Public transit is a wonderful thing. Every citizen of this planet who regularly suffers because of it is probably, in some way or another, very proud of the fact that they are contributing to reduction of our carbon footprint as a species on this planet. Being “green” is something to be proud of, as saving the earth is becoming a very legitimate concern considering our ozone layer is continuing to deteriorate by the second – we can all agree that we want to have this homely little sphere of ours in working condition for as long as possible.

HOWEVER.

When it comes to the TTC, one of the worst rated public transit systems on this planet, I sort of don’t really care and want to buy a car that emits lots and lots of poisonous gas and carbon monoxide that I can singlehandedly shoot into the stratosphere and make the hole even bigger. But I guess taking it out on the ozone layer probably isn’t the best idea.

The TTC recently did two new, big and super exciting things to…promote themselves? Make riding more comfortable and enjoyable? Well, I guess that’s what they were going for, but to most people it came off as more of a humiliation scheme than anything else.

Every GTA commuter has probably at least heard of the shiny new TTC train – yes, the new train. The one train they have in circulation until they decide it’s a good time to get the other six or so that they have sitting in the Wilson train yard – and who knows where else – up and running. Apparently they are going to gradually replace the old ones with 70 new ones over the next three years. Meaning in three years, they’ll start thinking about putting a second train into circulation. Instead we all get to ride by the yard on our way to Downsview and look at them longingly every morning on our way to York, stifling our dreams of getting off of a new train at our very own subway station and walking out into a field before catching a glimpse of the beautiful, unavoidable view of Vari Hall we will have, and snapping back into reality when we hit the end of a long and looping bus line to get on the 196.

If you happen to be one of the lucky few who have had the privilege of riding one of these angelic trains – sorry, this angelic train – you may have noticed that there’s a step when you get on and off. I nearly fell onto the platform after my first ride. Maybe I’m crazy, but I was under the impression that our commuter-accommodating transit system was trying to progressively make changes towards station accessibility for all passengers – not against it. If I were in a wheel chair, how the hell would I have gotten on? They have all these lovely new spaces where you can lock up your wheelchair once you get on the train, but if you can’t get on it in the first place then what’s the use? The only option would be to wait for the next train, which is, until further notice, guaranteed to be an old rickety one.

“It’s like building a library, but forgetting to take the weight of the books into account!” an angered commuter exclaimed to me upon discussion of the subject. It’s one of the first and most basic issues to consider with when building such a contraption.

Although, the new light-up maps are pretty cool.

The second and arguably even more exciting thing that the TTC has gotten us all riled up over recently – you must have seen the ads, they’re everywhere – is the new “clipped” metropass. Yes, they are kind of cool, with the slight European flair of, you know, having the corner clipped off. It feels almost exactly like I’m hopping on the Metro in Paris, only less French.

Actually it doesn’t feel anything like Paris. They’re not even really clipped – they’re sort of just rounded at one corner. Why, you may ask, would they want to do such a thing? Well, according to ttc.ca:

“The clipped edge, a helpful feature for all TTC customers, indicates the direction the pass needs to be swiped at a turnstile for smooth, fumble-free entry.”

Now, although the unclipped passes do cause slight fumbling on occasion, they seemed to have spent a whole lot of money on these new ones – insanely in-your-face advertising, new manufacturing equipment for the new passes (since they’re not actually clipped they’re just shaped differently) – and my question is why do you think it’s a good idea to go all out financially on creating useless new metropasses and new trains that are more of a hindrance to commuters than a step in the right direction, and then cut bus service, hike the rates and expect us to blindly enjoy whatever you throw at us next?

