Dick Clark, “America’s Oldest Teenager,”host of the pioneering ( and longest running variety show) “American Bandstand” died Wednesday at 82. The music industry maverick went on to become a powerhouse producer,shepherding a slew of shows and specials along with his trademark “Rockin’ Eve,” , which became a fixture of New Year’s celebrations.

Clark’s agent Paul Shefrin said in statement that the veteran host died this morning following a “massive heart attack.”

Born in Mount Vernon, N.Y on Nov. 30, 1929, Richard Wagstaff Clark began his lifelong career in show business before he was even out of high school. He started working in the mail room of WRUN, a radio station in upstate New York run by his father and uncle. It wasn’t long before the teenager was on the air, filling in for the weatherman and the announcer.

Clark pursued his passion at Syracuse University, working as a DJ on the student run station; eventually he took his talents on the road, landing a gig in Philadelphia. Within five years, he was spinning records and showcasing groups and dance crazes ( along with dance-crazy kids) on TV. In 1963 Clark–and “Bandstand” went Hollywood.

In a radio interview some years back, Clark, who was as perennially youthful and ebullient in person as he was on TV, summed up his success in one word, “enthusiasm.”

“If you like what you’re doing it shows,” he told me. And his passion for music and for the generations of fans who flocked to his shows was evident.

“Bandstand” ran for decades, never deviating from it’s simple and successful formula. Clean-cut kids danced to everything from Elvis to Disco; The Beatles to Kiss. Thousands of records were rated, dances and wild fashion fads were highlighted.

He also ran Dick Clark Productions, and began cranking out one hit show after another; his name became synonymous with everything from the ” $25,000 Pyramid” to “TV’s Bloopers & Practical Jokes” to the “American Music Awards.” In 1972, Dick Clark became synonymous with one of the biggest nights of the year as he launched “Dick Clark’s Rockin’ Eve,” TV’s most famous New Year’s Eve Party. After suffering a stroke in 2004, Ryan Seacrest signed on to help with the hosting duties, but Clark continued to make appearances.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications ran the numbers and figures Dick Clark Productions has turned out more than 7,500 hours of television programming, including more than 30 series and 250 specials, as well as more than 20 movies for theatre and TV.

All this earned Clark a long list of awards and accolades: Emmys, Grammys, induction in the Rock ‘n’ Roll Hall of Fame, a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It also made him one of the richest men in Hollywood; he also had stakes in a wide range of businesses, including restaurants, theatres and real estate.

America’s Oldest Teenager has certainly left his indelible mark on generations of fans. There’s no disputing he helped change rock ‘n’ roll and TV forever. His signature sign-off was “For now, Dick Clark … so long,” always said with a salute. No doubt, today, generations of Americans are saluting back.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

We already knew Palin was the McCain campaign’s Hail Mary pass. Down in the polls and with seemingly nothing to lose they plucked the new Alaska governor out of obscurity, thrusting her onto the national stage with limited vetting. What comes next plays out in predictable fashion. We already know the story and the outcome.

So why bother watching “Game Change?” The acting. Yeah, it’s that good. As is the make-up artistry. Moore is the main attraction, of course, nailing everything from Palin’s voice, mannerisms and mood, shading her performance with a depth and empathy that transcends Tina Fey’s brilliant satire. She does, in fact, generate sympathy and ire as we watch Palin swat away interview and debate prep advice and nearly spiral out of control as the rigors of the relentless campaign and media spotlight take their toll.

Woody Harrelson, as Steve Schmidt, the senior advisor most responsible for the Palin pick, is also formidable. And the oft under-rated Ed Harris offers another magnificent turn a John McCain.

Beyond that, you may discover a better understanding of the high-stakes, often cynical machinations of presidential campaigns. But I’d suggest the purely fictional “The Ides of March” is a far more compelling film, with unexpected twists and turns, and lessons that may have greater resonance.

While it’s a good film, I wonder how much more powerful “Game Change” might have been if it were made five or ten years down the road. With time’s fermentation and the lens of perspective, this episode in American political history will surely provide a far more intriguing and potent lesson. Something future filmmakers are apt to explore.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

The earlier fuss over SOPA, the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” is now mostly quiet. Each side in this epic battle of who controls the Internet is rethinking its strategy. Lobbyists are garnering big fees as they freely give advice on what they believe will be a winning scheme. The story is off the front pages and no longer an item on TV newscasts. Talk radio is ignoring SOPA for the moment. Newspapers and news sites or instead filled with politics and the race for the Republican nomination.

Let me get something straight about the fight over SOPA. It is not about who controls the Internet, big or small on the WEB, or big or small in the burgeoning world of entertainment… It is, simply, he who controls the WEB controls the world.

The battle in the world of media is about control, and, ultimately, ownership. Who owns the right to what others or I create is the issue, rather than the idea that everything on the WEB is free and therefore for the taking without due compensation. Consider this column a message to advocates of the open Internet as they plead for the continuation of anarchy in cyberspace. Consider, too, this column a message about the world of entertainment and its desire to put brakes on information and how that information flows on the WEB.  Remember, he who controls the Web controls the world.

This does not means we should disregard the battle over SOPA while we wait for the issue to raise its head again.  Congress is working on new bills that will favor which side one or the other faction supports. I say a pox on both sides because each wants to control what you read or see and use their various platforms to make money from what they learn about you- mainly from cookies and apps online, and through the many mobile platforms now available to all users.

While all this is going on, I want to emphasize that the fight over who controls the World Wide Web for me is really about piracy. In other words, who has the right to what others or I create? Who has the power and, more often, the guts to steal what people create? What have we become as people that we believe it is okay to rip off creative material without paying for it? Is stealing really in our DNA? Piracy, and the notion that everything on the WEB is free, and up for grabs, if you will, allows the thieves, and that is most of you, who dwell in the land of the pirate to make money off the backs of the seriously imaginative community. It is a community that would like to think it can make a living from what it creates, from what comes out of its heart and head, its soul, and its sweat. Alas, it rarely does.

