Other article wasn't a review, apparently. Bummer.
So, now, my defense is on Charles Isherwood's "Pratfalling Through an Eccentric Childhood, the Son of a Clown"
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
NYTimes Defense: Stepping to the Fore as a Backup Band
My NYTimes defense article ran in Tuesday, March 10's paper.
Stepping to the Fore as a Backup Band by Jon Caramanica
Caramanica does an excellent job detailing The Roots' history, and explaining why coming to the "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon" was a poor choice for them. He describes how they are an admired, but not loved band. He calls coming to the career move a change of pace for The Roots, but think many things will stay the same for them. They will still be in the background.
Caramanica really went to town in his last paragraph. It is simple, clear and straightforward. If only I could write like that.
"Behind them all the Roots played dependably like a metronome. Sometimes they were invigorating, and sometimes they were colorless. But how they played felt less crucial than the fact of their appearance itself. In their expert reliability the Roots create spaces for other peoples’ creativity, even if their own is threatened with becoming a relic."
Stepping to the Fore as a Backup Band by Jon Caramanica
Caramanica does an excellent job detailing The Roots' history, and explaining why coming to the "Late Night With Jimmy Fallon" was a poor choice for them. He describes how they are an admired, but not loved band. He calls coming to the career move a change of pace for The Roots, but think many things will stay the same for them. They will still be in the background.
Caramanica really went to town in his last paragraph. It is simple, clear and straightforward. If only I could write like that.
"Behind them all the Roots played dependably like a metronome. Sometimes they were invigorating, and sometimes they were colorless. But how they played felt less crucial than the fact of their appearance itself. In their expert reliability the Roots create spaces for other peoples’ creativity, even if their own is threatened with becoming a relic."
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Live Event Review
Live Event Review: “Duck Variations” & “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You”
Sister Mary Ignatius flipped through the note cards filled with questions from the audience about God.
“If there is a God, why does he allow evil in the world?”
With a quick glance up, Sister flipped to the next card.
The highlight of “Duck Variations” and “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All To You” plays was the excellent acting of one character: Sister Mary Ignatius. K senior Mouse Courtois had the audience under a spell for the duration of her time on stage: the entirety of the second play.
The productions were put on in the Dungeon Theatre of the Fine Arts Building and ran three nights. The play duo kicked off the Senior Performance Series, a two week long event that featured plays directed by K students, written by K students and acted by K students.
Choosing these two plays to start the Series was an excellent decision.
“Duck Variations,” a play by David Mamet, was directed by Terry Cangelosi K’09. The play has much the same premise as “Waiting for Godot:” two old men sit, talking and reflecting on life. Having a mere two characters lends to a boring play, but they kept up a steady, not too slow pace. They discussed friendships, and how “it’s good to listen to a friend,” while in the process cutting each other off. Even though the play delved in depressing topics such as loneliness, the constant inclusion of ducks in the conversation kept things semi-upbeat. It’s hard not to laugh at the idea of ducks “with lung cancer and runny noses, trying to bum a smoke.”
Since the plays were both one act, the settings were simple. For “Ducks,” the setting consisted of a lamp post, bench and some pieces of trash. “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All To You” had a rocking chair, altar and easel. In many productions, setting adds to the over all atmosphere of the scene, but in both plays the lack of setting illuminated the acting.
“Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You” was a spot on hit. The playwright, Christopher Durang, exposes the comedic nature of blind faith. K senior Sarah Ludwinski directed the play and did a phenomenal job. From the beginning, Sister Mary had everyone laughing as she explained religion and read off her list of people going to hell, “. . .Brooke Shields, David Bowie, Mick Jagger. . .” The increasingly obvious insanity of Sister Mary produced more and more funny lines: “You do that thing that makes Jesus puke? . . . Jesus is going to throw up.” The play was mostly humorous in nature, but when it reached a dramatic point, the acting held up. Most of the dramatic weight fell onto one actress, Katie Stover. Stover took the reins and cut the otherwise continuous laughter into pieces.
For student directed plays, they were impressive. “Duck Variations” certainly had its entertaining moments, but “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All” carried the night.
Sister Mary Ignatius flipped through the note cards filled with questions from the audience about God.
“If there is a God, why does he allow evil in the world?”
With a quick glance up, Sister flipped to the next card.
The highlight of “Duck Variations” and “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All To You” plays was the excellent acting of one character: Sister Mary Ignatius. K senior Mouse Courtois had the audience under a spell for the duration of her time on stage: the entirety of the second play.
The productions were put on in the Dungeon Theatre of the Fine Arts Building and ran three nights. The play duo kicked off the Senior Performance Series, a two week long event that featured plays directed by K students, written by K students and acted by K students.
Choosing these two plays to start the Series was an excellent decision.
