So, what do these tests mean? 

According to the College’s website, the Broad Institute has established categories to differentiate between results. These categories are invalid and inconclusive. Invalid results are tests that were not processed correctly, due to reasons such as incorrect labelling or the machine being unable to scan the barcode on the test tube. On the other hand, an inconclusive result is a test that is successfully able to be processed through the system but, yields a result that is “neither positive nor clearly negative.” While not necessarily a positive result, the College does require a student who receives an inconclusive or invalid result to adhere to in-room restrictions. As both of these fail to give a student a clear negative result, which is needed to confirm it is safe for them to go to in-person classes and participate in other on-campus activities, the College’s policies in response to an inconclusive or invalid test are similar. Thus, these words are often used interchangeably on campus. 

On Oct. 15, 2020, Audrey Mock ’23 received an email notification from Campus Key Scheduler regarding an inconclusive COVID-19 test, indicating that the lab had been unable to process her test sample. The email advised her to re-test as soon as she received the email.

This occurrence is not usual, as inconclusive tests account for a small, but a far from insignificant portion of the College’s overall testing numbers. Since Feb. 2, 2021, there have been 656 invalid and inconclusive tests according to the College’s COVID-19 Dashboard. The campus understanding of these inconclusive results is often not as robust as the understanding of positive or negative results. Most often, it is those who have personally experienced an inconclusive result who know the most about them.  

Taking into consideration the strict COVID-19 guidelines the College follows, receiving an invalid or inconclusive result can be scary and, in many cases, confusing for students. “I was a bit nervous about [it] at first just because I didn’t know what it meant,” Mock says of her inconclusive result. “But the email I received said there wasn’t any reason to be alarmed and it could happen for any reason, such as human error.” 

Mock soon re-tested and received a negative result. While she later had more inconclusive results, she was less worried about the implications after re-tests came back as negative again.  

The College’s policy towards dealing with inconclusive tests has largely remained the same the whole year, but the method of contacting students has changed. In the Fall 2020 semester, students would receive calls from Health Services only if they tested positive. For the Spring 2021 semester, Health Services now calls students to inform them of inconclusive or invalid test results and gives them instructions for actions they should take immediately. These include in-room restrictions until the student can test again.

Lorrie He ’18, a Wellesley alum and current member of the Broad Institute, explained the science behind evaluating test samples. According to He, the Broad uses a qRT-PCR assay, which is a way to quantity the amount of genetic material in a given sample. This is done to test the samples for the presence of genetic material from SARS-CoV-2, which is a strain of coronavirus within a larger family of viruses that cause upper-respiratory illnesses. The assay then uses two different probes, known as genetic material of interest, to amplify the SARS-CoV-2 material from the nasal swab sample. The key genetic information for COVID-19 testing is COVID-19 RNA, which controls the expression of the virus’ genes. 

“If one probe gives a positive result, while the other gives a negative,” He said, “the sample is inconclusive.” 

To dive into the scientific procedure, probes are mixed together with a fluorescent dye. The purpose of the dye is to bind with the probe and have the sample be detectable by a specialized machine. The machine will amplify the material through multiple PCR (polymerase chain reaction) cycles. PCR is a method to rapidly make millions to billions of complete or partial copies of a specific DNA sample. 

“Depending on the amount of starting material in the sample, samples will need different numbers of PCR cycles to hit the threshold,” He said. “So you can call a sample positive or negative based on the cycle number.” Less viral material would require more cycles to hit the threshold, and samples beyond a certain cycle number are considered negative.

He offers a few possible explanations on why an inconclusive test may have occurred. 

“My best guess for why someone might get an inconclusive result is because of a lack of viral RNA in the sample,” said He, “which could be because [they’re] actively recovering from an infection or they’re newly infected and virus production is just starting to ramp up.” 

Like the College, He recommends lightly quarantining to continue monitoring one’s symptoms after an inconclusive test. She suggests treating the inconclusive result as a positive and until definitive results come back.

The College has acted accordingly and recommends students with inconclusive or invalid test results to follow safety and distancing procedures. On Feb. 26., Michelle Lee ’23 received a phone call from Wellesley College Health Services regarding an inconclusive COVID test. During their conversation, the representative at Health Services let her know that she did not have COVID-19, but had to follow some distancing guidelines before her next scheduled testing appointment. 

