To the "Otherside" and Back

          In the song "Otherside", written by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis, performed by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis feat. Fences, he (Macklemore, the rapper) talks about the promotion of drug addiction throughout the rap industry and his personal story of relapsing. It's hard for me not to analyze every single line of this song because it's so well written and meaningful, but alas, I can't. Full lyrics here.
          Macklemore himself relapsed in 2008. At this point he had come out with two albums -- The Language of Our World, and The Unplanned Mixtape. In the song, Macklemore talks about how rap artists he listened to and looked up to, such as Lil Wayne, would always talk about drugs. Macklemore knew he wanted to be a rap artist since he was pretty young, and he listened to other rappers. He wants kids to know that you shouldn't listen to "the system". By the system, he means the rappers in the media and the portrayed image of those rappers. He listened to rap music all the time, and he can show firsthand, the effects of those lyrics. You don't think you're ever going to go too far, but you will.
          "Little did he know it was just as addictive as base/... Months later the use went up/ and every blunt was accompanied by the pink stuff/ But Goddamn he loved that feelin/... liquid to fix and it comes with a cost/ Wake up, cold sweat, scratchin, itchin/ trying to escape the skin that barely fit him/ Gone, get another bottle just get a couple swallows headed/ towards the bottom/ couldn't get off it/ Didn't even think he had a problem/ Though he couldn't sleep without getting nauseous/ Room spinnin/ Thinking he might of sipped just a little too much of that cough syrup/ His eyelids closed shut/ Sat back in the chair/ clutchin that cup/ Girlfriend came a couple of hours later said his name shook him but he never got up/ never got up, never got up/ we live on the cusp of death thinking that it won't be us." He got addicted, and loved it, so he didn't try to stop. Then, he overdosed and died. Macklemore isn't messing around. His lyrics are straightforward, and I'm sure they're pretty accurate for most teens/young adults. He got addicted to cough syrup, but what gave him that push?
          "He rolled up, asked what he was sippin on/ said lean-- you wanna hit it dawn?/ That's the same stuff Weezy's sippin huh?/ And tons of other rappers that be spittin hard" and "The easter pink, heard it in a rhyme before/ finally got to see what all the hype was on/ And then he took a sip sittin in the Lincoln/ thinkin he was pimpin as he listened to the system". Macklemore wants the listener to know that that kid (whether or not he's talking about himself in third person) was doing all of that simply because he'd heard rappers rap about it. He's also emphasizing that it's just hype and that he doesn't support it. The line I really liked was, "And then he took a sip sittin in the Lincoln/thinkin he was pimpin as he listened to the system". He doesn't mean "listening to the system" as in taking orders/listening to authority, he means listening to the system meaning the peer pressure that is the media. Yeah, it's illegal, but popular artists promote it all the time; it's still listening to them. "And he just wanted to act like them/ He just wanted to rap like him," those kids just want to be just like those rappers, so they do all this stuff thinking that by doing it they'll be just as successful and praised.
          The whole rap industry is constantly pushing for these kids to follow their lead. "Despite how Lil Wayne lives/it's like conducive to being creative/ And I know cause he's my favorite/ And I know cause I was off that same mix/ Rationalize the stuff that I tried after I listened to dedication (A mixtape by Lil Wayne and DJ Drama)/ I sip that stuff pass out or play playstation". He's been through it all. When he says "he's an alien", he's talking about how he did just what he did and realized he had no idea how Lil Wayne did it, because it was too much for him. It's too much for kids, but it's hard for them to resist seeing as the people they listen to and look up to are always telling them to do it. That's the type of music that sells in the rap industry. "Surprise, you know the drill/ Trapped in a box to climb record sales/ Follow the formula/ violence, drugs, and sex sells/ So we try to sound like someone else/ This is not Californication/ There's no way to glorify this pavement/ Syrup, percocet, and an eighth day will leave you broke, depressed and emotionally vacant".
          The "chorus" of the song is "Oh girl, this boat is sinking/ there's no sea left for me/ and how the sky gets heavy/ when you are underneath it/ oh I want to sail away from here/ and God, he came down x8, and sailed (down x8) nothing". At the beginning, "oh girl, this boat is sinking/ there's no sea left for me" makes me think his journey with this girl, or with this lifestyle has stopped midway, their sailing travel, because the boat is sinking and there's no place for him farther along that path. He had made a decision previously to go down this road, or sail across that sea, but midway, he feels his world is crumbling down and he realizes there's no place for him there, probably when he's talking about when he relapsed. There's no "sea" left for him to sail over. When he says, "and how the sky gets heavy when you are underneath it/oh i want to sail away from here", I think he means he's realized how dismal that place is, and the people he's with are, and he just wants to sail away. "and God, he came down x8 and sailed nothing" -- by saying this, I think he's trying to represent how God looked down upon him and saw his conflict -- keep sailing in this broken boat that is soon to sink, try and sail away, and God did neither. He didn't help him along a certain path, because God was disappointed in him.
          Macklemore, has been to the "Otherside" and back. He nearly died from overdose. As a rapper, he knows firsthand the pressures of rap music, and as a listener and a young kid, he succumbed to it all: "Us as rappers underestimate the power in the effects that we have on these kids". He's trying to share his story and get people of all types to stop this epidemic in the rap industry. He wants kids to stay above it, because you don't have to do it to be successful-- just look at Macklemore! "Thinkin I would never do that/ not that drug/ Growin up nobody ever does/ Until you're stuck lookin in the mirror like I can't believe what I've become/ Swore I was gonna be someone/ Growin up everyone always does/ We sell our dreams and potential to escape through that buzz/ Just keep me up, keep me up/ Hollywood here we come". Overall, it's a fantastic song, I suggest you listen to it.

