CN ISSUE (#2.0).pdf

SUBSISTENCE AND
"SLACTIVISM" - PG 3-4
SANSKARI SUFFOCATION -
PG 8
JUGAAD - PG 5-7
WHY THE NUCLEAR
PASSENGER SHIP FAILED -
PG 9-11
THE CURIOUS CASE OF JK
ROWLING - PG 13-15
HINDUTVA FILMS ARE
CHANGING TOLLYWOOD -
PG 16-17
ESCAPISM IS NOT FOR
EVERYONE - PG 18
MONROE: A FORGOTTEN
LECACY- PG 19-20
THE DICEY MORALITY OF
TRUE CRIME MAKEUP -
PG: 21-22
index.

When we were conceptualizing the theme for our issue #2
(which is really our issue #3), we knew head-on that we
wanted something different, something bold. It was around
the time the Depp-Heard trial had come out and Andrew
Tate had been banned, the discourse and dissent that had
always been present on the internet suddenly seemed
amplified by the thousands, teeming at the surface with the
anger of countless anonymous heads. The virtual world
seemed perpetually frozen in dissonance. From there on, it
was almost easy to come up with the idea of discussing
controversial events, and more interesting, discussing how
we as an audience consume these controversies.
It gives me great joy to present our theme for this issue:
Consuming controversy. After countless months of writing,
editing, and designing, it is incredibly exhilarating to see
this issue come to life. I have absolutely no one else to thank
but my incredible team for working so diligently on this
issue and putting up with my constant revisions and
redesigns. As this year comes to an end, consuming
controversy feels revelatory of how we've evolved as
consumers of knowledge and media. The pandemic has
forced us to virtual spaces and these spaces have yielded
some of the most interesting demonstrations of human
nature, and we here at Carpe Noctem wanted to capture
exactly that. The inherent and undeniably human nature to
create and consume controversy. It goes without saying, but
I genuinely hope that you, as our audience, discover
something meaningful within the pages of our magazine.
AMSHU VENGALA - EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Activism in its purest essence is empowerment. To be
an activist is to speak out against disparities in our
communities, and strive to attain equality–by any
means necessary apparently. As an activist, one looks
for recognition and approval from society, seeking
understanding– as is their right to do so. The
opportunity that social media has presented in voicing
these stances cannot be understated, eliminating
barriers to who can take on the role of an activist. In
turn, advocacy is no longer only limited to those who
have established influence. Yet, in their attempts at
advocacy, activists are often reprimanded for their
‘negativity’. It's the extremity of their actions and their
voluntary choice to “rebel” that is particularly
problematic. To individuals content with their way of
living, activists– especially the youth– are labelled
troublesome and privileged. They take on aggressive
stances for their rather limited experience,
undermining the integrity of the cause.
In specific, food fights have risen as a method of
“climate activism”, with the victims of the projectile
foodstuff being celebrated artistic masterpieces.
Climate activism’s nobility as a cause is undeniable;
our planet and its health require our immediate
attention, and our actions have had horrendous
consequences on the environment, impacting the
sustainability of human life. Our world leaders have
decided that a smiling photo from the next Conference
of the Parties meeting suffices as a panacea, inducing
justifiable frustration at the limited action and
disregard of urgency. In the minds of certain people,
this rationalises the extremist mindset, resulting in the
creative restoration of masterpieces with fast food.
Substituting oil paints for food grease, and the bright
colours of a Van Gogh with the pale yellow of a
mashed potato.
In May 2022, a climate activist disguised as
an elderly lady threw cake at the Mona
Lisa. Da Vinci’s magnum opus, a piece that
attracts millions of tourists every year on its
own, emerged unscathed, but a trend had
started. Later, in October, two similar
incidents were reported. In one instance,
two activists decided one of Van Gogh's
would look better covered in soup, while
the other thought Monet could use a little
more mashed potato. They then proceeded
to super-glue their hands to the wall. The
entire scene ended up as nothing more than
a publicity stunt. A pattern emerged; pieces
of art that garner higher viewership were
used as a platform for activists to generate
publicity. While no damage was done to the
paintings, a clear point was set across.