“I’ve been testing since the Fall, and I have never gotten this.” Lee said, “I was really frustrated because I knew I was following rules and I don’t think I did anything differently,” echoing other student concerns that inconclusive or invalid tests might mean they have been exposed, or otherwise broke the College’s “bubble.” 

Lee was asked to stay in her room as a cautionary measure, even brushing her teeth in her room, and was not allowed to eat in the dining halls. She was not allowed to be around people or walk into buildings, but could go on walks alone. Lee mentioned that resources Health Services included following the inconclusive results were information on their website, the class deans and the Stone Center counseling services. However, more information about “why this [test] happened would have been helpful” as well. 

Mock agrees that additional information about the cause of the result would have made receiving the news more reassuring. Considering the pressure that students are already under to help the campus stay as safe as possible, the uncertainty of invalid or inconclusive results adds to the stress that students are already under. 

“Whenever you’re in a situation and you’re nervous about something serious like COVID, more information can always be a little more reassuring.” Mock said. “If there was any way they could give more details about why a testing comes back invalid, that would be nice.”

To say that the news was sudden would be an understatement. Friends and fans alike shared in the shock of losing one of the most prolific Black actors in modern Hollywood: the man who helped bring the Black Panther, and numerous other Black icons, to life. His role as King T’Challa inspired a generation of Black children, who for the first time saw heroes that looked like them on the screen. 

Unlike much of Hollywood, Chadwick Boseman had a special connection with his fans in that he was not just a celebrity, but an uplifting story of Black success. The success of “Black Panther” rested on his ability to bring the complex character to life, which galvanized Hollywood to think critically about what stories of Black excellence should look like. The film spread throughout the world and changed how audiences saw Black characters on screen. Rather than being yet another big-budget movie where Black actors are stuck performing as the comic relief, or relegated to the role of the sidekick, the entire film was unapologetically a celebration of African culture, a fact that was laced through every aspect of its creation from the cast, to the costumes, to the music. 

In a moment of renewed dedication to the Black Lives Matter Movement, Boseman’s passing feels to many in the Black community like a kick in the gut. His character changed what it meant to be a “hero,” by altering his outlook on society and his own actions after the death of Killmonger, the villain of “Black Panther.” Unlike other films where the hero is shown to be strong only by sticking to their ideas, King T’Challa showed grace and power in the ability to change his mind. T’Challa’s final speech in the film rings true in response to the current situation in our country. He states that “Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis, the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers.” 

Boseman not only showed grace on-screen, but carried it into his personal life. He took the role of “Black Panther” and felt especially responsible to do the character justice for younger generations, who were able to grow up with characters like T’Challa, his sister Shuri and the misunderstood villain Killmonger. Ryan Coogler, the director of “Black Panther,” disclosed that Boseman most likely kept his diagnosis a secret to those around him in order to “[shield] his collaborators from his suffering.” Boseman took it as his personal goal to finish the role and return for the sequel film because that was the type of person he was. The inspiration that the role would provide was more important to him than having people “make a fuss” about his diagnosis. It was this immense selflessness that will go on to define his legacy as an actor and as an off-screen hero. 

This iteration of the Movement specifically calls on those who benefit actively or passively from this injustice, who feel comfortable in the status quo or society or who post about Black Lives Matter and never speak of it again on their social media platforms. Those who have the choice and the privilege to decide whether or not they participate in the Black Lives Matter Movement have been called upon to reflect on their own lives and learn that the comfort they experience day-to-day comes at the expense of Black suffering. 

Many high-profile companies have released statements declaring their support for the Black Lives Matter Movement. However, members of the Black community have consistently criticized these statements, given the fact that many of these corporations are speaking out against racism for the first time in 2020. Worse yet, some companies only address supporting the Black community when they are urged to do so for fear of being the odd one out or losing customers. These companies are not going out on a limb when they address unambiguous violence against Black people. Police brutality and violence against the Black community are not new and are only one facet of the different types of violence that befalls the Black community. So when everybody is in agreement that these things have to change, why do these companies continue to harbor inequities that continue to harm Black employees? 

Conde Nast, one of the most powerful mass media companies in the world, faced criticism from employees and consumers due to the disconnect between their statements on supporting the Black community and the actions of people in leadership positions in several of their subsidiaries. Former BIPOC employees of these companies have spoken out about unfair treatment, a lack of belonging and lack of respect they faced as often one of the only non-white employees in their workplaces.  