Gun Control or Gun Protection?

          I just read the article, "The Gun Debate", from the January 28, 2013 issue of Uprfront Magazine. In this article, the author, Patricia Smith, gives a history of gun laws and gives a brief description of each side of the argument. I think that the author, like me, is pro-gun control.
         Like Smith says, "The debate over guns in America goes back to 1791, when the Bill of Rights, the 10 amendments, was adopted." Gun control/gun rights has been an ongoing issue for a very long time. This can also be said to be one of the main reasons it's so difficult to make changes involving it because people refer to it as a right they've had since when the Bill of Rights was adopted, suggesting because it's so old, it's a given right. Right, because a document created over two centuries ago, written for when the Revolutionary War was taking place is totally appropriate as a dictator of our gun laws today. "Long one of the Constitution's most disputed passages, the Second Amendment reads, in its entirety: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In 2008, more than 200 years after the framers wrote the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court finally ruled on what it means: The Court says it applies to individuals, not just militias." This means that, even if you disagree with their translation of the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has recently decided that it applies to individuals, to just militias. This has been the basis of many pro-gun arguments, stating that people have the right to own a gun in self-defense.
          Another part of gun history is that gun control laws have often been passed after tragic events involving guns such as an assassination or a shooting. "After the 1968 assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prevented mail-order sales of rifles and shotguns and banned felons and drug users from owning guns. The 1994 Brady law, which spurred in part by the 1981 attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, created a national system of background checks for gun purchases," and so on. A huge reason gun control is such a big topic of conversation right now is due to the tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. People are reasonably demanding new gun restrictions to prevent guns such as the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, which was what 20-year-old Adam Lanza used in December by to kill 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown, Connecticut. "The AR-15 rifle that was used in the Newtown shooting was the civilian version of the military's M-16 and M-4 rifles. It's been used repeatedly in mass shootings: the killing of 12 people in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, in July, and the killing of two people in a Portland, Oregon shopping mall in early December."
          I think it's ridiculous that it hasn't already been banned, seeing as it's appeared in so many gun-related tragedies. Even after Newtown, there have been more school shootings. Just today, there was a shooting at Lone Star College in Texas. So far it seems as if it wasn't a planned mass infliction, but it did occur after two students had some sort of altercation near the campus library (See article here). The fact is, shootings like those are becoming quite common, and actions need to be taken against these guns, especially the semi-automatic guns that can hold from thirty to hundreds of bullets.
          Gun-rights groups (the most powerful would be the National Rifles Association, a.k.a. the NRA) argue that gun control laws restrict the right to bear arms and cripple their ability to protect themselves from criminals. "The vast majority of gun owners, the N.R.A. says, use firearms responsibly". Well, of course that's true. There are not hundreds of thousands of people like Adam Lanza who intend to use guns for such awful purposes as mass shootings, etc., but just because most people use it responsibly does not mean that the few disturbed people out there will hesitate to go out and purchase a semi-automatic rifle and shoot dozens of people.  All it takes is one psycho out of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to do something awful. "Guns are why we're free in this country, and people lose sight of that when tragedies like this happen," said Scott Ostrosky. "A gun didn't kill all those children. A disturbed man killed those children." Ostrosky owns a gun range in Newtown. Yes, it was Adam Lanza who administered the gun and shot those 26 people, but do you think if he hadn't had a semi-automatic rifle and carried hundreds of rounds of ammunition, enough to kill the entire school, that those children and adults would still be dead, today? Because I sure don't. It was his idea and his action to fire that gun, but our loose gun laws made it possible.
          As Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said, "this tragedy exposes our gun laws for what they really are: wildly inadequate and utterly insane."
         