They questioned the concerns of the international community and the public sphere in general, a
sphere that has seemingly prioritised the protection of paintings over that of our planet.
It is a valid question: are our priorities misplaced? In the context of sustainability, there is truth to
their preachings. Our world is facing imminent destruction, which is incentive enough to resort to
activism. The folly of these actions, however, lie in their attempts at attracting attention - their
assumption that blunt awareness is the key to solving this global issue. The argument is further
established through their lack of self-awareness in these public displays. A key element of
effective advocacy is creating a connection with the audience. It isn’t enough for an audience to
remain aware of an issue they need to begin to understand and empathise with it. Thus, the
foundation for activism campaigns lies in their emotional, logical, and ethical appeal; they build a
sense of responsibility within the audience.
In contrast, food fights are destructive and don’t imbibe responsibility in their audience or
emphasise the immediacy, subverting from the original issue: climate change. Food fights
desensitise the sentiments to the public sphere, and construct an image of climate activism as one
of fervent recklessness. While the importance of activism cannot be downplayed, improper
activism poses a risk. Activism is a fragile concept; maintaining a critical standpoint is essential
in successful activism and there is a need for balance when making an impression.
For individuals that show such motivation in their quest to ‘enlighten’ the world, their ignorance
towards the counterintuitive effects it has seems ironic. The increased popularity of this outlook is
largely associated with the advent of social media. Platforms that increased the ease with which
people seem to attain their ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude as activists, eliminating the need for logic
behind arguments and movements - the slacktivist approach. The question of activism has shifted
from genuine encouragement of the adoption of new ideologies to a PR stunt– a desperate plea
for attention, and a damaging one at that.
WRITTEN BY ARYA SUNKARA

On 24th September 2014,
the world watched in astonishment
as the Indian space probe, Mangalyaan,
successfully entered the martian orbit.
India was the first Asian country to succeed on
its maiden attempt, and achieved this on a shoestring
budget. This feat stands to represent the Indian style of
thought, of innovation and of improvisation- Jugaad. It is
impossible to come across an Indian who has been untouched
by the culture of frugalism. Jugaad is a colloquial Hindi term that is
roughly translated to a quick-fix, a hack or innovative solution to a
problem. Jugaad is more than a concept, it is a lifestyle, a habit
of the mind. From ferris wheel motorcycles to plastic bottle drip irrigators,
this style of thinking can be seen across
the country, in every nook and
cranny. Jugaad solutions
are simple and efficient,
and serve as a reminder
that innovation is not a
trademark of the elite.

Jugaad as a mindset stems from the economic and
socio-cultural atmosphere of India. After years of
historic oppression, the country was stripped of its
wealth and all that remained after independence was a
shell of the nation in its former glory, a nation that
struggled to provide for its people. The vast majority
of Indians grew up in dire poverty, where food, shelter
and clothes were considered a luxury. As a result of
these circumstances, an emphasis was placed on
frugalism in the psyche of society. Resources were
there to be valued and saved, not spent over solving
petty problems. This ideology, coupled with a sense of
optimism and an openness to flexibility, led to the birth
of Jugaad. Ad hoc solutions are not expensive and are
not complicated and intricate. Shortcut ideas are
welcomed with a smile and a shrug- “Chalta Hai!”.
Most importantly, the reason why innovation in India
is unique is due to the a communal value of resilience.
However, the fundamental concept and the readiness to
jump back to status quo and the absence of fear of
failure creates a mindspace optimised for designing
solutions that, through simple trial and error, can solve
pressing issues of the present.
Over the past few years, Jugaad is a concept that
has gained popularity in the space of innovation
and design thinking, for many reasons, time and
cost efficiency, adaptability and inclusivity.
There are many who have raised doubts about
the effectiveness of frugality in creating long
term solutions. Be it an unwillingness to accept
eastern ideology, or a fear of venturing into
unknown territory, the idea of Jugaad has seen
much backlash from elite innovation circles.
They argue that short cuts and hacks tend to
compromise on the quality of product, that
Jugaad can bring with it complacency, a sense
of “Kuch Nahi Hoga,” which can pose
significant danger to the integrity of design.
However, the planet is reaching the end of its
tether in terms of how much more it can
provide. Demand is steadily increasing with a
growing population, while supply cannot
increase parallely. In such a dire situation,
sustainability trumps the need for elegance.
Jugaad innovation can reduce the resource
footprint of the design sector. Instead of relying
heavily on research and development, Jugaad
practitioners use rapid prototyping and tend to
build on available infrastructure and assets.
Furthermore, the simplicity of such design leads
to flexibility. Complex, expensive solutions
tend to be specific to a target problem, while
cheaper solutions can be modified, readily, for a
multitude of uses.