It seems that these companies only want to change things when their behavior is challenged, which once again shows their leadership’s contentment with living within a system of racial injustice that benefits them. These companies are taking a reactionary and profit-centered approach in their support of the Black community, as they only bother to do so when it is “trending.” Whether they see their competitors releasing statements or have to “save face” when racism within their company is exposed, these attempts at centering the Black Lives Matter movement can seem disingenuous. 

But companies are not the only ones following this pattern: over the past summer, many colleges and universities have also released statements in which they proclaim that they are standing with Black students. Wellesley has released numerous statements on the topic of solidarity with Black students, which is aligned with their stated commitment to diversity throughout the college. 

However, just as companies have addressed the Black Lives Matter Movement on their social platforms while failing to address the inequities that are woven into their culture — an issue that exists when looking at colleges and universities as well. Despite the fact that colleges and universities have released statements in support of their Black students, pledging to make policy-level changes, they often fail to actually reach students and make a noticeable impact on the experience of Black students. Recently, during the virtual Orientation 2020 for incoming first years, a member of the College’s Health Services stated the following: “I once heard that sugar gave rise to the slave trade. Now sugar has enslaved us.” These comparisons seem to contradict the essence of Wellesley’s most recent statements and completely oppose the mission of the College. How could this have moved through the chain of command unnoticed? 

This incident is simply a symptom of larger issues at play. For many Black students, this language is unfortunately unsurprising. For those unaffected by racism it can be extremely hard to see that the way they view the world, their own culture and even their dialogue is intrinsically tied with racism and oppression. Something like this was able to happen because, for the most part, the ones who are creating the content are not the receiving end, leaving them unaware of the way that these words can harm Black students. It goes beyond examples as clear as that of the orientation video; consider how non-Black professors can fail to include writers of color in their syllabi, or how a Black student feels responsible to describe the Black experience when they are the only person of color in a given class. Similar to how companies use statements in support of Black Lives Matter to absolve them from further action that is not actually put into practice in the day-to-day workplace, colleges and universities must ensure that their statements turn actions and visible change. 

Supporting the Black Lives Matter Movement should not be a reaction. Rather, it should be a preemptive move to change how structures in the College setting negatively impact Black students. Statements that lead to the creation of an anti-racist culture can ensure that incidents like this are prevented altogether. Restructuring the college environment to address these concerns because they reach the students and potentially cause harm to them can prevent the need for apologies after the damage is done. This can look like professors reviewing their syllabi to ensure diversity of authors and the perspective they bring to the class, supporting Black students in courses in which they are underrepresented or a plethora of other ways to support the Black community at the College. Unlearning racism, educating oneself of the history of this country and the origins of many aspects of modern society and identifying ways that one benefits from the unfair system are steps that can be taken every day. This, translated to a lifelong commitment, is the only way to ensure real, lasting change happens. 

The film opens with Pitt’s character working on what seems to be an extension of the International Space Station (ISS). The visuals and sound editing coupled with the directionless and lethargic movement of Pitt’s character accurately recreate space. As our protagonist and his colleagues effortlessly float through space, one cannot help but feel the awe of their insignificant presence against the backdrop of Earth. It is not until all of the ambient noise suddenly drains out and is replaced by the low rumbling of a power surge that the audience finally realizes what structure they are working on: an antennae from Earth that is so tall, it reaches into low Earth orbit. The surge runs along the course of the structure, and Pitt watches as his colleagues are blown off of it and sent plummeting to the ground. Pitt’s character is forced to jump off seconds before the power surge reaches his position. In the following moments of him spinning through the Earth’s upper atmosphere and down towards the ground, we learn what this film has in store. 

This film is very slow, both literally and figuratively. The characters move slowly as if  swimming through water, as they walk along the outsides of space stations and shuttles. However, this slow feel also extends to the plot as Brad Pitt delivers meandering monologues about the nature of humanity. Though this film is technically science fiction due to its setting, there is no doubt that it is more of a drama and an intimate look at human nature. Pitt’s character is known for his fearlessness; however, this has made him an uncaring person who pushes others away. His wife, played briefly by Liv Tyler, barely knows who he is anymore, and he does not have any kids. Instead, he has devoted himself completely to the exploration of space; however, deep down, he does not care much for it beyond the connection it forges between him and his father. When Pitt’s character is finally reunited with his father, he realizes that the man is more similar to an alien than a human, as he no longer considers Earth to be home. The father so consumed with exploring space and discovering what lies in the expansive universe that when Pitt tries to save him, he untheters himself and floats off into the void.  