Understand, piracy and theft is a two way street.  There is the supply side, meaning the source of the creative output. Every supplier needs a user.  It is strange co-dependency. Those who steal and those who take from the thief for their own enjoyment live off each other. Unlimited aggregation rarely benefits everyone. There might be a momentary high when a writer or photographer sees his or her work displayed on various Internet platforms. Aggregation and file sharing may be pleasurable at first but it lasts only so long. Its power soon dies, though, when there is no check in the mail. There is, unfortunately, no substitute for putting food on the table or buying shoes for the baby. Fame is transitory. As with so much on the WEB, it evaporates in the maw of Cyberspace.

Somewhere along the way, users of the Internet, again, that means everyone who uses the Internet, developed the notion that because the Internet appears to be free, no one has to pay to use it or pay for anything that is on it, or in it. This is not new, but it is now an integral part of the consciousness of WEB users, forever in place as part of their being. But does this right to steal come from the seeming anonymity of the Internet?  Does being unseen allow people to believe they can, and do, safely hide in cyberspace? Similar to shoplifting, is there a thrill that people get when they steal something they think is easy to hide in one’s pocket? I have no idea why piracy online is acceptable, but, I do know that it certainly defies the notion found in the Eighth Commandant that says You Shall Not Steal.

With the Oscar ballots safely ensconced in the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ vault, it’s time for movie buffs to wrangle the office pool from the sports fans for a week. And while pitting one film or performance against another is like comparing Junior Mints to Jello, that never stops pop culture pundits from making our annual best guesses on who will score Oscar gold.

With a couple of tight almost “too close to call” races, I admit a bit of trepidation surrounds this year’s predictions. And that’s actually good news for those of us who delight in the thrill of the upset.

Having said that, one thing is crystal clear: the 84 annual Academy Awards will surely be far more entertaining with Billy Crystal’s affable maestro’s touch replacing last year’s regrettable dip into the Fountain of Youth that unleashed the Anne Hathaway-James Franco hosting fiasco.

Now onto the predictions. Kick up some popcorn dust of your own; play along at home. Let’s meet back here back here Monday and compare scorecards.

Best Picture:

The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close- The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

In only the second year of the expanded (up to) 10 Best Picture nominees, the Academy only managed to eke out 9 contenders. Surely, they could have filled in that last spot with “The Ides of March” or “Albert Nobbs,” not to mention a cadre of acclaimed indies that are generally ignored like “Take Shelter” or “Martha Marcy May Marlene.” ( That the Spirit Awards, doled out on Oscar eve usually takes care of those gems is no excuse for Hollywood’s snub.)

But even with the larger field, Best Picture usually comes down to a two film race. This year it’s “The Artist,” that unexpected silent cinematic valentine vs. “The Descendants, ” an emotional, American masterpiece. But unlike last year when the showdown between early front runner “The Social Network” and inevitable victor, “The King’s Speech” came down to the wire and with some dramatic fanfare, this year should easily paint a pretty picture for the imported black-and- white celebration. In a match up of apples against oranges this one is a doozy. But the film is simply too inventive, too utterly delightful to ignore. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that its backed by the high-powered Weinstein marketing machine either. But so special–and exhilarating—-is “The Artist” that it really doesn’t need that big a push.

will win; “The Artist”

Best Director

The Artist
Michel Hazanavicius

The Descendants
Alexander Payne

Hugo
Martin Scorsese

Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen

The Tree of Life
Terrence Malick

This one appears to be a two-way battle between visionaries who paid homage to the golden years of classic cinema, Michel Hazanavicius for “The Artist” and Martin Scorsese for “Hugo.”

Hazanavicius won the primary predictor here, top honors from The Directors Guild, while Scorsese pulled off an upset by taking home the Golden Globe. But the beloved Scorsese won a better-late-than never Oscar for one of his lesser films, “The Departed.” And Hazanavicius also seems to be winning favor in Hollywood, continually expressing his earnest, just-happy-to-be nominated attitude.Such sincere respect often yields more of the same.

will win: Michel Hazanavicius

Best Actor

Demián Bichir
A Better Life

George Clooney
The Descendants

Jean Dujardin
The Artist

Gary Oldman
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Brad Pitt
Moneyball

The early money had George Clooney walking off with the Best Actor statuette for his powerful, emotional dance as the devastated dad in “The Descendants.” But after The Artist” star Jean Dujardin pulled off a whopper of an upset at the Screen Actors Guild, it’s a toss up. Could the ( oh, so expressive) face of that widely celebrated film win the Oscar, too?

I’m getting little help on this one. My trusty Magic 8 Ball keeps offering, “Reply hazy; try again later.” But Uggie–the suddenly famous dog from “The Artist“– who Jimmy Kimmel has anointed his official Oscar prognosticator, actually picked Clooney over his co-star.

I tend to agree. It’s hard to see Clooney, easily one of Hollywood’s favorite sons losing to a relatively unknown foreigner. Especially for such a career high performance. But hey, stranger things have happened. Remember Roberto Benigni?

It’s a really close call. Both actors are so strong. And while the SAG is usually the best predictor for the Oscar, I think Clooney’s Hollywood stock will inch him up to the podium. But just barely.

will win: George Clooney

Best Actress

Glenn Close
Albert Nobbs

Viola Davis
The Help

Rooney Mara
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Meryl Streep
The Iron Lady

Michelle Williams
My Week With Marilyn

This one is so tough, my 8 Ball delivers snarky pronouncements like “If I knew this, I wouldn’t be working for you;” “Go away, kid, you bother me, ” and the latest, “Rick Santorum.”