Jugaad is also common in the automobile sector, where numerous examples of do-it-yourself
vehicles can be seen on Indian roads. In fact, jugaad is a term also used to refer to a specific kind
of vehicle, with a motorcycle for a drivers seat, attached to a larger cart designed to carry above
15 people. Designed with local, low cost vehicles, the contraption was built in response to the
need for public transport in the desert regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat. Frugal engineering has
also shown potential in problems that threaten the future, such as healthcare. Embrace
is a company that aims to create incubators for premature infants in
developing nations. In the true sense of Jugaad,
the company investigated the needs of the
families and specific constraints and
developed a prototype that made use
of local materials to reduce the cost
of production. The prototype did not
require electrical supply and allowed
mothers to carry their children to work
without disrupting the treatment. Usage
of local materials to reduce cost of
production and sale dovetails with the idea of frugal innovation to
fulfill specific market requirements.
In this day and age, we cannot afford to be fixated on processes. We need solutions, and we
need them fast. We need to tend to an ever changing world, with depleting resources and
growing issues. As problems become more and more demanding, it is vital to adopt a more
flexible outlook, to accept that no solution is perfect. We need to design in the environment we
have been provided, rather than change the environment for the sake of design Jugaad is a
concept indicative of the traditional Indian way of life. It is a
quest to find balance between what must be done
and what can be
done, a balance that is
necessary in innovation
that aims to navigate
an uncertain tomorrow.
WRITTEN BY LASYA K

The ideal girl is beautiful, calm and traditional. She lowers her eyes and voice, she rocks a saree and
sindoor and she is at the beck and call of every member in her family. Who wants her? Everyone.
For decades Indians have absorbed the idea of a Sanskari girl through Bollywood cinema. “Maine Pyaar
Kiya” (1989) by Sooraj Barjatya portrays a young girl named Suman (Bhagyashree) with nothing but
marriage on her mind. She wears a bindi and kurti and doesn’t talk to boys, unless they want to talk to
her, of course. Don’t forget the Sanskari girl has to be smart but not too smart, god forbid she has a mind
of her own! Therefore, despite being a good student with a bright future, Suman is not expected to earn
for herself. While the film holds a special place in the hearts of many who grew up in '80s, it emboldens
the insidious practice of female suppression through the guise of Sanskar. If women in these films were
to be more open, then would they be worthy of love?
Hum Aapke Hain Koun released in 1994 perfectly encapsulates a family
struck by the Sanskari syndrome. While the songs were absolutely killer,
the film reaffirms the toxic standards of tradition in an Indian family.
The women spend most of their time in the kitchen and the men spend
their time outside, the women are shy and reserved and the men are bold
and carefree. Similar to Suman, Nisha (Madhuri Dixit) is studying for a
degree, yet once again, the film only shows her either cooking or
serving.
Sundar Sushil Sanskari.
Cocktail, Vivaah, Pardes and many more films favour the more
traditional girl for marriage and the more carefree one for
anything but. While the great Indian Sanskar encourages the
practice of respecting your people, your elders and your God,
the unrealistic and oppressive expectations that often conform to
gender discrimination propel an extremely harmful mindset.
While western countries do not have the pre-existing notion of
Sanskar, there are statistically less crimes and less rapes. Why?
Because until and unless Sanskari attitudes do not evolve they
do not work. The truth is that the perfect Sanskari girl can never
exist, because it entirely negates the natural flaws of being
human. So the next time you watch a Bollywood film with the
Sanskari girl, remember to take it just as it is, a fiction.
SANSKARI
SUFFOCATION
W R I T T E N B Y P U R V I J A I N

WHY
THE NUCLEAR
PASSENGER
SHIP FAILED
At first impression, the N.S. Savannah appeared to be a typical cruise ship, with a
swimming pool, a dining room, and a lounge that functioned as a movie theatre.
However, there is one feature that distinguishes this ship from the rest; there was a
nuclear reactor hidden inside an
inconspicuous compartment just a few
metres from the passenger staterooms. Yes, a
nuclear reactor. Nuclear power was considered
a revolutionary source of energy in the 1960s
but it was unclear whether placing a nuclear
reactor on a civilian ship was a wise idea.
The N.S. Savannah was supposed to demonstrate that nuclear power was a safe, clean, and nearly infinite
source of energy that might change ships, promising to make them more effective and reliable. A typical
ship consumed over 20,000 barrels of bunker oil during a single journey around the world and the N.S.
Savannah meant to accomplish the same voyage without burning any at all. As said earlier, this was
revolutionary. Nuclear-powered ships could theoretically sail for years without needing to refuel.

