Youtube announced yesterday that it signed contracts with Hollywood movie studios, allowing the popular video streaming website to upload thousands of movies and TV shows to its content database.
I think this is was an excellent decision on YouTube's part. It was only a few years ago that you couldn't find TV shows and movies online without having to go to illegitimate pirating sites to find them. Now, TV networks are putting current shows online, which is rapidly changing the way Americans watch TV. Don't have time to catch the Real Housewives of New York? Bravo has you covered on their website! Using the internet for TV watching purposes is genius, really. People have busy schedules and don't necessarily have time to watch their favorite shows in the alotted network time slot. Now they have something to do while bored at work! For me at least, I know I use the internet to watch shows I would never actually care to watch or remember to watch on cable. For example, when proscastinating on homework or other tasks, I turn to MTV.com to watch back epsiodes of True Life and The Hills. Movies are not quite as easily accesible online. More often than not, if I am going to watch a movie online, I find it on some random Japanese site. I'm not sure if that's illegal or not, and frankly I really don't want to know. However, with Youtube adding movies and TV shows, I won't have to worry. Youtube is perfectly legal, fairly decent quality, and my computer will be virus free.
Advertisers will benefit from Youtube's new venture as well. Youtube will most likely be adding in quick commercial breaks to the new movies and TV shows it will feature. Even online commercials are better than watching on TV. There is usually only one at a time, and only 30 seconds long. Better yet, ignoring commercials is much easier to do while seated at a computer as opposed to being confined to the couch. I can easily grab a nail file, write a sentence of a paper, or fiddle with my iPod while for waiting for the show to return.
The people behind Youtube are being incredibly smart about their business ventures. Media is moving online, and while many companies are struggling to survive, Youtube is flowing with the current quite smoothly.

art of advertising

I have a love/hate relationship with grocery shopping. I hate shopping for necessities at Jewel, but I love shopping for the extra stuff at Whole Foods. The difference for me is not only in the grocery list, but my experience while at the store. My dad works in advertising, so I have seen firsthand the incredible amount of creative work that goes into the image and brand of a company. If having a pillow fight on a street or sitting on a stoop soliciting reparations for slavery can be considered art, I believe it is safe to say that the concept behind Whole Foods and other specialty stores can be considered art as well.
While Jewel is drab, dirty, and crowded, Whole Foods is colorful and spacious. The salad bar is arranged so that the colors of the vegetables are complementary. Employees are always standing by, ensuring that any visually displeasing mess can be cleaned up before customers take notice. The scary looking antipasto bar at the South Loop Jewel is a far cry from this, and it's no wonder that I've never actually seen anyone buying anything from it.
Whole Foods is bright, spacious, and well-lit. Everything is arranged to be visually appealing, and to make customers want to come back. At Jewel, there is no real need to put any creative effort into their stores. Everyone needs to buys groceries. Whole Foods has to fight to keep customers, and they do so by being as creative as possible in their branding.

The Art Institute recently announced that they are going to raise their price of admission this summer from $12 to $18. Most people I have discussed this with are students, and they are outraged. I can understand this. It is hard enough being a student in Chicago and paying for things like books, school, and food. It's disheartening to see the price of entertainment rise as well. 

However, I don't think raising the cost of entry is such a bad idea. It already costs $10 to go to a movie. With a movie, you don't really know what you're getting. It's kind of a wild card. No matter how many critics said it was a great movie, you still may hate it and you're gambling away your $10. With a museum like the Art Institute, you are really paying for the experience. $18 to view works of art by world renowned artists is a steal. Also, while a $10 movie may last only 90 minutes, the Art Institute can take up an entire day of browsing. Another thing museum officials are doing is lifting the special exhibit fees. Now, temporary exhibits such as the Edvard Munch exhibit that is currently going on will be of no extra charge. Currently, the Munch exhibit costs $20, plus the price of admission. I'm not great at math, but I'm pretty sure an $18 entry fee is almost half the price of $32.

