Horror Movies: Now and Then

As we approach Halloween, the usual stream of movies designed to scare the pants of their respective audiences is beginning. Movies being released range from the sixth installment of the incredibly violent Saw series to the psychological ghost thriller Paranormal Activity. While these two movies have come to epitomize the modern horror industry, they’re a far cry from the what the industry considered “horror” at recent as twenty to thirty years ago.

Rewind back to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s and what we see is unrecognizable compared to a modern horror film. The Devil’s Castle, released in 1896, is widely considered to be the first true horror movie, although it was simply a two minute long vampire flick with none of the violence, gore, or special effects of its modern day counterparts.

Since The Devil’s Castle, the horror industry has taken on a life of its own as its evolved through the decades. What was considered horror in the early 1900’s consisted of lots of campy makeup and more of a focus on conceptual horror, as is evidenced in Bela Lugosi’s Dracula and Boris Karloff’s Frankenstein. Both such movies were simple in context, showed very little in terms of violence, and still managed to scare a considerably less desensitized 1930’s audience compared to modern-day moviegoers.

Fast forward thirty some years to the early 1960’s and we see the evolution of horror movies that manage to scare audiences while showing next to nothing in terms of ghosts, ghouls, and the like. Jack Clayton’s The Innocents (1961) chronicled a mother and her two children living in a supposedly haunted house, although throughout the movie we don’t see a single apparition, with the horror lying solely in the minds of the audience. Similarly, Robert Wise’s The Haunting managed to accomplish the same goal as its predecessor as a successful ghost movie that terrified moviegoers and lived by the idea that less is more.

The 1970’s brought forth a lull of sorts for the genre, but also saw the popularizing of the modern zombie movie made famous by filmmakers such as George Romero. A so-called “modern” zombie movie was revolutionary in the sense that suddenly audiences were seeing the horror itself—the fear brought forth was explicit instead of implicit.

After George Romero came a slew of gory zombie flicks, each more violent than the last, until we get to Sam Rami’s Evil Dead trilogy. Rami satirized the whole genre with campy dialogue, purposely low budget special effects, and some pretty gratuitous violence (i.e. a scene in which the main character attaches a chainsaw to his arm).

Nowadays we see movies such as Hostel and the Saw series that show unprecedented violence and gore designed to send its audience running out of the theater screaming. In the midst of this special effect/red corn syrup-driven gore, low-budget horror that can’t afford to show anything has risen to popularity.

Movies like The Blair Witch Project and the haunted house flick Paranormal Activity are finding new ways to scare audiences without having to watch someone’s eyes get gouged out by a masked psychopath (see Saw). Paranormal Activity, completely shot on a camcorder, had a budget of around $11,000 and made over $7 million in its opening weekend. With no money for special effects, gore, or an animatronic monster, it’s managed to draw rave reviews from critics and the average moviegoer alike.

The horror genre has rapidly evolved over the last century, beginning with a two minute long silent film, and culminating in everything from the timeless horror of the 60’s to the gore-fests of the last three decades. The odds are that if there's something that scares you, it's been made into a successful horror flick--it's really just a question of going out there and making yourself watch it, with one eye closed (just in case).

SNL and the Mainstream Media

A lot has gone on since Barack Obama was sworn into office back in January. America has stared down the barrel of economic disaster, watched the situation in Afghanistan rapidly deteriorate, and seen one of the most polarizing healthcare debates in recent history take place. There's been laughter and there have been tears in the midst of a tumultuous nine months. Naturally, it's all Barack Obama's fault. Or so some people would like to believe.

The popular late night sketch show Saturday Night Live recently ran a sketch issuing a fairly harsh criticism of our president Barack Obama. In the skit, Fred Armisen as Obama was depicted as sitting in the oval office, going over how so far in his presidency, he’s done “nothing, nada.” Going over a checklist of his campaign promises Armisen-Obama went on to claim that he’s done nothing about everything from healthcare to Afghanistan.

This has of course raised a media flurry, and even prompted CNN to fact check a comedy sketch show. Because we live in the viral video generation, this sketch has been circulated pretty much everywhere imaginable. A quick Google search of “Obama SNL” will yield you a shade over 9 million hits. Such a controversial stance on a the president has given the mainstream media the cue to end their honeymoon period with Obama and has caused somewhat of a mini-panic.