However, despite all of nuclear power's
promises, the world had reason to be
sceptical. Given its long history with
weaponry, nuclear energy had come to
represent one thing; mass destruction and
paired with the hidden risks of radiation, it
incited considerable doubt and fear. Nuclear
weapons had been in existence for about a
decade, but the peaceful application of
nuclear energy was still a novel concept.
So, in 1953, the U.S. The Atoms for Peace programme was created by President Eisenhower. To win
hearts and minds, research, financing, and equipment would be distributed globally to develop the
peaceful use of nuclear energy. Accordingly, the N.S. Savannah would be built as a floating example of
what an atomic-powered future could offer. As the first of its kind, the ship would transport both
passengers and freight at the same time, demonstrating that nuclear power could be safe and viable for a
variety of uses at sea.
Safety was prioritised in all aspects of Savannah's design.
Engineers developed shields and barriers to keep passengers and
staff safe just metres from the reactor. A primary radiation
shield, a thick steel containment vessel, and a 500-ton biological
shield encircled the reactor. All of these devices were created to
prevent stray neutrons and radioactive material from escaping.
Radiation exposure would be indistinguishable from the natural
background radiation on most ships.
Engineers had to account for the reality that ships in bad
weather have mishaps and, in the worst-case scenario, sink.
To this end, the reactor was meant to shut down
automatically, and one-way valves were installed to flood the
containment vessel with seawater, preventing radioactive
material from escaping. Engineers had considered every
imaginable catastrophic scenario, and Savannah's constructors
boldly declared that their ship was one of the safest ever
constructed.
So, all that remained was to persuade the rest of the world.
Savannah stood out among the dirty, soot-covered commerce
ships of the time, setting sail in May 1964 on an ambitious
world tour to illustrate the benefits of nuclear power.

It travelled approximately 150,000 kilometres
in a year while utilising only 35 pounds of
uranium. Huge crowds gathered every time
Savannah docked in a new port. The global
tour had been a huge success, attracting a lot of
public interest and positive press. In the
meantime, new personnel were being trained in
the United States in preparation for service on
future nuclear ships. If nuclear propulsion was
the future, it appeared that momentum was
growing. Savannah had made nuclear
propulsion appear simple as the ship travelled
from port to port.
But beyond the elegant lines and sparkling
white paint was a harsh reality. The operation
of a nuclear ship was anything but simple.
Savannah needed special approval before it
could dock. Furthermore, the request had to be
made months in advance. And ports frequently
declined due to safety concerns. Savannah's
representatives would have to fly out well in
advance to begin negotiating agreements
behind the scenes. Everything from how to
respond if the ship causes a nuclear catastrophe
to who is liable is covered. Scepticism of
floating nuclear reactors was not going away
overnight. Due to the general mistrust of
nuclear ships and lack of infrastructure, this
revolutionary method of transportation became
lost in the pages of old news articles.
Today, over 90,000 merchant ships sail the world's
oceans, with the vast majority using low-grade
bunker oil, the most polluting oil on the market. One
huge cargo ship can emit the same amount of
dangerous sulphur dioxide as fifty million cars. In
comparison, if a dozen large cargo ships were
powered by nuclear reactors, worldwide emissions
would be significantly reduced. However, that is
simply theory and the reality is that the modern
history of nuclear energy is so entrenched with death
and destruction that the nuclear passenger ship was
destined to fail from the start.

J.K Rowling is undeniably one of the most controversial
figures of the last half-decade. Her work has become
embedded in 21st-century pop culture and Rowling herself
is iconic as an insanely successful author, an outspoken
feminist, and a philanthropist for truly remarkable causes.
But as of late, Rowling’s become an icon for something else
as well: transphobia. Her outspokenness concerning the
trans community has not only inflamed transphobic tensions
in the UK but has also contributed to legislative decisions
that have negatively impacted transgender people on a
global scale. She’s been quoted in Republican reasoning for
the blockage of the Equality Act, and has publicly opposed
the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, a Scottish legal
reform that attempts to make it easier for individuals to
transition.
THE CURIOUS CASE
Famous figures being less than great people isn’t a new
concept; Sigmund Freud was a Class A misogynist,
Gandhi was racist, and Picasso was a rapist. But
Rowling’s situation is far more interesting in the
contemporary era, for a couple of reasons. For one, Harry
Potter is cemented in 21st-century pop culture, in a way
that no novel series has managed. The iconic lightning-
shaped scar, the enigmatic Sorting Hat, and the wondrous
world of Hogwarts are all too familiar to any schoolchild
alive in the 2000s and 2010s. But even beyond that, the
Harry Potter series has had a profound effect on so many
people’s lives. Harry Potter has taught children around the
world about grief, kindness, and the bonds of friendship,
and erasing that because the author turned out to be an
awful person 15 years later seems…wasteful.
Prefacing the actual discussion, it’s important to clarify
how readers can affect and contribute to authors and their
communities. By consuming an author’s work and
discussing it, readers, intentionally or not, are growing that
author’s social platform. The more an author enters the
public sphere through the success of their work, the more
legitimacy they gain as a public figure, which can lead to
the expansion of their social platform. The point of this
somewhat long-winded explanation is to explain how the
very consumption of a novel can contribute to an author’s
growth, both socially and financially, and how readers
have a massive influence on both an author’s reach and
their credibility in society.
OF JK ROWLING