Not to mention the futuristic new subway line we’ve all been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for. As you know it’s supposed to have a York University station, among many other extravagantly designed stations – go check out the website, they’re pretty crazy. This extension has been in the planning process for maybe around twenty years or so (my aunt told me it was supposed to be done by the time she graduated from York, in 1995). Although the TTC website denies this, Wikipedia has a tiny little mention of the planning of that private bus road they just finished putting in a couple of years ago, “In 2003, a temporary busway was planned between Downsview Station and the campus, but was opposed by the university, which felt it would lessen government willingness to extend the subway.” That means they’ve been putting it off since BEFORE 2003. In the “History and Milestones” section of the Spadina Extension website, their oldest piece of planning history for this highly procrastinated project says: “February 2005: Toronto City Council passes a motion that the Spadina Subway Extension to Steeles Avenue is Toronto’s top priority for subway expansion.” It doesn’t say anything about when they decided they were going to do it, just that by 2005 it was deemed a “top priority.” That’s why it’s taken them six years to get it going.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they’re finally working on it. It’s just really annoying that I have to put up with all the disgusting construction so that a year or two after I graduate, and no longer have to set off on my daily two-hour adventure to our academic oasis, it will be finished. I’m really happy for all the people that get to enjoy it though. I hope they appreciate it. And take care of it. And take pictures and put them up on facebook so I can see them and wish they had started taking action ten years before they did.

But, luckily for me I can’t afford a car, and I am contributing to saving this beautiful planet of ours by taking public transportation every day and having the opportunity to read the Metro horoscopes and do Sudoku’s, and I’m not driving and not complaining about the idiocy of the TTC and their stupid new “clipped” metropasses.

Celluloid is a dying giant soon to hitch a corporate-sponsored night train to the “big adios”. The honchos at the helm of the three major manufacturers of motion picture film cameras – Aaton, ARRI, and Panavision – have decided to lower their curtain of dollar bills on the assembly line producing cinema’s wonderful tools of magic and mysticism at the end of this year. Instead, the company brass will be hopping on the ugly band wagon of HD slickness in the artificial realm of all things digital; it is a realm they have foolishly created to help replace the original inventions that made them famous. Both the film camera, invented in 1888 by Louis Augustin Le Prince, and the celluloid that sensuously slides through it to create photochemical images of miraculous light, will be buried together in the same grave. As a final insult, the power players at these doomsday companies will no doubt pick out the cheapest tomb stone in the lot.

The greatest tragedy stemming from this double homicide is that the tactile, imperfect look of film will never be seen again. Shooting on film is a chemical process that ironically lends a reality to the unreal expressionism it fosters. And a profound irony it is! Life is dreamy on celluloid, and light often blurs, burns, and brightens the captured images due to the emulsion process. Digital is too perfect, eliminating any semblance of mystery from the films and – dare I say it? – life itself. This is ludicrous, for if there were no mystery in the world, then humankind would never have felt the need to create films in the first place (or the arts as a whole). Then, there is that absurd craze of digital intermediates and color correction that further cheapens the authenticity of the artificially “perfect” images. The few remaining films shot on celluloid today are contradictorily “digitalized” to remove any visual creativity that might have found its way into the proceedings.

The conversion from celluloid to digital is also emblematic of the desire for short-term gratification that has been imposed on the masses by the corporations who control the arts without compromise. The HD slickness is there to transform films into video games, merging this lucrative recreational market and cinema together as a single entity. Along these video game lines, a filmmaker’s once coveted penchant for visual composition gives way to overkill editing in the attempt to create substance-less momentum for momentum’s sake. After all, if a picture says a thousand words, then a film comprised of seemingly countless pictures says that much more. All of this wisdom of old has been sublimated by one-note aesthetic sensibilities, for unlike previous stylistic movements like German Expressionism and Film Noir that used film as their proverbial canvas, the digital hullabaloo has no intellectual merit. For example, German Expressionism was spawned in the 1910’s-20’s to create a distorted, exaggerated view of reality that would mirror the psychological desperation and madness of modern society.

One need only compare the soulless digital revolution to one of cinema’s most artistically fertile decades, the 1950s. Poetry and expressionism could creep into any story and do wonders. Director Nicholas Ray and cinematographer Ernest Haller’s vibrant celluloid colour scheme in Rebel Without a Cause (1955) provides a microcosm of how each artist could develop their own style to fit their personality and the specific project at hand. The photochemical process of celluloid accentuates Jim Stark’s (James Dean) fiery red jacket, symbolically representing the conflict between his youthful sensitivity and the superficiality of the adult world overrun with capitalist bureaucracy.

