FILM REVIEW

FLIGHT: FROM ADDICTION TO REDEMPTION
By Tony R. B.

Denzel Washington as an Airline Pilot, Captain
"Whip" Whitaker, and drug and alcohol addict.

The theatrical trailer for the movie Flight (2012), starring Denzel Washington, which showcases some of the films dramatic and visually stunning moments (there is a scene where the wing of a passenger airplane decimates the steeple of a church), provides reason enough to see the movie. And the inclusion of Washington, as the lead actor, in any film is certainly a movie draw for me, especially a film that appears to embody all of the awesome elements of a big budget special effects disaster movie. Yet this film does something uniquely unexpected and completely surprising. The director, Robert Zemeckis, brilliantly departs from what might be a fantastic airplane destruction film, and chooses instead to take viewers on an emotional and unpredictable journey through the not-so-pretty world of addiction and enablement towards one that is inherently framed by self-sacrifice and redemption.

Captain Whitaker and his Co-Pilot just before the fatal
take-off and crash that killed eight passengers.

William “Whip” Whitaker (played by Washington) is a seasoned commercial airline pilot who miraculously crash lands his plane after a mid-air catastrophe, saving all but eight passengers. After the crash, Whip is hailed as a hero, but as more details become known about events leading up to the crash, more questions than answers arise regarding who or what was really at fault? For instance, we learn that Whip drinks too much, uses cocaine excessively, and has unadulterated sex with various women including one of his own flight attendants, Katerina (played by Nadine Velázquez), who is among the casualties of the crash. From the very first scene, it is disturbingly apparent that Whip has issues with addiction. The true extent of his problems is not so obvious―at first, but one thing is evident―he never publicly or privately admits that he has a problem, at least not until the end of the film. To complicate matters, there are a variety of social enablers in his life who allow Whip to continue his destructive behavior either by virtue of active participation, passive resistance, or simple acquiesce.

Shown clockwise from top: Washington,
Cheadle, Reilly, and Goodman

First, we meet Harling Mays (played by John Goodman), who is Whip’s drug dealer and “friend.” Harling actively perpetuates Whip’s substance abuse by supplying him with the means of self-destruction (i.e. alcohol and cocaine) on a regular basis and is, thus, seen as the consummate social enabler. He displays no regard or regret, nor assumes responsibility, for the negative consequences that result from Whip’s drug usage. Secondly, Whip begins a romantic relationship with a recovering addict named Nicole (played by Kelly Reilly). Through his dysfunctional relationship with Nicole, we see a man trying to find happiness, yet is incapable of doing so because he is flawed and tortured by the constant pain he inflicts on others closest to him. Nicole knows Whip is an addict, yet she is not courageous enough to demand that he quit. Instead, she quietly and passively leaves him to face his demons alone. Lastly, while preparing for the legal dilemma facing him, we meet Whip’s attorney, Hugh Lang (played by Don Cheadle), who is a brilliant litigator with a winning track record for getting his clients exonerated. Through various legal maneuverings, Lang arrogantly anticipates Whip’s vindication despite his knowledge of Whip’s addiction to alcohol and cocaine; he is even successful at suppressing a toxicology report, which confirms that Whip had been drinking while flying the plane when it crashed. Thus, Lang’s actions represent the ultimate act of acquiesce, which enables Whip to travel down his dark and desperate road unchallenged.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) hearing to determine
Captain Whitaker's (Washington) involvement in the plane crash
that killed eight people, including flight attendant, Katerina (shown). 

Finally, during his NTSB hearing, details of empty alcohol bottles found in the plane’s trash are uncovered, as well as Katerina’s toxicology report showing that she had been drinking that day, resulting in a foregoing conclusion that she somehow contributed to the plane's crash. In a moment of unusual clarity and sacrifice, Whip makes a selfless confession about his own intoxication level while flying the airplane that fatal day. Thus, in order to maintain the good name of Katerina, he finally admits to himself (and to others) that he is an addict and a danger to the public. Whip is subsequently sentenced to prison where his narrative is shared with other inmates as part of a support group discussion and where he insists, ironically for the first time, that he actually feels “free.” And by the end of the film, we realize that the title, Flight, is not just about a tragic airplane story; it is an allegory for the often painful, lonely, dark, and tragic journey that one, struggling with addiction, has to endure before finally discovering his own path to redemption.

See the theatrical trailer here: http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2384176153/

Flight: – not to be confused with Flight of the Condor

By Cassandra M.

The movie Flight starring Denzel Washington gives a different spin on survival under the most unforeseen set of circumstances. How many times can one person be saved after surviving a plane crash? Apparently, William “Whip” Whitaker embodies the spirit of felines that are said to have nine lives. In this riveting movie, Denzel Washington plays the character of pilot Whip Whitaker who has a reputation for being a great pilot.  Anyone on the ground witnessing a plane falling from the sky in an inverted position would assume they were looking at what would later be described as one of the worst plane crashes in history. They would be wrong. Especially since the pilot at the controls is none other than Whip Whitaker, pilot extraordinaire. Similar to the heroic actions of real world pilot, Chesley Sullenberger, who landed a US Airways jet in the Hudson River, Whip’s (Denzel Washington) calm demeanor during the plane’s mid-air malfunction and miracle landing is seen as a feat of epic proportion with Whip hailed as a hero.