Celebrities in Different Lighting

          I recently read the article "What You Can Learn From Celeb Money Meltdowns"from the January 2013 issue of "Upfront Magazine". 

          In this article, the author urges us (meaning children, since this article is aimed at children/teenagers) to learn from celebrities' fiscal mistakes. Not only does the author analyze the problems each celebrity has had, ("Gossip Girl Leighton Meester had to take their mother to court over their financial feud. Mom thought she was entitled to a major cut of Leighton's earnings, Leighton disagreed,") they also suggest solutions that we can take to prevent the issue from happening to us: "Although most teens are trying to dig into their parents's pockets, not the other way around, the fact is money can be a touchy subject... The key is to compromise on points you disagree about." The purpose is good, and the fact that celebrities are used as the examples will probably get more kids to read it. The author also kept it sweet and simple by giving an overview and generality of the issue and not going into unnecessary details, ex: "Rihanna spent up to $3,300 a day on a traveling hairstylist." The article was also covered in pictures and colorful graphics to draw the readers who aren't as interested in heavy reading. Creating a piece of writing that will attract younger viewers and will keep them reading once they've started is quite difficult, and this author definitely accomplished it.

          Although the authors intentions were good, and the effect created was what he/she wanted, I questioned the article. Here is this article, showing the mistakes these celebrities have made, and showing how we can learn from them. It seems perfectly fine-- great, even. Finally! Someone using celebrities as ways to learn lessons from, not just people who we laugh and shake our heads knowingly at messes they've made, yet still manage to have them take up parts of our thoughts and daily lives. (Think about it, in the papers and on the news you hear stories about celebrites; on TV, almost everything you watch contains a celebrity, a lot of what you talk about are famous people who you don't really know.) Yet, still, something bothered me about this article... and I wasn't quite sure what it was. Like I said, the intentions were good, and the overall message was good, so what was it that didn't quite sit right?

          Then, it hit me. Well, it didn't quite hit me, it sort of slowly flittered into my brain. It was the manner in which the author spoke-- the manner in which he/she talked about the whole affair: lightly. "Sorry to rip on Ms. Lohan, but have you noticed she isn't getting a lot of work these days? Her reputation for bad behavior on the set, showing up late, and skipping meetings is ruining her career." The author talks about this quite casually. Of course, to most people, it is casual. 

         Lindsay Lohan isn't regarded as a huge role in the economy, or really an "important" person. Well, not someone who is expected to make a difference, anyway, or anything like that. The truth is however, celebrities have just as huge a role in the media and society, if not greater, than politicians or people that are factually making changes to the country. These people, whether they want to or not, are role models, and are constantly being monitored. The fact that Lindsay Lohan "racked up more than a half a million dollars in debt" due to her extravagant lifestyle would be a pretty huge deal if it were a politician, or another important figure. Although Lindsay Lohan does get a lot of press due to the fact that she messes up quite a lot, the main thing I am trying to say is that generally, celebrities get the same or more amount of attention as politicians do, and they need to accept that responsibility. 