The economy is obviously failing right now, and prices for entertainment venues such as movie theaters and museums are rising. The extra $6 we have to pay at the Art Institute now may go to something bigger, like acquiring new works of art. And even if you're still pissed off about the entrance fee, there's always going to be free Thursdays. So really, what's to complain about?

Two weeks ago, I read the book "Beautiful Boy" by David Sheff, a journalist who has written for Rolling Stone, Playboy, New York Magazine, and various other prestigious publications. "Beautiful Boy" was released last year but was re-released this January with a new afterword. 

For the past several years, Sheff has been coping with his now 27 year old son Nic's addiction to meth. "Beautiful Boy" chronicles Nic's life from when he was a baby until the present, highlighting the events Sheff believes led up to his addiction. Sheff reflects on the emotions that came with dealing with such a disease - He treks backwards through Nic's life, finding blame in his own divorce and previous drug use, as well as his ability as a parent. Sheff struggles to accept the disease as something that has always been beyond his control and to see Nic as an addict - someone he may never be able to trust, but will always love. What makes this book so interesting and different from other books about the subject is the unique view of a parent. Sheff makes remarks that I have heard all my life from my own mother - He would do anything for Nic, and only hopes that someday he will have a successful job, a comfortable life, and a loving partner. Most parents could probably relate to Sheff's book. Though it technically chronicles the story of an addict, it is really tells the story of a parent's love for his child.

Nic recently released his own story, "Tweak", around the same time his father's book was being re-released. I was interested enough in "Beautiful Boy" to go out and buy "Tweak" as well. It was marketed as a young adult novel, and I can definitely see why. The book is typical for the genre and the writing style is immature. In "Beautiful Boy", Sheff claims that Nic loved writers such as Bukowski and Fitzgerald, and insinuates that Nic, in his addiction, is attempting to imitate their debacuhery. This assertion provers correct in "Tweak" - Nic may be trying to be the next Bukowski in his writing. 

 Nic's book being released in the same month as his fathers got me thinking that the whole thing is kind of a marketing scam. Obviously, publishers and booksellers are wanting the customer to buy both the books as a package deal. That might explain why they are displayed next to each other at Borders. Frankly, I find it a little disheartening. Sheff's book was good. His son's was not. 

I've recently invested in a monthly subscription to Netflix, which gives me access to almost any DVD ever produced. While browsing through the enormous selection, I came across the British teen drama series, "Skins". I added the entire first season to my queue, curious to see the differences and similarities between American and British prime time soap operas.
A couple of days ago, all three discs arrived in the mail. I sat down to watch one and ended up seeing the entire series in one night. "Skins" is quirkier and more clever then American television made for teens. It is comparable to Degrassi, the Canadian drama that runs in America on The N network, in that it deals with heavy topics relatable to teenagers. However, the series picks and chooses just how seriously they are taken. For example, drinking, drug use, sex and general debauchery are a given amongst the ensemble cast. The wildest parties I have ever witnessed have taken place in "Skins", with most of the characters waking up on Saturday mornings piled on top of each other, covered in food and vomit. When 16 year old Michelle breaks up with her boyfriend, she heads to the local pub to nurse a drink. On an American show, drinking and drug use might be seen as dangerous and would be addressed as so by the TV parents. In "Skins", the parents are alright with their kids drinking, probably because of the younger drinking age in England.
The best part about "Skins" is that it showcases an excellent ensemble cast. Dev Patel, star of the recent hit "Slumdog Millionaire" stars as a hard-partying Muslim boy with strict parents. Nicholas Hoult, the adorable dork from 2002's "About a Boy" stars as the show's manipulative an conniving male lead, Tony Stonem.

