Fringe review: In ‘Looking For Justice (In All The Wrong Places),’ lessons worth hearing get lost in disorganized storytelling

posted in: News | 0

Could be worse

Written and performed solo by Amy Oppenheimer, “Looking For Justice (In All the Wrong Places)” tells her true account of exploring her sexuality and becoming a feminist, an activist and a judge — all while discovering the true meaning of social justice. Oppenheimer’s honesty is raw, and at times hilarious, but it feels muddled by the disorganization and lack of clarity in her storytelling. While she has good stage presence and recounts her experiences with vulnerability, the show might’ve been more engaging with a full cast or if it were told more simply.

Presented by Amy Oppenheimer at Bryant Lake Bowl; 8:30 p.m. Aug 9, 5:30 p.m. Aug. 10 (with ASL translation), 1:00 p.m. Aug. 11

Still trying to decide what to see? Check out all our Fringe reviews at twincities.com/tag/fringe-festival, with each show rated on a scale of Must See, Worth Considering, Could Be Worse or You Can Skip.

The Minnesota Fringe Festival is presenting more than 100 hourlong stage acts from Aug. 1–11 around Minneapolis. Visit MinnesotaFringe.org for ticket and show information.

Related Articles

Theater |


Fringe review: ‘Parts’ is partway there, but needs more punchline

Theater |


Fringe review: ‘Antistrophe to an Andro-Sapphic Tragedy’ reflects on complicated, confusing experience of holding onto one’s values amid loss

Theater |


Fringe review: A live advice seminar, ‘What You Need To Do Is!’ helps you handle grown-folk business

Theater |


Fringe review: ‘The Greenhouse’ tries to plant seeds of interpretation on environmentalism, community and balance

Theater |


Fringe review: ‘One Tree Hell’ navigates the high school experience with sitcom vibes and literal monster teens

Column: The allure of DVDs over streaming

posted in: News | 0

Does the tactile experience of holding a DVD in our hands change how we feel about watching movies, rather than endlessly scrolling through titles and never clicking play?

Growing up, before Blockbuster became the default, the nearest video store for me was a couple towns over, where the titles were listed in alphabetical order in a binder. You’d page through, pick a movie and then wait to see if it was in stock — a brief moment of uncertainty created an exhilaration all its own.

The convenience of streaming altered that process for the better, or so we tell ourselves. But studies have found that physical media still has a hold on us in quantifiable ways. “In five experiments, people ascribe less value to digital than to physical versions of the same good,” according to research conducted by Özgün Atasoy, who is a business school professor at the University of Warwick in England. He told me he and co-author Carey Morewedge “wanted to explore whether there is something psychologically unsatisfactory about digital goods compared to physical goods and, if so, identify what might be missing.”

The rise of streaming — the absolute and complete dominance of streaming — means retailers including Target and Best Buy are phasing out the sale of DVDs. Some audiences will greet that news with a shrug. Others will see this as yet another ominous sign that the industry is spinning down the drain, because finding a movie to watch on streaming has never come with the same anticipatory thrill of browsing and buying physical media.

A shopper walks the aisles at the Blockbuster Video store on Division Street near Clybourn in Chicago on Dec. 14, 2004. (Terrence Antonio James/Chicago Tribune)

Once a major source of revenue after a movie’s theatrical run, studios have become blatantly unenthusiastic about their DVD business (if it even exists). Ironically, the British-based retail chain HMV is reporting that despite a years-long decline, more customers are buying DVDs again. Among the factors cited: An overall frustration with titles coming and going from streaming platforms, and the regular increase in subscription prices. Maybe you also have doubts about the sustainability of streaming platforms as a business long term. It’s entirely possible that one or more of these services eventually just … collapses.

What researchers like Atasoy have found is that for many of us, the “difference in value comes down to feelings of ownership.” DVDs and other physical goods aren’t abstract concepts that exist in a cloud, but tangible objects, “which enhances the sense of control and ownership. This psychological ownership is a positive feeling that people are willing to pay more for.”