Men Who Hate Women

          I am currently reading "The Girl Who Played With Fire" by Stieg Larsson, the second book of the series, "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." I recently found out that the original, Swedish title is "Män som hatar kvinnor", which directly translates into "Men Who Hate Women". When I first found this out, I was pretty surprised. That sounds nothing like "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". The more that I thought about it however, I started to see why it was originally titled that. 
          Throughout this story, there are many, to put it so, "men who hate women". When I was reading the book, before I had this new information, I hadn't really considered them like that, or really thought about just how much sexism there really was throughout the book. There are quite a few male roles in the first and second book that are extremely prejudice and gross towards women, and I never really realized the fact that they do just plainly hate women. It's gross. Many of these characters include Nils Bjurman, Martin Vanger, Gottfried Vanger, Nikolas Hedström, Gunnar Björck, Richard Forbes, Carl-Magnus Lundin, and Alexander Zalachenko. Nils Bjurman, Salander's "guardian", is a sadistic rapist. Gunnar Björck had hired prostitutes that were there against their will, and Alexander Zalachenko, the root of it all, repeatedly hired prostitutes and had many murdered, and continuously raped and beat Salander's mother. All of these men consider males to be superior to females, call woman by awful names, and often commit volatile crimes against women such as rape, murder, and other related offenses.
          All of these men are in some way related to, or have had some encounter with Salander. Lisbeth Salander, a moral, independent woman, with what some might call an odd physique. Salander is such a unique character. Although legally declared "socially inept" and not able to handle her own affairs, she is extremely smart, and fully capable of handling her own affairs. She is not socially or politically important or well known, and yet, all of those men mentioned above have been one way or another defeated by her, often physically, and in extremely dangerous situations, proving that women are clearly not inferior to men.
          I think this is one of the main ideas of this series. The first and second book (I haven't yet read the third) are filled with heinous crimes, and dangerous mystery that the reader often gets wrapped up in. Throughout the book, you find yourself wishing with all of your might that these "johns" will get punished, and that their crimes will be discovered, and that that sexist police officer will get fired, and that Mikael Blomkvist will publish another scandalous article on some sort of wrong doing, etc., but you get so wrapped up in it all that you don't think about the message as much.
          The fact of the matter is, there are still men out there who "hate women" and think of themselves superior, and there are racists, and people who's opinions are not morally right. There's always going to be someone out there like that, no matter what. In fact, something I really admire about Stieg Larsson's writing is that he's able to make the reader angry. By choosing specific phrases of dialogue, and giving minor details to actions and portrayals, he is able to get the reader to really hate those terrible men. He makes the reader fired up, and definitely gets the reader to root for Lisbeth Salander. Salander, who is bisexual, "incompetent", and doesn't confide in government and takes matters into her own hands, conquers all of those men. This shows that anyone, no matter who you are, can fight for yourself, stand up, and do something about terrible wrongs in the world, even if they are incredibly dangerous.