“Duck Variations,” a play by David Mamet, was directed by Terry Cangelosi K’09. The play has much the same premise as “Waiting for Godot:” two old men sit, talking and reflecting on life. Having a mere two characters lends to a boring play, but they kept up a steady, not too slow pace. They discussed friendships, and how “it’s good to listen to a friend,” while in the process cutting each other off. Even though the play delved in depressing topics such as loneliness, the constant inclusion of ducks in the conversation kept things semi-upbeat. It’s hard not to laugh at the idea of ducks “with lung cancer and runny noses, trying to bum a smoke.”
Since the plays were both one act, the settings were simple. For “Ducks,” the setting consisted of a lamp post, bench and some pieces of trash. “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All To You” had a rocking chair, altar and easel. In many productions, setting adds to the over all atmosphere of the scene, but in both plays the lack of setting illuminated the acting.
“Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You” was a spot on hit. The playwright, Christopher Durang, exposes the comedic nature of blind faith. K senior Sarah Ludwinski directed the play and did a phenomenal job. From the beginning, Sister Mary had everyone laughing as she explained religion and read off her list of people going to hell, “. . .Brooke Shields, David Bowie, Mick Jagger. . .” The increasingly obvious insanity of Sister Mary produced more and more funny lines: “You do that thing that makes Jesus puke? . . . Jesus is going to throw up.” The play was mostly humorous in nature, but when it reached a dramatic point, the acting held up. Most of the dramatic weight fell onto one actress, Katie Stover. Stover took the reins and cut the otherwise continuous laughter into pieces.
For student directed plays, they were impressive. “Duck Variations” certainly had its entertaining moments, but “Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All” carried the night.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Final Project ROUGH Draft
STIs and Contraceptives Remain Rare in Television Despite Societal Changes
Going from one girl to the next, the stud of an actor Vince rides his way through the night in the episode “Fantasy Island.” Entourage, an HBO show in its fifth season, chronicles four male friends in their business and sex affairs, the latter usually one night stands, no-name encounters with little thought to consequence.
Lucky for the stars, sex rarely involves contraceptives or STIs. For the rest of us, these things are a real concern.
Seinfeld, “the show about nothing,” was an extremely popular show throughout the nineties focused on four friends: Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer. While it does not contain sex scenes in the least, sex is a common topic of discussion.The group often convenes in Jerry’s apartment or the coffee shop to chat about their latest relationships and sexual escapades. In one episode, contraceptives come up when Elaine learns that her preferred method of birth control, the sponge, has been discontinued. She buys up as many sponges as she can, and then evaluates men, deciding whether or not they are “sponge-worthy.” Sponges are a form of contraceptive, yes, but they do not prevent STIs. Keep in mind, this is one episode of 180, and in most episodes the majority of them are having sex. Elaine’s sponges eventually had to run out.
Another show that has run its course, Sex and the City, discusses sex in every episode. The show picked up where Seinfeld left off, running six seasons from 1998-2004. Four attractive women prance about, sleep around and are none the worse for it. Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte do just what the show’s name entails, and in doing so, they are almost invincible. According to Elizabeth Boskey, Ph.D., who wrote on the show and STIs, of all 94 episodes, only three address STIs, and only Miranda ends up with one. She gets Chlamydia, which is curable. The characters in this show are far more sexually active than those of Seinfeld, yet for the most part, they too escape any consequence.
Dated now, Seinfeld and Sex and the City are not representative of contemporary television and its portrayal of contraceptives and STIs. The shows currently on television involving sex aren’t much different, even though contraceptives are more important than ever and STIs are on the rise.
In March of 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the results of a study showing one in four teenage girls has an STI. To make matters worse, of the girls who actually confessed to having sex, 40 percent had an STI. It doesn’t help that some of the girls think that douching with Coca-cola kills STI germs.
By failing to include more scenarios involving contraceptives and STIs, the media is skewing reality for viewers. No matter how much sex is had, rare is the show where a character discusses contraception or contracts an STI. You would think that as these statistics come out, and society is more open about sex, television would incorporate these aspects of life. Think again.
Often, those who don’t want to discuss contraception and STIs are in favor of abstinence. Television, on the other hand, seems to be in favor of thoughtless sex.
Entourage is just one contemporary example of the careless sex on tv. Showtime’s Californication runs on much the same premise. In the second season, Hank, the main character, leaves his marriage and moves into his friend’s house. One morning he sees a cook on television and tells his friend he wants to have sex with her. That afternoon, she’s in his kitchen. Married woman that she is, she willingly has sex with Hank, and then they later leave her at the side of the road. No conversations, no concerns.
While these two are adults, the no-strings worry-free sex is getting through to the teenage audience. The CDC recently released results of the 2005-2006 teen birth rates. The fourteen year decline, from 1991-2005, is over. Teen birth rates are up three percent. While it can’t be entirely attributed to television standards, the lack of discussion about contraceptives on television could very well factor in to the increase in teen births.