Talking about this column with my editor Doug George, he joked: “Should you need more images of VHS tapes or a real-live VCR machine, I might know where to find them: Middle shelf of the back room of my basement in a green Hefty tub.”

What compelled you to keep them around, I asked?

“Well, that’s a really good question. I almost never watch them. I think the bulk of that box is tapes I recorded some time way back and now they feel like artifacts. We’ve dug them out like once or twice over the years to show my daughters vintage Dave Letterman, some old TV commercials, old MTV. But 90% of it should just get tossed. Or maybe 100%.”

No, don’t throw them out!

“Do not send this stuff to the landfill. It has value and it’s useful — share it with your neighbors,” said Brian Morrison, who came up with the concept of volunteer-run, repurposed newspaper boxes called Free Blockbuster, where people can both offload and acquire movies. It’s a concept borrowed from the Little Free Library organization, but for VHS tapes and DVDs.

Here’s how the idea came about: “A friend of mine who works in the movie business was moving to New York and she had a big collection of DVDs she wasn’t going to bring with her. At the same time, LA Weekly, our free weekly newspaper, shut down physical distribution, but they didn’t take the boxes away. They left them on the street and they became commercial blight. And the third thing was, a friend of mine made a short film reminiscing about his time working at Blockbuster; I also worked at Blockbuster in high school. So I thought: We can take these movies, put them in old newspaper boxes, paint them blue and yellow and call them Free Blockbuster.”

A map of locations across the country can be found at FreeBlockbuster.org. In Chicago, there used to be a box set up in Logan Square, but the Tribune was unable to locate it. There’s another one in Bronzeville; alas, it contained only scraps of garbage as of last week.

“I think there is sometimes an expectation there will be a circulating selection, but it doesn’t work out that way,” Morrison said. “Also, this happens all the time, that someone has taken a sizable number of items from the box. More than their fair share. Which we can’t fault people for — we’ve been programmed to hoard stuff and all of this is free. So if you want to take a bunch of DVDs, which are basically worthless, out of a community box and try to sell them on eBay, I’m sorry, I feel for you. But it’s not worth worrying about, even though that question comes up a lot: What if someone steals everything? And my reply is: You can’t steal it, it’s free. Policing this is not your job. This is a community service. This is a gift you’re giving to your community.”

There’s a box in northwest suburban Elmwood Park that’s going strong and is shepherded by Don Shanahan, a film critic and editor-in-chief of Film Obsessive. His experience suggests Free Blockbuster works best when one person, or a group of people, commits to being consistent and enthusiastic custodians. Shanahan said titles move out of the box “like hotcakes,” so he refills the box once a week. “I could do it more frequently if I wanted to. I’ll do themes like Christmas in July, horror films in October and Oscar winners and nominees in March.” His stock of movies is supplied by “donations from local residents, shipments from downsizing faraway friends of mine who love the physical media cause I’m supporting, free overruns from the Elmwood Park Library and gifted extras from fellow film critics like myself.” He even has “a few donated DVD players that could go in the box “for people who need the devices to go with the movies.”

I asked Morrison if he had any theories about why we don’t get that same feeling of anticipation scrolling through a streaming app. “Streaming platforms are not designed to help you find something you want to watch, they’re designed to keep your attention and largely push you to things they’ve spent money on recently. It’s not about showing you the thing you want, it’s about showing you the thing they invested in.

“I always say Free Blockbuster is not about nostalgia, it is about the future,” he added. “I grew up in the video store era and on Friday nights, going to the video store was a thing to do as a family — to go to that place and run around and pick things up and say ‘What about this?’ That process was fun. Way more fun than scrolling through Netflix or Amazon. The greatest illustration of this now is when there are children or young adults who did not grow up going to Blockbuster and they still love visiting the box, looking through it and picking something out, holding it in their hand and reading the back. It’s the thrill of discovery.”