“Ad Astra” uses the exploration of deep space as a vehicle to tell a story about humanity. The nuanced performances of the cast coupled with the awe-inspiring scenery raise questions about the point at which a human becomes an alien and suggest that the answers may lie in the void. 

In light of the stalemate in negotiations between Disney and Sony over the property of Spider-Man, Apple has revealed that they are looking into buying Sony Pictures for themselves. A list of new possible acquisition by Apple was revealed by an investor analyst via Twitter, including A24, Lionsgate, CBS, Sony Pictures, MGM Studios, Netflix and a gaming publisher. Though these acquisitions are far from confirmed, there is speculation that this is the reason that the Disney-Sony plan fell through. Should Apple follow through on the purchase of Sony, the rights to the Spider-Man character and other related properties will revert back to Marvel automatically as part of the deal the two companies before Disney bought Marvel. Some critics believe that the reason Disney made the bold offer of splitting the profits from the Spider-Man film franchise 50/50 between the two studios is because, should the Apple-Sony deal go through, Marvel would get the property back for free. 

However, there is yet another company eyeing Sony: Amazon. In the past few years, rumors have been swirling that Amazon is also interested in purchasing Sony as they seek to develop beyond their current streaming capabilities. Both Apple and Amazon share this concern as neither company have a theatrical production model or a distribution model. Early this year, a report was released about a deal between Apple and J.J. Abrams and his production company Bad Robot. It was reported that Abrams passed on a huge deal with Apple due to their lack of intellectual property that he could adapt and the fact the company did not have a theatrical distribution model. Making the deal with Apple would have also prevented him from selling to or working with third-party outlets, effectively cutting him off from other production companies such as Disney and Paramount as well as from television projects such as the hugely successful “Westworld” series. Instead, Abrams signed with WarnerMedia for about half the amount he would have been paid by Disney. This move would allow him to work with the characters of the DC Extended Universe as well as have more creative freedom with his own projects under Bad Robot. However, should Apple purchase Sony, it will give them a theatrical distribution model that they need to move beyond simply online streaming. 

Despite all of these different avenues that Sony is faced with, CEO Tony Vinciquerra states that Sony is “not for sale” and will not be “beholden to any platform.” Vinciquerra has expressed his intention to protect his creators and to keep them up to speed as to what is going on. Moving forward, it will be interesting to watch if Apple pursues Sony more seriously or if Amazon will make an offer. Should these deals start to become a reality, it will certainly change the face of theatrical releases in an unprecedented way. Additionally, it will be interesting to see how Sony resists the bidding war that is happening around them and whether or not they will be willing to join the streaming war they have been trying to stay out of. 

Recent advancements in CGI technology has allowed for more impressive undertakings. One notable example in the past decade is James Cameron’s 2009 science-fiction film, “Avatar.” Audiences applauded the film for its stunning otherworldly setting and the use of CGI to create a realistic alien species known as the Na’vi. Additionally, films like 2018’s “Avengers: Infinity War” and the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy proved that realistic CGI could coexist with live action actors.

However, CGI has further evolved from enhancing scenery and creating original characters to digitally de-aging actors to play young versions of their characters. Many critics of this practice argue that, by using CGI, a production can avoid the cost of hiring two actors to play two different ages. Additionally, further debate has explored the repercussions of the use of digital means to alter a character’s look rather than using more traditional routes of hair, makeup and prosthetics enhancement. This has blurred the line between an actor and their character. In digitally de-aging characters, graphics teams are actually altering the look of the actors themselves, such as the case with the digital de-aging of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in “X-Men: The Last Stand” (2006). “Ghost in the Shell,” released in 2017, also raised questions as to the extent of digitally altering an actor as there was speculation that the filmmakers were testing effects to make lead actress Scarlett Johansson look “more Asian.” This idea was eventually rejected by the producers of the film, but it nevertheless blurred the line between altering the look of a character and altering the look of an actor.