When STIs are included in shows, they tend to be the consequence of wrongful actions. George gets an STI on Grey’s Anatomy, but only after he cheats on Callie. STIs should not be portrayed as things that only happen as punishment or to people with lacking morals.
With the recent progress made in regards to STI testing and the necessity of contraceptives, it is disappointing to see the lack them on television. It is irresponsible of those creating and writing these popular shows not to portray a more realistic picture of discussions that need to occur about contraceptives and STIs.
They are certainly not glamorous or sexy, but neither are STIs.
Going from one girl to the next, the stud of an actor Vince rides his way through the night in the episode “Fantasy Island.” Entourage, an HBO show in its fifth season, chronicles four male friends in their business and sex affairs, the latter usually one night stands, no-name encounters with little thought to consequence.
Lucky for the stars, sex rarely involves contraceptives or STIs. For the rest of us, these things are a real concern.
Seinfeld, “the show about nothing,” was an extremely popular show throughout the nineties focused on four friends: Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer. While it does not contain sex scenes in the least, sex is a common topic of discussion.The group often convenes in Jerry’s apartment or the coffee shop to chat about their latest relationships and sexual escapades. In one episode, contraceptives come up when Elaine learns that her preferred method of birth control, the sponge, has been discontinued. She buys up as many sponges as she can, and then evaluates men, deciding whether or not they are “sponge-worthy.” Sponges are a form of contraceptive, yes, but they do not prevent STIs. Keep in mind, this is one episode of 180, and in most episodes the majority of them are having sex. Elaine’s sponges eventually had to run out.
Another show that has run its course, Sex and the City, discusses sex in every episode. The show picked up where Seinfeld left off, running six seasons from 1998-2004. Four attractive women prance about, sleep around and are none the worse for it. Carrie, Miranda, Samantha and Charlotte do just what the show’s name entails, and in doing so, they are almost invincible. According to Elizabeth Boskey, Ph.D., who wrote on the show and STIs, of all 94 episodes, only three address STIs, and only Miranda ends up with one. She gets Chlamydia, which is curable. The characters in this show are far more sexually active than those of Seinfeld, yet for the most part, they too escape any consequence.
Dated now, Seinfeld and Sex and the City are not representative of contemporary television and its portrayal of contraceptives and STIs. The shows currently on television involving sex aren’t much different, even though contraceptives are more important than ever and STIs are on the rise.
In March of 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the results of a study showing one in four teenage girls has an STI. To make matters worse, of the girls who actually confessed to having sex, 40 percent had an STI. It doesn’t help that some of the girls think that douching with Coca-cola kills STI germs.
By failing to include more scenarios involving contraceptives and STIs, the media is skewing reality for viewers. No matter how much sex is had, rare is the show where a character discusses contraception or contracts an STI. You would think that as these statistics come out, and society is more open about sex, television would incorporate these aspects of life. Think again.
Often, those who don’t want to discuss contraception and STIs are in favor of abstinence. Television, on the other hand, seems to be in favor of thoughtless sex.
Entourage is just one contemporary example of the careless sex on tv. Showtime’s Californication runs on much the same premise. In the second season, Hank, the main character, leaves his marriage and moves into his friend’s house. One morning he sees a cook on television and tells his friend he wants to have sex with her. That afternoon, she’s in his kitchen. Married woman that she is, she willingly has sex with Hank, and then they later leave her at the side of the road. No conversations, no concerns.
While these two are adults, the no-strings worry-free sex is getting through to the teenage audience. The CDC recently released results of the 2005-2006 teen birth rates. The fourteen year decline, from 1991-2005, is over. Teen birth rates are up three percent. While it can’t be entirely attributed to television standards, the lack of discussion about contraceptives on television could very well factor in to the increase in teen births.
When STIs are included in shows, they tend to be the consequence of wrongful actions. George gets an STI on Grey’s Anatomy, but only after he cheats on Callie. STIs should not be portrayed as things that only happen as punishment or to people with lacking morals.
With the recent progress made in regards to STI testing and the necessity of contraceptives, it is disappointing to see the lack them on television. It is irresponsible of those creating and writing these popular shows not to portray a more realistic picture of discussions that need to occur about contraceptives and STIs.
They are certainly not glamorous or sexy, but neither are STIs.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Article in Relation to My Topic!
My topic looks at hook up effects in reality and on (tv) screen. I just read a big ol' book about hooking up in college, which was hilariously accurate. (Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships On Campus, K. Bogle) It was published in 2008, and is definitely worth the read if you have some free time.