In order for cinema to avoid sinking deeper into the societal Dark Age currently plaguing the 21st Century, the standard for visual excellence must be set back to celluloid gold, obliterating the computerized dribble that currently sets the trends. When film is once again embraced, we will not only arrive back at a genuine starting point to make further genuine artistic progress, but we will allow the medium to live up to its name.

I was never a fan of 60 Minutes as a kid. Who could blame me? It was dull, dry, and was meant for people who were nearing the end of their lives. My parents were those people (obviously, I didn’t realize that they weren’t as old as I thought) and enjoyed watching it regularly. For some strange and unexplainable reason, they thought I would benefit from watching it too. So I’d sit there, master the art of sleeping with my eyes open, and silently beg for the program to end so I could watch Stargate: SG 1.

Then he came on. During the last couple minutes of the program, Andy Rooney would come on and complain about something. Watching him for the first time, I thought, “Wow, that old dude is really good at complaining, and he makes it sound logical and shit.” He was amazing, and, more often than not, he would say what was on everyone’s mind. Unfortunately, he died November 4th, 2011, and no one has since been able to complain as eloquently as him. This is why I thought I’d give it a go and list the top 5 things that really piss me off.

#5: The Fords:

Mayor Rob Ford became my enemy when he announced that he wanted to close down libraries in Toronto in order to save money. I love the library, not York’s, but the public library. The public library has books that I actually want to read, not because it’s required of me for a research paper that I have to write for a class. Adding to the bad mood of already pissed off Torontonians, Ford’s brother, Doug Ford, went on to say that there were more libraries than Tim Hortons stores in his neighbourhood. Oh, well, why didn’t you say so? I never took into account the library/Tim Hortons ratio when considering the future of literacy in this city.

#4: Toronto residents VS. Occupy Protestors:

What’s so great about this country is that we can protest about anything that pisses us off. Right now, I’m able to write about what pisses me off because of that freedom. So, when I hear residents of Toronto complaining about Occupy Toronto, I get annoyed. People are peacefully protesting because they’re frustrated with the one percent. Yet, residents and business owners of Toronto who either work or live near the site are pissed off because it’s ‘ruining the neighbourhood,’ and residents have ‘trouble sleeping.’ Here’s a tip: invest in some earplugs. The protesters are taking a stand that the rest of us are too busy to do, and unless you have some legitimate reasons as to why you want them gone, then I suggest you suck it up.

#3: Innocent until proven guilty:

Here in Canada we’ve built our criminal justice system on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Why? Because asking someone to prove his/her innocence doesn’t make any sense. Yet, we still end up going about trials with a guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality that can cause wrongful convictions. How can you prove that you haven’t done anything? Shows like Law & Order piss me off because the conversation usually goes like this:

COP: Do you have an alibi between the times of 3:00-4:00am?
SUSPECT: I was asleep.
COP: Is there anyone who can verify that?
SUSPECT: My wife was asleep next to me.
COP: Did she at any time wake up between those hours and see you asleep with her own eyes?
SUSPECT: No…she was asleep…

#2:  Prime Minister Harper’s Get Tough on Crime Initiative:

This is a disaster waiting to happen. When the Texas Conservatives say that PM Harper’s Get Tough on Crime initiative is a “been there, done that; didn’t work” type of initiative, it makes you wonder if it’s such a good idea. It pisses me off that PM Harper wants to get tougher on youth offenders and build more prisons but doesn’t get tough on white-collar crime, which affects more people and is rarely ever punished. Not to mention, it’s more expensive to house criminals in jail than it is to rehabilitate them. Harper is willing to waste billions on this initiative while a person like Mayor Ford wants to cut services like libraries to save money. Is it just me, or are you pissed too?