If studies show people are willing to spend more money on physical media, why aren’t studios taking advantage of that?

“They’re huge companies and things in the corporate world happen really slowly, so they’re not really nimble enough to react on a year-to-year basis,” Morrison said. “And media executives are out of touch because they’re living in a different economic strata than the rest of us. So for a kid in Chicago who doesn’t have the ability to pay for every streaming service, maybe having a media collection that you know you have access to is really valuable. I don’t think executives see that. And they’re also terrified of being old and out of touch. For the past few years, everyone said physical media is dead and streaming’s the new thing, and they don’t want to go back to ‘dead’ media.

“Streaming is a tool and we got really excited about the tool, but now we’ve overapplied the tool,” he said. And then Morrison got philosophical, which is exactly the kind of free association movies are supposed to inspire. “Convenience has been used to sell us any number of things, but what does even that mean? It’s easy and it’s quicker. But I still have a garden where I grow my own tomatoes. I can go get tomatoes at the grocery store much easier and quicker than I can grow them. But I enjoy growing the tomatoes. So this idea that we’re all supposed to want to do nothing all the time, like the idle rich? I don’t know if I subscribe to that.”

Nina Metz is a Tribune critic.

Artwork is painted on a repurposed newspaper dispenser for Free Blockbuster in the 3300 block of South King Drive on July 26, 2024, in Chicago. (John J. Kim/Chicago Tribune)

Google loses massive antitrust case over its search dominance

posted in: News | 0

By MATTHEW BARAKAT and MICHAEL LIEDTKE

WASHINGTON (AP) — A judge on Monday ruled that Google’s ubiquitous search engine has been illegally exploiting its dominance to squash competition and stifle innovation in a seismic decision that could shake up the internet and hobble one of the world’s best-known companies.

The highly anticipated decision issued by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta comes nearly a year after the start of a trial pitting the U.S. Justice Department against Google in the country’s biggest antitrust showdown in a quarter century.

After reviewing reams of evidence that included testimony from top executives at Google, Microsoft and Apple during last year’s 10-week trial, Mehta issued his potentially market-shifting decision three months after the two sides presented their closing arguments in early May.

It represents a major setback for Google and its parent, Alphabet Inc., which had steadfastly argued that its popularity stemmed from consumers’ overwhelming desire to use a search engine so good at what it does that it has become synonymous with looking things up online. Google’s search engine currently processes an estimated 8.5 billion queries per day worldwide, nearly doubling its daily volume from 12 years ago, according to a recent study released by the investment firm BOND.

Google almost certainly will appeal the decision in a process that ultimately may land in the U..S. Supreme Court.

For now, the decision vindicates antitrust regulators at the Justice Department, which filed its lawsuit nearly four years ago while Donald Trump was still president, and has been escalating it efforts to rein in Big Tech’s power during President Joe Biden’s administration.

The case depicted Google as a technological bully that methodically has thwarted competition to protect a search engine that has become the centerpiece of a digital advertising machine that generated nearly $240 billion in revenue last year. Justice Department lawyers argued that Google’s monopoly enabled it to charge advertisers artificially high prices while also enjoying the luxury of having to invest more time and money into improving the quality of its search engine — a lax approach that hurt consumers.

Google ridiculed those allegations, noting that consumers have historically changed search engines when they become disillusioned with the results they were getting. For instance, Yahoo — now a minor player on the internet — was the most popular search engine during the 1990s before Google came along.

Mehta’s conclusion that Google has been running an illegal monopoly sets up another legal phase to determine what sorts of changes or penalties should be imposed to reverse the damage done and restore a more competitive landscape.

The potential outcome could result in a wide-ranging order requiring Google to dismantle some of the pillars of its internet empire or prevent it from shelling out more than $20 billion annually to ensure its search engine automatically answers queries on the iPhone and other internet-connected devices. After the next phase, the judge could conclude only modest changes are required to level the playing field.