Circling back to J.K Rowling, let’s examine the controversy from when it started. In 2017 Rowling “liked”
a tweet linked to an article that sharply criticized the transgender movement at the time. She continued to
“like'' tweets that propagated hateful content and even posted some–albeit indirect– tweets of her own in
the following years. But her actions hadn’t garnered a significant amount of backlash; some people made
their own deductions and assumed she was transphobic but they remained speculations– until June 10,
2020. Rowling published a manifesto of sorts– a 3690 word essay called “TERF wars” where she proudly
declares her support for the transgender community while reinforcing her true beliefs:
Transgender women don’t qualify as women.
She voiced her concerns about how she wants
“trans women to be safe” but she also says:
“at the same time, I do not want to make natal
girls and women less safe."
When you’re as talented of an author as JK
Rowling, possess the ability to stimulate and
evoke emotions in readers, and have impacted
the lives of generations of kids; it’s hard to
throw it all away. Many people don’t realize
that there is a line between personal opinion
and the ability to transfer those views into
their work. In the case of Rowling, covert
reflections of her views can be observed; like
the appearance of Rita Skeeter. The
“unregistered animagus” Rita Skeeter, who
could illegally shape-shift between the form
of a human and a beetle has inspired
speculation—the fact that she abused her
shape-shifting abilities for malicious
purposes, coupled with the masculine
descriptions of Rita (having “mannish hands”
and a “heavily jawed face”) has pointed to the
strong possibility that she is an embodiment
of Rowling’s transphobic views.
While the entire situation is convoluted and
messy, it’s wrong to use Rowling as a
generalization for all artists. Every story is
different, and every controversy is different.
With the majority of the world online, it only
takes one misinformed person to practically
make or break someone's career.

Although this may be presented as a solution, it
isn’t, nor do we claim to offer one. Separating
the art from the artist is an inherently personal
decision that is left up to the reader’s discretion.
For those people that may not want to read a
book because the author abuses her platform to
spread contemptuous propaganda, that’s your
choice. For those people that believe that the
author and her book are two separate entities
and simply read the book, again, that's your
choice. On the condition that consumers are
making rational, well-informed decisions of
their own volition, they needn’t fear judgment
nor require validation.
WRITTEN BY ANISH RAJA AND SATHWIKA P
So being adequately informed of an author or their books before you purchase them is important;
you may unknowingly contribute to the propagation of discrimination and the spread of hateful
beliefs or provide the author with the means to do so. For those who packed their books away
because they believe Rowling no longer deserves to benefit from the Harry Potter franchise: it is
possible to continue living in Hogwarts without paying Rowling any dues. By preserving already
yellowing copies for as long as possible so as to never have to buy another one, by buying used
copies instead of new ones, and by purchasing fan-made, instead of the official merchandise or even
downloading e-books. Hogwarts will always be there to welcome us home, and it will never require
helping Rowling to fund transphobic legislation and organizations

Boy meets girl. Boy likes girl. Boy stalks girl. Girl shows interest. Song. Conflict. Girl
likes boy. Climax. Boy resolves conflict. Song. They get married. Happily ever after.
Sound familiar? Of course. It’s the quintessential formula for every current Tollywood
film’s success. But what makes the formula so successful? And is it still applicable in the
Tollywood of today?
Back in the 1930s, Tollywood films were primarily built on ancient Indian mythology. In
fact, Tollywood’s pilot production, Bhakta Prahlada, was a take on legendary Indian
figure Prahlada–a devotee of Vishnu’s reincarnation. Additionally, two of the biggest
successes of the era, Dhana Veera Soora Karna and Mayabazar, were mythological stories
in nature and represented how ubiquitous said theme was in the Tollywood industry.
With the 1970s, however, the industry underwent a metamorphosis. Amor and drama
took over, representing a transition in Tollywood from classic Hindu folktales to
melodrama and glamor. This change spurred the success of movies like
Pelli Chesi Choodu, Missiamma, and Donga Ramudu, no small part due
to the contribution of industry actors like Savitri, ANR, and NTR.
With the success of romance films in the
industry, a winning formula began to
emerge. Write a love story, exhibit
struggle, coupled with a song and
some action, and the film was
complete. That exact formula has
played a huge part in how prominent
romance films were in the industry,
and why they still play a
significant role in
Telugu cinema.