The extent to what CGI can do has gone even further in recent years with the development of digital photo-realistic human faces. Not only has the film industry been able to perfectly marry motion capture and CGI, as they did with Andy Serkis’ motion capture performance in the reboot of the “Planet of the Apes” series, but they have also been able to digitally reproduce actors and actresses who have passed away. This usually happens after significant amounts of the film have already been shot. Noteworthy examples in recent years include Paul Walker, Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing, who have been “resurrected” for roles in their respective franchises. Walker’s role in the seventh installment of the “Fast and Furious” franchise was finished with digital replications of Walker’s face onto his brother’s body. In this case, the family consented to the role being finished without the presence of Walker as evidenced by the fact that his brother was instrumental in the completion of the project. Fisher’s role was also finished digitally after her passing, however, it did take some CGI magic to complete her final role.

Peter Cushing’s case, however, is different from the other two stars as his face, voice and likeness were used to create a completely original performance. Conversely, the other two actors’ roles were finished after they had already filmed a majority of their scenes. In Cushing’s case, an entirely new performance was created digitally with the use of a lookalike who studied Cushing’s movements. Facial movements of the lookalike were captured and later Cushing’s face was laid on top of those movements. Questions of morality arise when considering the difference between continuing an actor’s role in a franchise in order to finish a project that has already been started versus creating a completely new performance using CGI. CGI has crossed an ethical line in using the likeness of a deceased actor to continue their work on a franchise critics argue. It is commonplace that, should an actor pass away after production has wrapped, they would be recast. However, with advances in CGI, an actor can continue to “act” even after their passing.

Morality and the ethics of continuing an actor’s career, possibly damaging their memory and legacy, is in question. Although familial consent is often obtained in these cases, it is hard to understand how exactly that actor would have embodied the role. In this way, the face and name recognition of an actor that has passed away lives on without the actual substance of their performance and energy. Recent commercials featuring CGI reproductions of icons like Bruce Lee, Audrey Hepburn and Steve McQueen have pushed this issue even further into the public eye. Many argue that distorting the memory of these stars by associating them with material items is disrespectful to their work and life. As CGI continues to advance, will digitally created performances become indiscernible from actual actors? Or will the uncanny valley — human replications that elicit feelings of discomfort because they are not quite realistic enough — prevent photo-realistic reproductions of deceased actors from becoming the norm?

Comcast and Disney engaged in fierce competition as Comcast eyed major Fox channels such as National Geographic and FX. This competition prompted Comcast to bid $65 billion in cash, topping Disney’s offer of $52.4 billion in stock. Comcast would have acquired Fox’s film and television studios, regional sports networks, various cable networks and various international properties in India and across Europe if they had placed the winning bid. Additionally, Comcast would have acquired 30 percent more stake in Hulu, totaling a 60 percent stake in the online streaming platform and the majority in the split stake between Comcast, Fox, Disney (all holding 30percent stake) and Time Warner (holding a 10 percent stake). Fox, however, rejected Comcast’s offer, fearing scrutiny from Department of Justice Antitrust Division regulators. Conversely, Disney announced their intention to “take actions required to secure regulatory approval” as well as acknowledging the fact that they would most likely be required to sell off certain properties in order to get approval.

Ultimately, Comcast announced that they would withdraw their bid for the company as Disney placed the winning bid for Fox, amending their acquisition agreement to represent the $71.3 billion they would pay in cash and stock. Additionally, Disney declared they would be taking on about $13.8 billion in net debt (total debt excluding any cash on hand), totalling a $85.1 billion transaction. Disney plans to allow shareholders to choose how they would like to shift their common shares (shares that represent a dividend of the company) as the deal closes. Shareholders of 21st Century Fox may elect to receive $38 in cash or common stock in Disney adjusted for taxes resulting in an estimated overall payout in 50 percent cash and 50 percent stocks to shareholders. The acquisition does not include Fox broadcasting and news networks including the Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network or various other business and news-related properties that will spin-off to become a new company called “New Fox.” Disney’s acquisition of 21st Century Fox means they will gain ownership over 21st Century Fox’s film production business including 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures, 20th Century Fox Television, FX and their associated networks as well as National Geographic, Fox Networks Group International and a majority stake in Hulu.