# 1 – Christmas Specials

Bet you didn’t see this one coming. I’d like to start off by saying that I have nothing against Christmas. What it stands for in terms of giving to the less fortunate and so on is a noble idea. What pisses me off is the timing of it. During the year, it’s hard to kick back and curl up on the couch while watching your favourite TV shows because of school or work. So, when you have time on your winter break to just be lazy and brain-dead, you get excited. What piss me off are that (1) my shows go on hiatus, so I have nothing new or interesting to watch during my well-deserved break and (2) the Christmas specials are annoying. If there was a new show or TV movie on once or twice a day, I’d be okay with it. But no, it’s the same frickin’ shows and the same frickin’ TV movies that come on again and again, to the point where I overdose on Christmas cheer. I don’t even celebrate Christmas, so I don’t even get presents as an award for enduring this torment. Why not go outside? Because I hate winter. I hate the cold. I hate the slush. I hate the salt that turns my boots white. I hate the layers of clothes that I put on in order to feel warm but they only end up making me wobble like an obese penguin. I hate looking at people’s deformed Uggs. I just want to sit at home and not think. Is that too much to ask?

Tension among protesters at St. James Park is noticeable as judgement day nears, when Justice David Brown is set to deliver his verdict as to whether or not occupiers have a legal right to continue their sleep-in protest.

The Toronto Metro writes that both the park along with local businesses have suffered since protesters set up camp on October 15th, some businesses claiming to have lost as much as 30 per cent in sales.

Similar initiatives to evict Occupy protesters have occurred, with varying success, in cities all over the country including: Vancouver, Calgary and Regina. The Vancouver Sun informs us that protestors in Victoria are also anticipating a pivotal decision from the courts and that police in Regina have already begun a process escalating enforcement in order to remove occupiers. CBC reports have shown that Occupy protesters in Calgary have been given until this Wednesday to pack up their belongings and leave.

Sakura Saunders, facilitator for the Occupy Toronto movement and prominent media activist, claims that moving to Queen’s Park — while still on the table — has received little attention. Their first priority is defending their right to stay in St. James Park.

Occupy Toronto protesters plan on holding a rally at 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, November 19th, in retaliation to Rob Ford’s move to have protesters evicted. Sakura Saunders says, “Rob ford is not only trying to evict us, from what I hear, he is going to try to evict many city workers come January […] last night at the general assembly, we unanimously agreed to extend a formal invitation [to the rally] to municipal workers, unionized, un-unionized and unemployed.”

Dennis M. Pilon, associate professor of the Department of Political Science at York University and 2005/6 Canada Research Chair Postdoctoral Fellow in Canadian Studies at Trent University, questions the political agenda behind the recent wave of crack-downs on Occupy protesters: “It’s interesting where they [the city] decide to use force. You can go anywhere in the city and find businessmen that are unhappy with something, but the city doesn’t necessarily run down there and crack heads.” What makes the Occupy movement attract so much political attention, Dr. Pilon says, is the fact that they effectively utilize the media to raise questions that conventional politicians avoid.

Sakura Saunders offered some insight as to the more general goals of the movement: “We are trying to create a space where we can discuss not only the problems of society, but the solutions […]. The beauty of this movement, in part, is the banner of the 99% and that’s just enormous inclusivity. What I have appreciated here is that I’ve been able to have amazing political discussions with people who are living in the street and with people who are stock traders by day.” In regards to the highly-publicized slogan, “People’s needs not corporate greed,” Sakura Saunders states that “I think it’s really encouraging that one of the main messages is that corporate greed has become completely out of control, the solutions are very varied but what we’re doing is part of the solution […] we work with open committee structures and have taught thousands of people consensus process, which really allows masses of people to participate in decision making like we’ve never seen.”

Tyler Durden says… “You’re not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You’re not your f**king khakis.” And he’s right. I watched Fight Club this weekend, and Brad Pitt’s character, with his harsh assessment of those who live their lives through the things they own, really opened my eyes to how much materialism bothers me. I live in a generation of pretty boys and glamour girls, all obsessed with the latest shoe, shirt, skirt or sweater. Young people walk around with these little abbreviations emblazoned across their chests, butts, watches and wallets. I couldn’t care less if your purse is the latest $600 Louis Vuitton straight off of the arm of some Parisian model – it’s probably a cheap knock-off anyway. You can’t eat it; you can’t sleep in it; it can’t shelter you from the rain. You’re lucky if you get your $40 Juicy Couture lip gloss to fit in it.