while still retaining the same blowout
popularity of the films in the past. The key
distinction lies in their plots- ones that
explore aspects of the characters beyond their
romantic relationships, separating themselves
from conventional Tollywood film storylines.
Take Sita Ramam for example. The historical
romance doesn’t follow Tollywood’s
conventional contemporary structure.
However, the Tollywood films of today,
whilst retaining some aspects of the romances
of the past, are distinctly different from the
ones of the late 1900s and early 2000s, and
are representative of another shift in the
industry; from traditional romantic dramas to
something new.
Films like Baahubali, RRR, Karthikeya 1 and
2, Puspha, Sita Ramam, Major, Kantara, and
Rangastalam are clearly separable from late
1900s Telugu romances,
Instead, the film showcases the viewpoint of an army man in the late 1900s, and how his love
for a Nizami princess causes conflict amongst royalty and government; exploring underlying
themes beyond romance. The plot maintains its focus on their relationship while also exploring
the other themes of a historic Bharat. These details and perspectives create an entirely different
emotive register for the film and encourage the audience to empathize with and appreciate its
nuanced plot.
The primary catalyst for this transition from basic romance to more nuanced themes is the
audience. The change in audience preference has led to a subsequent shift in the plots produced
by the Tollywood industry, spurred by the advent of education in middle-class households,
affecting their perception. The more complex storylines allow the audience to appreciate
detailed, refined films rather than a fluff rom-com, resulting in the deviation from classic
romance.
However, it’s important to recognize that the point being made here is not that the masses will
only enjoy content-maximized plots and are pushing away romantic films. The tried-and-true
formula is still appreciated and recognised as comfort by many. At the same time, other
categories of plots are also becoming increasingly popular for the newly educated audience of
Bharat, and recognition of that is necessary.
W R I T T E N B Y S A T H W I K A P E E C H A R A A N D R I S H I K A G O T E T I

"Just let people enjoy things." Far too often, the
lack of critical thinking in fandoms has been
justified by this flimsy statement. Valid criticisms
of books, movies, and public figures are largely
disregarded as nitpicky while minority voices are
suppressed. As evidenced by the surge in social
media usage during the pandemic years,
chronically online fans go to great extents to
defend their escapist pleasures. If it means
transforming their favourite media into a signifier
of their personality and letting this love distort
their views, then so be it. But, when does this
worship cross lines? When does loving something
move away from an exercise of good intentions
and turn into a breach of human decency?
From viciously attacking John Boyega with a
racist barrage of hate as a weapon of ‘Reylo’
defence to turning slave owners from ‘Hamilton:
The Musical’ into adorable, charming character
fanart, the ability to tune out from the real world
and immerse oneself fully into media is a grim
characteristic unique only to those privileged
enough to be removed from societal struggles.
This hollow, superficial reception allows (often
white) fans to, time and time again, drown out the
slightest objection and critical analysis of
offensive content in mass media, be it the
antisemitism present in Marvel comics or the
racism rampant in the Twilight franchise.
This privilege shapes the luxury white audiences
have to view art in any way they want to, while
minority groups are forced to deal with the blatant
mockery of their culture in media and are expected
to enjoy it since “it’s just a show”. Perhaps it’s
time to reckon with the fact that escapism does not
mean the same thing to everyone.
Once this is understood, we can finally begin to
engage in meaningful conversations about the
resistive power of imaginative and creative media.
Criticism is often seen as a direct defiance of the
ideal bubble of escapism created by audiences, but
the word is actually founded on democratic and
neutral roots. The negative connotation acquired by
this word is simply a front developed to defend the
shallow, anti-intellectual perspective audiences
have garnered when it comes to media. In reality,
criticism is the only pathway to recognising the
real in the imaginary, the human intentions in the
art, and the implications of artistic choices.
escapism
is not for
everyone.
ANANYA W