Viola Davis, the true heart of the beloved “The Help” was the early favorite. That was back in the summer. Before Lady Streep entered with her remarkable performance as Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady.” After all, Streep’s the Academy’s reigning queen, with 17 nominations ( the most ever). But, while she’s nominated almost every year or so, she hasn’t taken home a prize since “Sophie’s Choice.” And that was back in 1983. So there’s real sentiment for Streep to finally win again. And she deserves it. Again.

But Davis is so great here and she’s yet to score Oscar gold. It’s pretty even going in: Streep nabbed the Globe and the British Academy Award, but Davis snagged the Critics’ Choice and more importantly the Screen Actor’s Guild Award. That’s the one that usually calls it.

Interesting to note: Uggie’s Kimmel prediction: he chose both Streep and Davis. Start spinning the rare tie rumor. Unlikely, I know, but it happened back in 1969 when both Katherine Hepburn and Barbra Streisand won for “The Lion in Winter” and “Funny Girl” respectively.

Of course a real upset would find Glenn Close at the podium for her brilliant “Albert Nobbs” performance.

Will win: Viola Davis

Best Supporting Actor

Kenneth Branagh
My Week With Marilyn

Jonah Hill
Moneyball

Nick Nolte
Warrior

Christopher Plummer
Beginners

Max von Sydow
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

It’s nice Jonah Hill got on base for “Moneyball,” but this one’s shaping up to be an unofficial lifetime achievement award. And it looks like second-time nominee Christopher Plummer will take home his first Oscar for his his heartrending turn as a fatally ill septuagenarian who’s just come out of the closet in “Beginners.” The venerable 80-something actor–who’s racked up SAG and Golden Globe victories– deserves the coveted statue on the merits of this performance in this under-the-radar gem, but adding his 100 plus career projects only makes his Oscar quest ever more irresistible. There’s been a little Max Von Sydow buzz too, but “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” took such a critical and box office swan dive, it’s amazing it made the Best Picture list. And Nolte, too, is overdo for Oscar’s appreciation, but it’s doubtful he’ll get it for “The Warrior”

Will win: Christopher Plummer, “Beginners”

Best Supporting Actress

Actress In a Supporting Role
Bérénice Bejo
The Artist

Jessica Chastain
The Help

Melissa McCarthy
Bridesmaids

Janet McTeer
Albert Nobbs

Octavia Spencer
The Help

The easiest, breeziest pick of all comes from a category that used to be the annual wild card. Remember the early 90′s? Winners Marisa Tomei, Mira Sorvino, Whoopi Goldberg and Anna Paquin were wild upsets. But recent winners like Melissa Leo, Mo’Nique and Jennifer Hudson were front-runners from the get-go.

And an upset this year is about as likely as a Sarah Palin presidential run. Jessica Chastain may be Hollywood’s “it” girl of the moment, having turned in a year of weighty performances in “The Tree of Life,” “The Debt” as well as her nominated portrait of the boozy outcast in “The Help.” But it’s her co-star Octavia Spencer, who keeps mopping up the floor against the competition, winning the Golden Globe, Critics Choice and SAG awards for her performance as the tough-but-vulnerable, inventive pie-making maid Minnie. If Viola Davis is the heart of the film, Spencer’s the soul. Watch as she’ll likely add another piece of silverware to her mantel Sunday night.

Will win: Octavia Spencer, “The Help”

Best Original Screenplay
The Artist
Written by Michel Hazanavicius

Bridesmaids
Written by Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig

Margin Call
Written by J.C. Chandor

Midnight in Paris
Written by Woody Allen

A Separation
Written by Asghar Farhadi

Woody Allen’s the easy money here. He already picked up the Writer’s Guild Award for his biggest commercial success, a film that pays homage to his both his literary icons and his own vintage films. Not to mention he hasn’t scored Oscar gold in decades either.
Will win: “Midnight in Paris”

Best Adapted Screenplay
The Descendants
Screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash

Hugo
Screenplay by John Logan

The Ides of March
Screenplay by George Clooney & Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon

Moneyball
Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin. Story by Stan Chervin

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Screenplay by Bridget O’Connor & Peter Straughan

“The Artist” may have the Best Picture mojo, but Alexander Payne will settle for the same consolation prize he took home for “Sideways.”

Will win: “The Descendants”

Best Animated Feature

A Cat in Paris
Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli

Chico & Rita
Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal

Kung Fu Panda 2
Jennifer Yuh Nelson

Puss in Boots
Chris Miller

Rango
Gore Verbinski

With the absence of “Gnomeo and Juliet” Trudi, my pint-sized pal with the crazy hairdo, wants me to boycott this category. All I can do is offer a prediction without comment.

Will win: “Rango”

Best Foreign Language Film

Belgium, “Bullhead”
Michael R. Roskam, director

Canada, “Monsieur Lazhar”
Philippe Falardeau, director

Iran, “A Separation”
Asghar Farhadi, director

Israel, “Footnote”
Joseph Cedar, director

Poland, “In Darkness”
Agnieszka Holland, director

Will Win: “A Separation”

Best Original Song

Another “Gnomeo and Juliet” snub with the omission of the catchy Elton John song “Hello, Hello.” Surely they had room. With only two nominations in this category it’s a toss up between
“Man or Muppet,” from “The Muppets” and Real in Rio,” “Rio”

will win: the Muppets!

Best Original Score

The Adventures of Tintin
John Williams

The Artist
Ludovic Bource

Hugo
Howard Shore

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Alberto Iglesias

War Horse
John Williams

Will win:: “The Artist”

Best Documentary Feature

Hell and Back Again
Danfung Dennis and Mike Lerner

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front
Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman

Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky

Pina
Wim Wenders and Gian-Piero Ringel

Undefeated
TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay and Rich Middlemas

“Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” should win on its social activism alone. It is the latest in a series of films that actually helped right a miscarraige of justice, turning over the wrongful murder convictions of the Memphis 3. That it’s a compelling film only adds to its case for Oscar.