TNA. LV. YSL. AX. DKNY. CK. Why are we so obsessed with having someone else’s initials all over our possessions? It’s really a mystery. Does advertising as Mr. Durden says “(…) [have] us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy sh*t we don’t need”? So much value is placed on material things that are way over-priced and no more functional than their generic brand counterparts. A t-shirt from Hanes and one from Tommy Hilfiger are practically the same, except for the significant price difference.

We’ve replaced function with fashion. We’ve turned into human billboards, walking advertisements. And the best part: we’re not getting paid for any of our marketing work; we’re paying them. Isn’t that just brilliant? While you’re so proud of your Chanel sunglasses, your Jordan this and your G-shock that, the makers are counting your (well-wasted) cash.

So what my jacket isn’t Canada Goose, my boots aren’t Uggs, my jeans aren’t Lucky and my makeup isn’t MAC? I fail to see how this makes me inferior to anyone whose clothing is high end. If I’m warm, dry comfortable and still stylish, and I have an extra couple of hundred dollars in my cheap wallet, I’m not sure how I’m on the losing end of the bargain.

Look at it this way: If I were to take stock of my life, my character, my achievements and the life lessons I’ve learned along the way, would I be able to put a dollar value on it all? Who you are as a person is priceless. You’re not measured in dollars and cents, but in growth, wisdom and character. It’s measured in the impression you leave on others, what you’ve accomplished, what you stand for and what you speak out against. If you allow yourself to be defined by the brands you wear, if you reduce yourself to a hanger for designer gear and products, I’d say you’ve lost sight of your humanity.

If you lost everything today, if your house went up in flames, would you still measure your worth by what you own? Because if that’s the case, who you are is a matchstick away from being a pile of rubble. You’re just inches from being nothing and no one because tomorrow it could all go. I’m not saying you shouldn’t appreciate the finer things in life. By all means, if you can afford it, you have every right to buy it. But it shouldn’t determine how you see yourself or the judgments you pass on others. Materials come and go. Brand names gain and lose popularity in the blink of an eye. Don’t let your self-value be defined by something so temporary. Don’t sell yourself short to buy the latest trend. You won’t be getting your money’s worth. Don’t let “the things you own end up owning you.” Smart one, that Tyler Durden.

I use Toronto’s transit system at least four times daily. I use it in the Spring, I use it in the Summer, I use it in the Winter, and I use it in the Fall. I ride the rocket during rush hour and I ride it during slow periods. I pay the appropriate fare each time I enter the station and I always wait my turn to get onto the bus, regardless of whether someone cuts in line. Sometimes I even love taking public transit. The people-watching, the humour after midnight on a Saturday night – it’s almost as if life is taken right out of the beginning of a romantic comedy.

But when I am standing up, hanging on for dear life on a crowded bus or subway and I see an elderly man or woman come on and not be offered a seat – oh boy, I go off the deep end quickly.

It isn’t just the elderly who should be offered seats: pregnant women, those with disabilities, and women with small children, should be first in line to take a load off. It’s just plain respectful and considerate. One could argue that this is being old-fashioned and potentially even sexist. I disagree, but perhaps I’m part of the minority at York University who think this way. It certainly seems to be the case judging by the number of times I’ve seen students and able-bodied adults avoid eye contact and play ignorant.

Shooting dirty looks at the passengers in the elderly person’s range does nothing. Clearing my throat to get their attention does nothing (partially because they’re plugged in and pretending to be unaware that a swinging body is in front of them). The only thing that does work is confronting the passengers by asking, “Is anyone going to offer this person a seat?” This will usually garner feelings of embarrassment and someone will move – or the passengers will continue to ignore everything around them. It’s times like those that I wish I was sitting down just so I could offer my seat.

