the production was satisfying.  Then once everything is said and done, the critic analyzes the work and determines if it was properly produced and set up.  The viewer is related with certain things like emotions and closure, while the critic is more analytical and logical.

Having these two sides present and obvious leads to a more complete review and Isherwood’s presentation of this makes me interested in “Suicide, Incorporated,” which is showing at the  Black Box Theater at the Harold and Miriam Steinberg Center for Theater on 111 West 46th Street.

Bad Beginnings Don’t Foreshadow Bad Endings

Posted on by
3

Weddings never seem to be accompanied by fitting events, since something always goes wrong.  Personally, I love the drama and conflicts that arise during weddings, mostly because I’m a spectator and never involved.  That’s why when I saw the clichéd title “A Wedding and an Unexpected Guest” I thought: this ought to be fun. 

            Reading the first half of the review of “We Live Here”, I was questioning my decision.  The first paragraph was followed by five paragraphs dedicated to the character of Maggie, played by Amy Irving.  At first I viewed this as a poor critique because the details of one character were dragged out for too long.  However, after I finished the critique I realized I gave Charles Isherwood too little credit.  After thinking about it for some time I realized that Maggie most likely invoked the most feelings in him.  He states that Maggie is a “passive-aggressive mother, too busy to really bother with the passive part.”  That note and the length of his description of her acted as a deeper analysis of the character.  He was able to depict Maggie as a character that is so controlling she drowns out the other characters.

            The latter half of the critique was very good.  I began to see Isherwood’s disdain for the unoriginal plot and theme.  In his review he made a comment about the ending being “a rookie mistake that someone at Manhattan Theater Club probably should have flagged.”  Before that, he gave Zoe Kazan the recognition she deserved for her previous works, which proved his disappointment in Ms. Kazan’s latest work.  His disgruntlement with the play’s ending was also reflected in his view of the characters, mainly the women who were ” emotionally troubled young women wreaking various forms of havoc as the wedding bells threaten to peal.”  The men were “mellower and more playable” to him.

            While I thought Mr. Isherwood wasn’t an interesting reviewer at first, I realized it was because of the play which he was reviewing.  Mr. Isherwood gave the play a review that was unbiased review deserving of the credit he gave it.  The lack of originality also spurred him to give the close with “for a change of pace it would be nice to see a movie or play about a less venerated but more stress-free marital tradition: elopement.”  To me this seemed to be a recommendation to the general public, but after I let it sink in I realized he was fed up with the unoriginality of producers hoping on the wedding train.  Chris Isherwood ended up being the type of reviewer I like: unbiased and calls for reading between the lines. “We Live here” is now showing at the Manhattan Theater Club.