Will win: “Paradise Lost 3″

The 84 annual Academy Awards airs Sunday on ABC. Check out the official Oscar site for a complete list of nomniations and extras.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

Still reeling from Saturday’s death of iconic pop diva Whitney Houston, the recording community proved music is the best medicine by delivering an evening filled with glorious tributes and memorable performances at the 54 annual Grammy Awards Sunday.

The ageless Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band kicked off the festivities with their latest raucous social anthem, “We Take Care of Our Own.” Then emcee LL Cool J set just the right notes by leading a prayer for Houston and proclaiming the healing virtues of music. “This night is about something truly universal and healing,” he said.”This night is about music.”

Throughout the show, presenters and winners mentioned Houston. And a beautiful tribute to the legendary diva came later as Jennifer Hudson sang a moving, cathartic rendition of her idol’s classic, “I Will Always Love You.” I doubt there was a a dry eye in the audience or any of the millions of houses watching on TV.

http://youtu.be/HzMsEvUxFc4

There were also wonderful tributes to the late Etta James from Bonnie Raitt and Alicia Keyes and a lifetime achievement event celebrating country legend Glenn Campbell, who had announced his struggles with Alzheimer’s last June, with The Band Perry, Blake Shelton and the Rhinestone Cowboy himself that was a living and singing testimony to those aforementioned healing powers.

The much heralded Beach Boys 50th anniversary performance with Maroon 5 and Foster the People was a tad lackluster, though it earned a few sentimental points as it was the first time in decades that the original core ‘Boys,’ including maestro Brian Wilson performed together. Unfortunately the lasting animosity between Wilson and Mike Love showed as the two appeared to have anything but the “Good Vibrations” they sang about.

As for the actual awards, there were no upsets. As predicted, Adele swept the major honors of Song, Record and Album of the year for her lost-love epic “21” and its pulsating single “Rolling in the Deep.” She picked up her final two awards after making her first public performance ( a resounding success) in months after being sidelined for throat surgery. Her total of six Grammys matched Beyonce for most ever by a female act.

“This record is inspired by something that is really normal and everyone’s been through it – just a rubbish relationship,” she said. “It’s gone on to do things that I can’t tell you how I feel about them. It’s been the most life-changing year.”

Foo Fighters won five Grammys for music that singer Dave Grohl said was made in his garage, and ceremony no-show Kanye West nabbed four. Indie rockers Bon Iver won Best New Artist.

Fans surely enjoyed the usually unusual fashion hits and misses. Decide for yourself which category to place Fergie’s bright orange hot mess of a dress, Nicki Minaj’s Red Riding Hood get-up and Lady Gaga’s netting.

Speaking of Minaj, one of the oddest moments was her bizarre “exorcism, ” ending with her levitating above the stage.

The ageless Paul McCartney sang a jazzy new song from his album of standards, then wrapped up the evening, joined by Springsteen, Grohl, Tom Petty and Joe Walsh with a truly fab performance of the Beatles’ “Abbey Road” closing medley.

The music lives on. And on. Healing, indeed.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

Close plays Albert Nobbs, a shy waiter at a once high-tone 19th-century Dublin hotel. The gender-bending role itself is usually a good Academy Award bet ( think Hillary Swank’s “Boys Don’t Cry” or Felicity Huffman in “TransAmerica“). But neither the performance nor the film feels gimmicky. The earnest character portrait is infused with such quiet. but potent emotion. Close–with cropped orange hair–doesn’t exactly look like a man. But she doesn’t look like a woman either. She looks, as one of the hotel patrons says, “Like the strangest little man.” If they only knew.

Indeed, it’s that strangeness that draws you in. Why is Albert, who was born a woman, living her life as a man? The answer isn’t as simple as the cruel economics of the era. While it’s true unmarried women had few options, that’s not the whole story. There’s a tragic story–one I’ll let you discover as the film unfolds–that underscores Albert’s furtive little life, one always shrouded in fear of exposure.

Still, Albert seems content to all but fade into the Victorian wallpaper. That is until he meets a brash house painter Hubert Page, played by the magnificent Janet McTeer ( also Oscar nominated as Best Supporting Actress) Hubert, too, was born a woman, but left her husband and made a similar choice to live as a man. The only difference: Hubert lives in domestic bliss with his “wife,” a sweet dressmaker.

This revelation opens dormant desires in Albert. The savings he’s squirreled
away might be used to purchase a tobacco shop; a wild-eyed maid might make a nice wife. We watch Albert tentatively venture into the world with new hope.

Close has kept this project, based on a short story by George Moore, published in 1918, close to her heart for decades. She starred in an off-Broadway production in 1982 and has been trying to get a version up on the screen for years ( she also co-wrote the screenplay and song). And that intimacy and obvious affection for Albert is evident. In other hands, the character could come off mawkish, a sentimental wax work. But director Rodrigo Garcia guides his star in a deeply felt inner journey.

The film is fascinating, the supporting players including McTeer, Brendan Fraser, Mia Wasikowska and Brenda Fricker all add color to what could be seen as a drab little story. But it is ultimately Close’s performance that makes the film so captivating. A performance like this is so rare in its power and raw, emotional beauty, it almost defies description. You simply have to watch Close’s eyes and you’ll see Albert’s misery, longing, kindness all wrapped up in a single glance.

There’s a grander takeaway, too. “Albert Nobbs,” isn’t just a sad and complicated story about one person searching for acceptance and normalcy. It’s also a study in human nature and humanity. Most of the characters–the rich patrons and the servants–are all pretending to be something they’re not. Sound like someone you know? We all hide behind social masks sometimes. To get past the mask, to dig deeper, taking in the real person, gifts, warts, and all, therein lies the true thrill and honor of knowing another human being.