Most syndicates are running pieces trying to determine how right SNL was, some of which are proclaiming that the sky is indeed falling and that we’ve been cursed with a “do-nothing” president. Others have gone about it with calmer minds once they realized that Obama’s been in office for less than 10 months. Expecting him to solve all of the nations problems in that amount of time isn’t fair to someone who’s receiving enough heat as it is trying to deliver on his healthcare promise, not to mention the allegations from fringe conservatives that he’s turning America into Nazi Germany.

That said, the most disappointing realization of this whole debacle has been that the only scenario in which the mainstream media will think to audit our president’s accomplishments is when prompted by a comedy sketch show. Sure, SNL’s so-called “allegations” are completely unfair given the sample size of time Obama’s spent in office. But this kind of behavior from the media is what got this country involved in an expensive Middle-East war that has cost thousands of American lives as well as billions of taxpayer dollars. Journalists have wasted enough ink on Saturday Night Live in the last week and not nearly enough on real issues (Afghanistan, military policy on gay soldiers, immigration, etc), which have only come up again since the sketch aired.

The mainstream media was off the mark in terms of what should have been reported during the run-up to the Iraq War and to this day it’s cost this country dearly. Nowadays it’s as though those very same people are asleep at the wheel, only waking up when a show like Saturday Night Live runs a politically themed sketch with a quasi-controversial issue that can be disproved in a two to three sentences.

The jury’s still out on Obama right now, namely because he hasn’t had time to get much done while meeting stubborn resistance at every stop. But it’d be nice to know that if and when something worth reporting comes up, America will see it’s press corps report responsibly and thoroughly. Right now, it doesn’t feel like that in the slightest.

What Recession?

A question has been on the minds of American citizens for quite some time now. Since the beginning of the end back in September of 2008, Americans have had one burning query in the forefront of their collective consciousness: when will it all end? Some pundits are saying that the long wait is over and that we as a country can return to “business as usual.” Others say that this is only the beginning. The reality though, seems to reside somewhere in between.

In some ways, it’s easy to point to a few indicators and say that “the recession” is over. According to one article in Newsweek, as of July 25, 2009, the stock market had “rallied 44 percent since March,” and that “the economy is growing at a 2.5 percent annual rate in the current quarter.” Recession over right? Well, no not exactly.

The general consensus of many Wall Street gurus seems to be that while the recession has yet to end, at the very least it’s slowed down. David Wessel, the economics editor of the Wall Street Journal states that “The stock market is now as high as it's been any time this year. But neither the economy or the financial system is anywhere near what we might consider normal.”

He goes on to say that while the economy is growing “painfully slowly,” spending habits of consumers have drastically changed, with people choosing to burn money much more carefully. In a capitalist society founded on the consumer spending as much as possible, it becomes difficult for the economy to grow quickly when no one is spending money. This then raises another difficult question—is the definition of “business of normal” ever going to be the same?

The harsh reality is that if and when the American economy completely stabilizes, “business as normal” is going to take on a whole new meaning. Wall Street will be more harshly regulated by the federal government than ever before. On Wall Street itself there will be fewer firms that, according to Wessel, “will be required to hold more capital, borrow less money, and make less money than they did before.” The very structure our economy is based on will have to radically be shifted in order for the ship to be completely righted. Such a process will certainly not be an overnight fix, rather a slow process that many say will take anywhere from five to ten years, if not more.

Pundits can point to the improving stock market and annual growing rates of our economy and try to wash their hands of this unholy mess that’s struck the global economy in the last year. To do so though, would be wildly irresponsible. The unemployment rate in this country still stands at 9.5% while domestic jobs are moving overseas to cheaper labor. The national debt stands at a whopping $11.77 trillion and is growing as we speak.

Newsweek states that the only way for us to even begin to climb out of this hole is for “the economy to start growing at a pace that creates jobs, boosts incomes, and raises corporate profits—all without triggering inflation," something much easier said than done. In short, the recession is improving, but it's certainly not over. Now we have to pick up the pieces and deal with the long term affects of the collapse of the housing market along with debt, and unemployment; needless to say this is a tall order. Be ready to hunker down, because while the hurricane may have ended, we’re still trapped in the storm.

