The Justice

"The "Runway: World Runner" skit kind of threw me off. All of the previous acts had specific themes that the performers tried to portray, but this show just reminded me of an avant-garde fashion show. I can't say I understood most of the costumes, but the detail was astounding. There was no Lady Gaga (thank the Lord), and the music was different and fun."

Just to give you a little background that might help explain this piece for you:
Each year, the Liquid Latex show has acts that are specifically choreographed and designed based around a theme. In addition, there is the runway show which focuses on the latex designs rather than a dance. The whole point is that it IS an 'avant-garde fashion show.' It is not a skit but an opportunity to showcase the creativity of the painters. This year's theme was the musical artist M.I.A. and her interesting fashion choices throughout her career. All the music was by M.I.A. also -- check her out at http://www.miauk.com/

One of the Liquid Latex acts from the show was completely ignored in this article. The act "1984" was a wonderful act and deserves mention, but it was omitted for some reason. I don't know how you could have missed it. How can you publish an article about an event and not include all the facets of the event? The fact that this article was published at all is saddening. There should be much better fact checking in order to avoid offending the people involved. I do not feel like this article at all respects the time and effort that choreographers and designers put into these acts, which was at times all-consuming. I am very disappointed.

Not only did the author fail to include a review of the "1984" act, but she also did not mention the act, "The Beat of Beethoven": both significant and memorable contributions to this year's Liquid Latex. Liquid Latex is perhaps Brandeis's most highly attended performance each year, and should not have been given such a careless review. I wish the author would have gotten over the initial shock of the nudity, focused less on the few unrelated and insignificant details, avoided comparison between pieces, and constructed meaningful reviews of the overall narratives, taking into account their separate and unique purposes, and the incredible energy, talent, and ideas that went into each piece.

I think the runway act was completely justified. It was a showcase of the rapper MIA and the different art she has inspired. Not all the models had the time available to attend rehearsals for a month yet still wanted to express themselves, and I think they all did a fabulous job on the runway with their confidence. The painting was still exceptionally beautiful and included many interesting interpretations of MIA.

Not only did you fail to include a review of the "1984" act, but you also did not mention the act "Beat of Beethoven": both significant and memorable contributions to this year's Liquid Latex production. Liquid Latex is perhaps Brandeis's most highly attended performance, and should not have received such a careless review. I wish you had been able to get past the initial shock of nudity, focused less on some of the insignificant and unrelated details you mentioned, avoided comparison between acts, and talked about the engaging overall narratives of each act, their separate and unique purposes, and the incredible energy, talent, and artistry that went into each piece.

Overall, i agree with this review and think it did a good job of showcasing most of the show's acts. However, the fact that two acts were completely disregarded is just unacceptable. Both groups put an immense amount of work into making their pieces amazing and to ignore that effort (regardless of what you thought of the pieces in general) is embarrassing. While I understand that the effect of Liquid Latex is very intoxicating and it is easy to get caught up in a specific act, both "1984" and "The Beat of Beethoven" significantly added to show and the designers', choreographers', and models' time and effort should be recognized.

The shows this semester were so cool and extremely well thought out. I suppose the point where this article falls short is its blatant favoritism. The acts that appealed to the author got a much longer description, while acts like circus and 1984 were only mentioned and beat of Beethoven was completely omitted. Also to consider were the criticisms on Man vs. Empire Brain Building and Cell Block Tango. This show was all about having fun and that was seen through the acting. Had I not been in one of the acts that got a good review, I would be a bit upset. It would have been really cool to get a 1-2 sentence statement from each choreographer about how they thought their act went. This experience really was a blast and the audience was HUGE (as always) easily making it one of Brandeis' best annual events.

The thing is, that's not really the point of a review. When you read a review of a CD in a newpaper, they don't go through each and every song, telling you what they think. Nor do they ever ask the artist to give comments on how they think every song went. That's just ridiculous. While some people may be upset that not every act from the show was featured, it's not really the fault of the reviewer; that's just the nature of the review. You pick out a few things you personally liked or disliked about the show and comment on them. A review IS favoritism by definition. If you want a play by play of every act, just go see the show!

I think the problem with this review is that the reviewer, Becca Brooks, is reviewing the overall idea of the show "Liquid Latex," rather than focusing on the merits and downfalls of this specific year's performance.

I get the impression this is Ms. Brook's first year seeing Liquid Latex, which explains her description of the performance as "the crossroad of eroticism and progressive expressionism, [in which] one leaves behind clothing and inhibitions in exchange for latex paint and provocative dance" and her conclusion that "A lot of credit, however, must go to the models themselves. They were the ones with enough self-confidence to dance nude in front of a large percentage of the student body." As someone who 'modeled' in Latex, I do not consider most of the acts erotic, my dance moves at all provocative, or that I, in any way, danced nude in front of my peers (the latex feels like a body suit once on). I also feel that if the author "felt uncomfortable," that probably tainted her entire impression of the performance.

Liquid Latex is a long running tradition at Brandeis, and in my opinion one of the most unique and amazing ones at our school. The fact that Ms. Brooks did not know that each year there is a "fashion show" for example, shows that The Justice should have chosen a more prepared reviewer, or at least briefed the author in the basic information and traditions surrounding the show.

This is my third time being a model in Liquid Latex, so I am certainly familiar with the varying review styles people have in commenting on the show. Not once have I read an article in which all acts were reviewed or at least mentioned.

The issue I take with this review is that the author, knowing there were 10 acts (even though in reality there were actually 11) chose to only review 9. This is just disrespectful to the single act that wasn't included in even a token way (though it was actually 2 missing acts). It would be one thing if this article were obviously talking about the authors few favorite acts, or the ones they thought didn't belong on stage... but the acts are presented in the order they appeared in the show (not in the order of the authors preference), which is what had me surprised that my act (1984) was completely absent.

You can try and write me off as just bitter that my act wasn't reviewed, and I'd be lying if I didn't say I was upset, but the fact of the matter is that this review is poorly written. Check out your archives, and you'll see the difference.

As a newspaper that will continue reviewing this show long after I've graduated, you should know that EVERY act scrambles to get their hands on the paper and see what has been written about the hard work they put into making the show what it is.

I'd much rather have had the newspapers forget to cover us (like they did last year) than get another review of this quality in the future.

Nowhere - I repeat, nowhere - in this article did it say that this is a newspaper! Writers who exhibit such flippancy and indiscretion ought to be publicly shamed.

The actual first show was March 31, 2000 when it was called the Body Art Fashion Show. The club only came into existence afterwards. I should know. It was my idea that started all of this!