Unchalantly Salander

          I am currently reading "The Girl Who Played With Fire" by Stieg Larsson, the second book of the trilogy. So far the trilogy is a pretty insane, action-packed, incredibly well written set of books. In the second book, Lisbeth Salander is accused of a triple murder. Salander is a very aloof woman, and does not entrust in government, or rarely anyone other than herself. She almost always uses a fake identity, and is constantly traveling all over. She may not trust in the authorities, but she is an extremely moral person, and often takes matters into her own hands. And yet, when she is accused of murder, she does not do much to stop it.
          Anyway, Salander is accused of a horrendous triple murder, and is put on high profile; everyone in Sweden has seen her terrible quality passport photo, and everyone is looking for her. During this period of time, Mikael Blomkvist is convinced she is innocent. Salander and Blomkvist had had a relationship in the previous year, but since then had not spoken to each other. Blomkvist knows that she is innocent, and is doing all he can to prove it.
          A major flaw in Salander's accusation is that she is portrayed to the public as a psychopathic murderer, who will harm anyone who gets in her way. Why? When Salander was younger, she was declared "incompetent", simply because she refused to talk on many occasions, and was not very socially active. This alone makes me furious. Just because someone does not like to talk, or does not fit society's idea of a "social" person, does not mean they should be declared socially inept! That declaration led to tons of other very serious problems later in Salander's life, because of that barrier. Salander is actually incredibly brilliant. I would say she's ingenious. But because she is anti-social (even if very), she is cast off as a nutjob. Because of this, to the public audience, she is a psychopath.
          For a long time, we read about the accusation. The discovery of the victims, the police teams, the process, the investigations, etc., all the while thinking, "What the hell happened? Is Salander innocent? What is she thinking right now? What is she doing?" Finally, the story goes back to Salander. The first few sentences we're hearing about her during the frenzy are, "Salander spent the first week of the police hunt far from the drama. She remained in peace and quiet in her apartment on Fiskargatan." then later, "She was irritated by the passport photograph that appeared everywhere. She looked stupid." Not only is she quite relaxed about the entire escapade, she is prominently annoyed about the passport photo used in the newspapers. As we find out shortly after, Salander is innocent of what they are accusing her of. Innocent. Yet, she is relaxing in her apartment as she moves farther and farther up "Sweden's Most Wanted". I simply don't understand it. She perplexes me, and frustrates me at the same time.
          Back to Mikael Blomkvist, one of the things he tries extremely hard to do is contact Lisbeth Salander. He needs to talk to her, to make sure she's innocent, to get some grasp of what's going on. When he is finally able to contact her, she responds in vague messages. One of the messages she sent Blomkvist was one word, "Zala". Blomkvist then responded "Lisbeth, You damn troublesome person. Who the hell is Zala? Is he the link? Do you know who murdered Dag & Mia? If so, tell me so we can solve this mess and go to sleep. Mikael." Seems like some pretty reasonable questions, considering, right? Salander responds with another cryptic message, "You're the journalist. Find out." If she knows something that could help prove her innocence, why doesn't she just go out and say it? I can't tell if she's waiting for someone else to figure it out, or if she just doesn't trust anyone else to prove her innocence, or what! Maybe she feels like she doesn't even have the responsibility to prove herself innocent, considering she is so under the radar normally, anyway. I don't know.
          If something is wrong, or injust, you have to do something about it. You simply cannot just sit in your apartment waiting for someone else to do it for you! It's choices like that that do not result in any accomplishments whatsoever. This situation is extremely frustrating to me. The fact that she is being blamed for such a horrific crime, and she has something that could prove her innocence that she isn't bringing to the table really upsets me, and I just don't understand it!

Dr. Seuss's Hidden Political Views?

          In class, we recently read "The Lorax" by Dr. Seuss. The purpose of this read aloud was to really look deeper into children's books and find the true, and often hidden messages. One thing we talked about was symbolism. Dr. Seuss was a strongly political person, and people were often questioning his ideas and opinions. "The Lorax" centers around The Onceler, a greedy man who comes upon these marvelous truffula trees and starts cutting them down and turning them into Thneeds.
          "Everyone needs a thneed!" The Once-ler is originally, and firstly cutting down the truffula trees to make money. He knits the truffula trees into "thneeds", which can be used as a shirt, a sock, a glove, a hat, a carpet, a pillow, a sheet, or a curtain. The truffula trees, and the land surrounding it are home to many many animals and creatures. Once the truffula trees start getting cut down, the Lorax, who was "shortish and oldish and brownish and mossy"protests. "I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues". The Once-ler can't cut down the truffula trees! They're not up for the taking! The little guy is standing up, representing the trees who don't have voices.
          The Once-ler however, ignores his pleas. Everyone needs a thneed! What's wrong with cutting down some trees in exchange for something everyone needs? Soon, the truffula trees decrease in population; there are barely any left. The greedy man took away all of the creatures' truffula trees just so he could make them into Thneeds, sell them, and make money. Now their homes are gone, the land is polluted, and they're forced to move away.
          One thing I noticed in the Lorax is that you never see the Once-ler's face. It's always stuck inside his car, then shop, then factory. Whenever he talks all you see are his hands. This reminded me of big corporations, and therefore made me start to suspect that Dr. Seuss was using symbolism to portray the Once-ler as the head of a big corporation. Heads of widely known corporations are often very vague. They don't make a lot of appearances and they don't often have opinions; business is often done throughout the rest of the employees. The Once-ler comes in a takes everything away from the "little guys" to make profit. When he is asked to stop, his greed overcomes his sympathy and he ignores them and continues with his business.
          Like I said, for the most part, in real-life situations, you never get to deal with the head of a big corporation directly. In the book, the Lorax does in fact talk to the Once-ler directly, but as I said before, you never see his face, you only see his hands, knitting Thneeds. For me, this part of the illustration made me think of a head of a big corporation having lower executive employees and using them as puppets, on his hands, always working. He's involved in the corporation but he has so many lower employees that he kind of speaks through them indirectly.
          Big corporations also tend to have big factories that guzzle resources and pollute the air. In the Lorax, the factories pollute the air, demolish the truffula trees, and pollute the lakes. When asked by the Lorax, who is speaking for the people who don't have voices, the Once-ler keeps working because he justifies his work in thinking that everyone needs a thneed, so it's okay! Just like in real life, when someone is standing up against big corporations, often for the people who aren't able to really speak for themselves, sometimes, the big companies don't do anything because they feel as if their work justifies what they're doing to the "little guys".
          There are quite a few pieces of story and illustration that lead me to think Dr. Seuss was symbolically representing big corporations through the Once-ler. I have heard that he was also a very political person, and was often questioned about his political views, which just leads me to think even more that that's what he was hinting at.