East Africa: Distance Running's Ground Zero

Trisha Steidl has been the head cross-country coach at Seattle University for almost three years now. A repeat winner of the Seattle Marathon in 2006 and 2007, she traveled to Kenya during her first year as head coach to absorb the cultural experience, take in the warm weather, and more importantly immerse herself in the famed running scene of East Africa. By running with the locals and picking the brains of some of the most talented runners the world has never heard of, Steidl hoped to gain an insight into why this culture halfway around the world has stormed onto the international distance running scene in the last thirty some years.


Flashing back to 1968, one can start to see the whole picture. The setting is the Summer Olympics in Mexico, and the main players are two runners whose rivalry would come to define the next forty years of their sport. One is American Jim Ryun, the former world record-holder in the mile race; the other is little-known runner from the small country of Kenya known as Kipchoge "Kip" Keino. Facing off in the 1500 meter final in the ’68 Games, Ryun is the heavy favorite, and considered to be as unstoppable on the track as unstoppable can be.


The gun goes off, signaling the start of the race. Keino sits in third place as the leaders come through the first lap in world-record pace. As the second lap is completed, the Kenyan moves up to the front of the pack, with Ryun nowhere to be found. Soon enough, Keino puts twenty meters between him and the next runner. Coming through the finish a shade slower than the world record, he achieves the largest margin of victory in the history of the event in an Olympic final.

Flashing forward to the present day, we see a completely different world of distance running. East African runners are associated with absolute dominance of their sport, and theories are abounding to why. Seattle University’s own Trisha Steidl offers one theory.

“(For Kenyans) there isn’t much else besides running."

The mindset of the average Kenyan runner is that of someone who lives on $150 a year, and is running in order to feed their family. A large majority of these Kenyans are competing as a means of survival, giving them “a lot to win, but also a lot to lose.”

In the last thirty or so years, this has become evident as college coaches and agents have become the liaisons for East African runners towards the opportunity to not only showcase their immense running talent, but also to give them a way to support their considerably large families. That being said, why the lack of Kenyan recruits at Seattle University? For one, with the Athletic Department being the way it is, funding for recruiting needs to be at a certain level, ideally with a whole lot of full scholarships. Without this, it becomes hard to draw in East African runners, especially when they can flock to other programs that are renowned for their Kenyan recruits as well as their ability to fund such a venture.

While Seattle University may not have the resources to bring in Kenyans, there are still programs across the nation that do. By providing these opportunities to people who have little to no financial mobility, world records fall at alarming rates. With Keino’s 1968 victory as the catalyst, East Africans move to the forefront of the international distance running scene. Records are broken one by one until we get to the present day, where an East African holds every major record from the 800-meter race to the marathon. In 1986, 48.3% of the top 20 performances in the major distance events (800, 1500, mile, 3000, 5000, marathon) were held by Europeans. By 2003, 85% of these top 20 performances were held by runners of African descent, 55.8% of which were Kenyan.

While many factors contribute to this, there are a few that stand head and shoulders above the rest. Says Steidl, East African running is “selfless” in nature, at least in comparison to the Western mentality in which there is less hardship.

This motivation plays a strong part in the rigorous training that Kenyans are notorious for taking part in. Even from a young age, “having to be mobile all the time” figures largely into the success of East Africans in running as bodies develop, as the main transportation takes place on foot. Marathon world record-holder Haile Gebrselassie was known for running long distances to and from school every day with his textbooks tucked under his arms in his home country of Ethiopia.

Taking into account the economic situation of East Africans, there is yet another facet to consider when speculating on athletic ability.

“Evolutionarily, where they are is the ideal body type for running,” says Steidl, citing East Africans’ small frames with little to no body fat.

Studies done by Swedish scientist Bengt Saltin in the 1990’s showed that Kenyans have an increased ability to “resist fatigue longer.” Lactate, a chemical compound “generated by tired, oxygen-deprived muscles” built up in Kenyan legs slower than the average runner in Saltin’s study, leading to their ability to push their bodies to levels the average runner simply cannot.