In order to formalize the acquisition, Disney sought approval from regulators in some of their main international markets of China, the European Union and, most recently, Brazil and Mexico. Only recently did Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense approve the acquisition on the condition that Disney sell the Fox sports channel and other related networks to promote healthy competition in sports broadcasting in the industry. Additionally, Disney has confirmed that once these properties are sold off, they will not pursue them again for a set amount of time and will allow free use of the Fox name to the buyer for the purpose of promoting the property. A similar situation unfolded in Mexico when the Comisión Federal de Competencia Económica (COFECE) expressed concerns over a potential monopoly developing. This prompted Disney to give up their stake in the branch of the company responsible for distribution in Mexico. However, officials from the Federal Telecommunications Institute have cited a possible conflict of interest as one of the former regulators was offered a job with the company. In the European Union, demanded concessions would result in Disney releasing their stake in the History and Lifetime networks across Europe. China, the second largest box-office in the world, did not request any conditions to be met. Similar concerns over Disney’s dominance in sports reporting have surfaced in the United States, where the Department of Justice approved the deal on the condition that Disney sell off 22 regional sports channels.

Disney, which already owns Lucasfilm, Marvel Studios and Pixar, and therefore, the rights to some of the most lucrative franchises in the business including the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Star Wars and Pirates of Caribbean franchises. Through the acquisition, Disney will assume ownership over even more big-ticket franchises such as the X-Men, Fantastic Four, Avatar and Simpsons franchises amongst many other hugely iconic (and successful) properties. Although many moviegoers have expressed their excitement that the acquisition will bring about new crossover franchises and finally reunite the Marvel Universe, there has been some skepticism about the power of The Walt Disney Company company going forward.

There are concerns about the financial might of Disney-Fox, that will rake in an estimated $4.25 billion domestically and $10.2 billion worldwide dominating box office shares. Additionally, critics fear Disney-Fox will dominate key release dates usually centered around major holidays with the 43 films slated for release over the next 2 years. These numbers do not include films bought from festivals under Fox Searchlight and other films that have yet to receive a release date in 2020 from Fox. Despite Disney’s immense influence in the industry, other key production companies have not shied away from challenging them at the box office. Warner Brothers’ domestic distribution head Jeff Goldstein commented, “you have to be clever when it comes to picking dates” in reference to the studio finding success in riskier timeframes not centered around holidays or the summer months. In light of the recent developments regarding another large scale acquisition between AT&T and Time Warner which faced pushback from the Department of Justice, critics question the lack of scrutiny of the Disney-Fox deal. Perhaps Disney’s influence in popular media has allowed them to form somewhat of a monopoly without significant pushback that could drastically shift how the industry looks, how it interacts with audiences and what stories will be told moving forward.

Peele will not only serve as the host and narrator, but will also be a member of the creative team, serving as an executive producer on the project. Peele has even stated in one interview that he sees himself as “the gatekeeper of ‘The Twilight Zone’” in that he considers himself responsible for “protecting” the iconic show’s twist endings and strong moral messages going forward. Peele, who expertly bridged the gaps between dark comedy, horror and social commentary with the highly successful “Get Out” will help to establish the “social thriller” genre further, possibly using the reboot of “The Twilight Zone” as a vehicle to do so. In fact, “Get Out” popularized the “social thriller” and set it apart from other genres in a way that had not been done before. When looking back, the original “The Twilight Zone” can be considered a “social thriller” but, the genre had not yet been placed into mainstream media consciousness. Peele argues that Rod Serling was an “uncompromising visionary” who explored social issues of the 50s and 60s and predicted social issues of the modern era. The “social thriller” is defined as highlighting oppression in society through the use of horror elements. Considering “Get Out”’s intricately woven storyline concerning racial alienation in the “post-racism” era and the social commentary base of “The Twilight Zone,” Jordan Peele has the potential to join other masters of horror like Guillermo del Toro, Wes Craven, Stephen King and others in the modern cinematic sphere.  

Jordan Peele is no stranger to the parallels between his own work and “The Twilight Zone” as he cites many instances where he drew on themes from the original series to inspire his own films. Even his upcoming film “Us,” which features a family being tormented by their own doppelgangers, draws inspiration from an episode of the original “The Twilight Zone” series called “Mirror Image.” In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Peele stated that the film will toy with the idea that we are our own worst enemies and the duality in ourselves and within the characters. The idea of duality plays perfectly into the theory some fans have that the two sets of families represent the two aspects of human nature, the one that is “social acceptable” and the other that embodies what needs to be repressed in order to “fit in”. Additionally, the film is being produced in conjunction with Blumhouse, who are known for their low-budget, high-yield horror/thriller films.