Courtesy and thoughtfulness are starting to become obsolete in Toronto (and perhaps in Quebec where it has never existed), and while it would be easier to classify everyone on the TTC who doesn’t give up his or her seat as rude, I don’t think it is as simple as a one-word description. Or maybe the rest of Canada is right when they say Torontonians are rude.

Does the problem stem from today’s youth or is this a societal hindrance on the whole? Perhaps it’s just easier to blame young adults. Nevertheless, it’s every man or woman for themselves and no person who needs assistance is going to get it without desperately asking for it. Imagine having to stand up for a whole twenty-five minutes on the bus or subway like a peasant. How ridiculous. Even worse, having a pregnant woman accidentally bump against your shoulder. The nerve! She should learn to watch where she’s swaying.

There are the select few who will go out of their way to help or to offer a seat. It brings a smile to my face every time this happens; there’s still hope. For the most part, though, the zombies who go to York and who travel through the depths of the TTC’s Middle Earth, would prefer to sit. To them it’s a first-come-first-serve society.

If a person is able-bodied and capable, there is no reason he or she should not give up their seat to someone in need. Backpack is heavy and you don’t want to carry it? Stand up and put it on the floor in front of you (like you’re supposed to do to begin with). Just ran a marathon? You shouldn’t be letting your muscles cool down or else they will cramp. Up you go! Tired because you have had a long day of thinking, surfing the internet during lectures and talking on your iPhone? You poor thing! In this case, please take a seat and relax. You’re exempted from any nice deed.

I have a serious issue with the washrooms on campus, especially at Vanier College. I was under the impression that this is a university, not a high school. Writing on stalls, leaving nasty messes in the stalls – I mean really ladies? There is no reason for you to be so disgusting. The females that are being nasty and immature with this behaviour should GO BACK TO HIGH SCHOOL until they are able to comprehend the fact this is a university attended by adults.  And, where are the staff that should be cleaning and monitoring the washrooms? We shouldn’t have to wear a biohazard suit just to use the washroom. The staff need to be more diligent about keeping the bathroom stalls clean. I’ve seen dust that has been there since the Stone Age, which doesn’t make me feel confident that the washrooms are being cleaned regularly. We are not being proactive about keeping germs at bay as we should be. The amount we have to pay to attend York should, at the very least, give us the opportunity to use clean washrooms.

By: Alley Shaw

TTC:

You know what pisses me off? Believe it or not, the female TTC bus drivers of Route 196. They seem to kick everyone off for one reason or another – no photo identification, fare shortage by 25 cents. I have never seen such bitter women in my life. Are they trying to show us they are powerful? They’re driving a bus! If they are going through menopause, they better not take it out on students who are only trying to stay in school. I am definitely not trying to discriminate against females (as I am one myself), but, boy, the female drivers seem to have something up their…metropasses.

By Anisa Vangjeli

Leadership:

I found myself disturbed by the tabling for A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas in Vari Hall this past week. How is it, I asked myself, that Warner Brothers have slotted themselves between students volunteering their time for Amnesty International and others raising money for cerebral palsy research? I approached the table and asked what exactly they were doing, and the answer I received was that they were communications students, doing a PR activity. Undoubtedly, experience in the field is a crucial element of any undergraduate education; however, as students and faculty, what do we conceive of when we conceptualize spaces at York, such as Vari Hall? What do we understand their purpose to be? On the York website, tabling is said to be listed for “Student Community & Leadership Development.” If we don’t consider the promotion of a film which is fundamentally disconnected from any student group or cause as “leadership development,” then we need to change tabling requirements. Movie nights are student community events, and are often centred on either awareness-raising or fundraising goals. Movie promotion is an investment strategy of a large company not affiliated in any way to our university. When the entirety of a professional experience for undergrads consists in spamming an irrelevant product all over campus, I think we need to reconsider the value of allowing that to occur. At the very least, Harold and Kumar belong in the hallways of York Lanes, alongside those trying to sell me tickets to Yuk Yuk’s and to seduce me into taking another credit card for a free mug.

