Christopher Schroeder

Category: community and culture

  • Texts Today

    I’ve had my issues with the Chicago Sun-Times, but I’m objecting this time to recent comments from one of its writers.

    Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg wrote one that was ostensibly about why Chicago Children’s Museum had missing lights on a recent national broadcast. He elsewhere described it as “a columny sort of column” from “a columnist for column readers,” and admitted his uncertainty whether the newspaper would even publish it.

    The reason he suggests is that its features — “something chatty, a little funny, with a voice” — represents a kind of article that is disappearing over time. He offers no evidence but should know, and probably isn’t wrong.

    Such a claim could however have made the same claim about all newspaper articles generally. Newspapers as has been reported are disappearing across the United States, in which case readers would have fewer opportunities to encounter all newspaper articles, and not just “chatty” and “funny” ones that have “a voice.”

    Steinberg is suggesting I realize that forms, or genres, of newspaper articles seem to be changing, but that again isn’t particularly insightful. The medium as media critic Marshall McLuhan explained in 1964 is its message — content and “character” — and perhaps even more so after the appearance of the internet, social media, or AI today.

    The more interesting issue I believe can be found not in Steinberg’s comment but its connotations, particularly the suggestion of nostalgia and loss. Are “columny columns” better than the versions that are placing these?

    Should we lament the loss in other words of the “something chatty, a little funny, with a voice” columns? Are columns or while we’re at it other traditional journalistic genres inherently better than other kinds, including blog posts and social media to which he also turns?

    Steinberg’s opinion I believe cannot be separated from his ideas about his reputation for example or his need for continued employment. The rest of us might have different answers, but these must be considered contexts in which genres emerge, evolve, and are sometimes even eliminated.

    Discursive changes, like those in life, are unavoidable, and conclusions about whether such changes are unproductive or undesirable are debates worth having before offering opinions even throwaway ones.

  • The Bigger Political Problem

    Each day seems to bring more alarming news about the current Trump administration.

    Recent reports offer more details about Trump’s Board of Peace proposal, which he announced last week, for conflict in Gaza. Among others are the one billion dollars permanent member fee, his permanent appointment as its leader, and the inclusion of the Russian leader who continues to attack Ukraine.

    The American people also learned last week that the DOJ is investigating the widow of Renee Good, who was killed by federal officers conducting potentially illegal detentions in a large American city. This investigation and others, such as the governor of that state and the mayor of that city, have led to the resignations of federal prosecutors there and elsewhere.

    We also learned last week that the same DOJ is investigating the Fed Board Chairman in an attempt to exert control over interest rates ahead of an upcoming election. Even this possibility according to many, such as bank CEOs, could have negative economic consequences.

    These are just several of the latest offenses committed by the current American presidential administration, and the American president who campaigned against global entanglements for example and prosecutorial politicization, which he criticized in others. Since then, his administration has made gaslighting into an art form.

    The damage to American democracy alarms many both in the United States and around the world, including some who wonder whether some might be permanent. The greater concern in my opinion is the legitimization of this president by our fellow Americans.

    These 2024 election voters aren’t the majority of Americans. Only sixty-four percent voted, and less than fifty percent of these voted for Trump. Nonetheless, these people, and their concerns and the conditions that generated these, will persist long after this administration is gone.

    Their concerns and conditions should also alarm, and need to be acknowledged and addressed by, anyone who cares about democracy. Otherwise, we risk misunderstanding the interest and goals of our fellow Americans, and returning to these destructive conditions in the future.

    Such a response needn’t entail authorizing their actions or even endorsing their concerns. Rather, it can recognize these while challenging underlying assumptions or foundational principles, and offering alternative perspectives. Still, it must include explicit recognition if the damage is to be repaired and a better future is to be constructed.

    Part of this process will obviously include rebuilding trust. That will be challenging enough when it involves the federal, state, and perhaps even local governments. For me, it will be even more so when it pertains to my fellow Americans.

    This obligation according to some might be greater for those who legitimized this political and social destruction, which makes sense. At the same time, the greater good might require us to meet them halfway no matter how righteous our distrust might be if only to prioritize the future of our nation over political or personal grievance.

    Such an approach is one I’m hoping to hear from anyone who wants my vote, and wants to lead us, in the future.

  • Plagued By Its Own Success

    The Plague, which was officially released on 24 December and nationally available soon thereafter, was good but could have been even better.

    This psychological thriller, which is set in a summer water polo camp, immerses audiences within teenage social dynamics. Ringleader Jake (Kayo Martin) and the other campers act as if Eli’s (Kenny Rasmussen) acne and rash are symptoms of a highly contagious disease that is transmitted through contact. Newcomer Ben (Everett Blunck) wants admission into this group yet increasingly objects to its exclusionary tactics, which has dangerous consequences.

    Author and director Charlie Polinger demonstrates the wisdom of writing what one knows. He reportedly found his old sports camp journals when his mother asked him to sort through the contents of his childhood bedroom where he had been quarantining from COVID ( < > ).

    Both inform his script and direction, which along with the lead performances, cinematography (Steven Breckon) and the score (Johan Lenox) establish an engaging experience for audiences as illustrated by an eleven-minute Cannes standing ovation. In the dark theater, I was transported almost immediately to those days, and remained simultaneously mired in this movie and that muck for most of the time.

    One such recollection included a brother whom I contacted later that night. I omitted this motivation in my message, but wouldn’t have thought of it, or reached out to him, if I hadn’t seen this movie although he never inquired about any of that.

    Nonetheless, I was occasionally distracted by the relative absence of adults except for the coach (Joel Edgerton), who was an unreliable role model. Other adults appeared in loudspeaker announcements in the school for example or the absent part of a phone conversation or were occasionally seen walking through the pool area or eating in the school cafeteria, and were cited in conversations but were otherwise mostly absent.

    The effect is an overpowering account of group dynamics that only relents near the end. Until that point, the movie has been a deep dive into the horrors of teenage group psychology, which is where many remain immersed. Nonetheless, the story seems to succumb to its own pressure almost as if the need to end it surprised its author.

    Perhaps the body-horror violence could be forgiven. Such violence had been foreshadowed, and at least seems potentially plausible. Neither could be said for Ben’s development.

    Ben ostensibly found a way despite challenging circumstances to jump into the deep end and as the coach (Daddy Wags?) advises just be himself. He returns to the coed dance and mimics Eli’s moves, and thus assumes his role. Ben is mostly ignored by the others, which shifts the focus from group dynamics to an individualized, and inconsistent, account.

    The significance is too ambiguous. What would, or could, motivate such a transformation? Or had Ben, who also has a rash, become Eli, and if so, is this rash, and the others’ reactions, symbolize a physical and emotional contagion?

    These unanswered question rather than deepening this experience only made it murkier, which was a disappointing way to end, and leave, this otherwise engaging, and ultimately worthwhile, experience.