Peele has shown his dedication to the creation of horror films that matter by pushing a more meaningful message than most other horror films forward in each of them. He even created a collection of filmic research for the cast of his latest project to create a “shared language” of horror films. “The Babadook” and “It Follows,” two more recent indie films that explore grief and the stigmatization of sexually transmitted infections, respectively, were included on this list. Peele’s interaction with the horror genre in both television and film is an exciting prospect considering the meaning that he wants these films to hold. “The Twilight Zone” and its roots in social commentary and the hidden messages in “Us,” out in theaters in March, prove that Peele might have stumbled upon a genre that has not yet been able to stand separate from the film noir and horror genres. Peele’s films consider more uncanny and existential themes of horror designed to fill audiences with feelings of dread and uneasiness. This, combined with the scrutinization of the nature of mankind through the medium of film — often considered a universal language in its own right — can prove to be something that is quite unprecedented.

“Mid90s”, written and directed by Jonah Hill, follows the coming-of-age story of the young Stevie (Sunny Suljic) in 1990s Los Angeles after he finds a new group of friends at the local skate shop. The film, shot in 16mm to give it an authentic ’90s vibe and using first-time actors who were chosen for their real-life abilities in skating, gifts the audience with a heavy dose of nostalgia. From the first shot of the film, Stevie being thrown into a wall by his muscular, hip-hop obsessed older brother, the audience can tell that they are in for a ride that is equal parts dramatic, comedic and realistic. The rest of the opening only solidifies this fact by following Stevie as he explores his brother’s carefully curated room full of ’90s pop culture memorabilia after being told to “stay the fuck out”. This moment, along with many others in the film, helps the audience empathize with Stevie. It is especially salient to those of us who have older siblings and, at one point or another, snuck into their room to touch their stuff after they specifically told us not to.

When Stevie first meets the older skaters –– who ultimately help him come into his own and figure out his identity –– in front of the local skate shop, Motor Avenue, he is immediately enthralled with their attitudes toward authority figures. The group’s dynamic members draw Stevie in: Ray (Na-kel Smith), the leader of the group, the “dopest” one of them all and the best skater, Fuckshit (Olan Prenatt), the hypebeast, Fourth Grade (Ryder McLaughlin), who is known to most as having the intelligence of a fourth grader and Ruben (Gio Galicia), who acts as Stevie’s competition for most of the film. As Stevie eavesdrops on their friendly banter with a huge smile on his face, the audience cannot help but identify with him. We want him to have a group of close friends that he looks up to and when he is finally accepted into the group and given the nickname Sunburn, we feel relieved that he finally has something to distract him from his tense life at home.

Stevie, with the guidance of the older boys, has many firsts: his first party, his first time smoking, his first time driving in car without anybody’s parents and his first sexual experience. As we watch his story arc, we cannot help but feel like we are one of the guys, listening in on their conversations with each other and laughing along with them. One moment in the film that highlights the realistic nature of the film as a coming of age story is a scene in which Ray describes the baggage that each member of the group carries. Ray poignantly states, “…I think if you looked in anybody else’s closet, you wouldn’t trade your shit for their shit..,” which adeptly convinces Stevie that his life is actually relatively good and that he should enjoy every second of it.

Despite the wonderful look and feel of the film, it is clear overall that Jonah Hill is a first-time director. The film, coming in at about 1 hour and 25 minutes, does not do enough to really make me care for any of the members of the group other than Stevie and Ray. Stevie is dynamic and we see his character growth from a young, obedient boy to a kid yelling at his mother and drinking, representing him coming into his own. Ray represents the pull to a better life by speaking about getting out of his rough situation by going pro in skateboarding. Each of the other members of the squad, however, are caricatures of what they are supposed to represent: Fuckshit is the party guy who puts aside the privilege that he has been afforded to drink and smoke, Fourth Grade is the budding filmmaker constantly hiding behind a video camera and Ruben is the jealous friend. The film follows each member of the group when they come together yet that is all we see. Hill never follows anybody home but Stevie, and that isolates the audience from the experiences of the other characters. Instead of showing the struggles of the other members of the squad by showing us their home life, Ray tells the audience of their struggles. Sadly, this missed opportunity in developing every member of the friend group as characters with layers leads to the feeling they were solely catalysts for Stevie’s growth. I felt that this was a slight misstep on Hill’s part because, rather than showing the skating portion of their lives as an escape for each of them, it does not hold as much weight because we have nothing to compare it to. Many ideas that were raised through the dialogue were never explored because the focus on the movie remained on the friends simply hanging out. The people under their veneers were never unveiled, which distanced me from some of the characters. Apart from the character of Ray, expertly portrayed by Na-kel Smith, it felt as if I knew of each of the supporting characters as opposed to actually knowing them.