By Chris Vanden Berg

If Generation Y is famous for anything, it’s probably for how much older folks complain about us. It’s always one thing or another that they’re taking issue with. Us crazy kids with our internet and gadgets are always too plugged in, too anti-social, too self-absorbed, too lazy and unmotivated, and quite frankly, I think, too unlike them. We’re much less likely to go out and get a job in our father’s ice cream shop at sixteen or visit the old lady at the end of the street like a Baby Boomer would have. But our hobbies and interests are different. That’s not to discount what the Baby Boomers, and Gen X-ers did to pass their time or make it through their teen and young adult years, and surely, they faced criticism from their parents’ generation too. But we have different goals and different paths for getting to those goals and there’s nothing wrong with that. The times have changed and the young person of today has adapted to the world as it is now much as the Baby Boomers and Generation X did in their youth.

We’re more techno-savvy because we have to be. We want things fast and easy because with the rise of services like fast food and online banking that’s what we’ve been conditioned to expect. If we’re impatient, plugged in or materialistic, it’s because of what were sold and told. Social networking, multi-purposed gadgets, the information highway, constantly changing fashion trends, the influence of crooners, rap stars, actors and athletes, and a bombardment of advertising and pushy marketing are all factors that work in shaping this generation into what it is. In the simplest terms, Generation Y represents an evolution of sorts, a change in the youth culture, and like every change, it comes with pros and cons.

I think the greatest issue is that the downside of our change is highlighted and the positive factors are downplayed. Truthfully, we Gen Y-ers have suffered losses in fighting to keep up with this world and its breakneck speed. Our ability to appreciate art (“How Generation Y Killed Art Faster than the Dodo), our time for leisure reading (“No Time For Reading Anymore,”), and our interest in our health (Please, Take the Stairs,” pg. 18) have all waned considerably. These aren’t losses we should take lightly, but in the same token, they aren’t necessarily permanent. What was lost can be found again.

For every loss though, our generation has gained something. The social networks that our parents claim make us so anti-social are actually great tools that make communication much easier. Relationships can be started, propelled and maintained through tools like Facebook, Twitter and smartphones as Vittoria Natarelli points out in “Generation Easy Love,”. We’ve become more entrepreneurial in response to a market that has struggled to reach us (“Y is the Answer, Not the Question,”). We’ve created a language all our own, that while often criticized by older generations who cling to grammar like a dying man to a raft, has its own functions (“Debunking the Myths of Generation Y Lingo,”).

No we’re not perfect, but no Baby Boomer could ever convince me that they were. We’re adapting to the world around us the best we can. We make mistakes and there are consequences to pay, but we shouldn’t be defined by where we’ve gone wrong. MacMedia has taken this opportunity to really assess our generation as we see it, to face our shortcomings, but also to embrace our achievements. They may complain and berate us, but don’t let them beat you down. Gen Y, rise up!

Once upon a time in a land far away from the bustling city-like atmosphere of Keele was a serene, magical gated community called Glendon. There are many facts and myths transpiring around Keele campus about Glendon and as a proud Glendonite myself, I’m here to tell you about the truth.

FACT: Glendon has smaller class sizes.

With only 2500 students, Glendon classes average around 20 students depending on your major and year level. Professors know students by name which is great for Grad School references and you’re not simply a number. Our largest class is Introduction to Psychology with a 120 students and limited enrolment courses allow no more than 15 students.

MYTH: All Glendon classes are in French.

Not all Glendon classes are in French, you can choose to take a course in French but the vast majority are in English. All English classes are offered in English.

MYTH: All Glendon classes are in French.

Glendon permits Keele students to take Glendon courses if they choose, however; you do need to meet your Keele residency requirement. Glendon students are allowed to take Keele courses as well. Glendon offers courses that Keele sometimes doesn’t have for major requirements. Keele students often take their General Education and Elective courses at Glendon.

MYTH: Students MUST speak French to attend Glendon for University.