Speaking of honors, I hope Glenn Close is proud of that Oscar nomination. And award yourself the honor of watching “Albert Nobbs.”

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

BITAHR is a non-profit organization which ambitious goal is to eliminate commercial sexual exploitation. The event, Fighting Trafficking Through Film, organized in collaboration with The Suffolk University Law School, will be held at the Modern Theater at Suffolk University in Boston. The three days forum will showcase domestic and foreign films about sex trafficking. BITAHR has also invited speakers to the international event. More than 40 guests speakers will participate in the forum’s discussions to share their own experiences and perspectives, and to help define coherent strategies to fight human trafficking both domestically and globally. The speakers will include politicians, authors, survivors, and international activists against human trafficking. Among them will be Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, Kathryn Bolkovac, Representative Eugene O’ Flaherty, Rachel Lloyd (survivor and author), and  Siddharth Kara (UN adviser on human trafficking). BITAHR’s Executive Director, Rebecca Merrill, took the time to give News Junkie Post an exclusive interview.

Gilbert Mercier: What triggered originally your interest in fighting human trafficking?

Rebecca Merrill: I was driven by the impact that “The Day My God Died”, a film featuring Anuradha Koirala and Maiti Nepal, had on me both personally and professionally. After nearly a year of research, and the development of my own documentary during law school, I had the opportunity to sit with Anuradha and to discuss life’s passion and how it often drives one’s career. During that meeting, Anuradha admonished me to listen to my heart and to open my ears. Her voice was delicate but commanding as she asked me simply: “How can you not be passionate when you listen to the stories of these women and girls? How can you not do something about it?” Those words, the stories had a lasting impact on my academic studies and now professional life. Alas. I think it is a wonderful complement to pair the human voice and images with the research and theory.

GM: Sex trafficking is a multi-billion global business which is getting more and more controlled by large organized crime networks and no longer by small time local pimps. Do you think we need a global strategy to fight such sophisticated criminal organizations, and if so what would you recommend?

RM: Absolutely. Second only to drug trafficking, human trafficking is the largest criminal industry in the world, and it is the fastest growing. We need a holistic and multifaceted international strategy just to keep up with the growth of the industry, never mind to eradicate it. There are numbers of non-profits, agencies and individuals doing great work around the world. That said, we really need national governments and law enforcement agencies to work together against trafficking. We need governments to recognize that victims of human trafficking are victims in need of social services, not criminals subject to detention and deportation. There are circumstances where return to countries of origin is appropriate, but agencies have the responsibility to ensure return isn’t directly into the hands of the victim’s traffickers. All too often, victims are simply deported to the countries from which they were recruited, most often subjecting them to the same vulnerable circumstances and a mixture of societal shamming, family rejection and condemnation, and an inability to rejoin the workforce. Moreover, the circumstances giving rise to vulnerability are not typically eliminated but rather exponentially and detrimentally worse. If  governments worked together to provide victims with social services after exploitation abroad and at home, re-exploitation would not be such a threat. In addition, while we are seeing an increase in transnational crimes of exploitation, the “independent contractors”, if you will, still operate and regularly increase in number. This can be linked in large part to economics. Where there is a profit, particularly of the margin available through CSE ( Commercial Sex Exploitation), entrepreneurial criminals will find a way.

GM: Some countries, such as Germany, have legalized prostitution. Do you think it is a valid approach to end sex trafficking?

RM: No. I cannot recognize the legalization of prostitution as a valid way to end the sex trade. Legalization would not end modern-day slavery; it would simply empower pimps to continue manipulation and exploitation with less likelihood of identification because the line between “legal” and “illegal” would be so fuzzy. The rationale for legalizing prostitution is relatively easy to understand. Legislators, often pushed by well meaning advocates, may believe or accept that prostitution will happen regardless of legalization and, if legal, the laws will at least document the industry and license the “workers”, making it theoretically easier to provide healthcare and other services to prostituted women. There is also the feminist argument that a woman should be “empowered” to do what she wishes with her body, including selling sex. These arguments are flawed. Legalizing prostitution does not reduce the enormously harmful physical and psychological effects that being sexually exploited inherently caused. Women and girls who engage in prostitution do not choose to do so. The idea that prostitution is a choice does not take into account that in order to choose something, one needs to have several options to choose from. The majority of those in the sex trade- admittedly not 100 percent- in countries where prostitution is legal and illegal alike, are vulnerable to commercial sexual exploitation due to a complex set of circumstances often including economic desperation, unrest or instability in homes or even communities or countries, psychological manipulation and more, not because it is a viable choice.

GM: Traffickers make an extensive use of the Internet and even of social media site to lure, recruit and exploit victims. Should this type of activities be more closely monitored by law enforcement agencies with perhaps the help of anti-trafficking organizations, such as yours, acting as a network of whistle blowers?

RM: It is true. Traffickers may use social media sites to recruit underage girls into commercial sexual exploitation. Once recruited, sites like Backpage.com are used to advertise sex with the exploited individuals – children and adult alike. The illegal age of children is disguised using language like “youthful”, “fresh”, “barely legal”, “tight body”. The Internet provides anonymity for the exploiting pimps and endless “choice” and anonymous shopping and exploiting for johns who are purchasing sex. In some areas, ordering sex is easier and cheaper than ordering a pizza. Screen names and pseudonyms make it harder to identify and prosecute pimps. In addition the “handles” provide protection for johns from the negative stigma that buying sex should carry. In reality, companies that facilitate this type of exploitation like Backpage, for instance, are just as guilty as the pimps that exploit minors, because they too, are making hundreds of thousands of dollars off the sale of the bodies of very young girls. Not only should law enforcement agencies monitor this type of behavior, they should shut down websites. The problem is that regardless of our pointing out that commercial sexual exploitation is happening online, the criminal facilitation must be prosecuted and punished. In addition, advertisers must take some responsibility – if they voice their opinions by pulling ads and affecting the facilitators’ bottom line profitability.