At times, choppy dialogue took me out of the moment. On one hand, the conversations felt heavily scripted by somebody trying to be cool, like some moments between Fourth Grade and F*cksh*t, whereas other moments and interactions felt real and warm, like some of the moments between Stevie and Ray. The conversations that hit the nail on the head masterfully captured the youthful essence that was just waiting to break free in Stevie. I only wish there had been more of those moments.

In conclusion, “Mid90s” is worth the watch, especially if you are with your friends. It was an honest effort from Jonah Hill to capture the chaotic spirit of a youth in the ’90s in a way that is relatable even today. Despite a few inconsistencies in the dialogue and a few missed opportunities to explore the dynamics of the friend group, Mid90s captures many aspects of belonging and growing up, especially when surrounded by a group of friends that raise hell together. This film is indicative of a larger shift towards films that break the Hollywood mold and I, for one, am excited to see what Jonah Hill brings to the table in the next few years as we continue to ride the wave of ’90s nostalgia. Hopefully, Hill will lean into this more serious style of filmmaking and continue to produce new pieces that are set around the chaotic youth spirit. This film, which combines an arthouse cinema vibe with entertaining storytelling, along with his starring roles in comedies like “Superbad” and “21 Jump Street,” might create somewhat of a subgenre to dramatic comedy spearheaded by Jonah Hill and I, for one, am ready to see what he comes up with next.

Assassination Nation knows what it wants to be and what it is but, most importantly, it knows who it’s audience is. It knows that you were most likely checking Instagram right before you stepped into the theater or that you checked Facebook earlier in the day. It is aware of every livestream you have ever done and every tweet you have ever sent and, because of that, it perfectly taps into what scares you. The film exploits the issue of privacy in the “age of technology” in a brilliant way, even introducing two characters which represent the different arguments regarding the existence of online privacy today. One side of the argument, that privacy can still exist in an online space, is represented by Lily — the aforementioned leader-as we watch her sext a mysterious older man, only ever referred to via text as “daddy”, while she parties with her popular boyfriend. The other side of the argument presented in the character of Reagan, a narcissistic cheerleader played by Bella Thorne who claims that there no longer is privacy on the internet. The film expertly toys with the delicate bargain that the audience has made with the internet. While most of us understand that what we do online is no longer private — a fact that we have reluctantly come to terms with over the recent years — we also understand that we are at the mercy of hackers and choose to believe that we are safe from them simply because we could never be a threat. Or are we?

This film expertly taps into the psyche of its viewer and instills in them a feeling of paranoia. However, this feeling leaves the theater with you and makes you second guess everything you Google and every website you visit. The film offers an avenue for reflection. Is online privacy really dead? Assassination Nation, by providing commentary about reality with technology, connects to the audience in ways that are new for film. “Assassination Nation” could be indicative of a larger shift towards tech-centric film in which the technology we all use everyday serves to enhance the plot rather than hinder it.

“Assassination Nation” also represents a shift in the political focus of films as, in its purest form, this is a film and story for the moment. The story addresses gender stereotypes and the misuse of technology to further force those stereotypes upon impressionable teenagers. In addition, it addresses the “witch hunt” culture that has emerged in the era of the #MeToo Movement but takes it a step further and turns it on its head by using the witch hunt as a way to attack misogyny online. Being able to follow women through the film as they interact with friends on social media and in person helps the audience examine more closely just what it feels like to be a teenager in an online space. In one rather poignant scene, Lily points out that social media provides a way for people to share the best of their lives, only to have it susceptible to criticism. The film uses beautiful shots, a dynamic soundtrack, a wonderful neon aesthetic and eerie filmmaking techniques to depict a town addicted to secrets shared over the internet. This allows the audience to follow the girls as they break free of their social-media-induced trance and are literally able to fight misogyny in their town. Now tell me, reader, are you not intrigued?