MARILYN
MONROE
Most people knew Marilyn Monroe’s face before
they knew her name. From images of her iconic looks
to the pop Andry Warhol portraits she inspired, she
has been an object of associated familiarity. You can
see now how her legacy is commemorated through
mass produced bedroom posters and hypersexualized
“documentaries”, sold by retailers who couldn’t see
beyond the superficiality of her looks and monetary
benefit.
But while many talk about the issues surrounding the
treatment of the luminary, few discuss the intrinsic
reason for her success, her work. In 1948, after
meeting prominent agent Johnny Hyde she booked
supporting roles in two acclaimed, Oscar nominated
films: All About Eve (1950) and The Asphalt Jungle
(1950). By 1952, she had three starring roles panning
out in the same year, becoming the “atomic blonde of
the box office”. Monroe became the second woman
in U.S. history to own her own production company
(Marilyn Monroe Productions). “She broke the
mould and challenged the authoritarian structure of
Hollywood studios, which dictated what films their
stars would make,” journalist Jill Layton wrote. And
that was exactly what she did, in The Seven Year Itch
(1955) and Bus Stop (1956) she proved her comedic
prowess, demonstrating her range and potential to
break out from the bombshell typecast.
Contrary to the belief that she
was a “ditzy, dumb blond”, she
was an accomplished poet,
avid literature enthusiast and
also studied method acting at
the Actors’ Studio where Ellen
Burstyn and Marlon Brando
had also been mentored. In
1955, she stood with American
singer Ella Fitzgerald when
she was banned from
performing in clubs because of
her race. With this and other
shows of support to minority
groups, she became an
outspoken advocate for
equality in a period where this
was rare. Her fame and
affluence was at its zenith as
she began harnessing her
potential to engineer a deep,
unprecedented shift in
American cinema.

In 1954, Marilyn deserted her job and left for New
York leaving her agents strapped and breaking an
iron-clad contract with one of Hollywood’s biggest
studios, Twentieth Century Fox. Monroe grew
overworked, depressed and tired of the dumb-blonde
roles and dull scripts she was abused into. Due to her
abrupt departure, Marilyn faced lawsuit after lawsuit
from Fox. But she endured. And in December of
1955, Fox Studios lost, and she regained both
personal and professional autonomy. She'd won
story, director, even cinematographer approval. “At a
time when the studios wielded absolute power, this
was revolutionary. Monroe hadn't just won her
autonomy—she'd made history.” said journalist
Elizabeth Winders.
Today, when we speak of the actress and her
achievements, we speak as if we possess a deeper
understanding of the crucification she underwent.
But the haunting question is, even after her death, is
she still being reduced to her persona against her
plea?
Like with the latest depiction of her in Andrew
Dominic’s adaptation of Joyce Carol Oates' 2000
novel Blonde. Yet Oates’ book remains to many as
nothing but a misogynistic, abasing piece of
literature that does nothing to aid Monroe’s legacy.
Meant to be a moving, realistic retelling of Monroe’s
life from her point of view, it eventually dissolves
into a turbulent sea of gross, vulgar descriptions of
Monroe as exactly what everyone visualised her to
be– a sex-obsessed, empty-headed dumb blonde.
A reviewer on Goodreads stated “there are some
books that should never have been written,
despite the truths they hold. This is one of
them.” When the adaptation was announced, the
response was a double-edged sword. Many
called it an objectification, fetishisation, and
attempt at narrative ownership, deferring to the
theory of the male gaze. In the film, Dominik
“fixates on Marilyn's body to a gynaecological
extent” and has essentially contrived what is
“torture porn with a lick of Hollywood gloss” as
Anna Bogutskaya from BBC discusses.
It is so incredibly repugnant that despite all that
she has revolutionised for both women and men
in the industry, she is still reduced to an object
of lust. Even Dominik passed her over as
someone who should not be looked up to as “a
figure for female empowerment”. But, the
unabated truth is this, we can never truly know
who Marilyn Monroe was and any attempt at
doing so can only be described as inadequate.
And so, is it not better to reframe the
dehumanising narrative to instead commemorate
her significance to the film industry? As global
consumers of media, it is essential that we do
not let her legacy as one of the most influential
cornerstones of modern culture be lost to the
perverse depiction of her as a commodity.

Allow me to paint you a picture: in a rather niche yet
unfortunately visible corner of the internet, there exists an entire
sub-genre of Youtube commentary channels dedicated to creating
true crime videos, but the twist? They do it while doing their
makeup. Videos about the most gruesome of murders and
unsolved kidnappings while blending out their foundation and
choosing their eyeshadow. It presents this dichotomy of
stimulation; visual and oral elements combined to make true crime
more appealing to a mass audience.
While the rise in popularity of true crime is a well-documented
exercise of increased media accessibility and human infatuation,
this specific sub-genre gives cause for controversy. Outside of the
general discourse about whether true crime media eats away at
human morality, this is more so an argument about privilege and
respect. YouTubers such as Bailey Sarian, who arguably
popularized the sub-genre in the first place, have grown
immensely in popularity with her channel alone having 6.5 million
subscribers and over 800 million views.
Bailey Sarian is a professional makeup artist who puts in days of
meticulous research (and has even hired professionals in the past)
to write her videos in an empathetic, nuanced manner. Such as her
video on Dahmer that is an hour and incredibly detailed. She talks
about how by doing makeup on screen, which was something she
was familiar and comfortable with, she was able to talk about
these true crime cases with greater ease. The professional and
well-researched elements of her videos should contribute to the
validity of her content, but the question of how ethical it is to
combine makeup with true crime comes up.
the dicey
morality
O F T R U E C R I M E M A K E U P
C O M M E N T A R Y