Other genetic factors figure into the ultra-efficient runner as well. In one study, Saltin compared a focus group of Danish runners with Kenyans. In this trial, he found that the average Kenyan has “on average, 400 grams less flesh in each lower leg.” The science behind this phenomena states that the “farther weight is from the center of gravity, the more energy it takes to move it.” Put simply, with genetically slimmer calve muscles, it takes less energy for the average Kenyan to move their legs while running.

One issue that many studies fail to take into account is the fact that a vast majority of East African runners cannot afford shoes, forcing them to run barefoot. Says Steidl; “Not having shoes makes them more efficient at running on their toes.” By running barefoot, the African runner becomes biomechanically efficient. This type of unsupported running builds up small muscles in the feet and legs that a runner would not normally build wearing heavily supportive running shoes.

The socio-economic factors surrounding East African runners stand at the forefront of their ability as well, as they are known for retreating to small villages in the mountains of their home country to train, sometimes not seeing their families for months, or even years at a time. With the lack of technology such as television and internet there is “nothing to distract them from training,” says Coach Steidl. When presented with the “opportunity to help their family,” the Kenyan runner will use all assets at their disposal to do so. In most cases, the biggest, and sometimes only asset available is their incredible running ability.

Steidl’s time spent in Kenya brought forth a simple truth. Could a country whose distance runners stand above the rest genetically have a wealth of untapped potential?

“Absolutely,” says Steidl, “and they could be so much better given the resources.”

Clearly, the mentality and the genetics were always there; all it took was the image of Kip Keino leaning across the finish line at the 1968 Olympics for a culture to get its chance to show the world its immense promise. This in turn led to the dawn of a new age in distance running, and more importantly the opportunity for a better life. And while this better life may not be easy for the East African runner, thanks to God-given ability and the chance to shine, it definitely moves at a fast pace.

Is Race in Sports Still an Issue?

The day is Sunday, September 28, 2008. The Milwaukee Brewers are playing the Chicago Cubs in front of a packed house of 45,299 raving fans. The Brewers take the field in the top of the first inning. Looking at this image, one would not see anything particularly out of the ordinary. Look closer though, and one would notice the Brewers, on this day in September, are playing four African-Americans out of a total of nine men. Prince Fielder, C.C. Sabathia, Mike Cameron, and Ray Durham represent a sight that for some reason, is rarely seen in today’s game.

Flash back a little further to April 15, 1947. Jackie Robinson takes the field for the Brooklyn Dodgers in front of 26,623 fans, 14,000 of which were black. That day, Robinson became the first African-American player in the history of Major League Baseball. Such a feat seemingly opened the doors wide for players of all races, colors, and creeds to enter into professional sports. The percentage of African-Americans in baseball increased all the way to 27% in 1975, a staggering statistic considering that this was just 28 years since that fateful day back in 1947.

That 1975 figure though, has since been on the decline up until 2006. Coming up on the 60th anniversary of Robinson’s debut, the idea of racial equality received a punch in the stomach. According to studies done by the University of Central Florida organization, just 8.4% of Major League players were black in 2006, a stark contrast from the totals in 1975. At the same time, the baseball institution is not completely without its diversity.

Well-represented on the racial spectrum in baseball are Hispanics, at 29.4 percent of all players. Combine that percentage with African-Americans at 8.4, and Asians at 2.4 percent, and roughly 40 percent of all Major League players are minorities.

“A lot of Hispanics are now getting the chances blacks got in the 1940’s,” says Doc Graham, a former Negro League baseball player, in an interview with John Helyar of ESPN.

The sharp decline of African-American’s combined with the rapid rise of Latinos in baseball have led to frustration among many black players. Gary Sheffield, a left fielder for the Detroit Tigers let loose allegations in 2007 that led to an uproar of malcontent.

Said Sheffield, “What I called is that you're going to see more black faces, but there ain't no English going to be coming out. ... [It's about] being able to tell [Hispanic players] what to do, being able to control them” (June 2007 issue of GQ).

Such a racially tinged outburst illustrates the frustration that is currently present in the sports world today, and raises the question of why such a massive discrepancy exists.

The decline of African-American’s in baseball can be partly attributed to redistribution. In one study done in 2004, Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Mark Lelinwalla said “the NBA's black-player population was 77 percent, while the white-player population was 21 percent. Of the white players, 55 percent were American-born and 45 percent were international players.”