I'm not really one for chick flicks, but it was student discount night at AMC and He's Just Not That Into You was the only movie my friend wanted to see. I'm also not one for preconceived notions, so I went along with her. Who knew, maybe I'd love it! Unfortunately, I just wasn't that into it.
Sorry to say, I don't often see mainstream movies. Not to sound like a snob or anything, but I usually stick to the independents, mostly because I'd rather see a drama then the same old rom-com I've seen a million times before. He's Just Not That Into fits right into that category. The script was pretty boring and predictable, but the worst part was that it had no depth. It glazed over the neuroses of the main characters, barely touching on their problems. As viewers, we know little about these characters, other than we are supposed to root for them. After all, they're all cute and funny! The characters who were supposed to be "deeper", such as Jennifer Connelly's Janine and Scarlett Johannsen's Anna, just came off as annoying. Predictably, and annoyingly, Anna states at the end of the movie that she's going to go off on a journey of self-discovery to India. But probably, we all already knew that anyway.

Walking down the street in Chicago every day, I am constantly accosted by the same plain sweatshirt with a white zipper. You know the one I'm talking about-the Unisex Flex Fleece Hoodie by American Apparel that comes in a multitude of colors. However, it's not just a Chicago thing. I really have been seeing them everywhere lately, from the quintessential college town of Bloomington, IN to the fashionable Avenue de Victor Hugo in Paris.
Personally, I don't see the appeal. American Apparel produces the same styles of basic clothing over and over again. The colors are plain and the material used is cheap. The items are priced high, with hooded sweatshirts going for about $40 each. This is supposedly because the clothing is made here in America with sweatshop free labor. While this sentiment doesn't necessarily entice me to pay $24 for an plain t-shirt, then the sleazy and grotesque models used in the ads are certainly enough to keep me away from the store altogether.
Another problem I have with American Apparel is that it is becoming incredibly universally recognized. While watching the recent film about an impoverished woman, "Wendy and Lucy", I was disappointed to see that Michelle Williams' character wore an American Apparel hoodie throughout the movie. If Wendy was so poor, how did she cough up the $40 to buy the sweatshirt? I'm guessing the sweatshirt was just supposed to serve as a plain, drab prop, but it ruined the movie for me in a way.
As American Apparel slowly takes over the world with its polyester t-shirts (probably, in a few the government will socialize the apparel industry and we'll all be wearing them as uniforms), I choose to not jump on the band wagon. The clothes are boring, the colors are off, and the fabric used is cheap and sleazy. What's to like?

Sophomore Slump for The Fray

People like to dog on The Fray for a variety of reasons. For starters, their hit single "How to Save a Life" off their debut album of the same name was featured on the popular ABC drama Gray's Anatomy. In addition to selling out, the band never really had any street cred to begin with. The Fray was extremely under the radar during its first couple years of existence, and did not gain popularity until Epic Records A&R man Mike Flynn read an article on the band in a local Denver paper. They were signed soon after that, and went on tour with Ben Folds and Weezer before headlining their own shows. In other words, The Fray is so not indie.
What I loved about How to Save a Life was that it was full of fresh, infectious, piano-rock songs. Some may argue differently, but The Fray has its own distinct sound. The songs on How to Save a Life are all heavily piano based with catchy hooks, lyrics, and melodies. Most on the album are perfect radio songs. Normally I don't listen to the radio, simply because I don't always like what's popular at the moment. However, The Fray is one exception. It is incredibly hard to create an album that is both pleasing to the masses and a new, exciting sound. With How to Save a Life, the Fray accomplished this.
I was highly anticipating the the February 3rd release of The Fray's sophomore album, The Fray. Perhaps this is partially because I am now somewhat personally invested in their success; the studio in which How to Save a Life was recorded is a mere hour away from my home in Indianapolis, and a good friend of mine records with his band in the same studio. Hearing people dismiss The Fray as boring and unoriginal is almost a little insulting to me. Unfortunately, after listening to the new album, I must say that I am disappointed. The songs are not as explosive as the debut, with the exception of the first single, "You Found Me" and a few other random songs off the album. However, even "You Found Me" is a major disappointment. While the music itself is reminiscent of the previous album, the lyrics are incredibly impersonal and dull and the chorus is so repetitive that the song gets old fast. "Syndicate" is really the only song I enjoyed off the album, as it possessed a catchy melody and interesting lyrics.
While I was disappointed with this new album, I have not lost all hope for The Fray. Sophomore slumps are common, and I have faith that there will be more good things to come from the band.