It begs to question why these sorts of videos are created and
then popularized in the first place. Furthermore, is there not a
certain ethical immorality to creating content that pairs
something as disturbing as true crime with an activity that is
inherently privileged, if not tone-deaf for such a situation? A
fact that is often lost in the consumption of true crime is that it
is true, the victims in these “stories” are very much real and so
is their grief. By sensationalizing the most traumatizing
moments of their life, true crime commentary has cultivated a
culture of detachment, allowing people to engage with
gruesome crime cases while having the visual stimulation of
makeup videos, which have a calming effect, to essentially
counteract their horror.
On one hand, makeup isn’t an inherently disrespectful act, in
fact, many find it to be visually captivating and stimulating.
However, there is not a certain tone-deafness in the act of
doing one’s makeup while discussing serial killers and their
victims? Sarian promises her audience that should a victim
ever reach out asking her to take down the video she will do so
immediately, “no questions asked” but why should such
content be created at all in the first place? The expectation that
the victims would reach out rather than silently suffer is an
implicit assumption that sets a harmful precedent of ethical
negligibility. If creators are dependent on an external party
While these videos may make it easier for audiences to
consume true crime media, it’s disturbing that we, as an
audience, have reached a stage where we require something as
emotionally taxing as true crime to be “consumable”. While
the purpose behind true crime media is often different, with
some citing awareness and other curiosity, the purpose of true
crime makeup commentary is inexplicably ambiguous if not
nonexistent. Sure, these videos may be well-researched, and
well-consumed, but the morality of this sub-genre of
commentary is so dicey that it overlaps the need for such
videos in the first place. Should such true crime makeup
videos even exist if their very premise is so inherently
disrespectful to the victims of true crime in the first place?
A N A R T I C L E B Y A M S H U V E N G A L A

AMSHU VENGALA
AMSHU VENGALA
AMSHU VENGALA -
-
- EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
ANUHYA GADDAM -
ANUHYA GADDAM -
ANUHYA GADDAM - JOURNALISM-IN-CHANGE
JOURNALISM-IN-CHANGE
JOURNALISM-IN-CHANGE
PURVI JAIN - LEAD EDITOR
VIDISHA RANI - WRITER
ANANYA WASKER - WRITER
PRAKASH CHALAGULLA - WRITER
ANISH RAJA - WRITER
ANISH RAJA - WRITER
ANISH RAJA - WRITER
RISHIKA GOTETI - WRITER
SATHWIKA PEECHARA - WRITER
ARYA SUNKARA - WRITER
LASYA KUCHIBOTLA- WRITER
NITIYA MATTA - EDITOR
SAHITI PEELA - EDITOR
ANVITA NANDYALA - EDITOR
SOURISH REDDY - EDITOR
TANVI AGARWAL - EDITOR
RADHIKA INDURKAR - DESIGN-IN-CHARGE
MUSKAAN SHARIFF - DESIGN-IN-CHARGE
ANJALI VIVEK - DESIGNER
JIVANTIKKA DE - DESIGNER
KUNDANA MAMIDI - DESIGNER
MIHIKA KUCHKULLA - DESIGNER
PREETHI BUDDHARAJU - DESIGNER
NITYASHREE PUTTA - DESIGNER
ARYAN MUKHERJEE - MARKETING-IN-CHARGE
ANIKA KARAN - MARKETING-IN-CHARGE
PRISHA AGARWAL - MARKETING
VEDANT AGARWAL - MARKETING
ANANYA P - MARKETING
SAHASRA J - MARKETING
credits.

CARPE
NOCTEM
2022.
Issue #2.0
Date of Publishing: 15/12/2022
@carpenoctem.mag
@oakcarpenoctem
oak.carpenoctem@gmail.com

CN ISSUE (#2.0).pdf

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CN ISSUE (#2.0).pdf

Similar to CN ISSUE (#2.0).pdf (18)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CN ISSUE (#2.0).pdf