GM: In a phone conversation we had sometime ago, you mentioned that we are living in a “hyper-sexual” world fueled by popular culture, online pornography etc, and that it could be one of the reasons why a substantial number of men seek commercial sex or indulge in “sex tourism”. Can you please elaborate on this?

RM: Of course. Over the past few decades we have seen a shift from the most risque magazines including one spread with a suggestively clad woman, to a society where pre-adolescent boys see literally hundreds of thousands of images of nudity before they even reach middle school. When sex education comes in the form of magazines, the Internet, song lyrics and popular culture instead of from teachers and parents, it can be a very confusing topic for young men and women alike. By hypersexualizing children at a disturbingly young ages, we have diminished the gap between buying the idea of sex in the form of a magazine subscription or a calendar to buying the act of sex in a massage parlor, in a hotel or car, or even in one’s own home. When we see so many sexual images of women in circumstances that suggest that they are happy naked, exposed, in sexually dominated manners, we are normalizing the notion that girls and women should be dominated, subordinated and subject to sexually violent and aggressive behavior. These progressive and persistent images make it harder to believe that exploited are victims. Moreover, products like “loungerie” or “lingerie for girls” for four to six year old girls feed into this idea of children as sex objects and “sexy” as ideal for children.

GM: A cynical view of commercial sex, and a stereotypical rationalization of it, would be to say that prostitution will never be eradicated because it is “the oldest profession in the world”. Do you think, one day, men and women will be able to free themselves from the sick correlation between sex and money?

RM: It is true that commercial sex has existed in various forms over centuries throughout most if not all countries. It is also true that women have historically been subjected to oppression, domination and silencing. I am not sure that as a society we will ever be able to eradicate the correlation between sex and money. It is my hope, however, that as this topic becomes a priority for the feminist movement and society at large- and as women everywhere continue to fight for equal opportunities- that one day women and girls will have sufficient opportunities that they will not be so vulnerable to coercion and forced to prostitution. Females need sufficient opportunity to utilize their skills and abilities in a productive way that positively contributes to society. It is also our organization’s goal to spread awareness- in collaboration with a global coalition- such that it minimizes demand by educating purchasers on the harmful, long-term repercussions their exploitative conduct has on children, families, and the community.

GM: In countries of origins for victims of traffickers, socio-economic factors play a huge role. Does your organization reach out to local organizations in human trafficking hubs such as Cambodia, Nepal, the Dominican Republic, Lithuania, Estonia, Nigeria and Ghana?

RM: We are cognizant of trafficking atrocities around the world and do our best to spread awareness about it in each and among all countries. We are mindful, however, that to utilize our resources effectively we cannot work in every country or every issue in the complex effort to combat trafficking. We focus most intensely on domestic trafficking, that which happens within the borders of the United States. We are also working in conjunction with a Congolese-US NGO, Promote Congo, on a program that will focus on aid for girls and boys being trafficked for labor or sexual exploitation in the artisanal mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

GM: Do you think, realistically, that human trafficking can be one day abolished and how?

RM: At present human trafficking is extremely profitable for exploiters. If we apply a standard cost benefit analysis, we can see that the economic benefits of human trafficking far outweigh the miniscule risk(cost) of being prosecuted and the repercussions that might follow. As long as human trafficking is extremely profitable, criminals will continue to take the calculated risks. To reduce the occurrence of sex trafficking we must continue to raise the cost associated with prosecution, so that the risk of being caught and punished is no longer worth the economic benefits of trafficking while simultaneously reducing the revenue. To achieve this, we must change the way society looks at trafficking. We must realize that the victims of this exploitation are just that-victims. Instead of thinking of labor trafficking as poor individuals deserving of unfair labor standards or girls that “wear too much make-up” or “parade around in provocative clothing” as criminal prostitutes, we must identify these exploited people as victims and publish the traffickers. Without this identification, victims will continue to be plagued with negative stigmas, fear and vulnerability-some of the factors that very likely led to the exploitation at the onset.

GM: It is your organization’s first film forum. Do you have other events in preparation?

RM: BITAHR 2012 Film Forum: “Fighting Trafficking Through Film” is the second annual forum. Our first forum in December 2010 engaged audiences in compelling discussions. We also host periodic benefit concerts called (human) Traffic Jams, where we use music to bring together a community of young adults to raise awareness for the cause and begin a conversation that we hope continues throughout circles of friends, students, colleagues, neighbors, families, and more. This ongoing dialogue shines a light in what is currently hidden in plain sight-the commercial sexual exploitation of people. We also screen individual films throughout the year followed with gripping panels of experts in the field, again to generate a critical conversation and a reverberating call to action to end human trafficking. This March, we will host a conference on International Women’s Day entitled “Ending Impunity for Sexual Violence”. In addition, we will host a three part film series on organ trafficking in collaboration with a local university.

Editor’s Note: Photographs one and two (from top down) by Gilbert Mercier, other photographs and illustrations courtesy of BITAHR.

 

Muckrakers are important. They are good for society. They open our eyes to the underbelly of our lives. They often take us places where the average person either refuses to go or has no inclination to explore. More often than not, muckrakers lack style and art. Style suffers because what they want us to know is often more important than how they present it. Their interest is to expose injustice or evil, usually by revealing everything about the iniquity they are uncovering.

Muckrakers are usually investigative journalists who are interested in reform. They are watchdogs fierce in their approach to what is right, what is wrong. Lincoln Steffens, Upton Sinclair, Jacob Riis and Ida Tarbell were seminal muckrakers, who, because of their tenacity and strong ethical principles, were able to effect change where none seemed possible before they became involved in a cause that moved them to action.