If there is a significant shakeup, it could turn out to be a coup for Microsoft, whose own power was undermined during the late 1990s when the Justice Department targeted the software maker in an antitrust lawsuit accusing it of abusing the dominance of its Windows operating system on personal computers to lock out competition.

That Microsoft case mirrored the one brought against Google in several ways and now the result could also echo similarly. Just as Microsoft’s bruising antitrust battle created distractions and obstacles that opened up more opportunities for Google after its 1998 inception, the decision against Google could be a boon for Microsoft, which already has a market value of more than $3 trillion. At one time, Alphabet was worth more than Microsoft, but now trails its rival with a market value of about $2 trillion.

Besides boosting Microsoft’s Bing search engine, the outcome could hurt Google at a critical pivot point that is tilting technology in the age of artificial intelligence. Both Microsoft and Google are among the early leaders in AI in a battle that now could be affected by Mehta’s market-rattling decision.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was one of the Justice Department’s star witnesses during the testimony that covered his frustration with Google deals with the likes of Apple that made it nearly impossible for the Bing search engine to make any headway, even as Microsoft poured more than $100 billion in improvements since 2009.

“You get up in the morning, you brush your teeth and you search on Google,” Nadella said at one point in his testimony. “Everybody talks about the open web, but there is really the Google web.”

Nadella also expressed fear that it might take an antitrust crackdown to ensure the situation didn’t get worse as AI becomes a bigger force in search.

“Despite my enthusiasm that there is a new angle with A.I., I worry a lot that this vicious cycle that I’m trapped in could get even more vicious,” Nadella said on the stand.

Google still faces other legal threats besides this one, both in the U.S. and abroad. any antitrust lawsuits brought against Google domestically and abroad. In September, a federal trial is scheduled to begin in Virginia over the Justice Department’s allegations that Google’s advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly.

Fringe review: ‘Parts’ is partway there, but needs more punchline

posted in: News | 0

Worth considering

Mikala Bierma opens her bawdy, tell-all performance with a PowerPoint pie chart depicting herself as part extrovert, part Kathy Bates, part mom and part “skank,” among other parts she then proceeds to embody in a series of comedic scenes and songs, as well as video clips from her oversexed teen years in Weight Watchers and musical theater. It’s raunchy, potty-mouthed stuff, but the sketches tend toward quick personal vignettes that never build to climactic punchlines. Strumming a ukulele, she prays that assembling the perfect Bento box lunch will protect her son from school shootings. There’s a terrifying and intriguing self-own in that logic — the fallacy of control — but “Parts” lacks enough of that level of writing to make this musical mash-up of personal traumas truly sing.

Presented by Mikala Bierma at the Southern Theater; 8:30 p.m. Aug. 6, 2:30 p.m. Aug. 10, 5:30 p.m. Aug. 11

Still trying to decide what to see? Check out all our Fringe reviews at twincities.com/tag/fringe-festival, with each show rated on a scale of Must See, Worth Considering, Could Be Worse or You Can Skip.

The Minnesota Fringe Festival is presenting more than 100 hourlong stage acts from Aug. 1–11 around Minneapolis. Visit MinnesotaFringe.org for ticket and show information.

Related Articles

Theater |


Fringe review: ‘One Tree Hell’ navigates the high school experience with sitcom vibes and literal monster teens

Theater |


Fringe review: ‘Martin Dockery: Truth’ is high-energy, post-factual fun

Theater |


Fringe review: ‘Heart Ripped Out Twice And So Can You!’ is more dark than funny

Theater |


Fringe review: ‘A Murder on the Great Grimpen Mire Express’ delivers a fantastic comedic mystery, with a twist

Theater |


Fringe review: Allison Vincent tackles grief with humor — and cardboard — in ‘Daddy Issues’