This is perhaps the biggest myth. You don’t have to speak French to begin your studies at Glendon. Only 25% of our student population has taken French Immersion. The vast majority have taken Core French while in high school and want to improve their language skills. Students must take a French Placement prior to studying at Glendon to determine your level. The lowest level is Beginner for new French speakers. Intermediate I is where the majority of French Immersion students are placed followed by Intermediate II and Second Year level.

Did you know? Glendon is only a 30-40 minute free shuttle ride from the Keele Campus. We have Bilingual signs and we are a friendly community in the heart of Bayview.

Découvrez le bijou de York, Glendon! (Translation : Discover York’s hidden gem).
You won’t be disappointed!

Montgomery Clift would have celebrated his 90th birthday this year, had he not met his tragic end at 45 back in 1966. The significance of this cannot be underestimated within the acting community. He was the original rebel actor, predating both Marlon Brando and James Dean. Unlike his aforementioned counterparts, Clift was not a subscriber of “The Method” approach to his art. He was a lone wolf who strove for originality in every challenge he undertook. So, woe is us that Clift is virtually forgotten in this age of undeserving celebrity.

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Clift single-handily changed the course of acting in both theatre and film, introducing a new kind of naturalism that emphasized the portrayal of emotions more honestly. However, due to the universal distribution of film, it was through this medium that Clift’s breakthrough would have the most impact. His sensitivity and emotional vulnerability shattered the prevailing hyper-masculine archetypes endorsed by most leading actors at the time, such as Gary Cooper and John Wayne. For the first time ever, a leading actor could rebel against the film business and abroad through raw inarticulate nerve. Clift did not stand up straight; he slouched. He left awkward pauses amongst his dialogue. At times, he would even mumble his lines. And, above all else, he was a master of the “dead stare,” an ambiguous touch that communicated his search for belonging and intimacy. He was a tortured soul, an open wound.

Two movies showcase these earth-trembling new moves. One is George Stevens’ 1951 romantic tragedy A Place in the Sun. The other is Fred Zinnemann’s 1953 ensemble masterpiece From Here to Eternity. The emotional intensity of these films’ themes allowed Clift to use his body language to portray his characters in an unprecedented way. He decided to communicate their desires with his wide glossy eyes and endless slouching sessions in dark corridors. The quintessential tormented modern youth was born. In iconoclastic fashion, an actor would dedicate the majority of his screen-time and power to silently suffer with his characters’ thoughts. Clift “became” the characters, channelling his own personal feelings and experience into the roles. Again, he did this without the Actor’s Studio and without holding the title of “Method Actor.”

And Clift did something else that would eventually pave the way for contemporary gender and sexuality studies in film. He presented an ambiguous, bisexual undercurrent to his performances throughout his career, which peaked in A Place in the Sun and From Here to Eternity. I guess you could say that his starved, sensitive eyes seem open for any sexual relationship. This was a dangerous message to communicate in the 1940s and 1950s. In fact, this kind of thing never happened in films.

But it did happen, and Clift started a revolution. Soon Brando would bring the same sexual ambiguity to his roles in A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront, and James Dean to his characters in East of Eden, Rebel without a Cause, and Giant. Now the doors had been opened wide for different portrayals of masculinity. Film – and popular culture as a whole – would never be the same again.

Clift spent his final years alone in his New York City townhouse, before dying of a heart attack on July 22, 1966. The heart attack was supposedly the result of years of drug and alcohol abuse that had originated as desperate attempts to relieve his various personal pains, centering around his conflicted bisexuality. Despite Clift being a top box office draw for many Hollywood studios, very few industry representatives attended his funeral. He seemed to already be on the verge of obscurity. Today, he is known to only the savviest of young filmgoers.

And there lies the problem. The current gadget and gimmick driven “art” scene – and society as a whole – does not provide an adequate breeding ground for new and interesting acting personalities like Clift to emerge, and there is no one alive like him to serve as a role model. A lot has changed since Clift’s artistically fertile times, and his 90th anniversary reminds us of this fact.