I think Woody Allen’s Blue Jasmine is his best film since 1995′s Mighty Aphrodite, making it his best in the last twenty years or so. He’s made quite a few very good films since then, and with Blue Jasmine Allen isn’t attempting anything that he didn’t also attempt in Match Point and similar films. This film is not by any means a departure for Allen. It’s his latest attempt at tragedy. What makes it stand out is that he hit his target perfectly this time. His other films aren’t bad, but compared to this one, they’re very near misses at best.
Blue Jasmine is a fairly transparent reinvention of A Streetcar Named Desire. However, Blanche Dubois’s equivalent is not the offspring of a fallen southern estate, but the wife of a failed Wall Street tycoon and criminal. Blanchett — who deserved an Oscar for her performance, and who won it — said that she studied the Bernie Madoff scandal for this role. The film narrates this couple’s descent into bankruptcy as backstory while we watch the lead character, Jasmine, attempt to rebuild her life from the ground up after moving back in with her working-class sister. It presents Jasmine’s life as a small, very destructive bomb that has, within a limited radius, destroyed or nearly destroyed everything around it.
The parallels that Allen establishes are tantalizing: Wall Street has become the moral and economic equivalent of the antebellum South, and this couple’s life an allegory for the US financial sector. Who are the slaves in this system? The working class, represented by Jasmine’s sister and ex-husband, who lost everything because of her brother in law’s criminality and because of Jasmine’s own narcissistic, yet at the same time entirely justified, revenge.
And yes, on the surface, Jasmine is the stereotypical narcissistic social x-ray, selfish sense of entitlement and all. But Allen’s writing and directing, and Blanchett’s performance, elevates this otherwise stereotypical character to a complex human being with whom we can sympathize, even as she gets exactly what she deserves and what she has, quite literally, brought upon herself. Even the characteristics that seem superficially annoying in these characters — such as their sense of style, their “standards,” and even their expectations — by taking on human characteristics take on a certain substance, and at times even become admirable. The film puts a human face on a narcissistic system, and in doing so perhaps provides the best hints of a way forward. This film is worth attention, and worth analysis. Above all, it’s worth watching.
The Chronicle of Higher Education is running a series of articles in this issue about the state of higher education and the history that led us to its current state.
The short version is that economic downturns and private sector commitments to paying as little taxes as possible has led to cuts in state budgets. Rises in tuition costs are exactly proportional in many cases to cuts in state budgets for education, and in order to drive up admissions, colleges are increasingly investing in sports and amenities rather than in qualified educators.
The result is that the business sector is getting what they’re paying for in the form of low-skilled college grads, the costs of college are being increasingly pushed onto the public in the form of debt, and a new debt crisis is looming as college graduates are increasingly unemployable or underemployed, making it difficult to repay these student loans.
Colleges and universities can be more responsible in their spending patterns too, but that by itself isn’t enough to reverse this situation.
You might think it’s smart to just pass by college altogether, but with a few exceptions, bad prospects for college grads mean worse ones for those without a college education.
The only winners will be the financial sector — at your expense.
Keep in mind that you’re already paying taxes for public education, and you’re not receiving the benefits of those taxes.
Take your time and read through these reports. They’re important.
Good essay describing a corrosive trend. I think it needs to consider one more element: how many of its faculty are full time, tenure track, have terminal degrees, and what’s their teaching load? If you have well-supported faculty, and if more than 90% of your courses are taught by full time, tenure track faculty, and if your college has the money, then investment in amenities isn’t a bad thing. Environment matters.
But if most of your courses are taught by adjuncts and administrative costs keep going up? There’s a real problem: the school has abandoned education as its primary mission.
Government Investigations and Suits Against For-Profit Colleges: the Grid – Bottom Line – Blogs – The Chronicle of Higher Education
Illustrating why the profit motive and education do not go hand in hand… read this one against the infographic I posted earlier.
Or in other words, how the private sector is gutting educating to profit from your tax dollars.
My wife has worked at a few charter schools now, and they were all — without exception — purely profit driven, unconcerned with students or with learning, guilty of pressuring faculty to push students through regardless of whether or not they had learned, and in some cases virtually abusive in their treatment of faculty.
Profit and education don’t belong together. There’s no such thing as a good for-profit school once you go beyond trade and vocational schools. At best, they rise to an acceptable level of mediocrity — with the highest level of student loan debt.
Great article: Jonathan Senchyne calls out Nicolas Kristof for his misguided editorial on the lack of “public intellectuals.” Who really gets space in The New York Times? So-called ”innovative educators” buying space to promote for-profit ventures, none of whom are actually educators or innovators — just profiteers.
I would add that there are few or no true public intellectuals actively writing in venues such as the NYT, Salon, or Slate because educated opinion making fine distinctions in measured tones isn’t very good click bait. Careful reasoning sounds like hair splitting to most people when, in fact, it is really just careful reasoning taking into account as many of the facts as possible. What media outlets want are flame wars that generate hits, or inflammatory posts that provide confirmation bias for a large and clearly identifiable demographic, but not the work of public intellectuals.
Kristof’s essay obscures this truth while benefitting from it. See? I’m talking about it here…more exposure for him.