Just Like The Movies

          I recently just finished reading the seriously funny auto-biography, "Is Everyone Hanging Out Without Me? (And Other Concerns)" by Mindy Kaling (some of you may know her as Kelly on The Office). In this book, Kaling writes about a lot of her (often hilarious) problems as a child, anecdotes, and a lot of her opinions on things currently. One thing she wrote about that I really loved was "Types of Women in Romantic Comedies Who Are Not Real".
          The chapter "Types of Women in Romantic Comedies Who Are Not Real" is pretty self-explanatory. It's about multiple female characters that she has seen repeatedly in many romantic comedies, and the fact that they don't exist in real life.
          She mentions a few different types of women: "The Klutz: ... The 100-percent-perfect-looking female is perfect in every way, except she constantly falls down.", there's also "The Ethereal Weirdo: ...She spins a globe, places her finger on a random spot, and decides to move there. This ethereal weirdo abounds in movies, but nowhere else. If she were from real life, people would think she was a homeless woman and would cross the street to avoid her...", then there's also "The Woman Who is Obsessed With Her Career and Is No Fun At All", "The Forty-Two-Year-Old Mother of the Thirty-Year-Old Male Lead", "The Sassy Best Friend", "The Skinny Woman Who Is Beautiful and Toned But Also Gluttonous and Disgusting", and, "The Woman Who Works in an Art Gallery". When I was reading this chapter, I found that not only were all of descriptions hilarious, but also completely true. I can think of countless movies in which they appear.
          After I read the chapter, I thought briefly about all of these characters and realized I hadn't really seen any of them in real life; not 100%, anyway. People don't actually act like that in real life, yet we are constantly entertained by romantic comedies.
          Before she lists all of these unrealistic female characters, she talks a bit about her personal history with romantic comedies. She grew up watching them, and sheepishly admits she still loves watching them today. "I enjoy watching people fall in love on-screen so much that I can suspend my disbelief for the contrived situations that only happen in the heightened world of romantic comedies."
          When I'm watching movies, I never think, "Oh, this isn't real! That would never happen in real life!", I just sit back and enjoy the movie. If I were to really analyze a romantic comedy, I would probably see there are multiple occurrences that probably would not happen in real life. The thing is, I don't want to analyze it, I just want to watch it.
          Many people have said that they aren't very realistic, including myself, but that doesn't stop me from going out and seeing one in the theater, or renting a DVD. Why? Because romantic comedies always have happy endings. There is always a funny, sweet sort of happily-ever-after ending. Romantic comedies are simply happy. Who wouldn't want to watch a funny and happy movie? It plants the idea in your head that that's what life is like, and who wouldn't love to have their life be a romantic comedy? Well, probably many people, but not me! I, do believe that some things can happen like they do in the movies. Sure, my life may not be just like one, but I think that some aspects of movies are very plausible, and even the implausible aspects can happen.
          Would it be better if we all watched not-so-happy movies with more realistic endings? Maybe. I'd rather watch a movie with a happy ending, because they give me hope. Not everyone thinks like that, however, and maybe it's better for us to be more realistic... Or maybe it's better to think positively.What do you think?