 ”Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory,” the documentary film by Joel Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky about three men accused of murder, Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, known as the West Memphis Three, is a muckraker’s delight. It recently had its world premiere on HBO in January 2012.

The filmmakers have been following this story for HBO since 1996 when they produced “Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills,” followed by “Paradise Lost 2: Revelation in 2000.”  This is the third, and possibly the last of their documentaries on the subject, but the way this story keeps changing shape, and because the story still has life, you never know what will come next.

In 2011, after 18 years in prison, and the start of a new trial because of newly discovered DNA evidence, the state and the defense got together and created a plea deal for the accused men. They were allowed to plead guilty but to maintain their innocence. Once done, they were set free. But they have not been exonerated of the murders. Lawyers and support groups are working to properly clear their names of all guilt and a new trial is still possible.

 Though powerful in its heart, as art, the film has many problems. Terribly edited and poorly shot for the most part, it relies too much on local TV coverage of events surrounding the three then young men accused of killing three 8 year olds those many years ago. The film makes me think of an express train running out of control as it courses down what feels like an endless track. There is no voice-over narration and as such, the narrative comes from interviews and TV news reports. Though this technique is limiting, I can live with that.

 The filmmakers are so enamored with the idea that their cause is right, they seem unable to decide what information to leave in, what to leave out, and how to edit the interviews to allow the audience a better understanding of events. I doubt whether the filmmakers purposefully created a film where passion is the operating dynamic at the expense of quality and coherence. Because I cannot get inside the heads of the filmmakers, it is impossible for me to know if that was the case. But, I feel they rushed to put the film together. It is as if they felt they had to get it done before things change again, something they kept running into over the years. That is the reason why there have been three new versions of the story since 1996.

 I am sure than Berlinger and Sinofsky would say that my criticism is wrong. In making the film, or any film, there has to be a time when the audience can take a breath, when passion pauses and reason rises. It is as if the filmmakers are so anxious to convince us of the moral values of their cause, they forget that judicious editing would have helped the audience understand the information and process it better. In the film, sound bites are sound books. Mostly the local TV news spots move the narrative along with occasional headlines and the odd cutaway, but, in some cases, unless you know the story very well, you will not understand what the cutaway image means.

In most cases in a film, cutaways allow us to seamlessly move inside a sound edit. Here they fail either because the cutaway shot has nothing to do with the sound edit or it is so obtuse that only the editor who made the cut understands what he or she did. There is also a prurient strain to the film because most of the participants are what we would prejudicially call “rednecks,” not well-educated men and women, the poor of the poor. A strong film about underdogs gives people in the establishment an opportunity to appear sacred by exposing them to the profane, a place where they rarely go or spend much time.

 Nominated for an Oscar as one of five in the class of 2011, if heart and soul are all that matters, this film has a good chance of winning. Joel Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky are muckrakers. But in his film, they are not very good artisans. The passion that rules the story and the care for the victims is what makes people admire the film and makes the film worth seeing. As far as filmmaking goes, I think the producers, as experienced as they are, need a course in Filmmaking 101.

That devastating news will fuel Deborah’s undoing and ultimately prove her salvation. “Even Tough Girls Wear Tutus” chronicles her emotional downward spiral from angry adolescent to volatile drug addicted young criminal, and her triumphant recovery and reinvention as an advocate, speaker and writer.

During a chat last week, Deborah discussed the arduous, but cathartic writing process as well as her future hopes for her Non Profit, The UnPrison Project, that sends her all over the country speaking at women’s prisons and conferences.

Ironically, Deborah first fictionalized her story and shopped it as a novel. Remember this was some years back when all those phony memoirs fell off the shelves in the wake of the big James Frey fake memoir Oprah betrayal brouhaha. “Once they ( editors and agents) heard it was a true story, they kept saying it should be a memoir, but I didn’t want any part of that.”

So she put it away for a while. But our stories have a way of nagging at us, until they just spill out, no matter the anguish. ” It’s not like my story is ever far behind. I can relive the whole thing in a minute. But I wrote through a lot of wet pages,” she concedes. “I had to peel the real story out of the novel.”

And the real story is one of the most raw and riveting books I’ve read in recent memory. As a writer and a teacher and creativity coach who works with writers, I am blown away by Stein’s authentic voice; there’s nothing sentimental or apologetic about it. Here, give a listen to an excerpt from one of her presentations, and you’ll hear what I’m talking about.

It’s that unconditional love of her parents, as well as the education and opportunity to develop her creativity that save her. In case you were wondering, this is where the tutus in the title come in. As a young girl, Deborah is introduced to dance and loves it, but thinks a girl born in prison is unworthy of the elegant art. That’s one of the many heartbreaking revelations. Another is when, as an adult, she finally returns to tour Alderson and is ushered into the very cell where she spent her first year of life. Her visceral reaction stirs an emotional tsunami that took me by surprise in the middle of Starbucks ( that’s okay; it gave me a chance to share the book’s potency with a few fellow patrons). There’s also a beautiful reconciliation scene with her mother, so long in the coming, it will likely pull at your heart.

“Most of the women–whether they have any real education or not–are thirsty for change. They know they need it. They want to believe it’s possible,” Deborah says. “And I know having an education helped me change. It gave me a way to get out of my head, a new way to look at the world. I know it can do the same for so many others.”

And there are certainly many to help. The facts about women in prison are staggering. Women are the fastest growing population in U.S. prisons, with over 1 million serving time; that’s 1 % of the female population. 75% of these women are mothers, most with kids under 18. 2.3 million minor children, most under 10, have a parent behind bars. Between 4 and 7 % of women entering prison are pregnant. The majority of incarcerated women are sentenced for nonviolent drug offenses and over 85% are in drug and alcohol abuse programs.