Anyway, getting to the point. Sex and the City is one of the shows I'm looking at in relation to hooking up on tv. This article is just what I'm talking about, except already written.
www.std.about.com/od/stdsinthemedia/a/safersatc.htm
Monday, February 23, 2009
Pauline Kael: A Classic Critic (Kael Revision)
Pauline Kael is revered as one of the greatest movie critics of all time, and as Francis Davis, author of Afterglow, puts it, "No one else has written as vividly about movies."
Kael's love of movies came at a young age. She saw many movies seated cozily on the laps of her parents, and as she grew older, she and her friends continued frequenting the theaters. It is no great feat to love movies, but Kael went beyond watching movies and created a career for herself as a critic. She wrote freelance for some time and eventually went to work for The New Yorker from 1968 to 1991.
Francis Davis, a writer, and Kael's long time friend and admirer published Afterglow: A Last Conversation with Pauline Kael in 2002. Davis has high praises for Kael, commenting that, "Reading her work was like going to the movies with someone you adored; when you disagreed with her, it was like having a lover's quarrel." Davis, among many other, thought Kael's work to be revolutionary, as it was clear cut and incorporated social commentary.
Renata Adler, another writer for The New Yorker, extensively criticizes Kael's reviews in her essay, House Critic. Adler found once Kael joined The New Yorker, her work deteriorated: "A collection of her reviews is out. . . and it is, to my surprise, line by line, and without interruption, worthless." Worthless is far too strong a word; if Kael's pieces were worthless, they would never have been published in such a prestigious magazine.
While Adler is off with that claim, her essay does speak to many of the faults of Kael's writing. After reading a few of Kael's reviews, her repetitive diction and constant use of "we" and "you" becomes apparent. As Adler says, "'We' becomes a bandwagon, a kangaroo court, a gang, an elite. . . which readers had better join, or else be consigned to that poor group of deviants, sissies. . ." Kael seems to be forcing the reader to react to the movie in a certain way, which is not comforting or appealing.
Through Adler's incessant nit-picking, "you" see that Kael's reviews do have their faults. In one of the interviews with Davis, though, Kael rises above Adler's criticism. She says, "I was stunned when that piece by Renata Adler came out. . . it was a group movement to denounce me. . . I had no idea it was coming, that anything was building. I was busy innocently going to the movies and writing about them." While Adler and other writers spent their time attacking Kael, she continued on her merry way, doing what she enjoyed the most: reviewing movies.
Kael had an affinity for movies, and as her work clearly demonstrates, she had an affinity for writing about them too. Sure, there is repetition, but there is also devotion. Despite what Adler and others may think, Kael gave her life to reviewing and her reign as a writer for The New Yorker is proof of her timeless talent.
Oscars a Success
The 81st Academy Awards, held on Feb. 22, were beautiful, from the people to the movies, back to the people again. The show was held at the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, CA and was a success across the board.
The Academy Awards started in 1929 as a closed ceremony, attendees small in number. Over the years, the recognition of excellence in the movie field has grown exponentially. This year, 24 Oscars were handed out for an array of talents, ranging from best picture to best short documentary.
Hugh Jackman, People's Sexiest Man Alive, hosted the show for the first time and did not disappoint. His talents extend beyond being sexy, to singing, dancing and even humor. He did an excellent job hosting, although he was not on the stage all that often. This year, there was a different presenter for nearly every Oscar, which led to a sort of disconnect. Jackman was good, and there was no need to constantly switch presenters. The variety kept the show interesting, but was to such an extent that Jackman was missed.
If the people on the stage weren't sexy enough, the stage was there as a back-up. The stage movements were made seamlessly, from dance floor to band set-up and back again. Only one major error occurred within design and production, and as it came early, the "Steve, open it!" curtain incident was dwarfed by all the other wonderful effects. The crystal curtain added glamour to the stage, and the floor pattern was stunning. The stage was glorious, and did not take away from the ceremony at hand.
For the most part, the Oscars were a celebration, a time to rejoice in all the great work the movie industry has created in the past year. One moment, though, was heart-wrenching. The Oscar for supporting actor went to Heath Ledger (1979-2008) in "The Dark Knight." The award was accepted by his parents and his sister. As each of them spoke, the camera panned the audience; tears were welled up in the eyes of almost all. Even in the midst of such great sorrow, Sally Bell, Ledger's mother, said, "Tonight, we are choosing to celebrate and he happy for what he was achieved."
With that, the celebration went on. This year, the Academy Awards went much further than just being an awards show. It included a number of bits by other actors, as well as some song and dance. Seth Rogen and James Franco did a spoof of their acting in "Pineapple Express," which solicited laughs from many. Hugh Jackman and Beyonce Knowles did an extended musical-like performance with a multitude of other dancers. Both bits were entertaining, even if somewhat irrelevant.
Despite the over the top extravagance of the 81st Academy Awards, they were still phenomenal. The amount of work and planning put into the show paid off, and the beauty of the show was inescapable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)