Unfortunately, when Whip is confronted about the possibility of pilot error being the cause of the crash, he dons his rose colored glasses and only wants to remind people that, “no one could have landed that plane like I did, no one.” Yes, the majority of the passengers were saved, but do you really want to fly with a pilot who was up all night drinking and doing drugs?

Thus begins the on-going storyline of everyone coming to the aid of Whip but Whip. After crash landing the ill-fated flight, Whip and the passengers are assisted on the ground by a group of parishioners who just happened to be in the same field the crash occurred in having a baptismal service. Throughout the movie, there are a number of people who try to save Whip from imminent and continuous danger at his own hands.

During his stay in the hospital, Whip meets Kelly Reilly (Nicole) who survived a near death experience of her own when she overdosed on drugs. Nicole and Whip are drawn together by an unusual set of circumstances and Whip invites her to live with him at his boyhood farm where he has moved to avoid the media and reporters. Whip had earlier disposed of all the alcohol and drugs he had in numerous locations in the house and on the property. One would think from these actions that Whip has finally come to the realization that he does indeed have a problem but before the day ended, he had begun restocking his alcohol supply. With the threat of possible prosecution looming over him, Whip reverts back to his dependence on drugs and alcohol concerned with the possibility of prosecution if the results of his blood tests become known.  Nicole tries to help Whip with his addiction problem by inviting him to join her at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, but Whip only stays for a short time since he feels his drinking and drug use is under control.  When Nicole realizes that Whip’s drinking and drug use is only getting worse, she packs and leaves before she too succumbs to the ever present drugs that are a constant reminder of how close she came to ending her life.

Whip’s attorney comes to his rescue when the lab results are excluded from the investigation results by his attorney, Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle) who has to continually stress to Whip that he needs to stop drinking in order to walk away from the incident with no jail time.  Whip ignores Lang’s pleas and continues his drug and alcohol use.

Unlike Flight of the Phoenix where the crash victims band together in order to survive, Whip is left to his own survival or demise as he is aided by another survivor who was not a passenger on the flight. In the end, Whip comes to his own rescue when he admits during a public hearing of the plane crash that he was intoxicated and on drugs during the mishap. In an effort to save the reputation of a crewmember, Whip eventually saves himself and others through his confession.  Director, Robert Zemeckis did an outstanding job of directing the film’s cast in this pivotal portrayal of unlikely people coming to the aid of others.

Abolish the SAT?

ABOLISH THE SAT
By Kristen T.
Edited by Tony R. B.

Charles Murray, author of “Abolish the SAT”, provided me with new insight into the familiar, yet dreaded test. Murray proposes and gives ample examples to why the SAT should never be administered again. Murray uses information gathered and published in 2001 by the University of California that analyzes the relationship between high school grades, SAT scores, achievement test scores and freshman grades in college. Unsurprisingly, the results yield that SAT scores are inherently useful at predicting--well, nothing. Murray goes on to argue the removal of the SAT completely and I could not agree more with him.

When I was preparing to take the SAT, I felt I had an advantage over other students because I usually tested very well in almost every subject. Still, I dreaded taking the SAT partly because doing so was a waste of time. Moreover, I felt that my eventual score did not truly reflect my academic ability any more than my high school report card did--and I was correct. For instance, I scored extremely well on the SAT but continued to receive merely "decent" grades throughout school. Thus, the vast differences between my SAT scores and my grades continued to astound both me and my family.

While having a standardized test to measure student's academic abilities sounds like a great idea, the truth is that it has never been proven to work for two reasons: (1) There are too many variations to take into consideration and (2), the test is not able to adequately gauge student’s skills overall. So why waste both student and admission officer’s time worrying over the results of the dreaded test? Perhaps it has something to do with the enormous pay day that the College Board collects by administering the test. In the end, the SAT is nothing more than a "meal ticket" for the board, and is both confusing and misleading to students and parents. 




ANYONE IS CAPABLE OF EXCELLING ON THE SAT
By Jasmine Alexis C.
Edited by Tony R. B.

Arguably, the SAT is a common assessment that continues to frighten students and parents. Moreover, many negative inferences are associated with the SAT, partly because it requires a significant amount of study and preparation prior to taking, and a great deal of emotional pressure to perform well exists in order to be accepted into college. While some may argue that the SAT provides little academic value, may not effectively measure student intelligence, or that it favors the elite, in truth, the SAT establishes a common standard for college acceptance and forces college-seeking students to aim past mediocrity. In addition, the SAT is fair for college admissions in that it challenges students to think critically, is reasonable for upper-class high school students to complete, is demonstrative of what students should be learning, and is offered regardless of one's ethnic, financial, and educational status.