Such a stark contrast can be seen in the NFL as well, with the most recent tallies in 2007 putting African-Americans at 67 percent of all players.

These figures leave many Americans scratching their heads to the amount of discrepancy not just intra-sport, but inter-sport as well. There are a myriad of explanations that people can only speculate on.

Of the three most popular American sports, why would the minority population drift towards basketball and football, and in turn begin a mass exodus from baseball? John Entine, author of Why Blacks Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It puts forth an interesting view.

"White parents are partly responsible because some see basketball as a ghetto sport now," said Entine in an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Such an attitude, Entine argues, has driven whites away from basketball and towards sports deemed “more acceptable” by parents.

“Some parents discourage their kids from playing (basketball), and in the process, their children aren't able to access their full potential,” Entine said.

This proposes the argument that whites, blacks, Latinos, etc., aren’t necessarily being excluded from any particular sport per say, rather ethnicities are merely being shuffled around among multiple sports.

A similar opinion is offered by the Gerald Early of the blog “Extra Bases” Calling it an “unpopular answer to a popular question,” Early, director of the humanities center at Washington University, St. Louis, states frankly that “I assume black Americans don’t play Major League baseball so much these days because they don’t want to. This answer never satisfies anyone.”

This, some sociologists argue, is partly attributed to the financial difficulty that being a professional baseball player offers to a family with limited funds.

Early cites a story in the St. Louis Dispatch that attempts to explain this trend. “To become an elite player today means participating in programs that can be prohibitively expensive for families with little financial wiggle room” (St. Louis Dispatch, June 18, 2008).

According to Early, such a thought process “is called deficit theory, that is, that one group does not does not do what another group does because it lacks the resources to do it.” In short, deficit theory states that African-Americans growing up in poor neighborhoods are less likely to go out and buy a mitt, baseball bat, ball(s), cap, and cleats as they are to buy a cheap basketball or football.

Playing the devil’s advocate, Early also claims that “deficit theory is almost always wrong.” Such a generalization does not account for the black players in the early 1900’s who, despite torrent racism and lack of equipment, still managed to find ways to play baseball. Black athletes today manage to play sports like basketball and football that require more than just a ball (i.e. uniforms, cleats/shoes, organizations/teams, large fields/courts).

A lack of interest in the so-called nostalgia of baseball is a driving force towards the African-American community’s disinterest in the timely sport. “Baseball sells itself through nostalgia. Going back into baseball’s past only leads to segregation, and something called white baseball and something else called black baseball,” says Early.

Claude Johnson of the “Black Fives Blog” goes so far as to say that baseball was not even the leader in the integration of professional sports teams.

“To say that basketball ‘must still acknowledge baseball’s contribution to their diversity’ is not even in the ballpark. [Jackie] Robinson himself played for a racially integrated professional basketball team prior to his first at-bat with the Brooklyn Dodgers,” said Johnson.

In some ways though, the deficit theory seemingly does apply. “It’s not completely racism, but there’s definitely some cultural resonance. I wouldn’t completely rule out the deficit model,” says Dr. Julie Harms-Cannon, professor of sociology at Seattle University. “In poor neighborhoods, what’s available in terms of activities?” The argument here is that baseball is an expensive pastime that is underemphasized by the school system and the media.

Says Harms-Cannon, “High schools put a greater emphasis on sports like football, especially in southern states. Who do we see on TV, and who are the stars we all know best?” Sports like football and basketball become more prominent in the minds of black youths, and as such carry a certain “cultural resonance.”

Baseball is a sport that requires a player to be drafted, move through an endless series of minor league teams, and then maybe that player will receive a call to play in the Major Leagues. Compare that to football and basketball, where a player is drafted out of college, and then goes straight to the “big team.” Baseball does not provide the immediate gratification that other sports can grant in terms of money or prestige.

Because of this, “baseball is simply not culturally important (to African-Americans),” says Harms-Cannon.

This being so, the argument can be made that blacks are not terribly under-represented in baseball, with 12 percent of the American population being black. “If anything,” says Harms-Cannon, “African-Americans are numerically over-represented in basketball in football.”