I’m not passing out Get Out of Jail Free cards; so the hardliners who usually toss cyber tomatoes at me about now, can hold their fire. But there’s got to be a better way, folks. So many people languish in prison for excruciatingly long sentences, often for crimes largely against themselves. As a society we have to change this,. Somehow, some way. Even some red meat Republicans are starting to see the wisdom of sentencing and prison reform, even if that change of heart is propelled by the fiscal bottom line, it’s a start.

Speaking of starts, as part of the UnPrison Project, Deborah Jiang Stein would like to fund college scholarships for the daughters of prisoners at Alderson and eventually other prisons. “I want to give them and their children a way of reframing their world. the way I’ve reframed mine.”

Of course, you don’t have to have a prison story to be affected by this book. I think everyone can relate to the powerful grasp secrets can have on a person, the emotional lockdown they can slam on a vulnerable psyche. It’s the sharing of those secrets, whether to the world or just yourself, that is so liberating and transformative. That’s why writing can be therapeutic. And reading a book that gushes rage and regret in equal measure with reconciliation and hope can illuminate the strength and grace of the human spirit. “Even Tough Girls Wear Tutus” is one of those books.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

In case you did not know it, SOPA in everyday English is Stop Online Piracy Act. Its main supporters are in Hollywood, TV, big music, and other major entertainment. Its opponents are the largest Web companies and the legions of naïve people who believe the passage of such an act would impede their right to freedom on the Internet.

For the moment, SOPA is in the official wastebasket where Washington bills go to die when so much of the public rises up to shout it down. Now our esteemed lawmakers believe SOPA, though necessary, needs clarity and better direction. It is hard to argue with the failure of the original bill. It is not worth the effort to try to pass that bill and to have big entertainment, big Internet and everyone else against it for different reasons important to each.

Do not be deceived by the millions who signed online petitions to scrap SOPA. The so-called little guy, Mr. and Mrs. grassroots, is simply a pawn in the hands of the big Internet boys who control the WEB. Do not be deceived by the black banner atop Google in protest of the bill. Just because you signed an online petition, keep in mind that the battle is still between the bigs: Hollywood and TV versus the Internet giants. It is not so much that one is against the other as much as it is how does each side best get what it wants, absolute freedom on the Internet versus controlled use for big entertainment and how it presents online what it believes it owns.

I am against piracy of intellectual property, even if the property is weak or poorly conceived. You may ask, who is not. I am against the theft of who I am when cookies ingest everything about me when I spend time on the Web. Everyone else should also feel this way, but people do not. Thus, companies such as Amazon and others are hypocrites because all they are doing is protecting their own turf. I am against hypocrisy but who is not, you say. Many who are on both sides of the argument are hypocrites because they try to hide the reality of Web commerce under the guise of freedom.

I do not believe what anyone on either side of the debate says. Both sides are using the average person, however good or bad his or her creation is, to advance its concept of freedom and ownership. They are working hard to hide one’s history on the Web and how it affects sales of products and sales of ideas.

We should all be for creativity. Many people I know agree that creativity is a gift and one of life’s joys. The Internet is the greatest platform for creativity ever. It opens enormous possibilities for anyone to post what he or she believes is their contribution to humankind. I am not arrogant when I say that most of what is on YouTube, other file sharing sites and found in millions of blogs is not very good. It is usually drivel and laughable in that we laugh at the effort, not at its humor or sense of fun. Most of what is in cyberspace is not worth my time. Attack me if you want. Please. But realize first, that just as not everyone can be a professional athlete, not everyone is capable of creating something that has lasting value. Just because you can post anything you want on the Internet for which you usually receive no pay, the act of posting does not give the work value.

We live in a society where sharing is free, especially in the world of social media. On social network sites free is the operating value system. It is the new normal, what people expect because the Internet is there for all to use as they wish, they think. Only one’s time is at stake. It strikes me that for the current generation, sharing and ignoring personal ownership is often more important than personal achievement. Many pundits believe that owning the copyright to a personally created work is a sin. If they could, they would eliminate copyright. They want to limit its length based on the idea that everyone should benefit from a copyrighted work even if they do not compensate its owner. Everyone, that is except the person who created the work.

Creating anything – art of any kind, a widget, an app, you name it — is hard work. If I create something on my own using my own time and money, or, better yet, with someone else’s money why should I not profit from or share in the profits from my enterprise without fear that someone will steal what I created. I do not subscribe to the idea that better creation will result based on earlier work. Why do the users and distributors of everything on the Web believe they should have a free ride of the back of my creative endeavor? Using another person’s work is fraudulent.

I come from a culture, or a time not too distant from the one we are living in, that believes you should own all or most of what you make with your mind or your hands. That is not the norm today. A certain amount of pleasurable, yet evil anarchy exists on the Web. There is a shoot first and ask questions later attitude toward what people own. If someone sees something they like, they post it for all to see, to possibly enjoy it without regard to its copyright. Then, if there is a complaint, they apologize, they take down the video, the photo, the written work, and everyone seems satisfied except the person or group who created the entity in the first place. The damage done, the violator gets an insignificant punishment or none at all, and goes out for another latte. Such is life.

Let me be clear. I am against piracy of intellectual property, even if and when – most of the time, by the way – it has almost no value to most people. Whether it is well conceived or poorly done, I have to admit it has value to its creator. I am against the unbridled, underhanded use of my personal information and creativity without my permission by either big entertainment or big Internet.

The voice of the creative community must make itself heard. Despite being unorganized, the creative community cannot allow those who use the Internet for gain of any kind to dominate ownership. Whatever replaces SOPA must be worth the journey or else anyone who thinks the Internet is free, however anyone uses it, had better think again.