With regard to the emotional stress associated with the SAT, cramming for any test can place strain on students and add unnecessary stress to their young lives. While stress is not healthy for anyone, the SAT, itself, is not inherently responsible for this stress. The stress comes from the pressure that family, friends, teachers, and colleges place on students to do well. However, this is not an issue if most students spend adequate time preparing for the SAT in advance--as many of the elite do. One may argue that upper-middle class students perform better on the SAT because they have access to resources that help them prepare better--unlike the poor. I beg to differ. The poor have just as many opportunities. First, while economically challenged parents may not be able to afford private tutoring, many schools offer free SAT prep, and the College Board offers practice tests online. Secondly, most high schools provide freshmen and sophomore students the opportunity to become exposed to the SAT by taking the PSAT (practice SAT), which is similar to the SAT. And finally, students can always study independently.

Lastly, doing well on the SAT requires one to study for it, and those who put in the work typically do well. According to Murray, prestigious colleges are interested in any student with demonstrated intellectual capability--regardless of ethnicity or income level--in order to create diversity within their schools. They want all children, not just the elite. And because of the equal opportunity that exists, less privileged students have as much chance at excelling on the SAT as anyone else. It may require more effort, and it may require more creativity to prepare for it, but they, too, can do well.

In brief, intelligence is not based on color, background, or great genes as Murray claims; intelligence is based on one's willingness to learn and study. It has more to do with drive, determination, and perseverance. And being challenged is necessary in order to excel in life, for one cannot truly grow without overcoming challenges. Why, then, should anyone be allowed into a prestigious university without having challenged themselves? The SAT can be a challenge for most students. However, it is only a challenge because it requires extensive study and preparation as well as critical thinking, which is all one does while attending college.

 

Should Guns Be Allowed in Schools?

Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic- No Guns Allowed!

By Cassandra M.

The placing of guns in the hands of educators is not an adequate solution for protecting students and faculty from harm. If guns are placed in schools, criminals and those looking to cause bodily injury to others will have additional avenues to access weapons.  No amount of training given to educators can take the place of a trained professional with years of experience handling guns.

The added knowledge of knowing a gun is on the premises could cause undue stress and possible departures of tenured teachers and other essential staff. The departure of staff could prompt parents to withdraw their children and a reduced enrollment would lead to a reduction in force and school closures. If guns are allowed in schools, school systems will be open to possible lawsuits from parents and the neighboring communities if the guns meant to protect the schools fall into the wrong hands. The Connecticut Education Association polled 400 teachers in January to ascertain their position on allowing guns in schools. Surprisingly, only 3% supported the effort. Currently there are only 18 states that allow the carrying of concealed weapons on school grounds.

After the Sandy Hook tragedy, many schools positioned armed security guards or stationed police on their grounds in order to combat fear and protect against other tragedies aimed at schools. In addition to added security personnel, school doors remain locked during school hours allowing entry only after proper identification is received. These are just a few examples of safety measures that can be put in place verses arming educators with guns.  

History continues to show how harmful guns are in the hands of the inexperienced user and those unfamiliar with how to react in emergencies. There is too much that can go wrong if a loaded weapon is placed in the hands of someone whose vocation is that of an educator. The educators and students have enough to be concerned about without adding an additional layer of stress. The safety of teachers and children should remain the responsibility of those whose job it is to serve and protect--the police officers.

Let's stop making schools such easy targets!

By Jason G.

Public School staff should be required to carry firearms daily.

Throughout history, schools have been the target of violent criminals. If they aren't sexual predators preying on little kids, they are insane people climbing clock towers to shoot at college kids. Why are schools such attractive targets for people wishing to do harm? Because social norms and mores dictate that the school should be a nurturing environment, staffed primarily by women. So, in the eyes of a criminal, a school becomes a big building full of young, vulnerable people who are being cared for by a group of women. Since violent crimes are primarily committed by men, this presents a very easy target. As a society, we have made our teachers, administrators, and students one of the easiest targets for violent crime. As women are often less physically powerful than men, they need another way to assert force and defend themselves and our children.

The answer to the problem lies in changing society's perception of our public schools. We need to turn the idea that schools are easy targets on it's head. If we, as a society, require compulsory firearm training for all teachers and administrators and require a firearm in each classroom, the “easy target” perception will change. Once potential violent criminals see a school as a place to get shot and killed, they may look for another venue to wreak havoc. A recent example of this deterrent effect is the city of Kennessaw, Georgia, where all home owners within the city limit are required to own a firearm. Kennessaw seems like a really bad place to take up home invasion as a hobby. Because of this deterrent effect, the number of violent crimes and break-ins are much lower than the Georgia average.

In the case of mentally insane people, this deterrent will not be effective, but their harm could be limited by an armed teacher. How far would Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have gotten had they been shot as soon as they began their rampage in the Columbine High School? How many fewer people would Seung-Hui Cho have killed at Virginia Tech if there had been even one armed teacher? We will never know. It is too late for us to save those children.

Since we as a society have already failed to protect these children and dozens more throughout the years, their blood is partially on society's hands. We have allowed this to happen and need to go about changing it today. 

We need to properly train and arm all Public School teachers and administrators.