(09/13/05 4:00am)
Apparently, the stress of tribunal councils and eating bugs are nothing compared to the evasion of the IRS for original Survivor winner Richard Hatch. Hatch was indicted on 10 charges Thursday. These charges include a faiure to pay taxes on his one million dollar prize for winning the show, filing a false tax return, mail fraud and bank fraud. In addition to not reporting his prize money, Hatch also neglected to mention the $327,000 he earned from hosting a Boston-based radio show. As if Hatch's ruthless and conniving personality wasn't established enough on the show, his image was darkened further when he was accused of dipping into donations meant for his charity, Horizon Bound, for personal expenses. The discovery of Hatch's devious behavior first came to light in January when he was indicted for two counts of tax evasion. A guilty verdict could mean millions of dollars in fines and up to 75 years in jail. Too bad the court doesn't offer challenges with a chance to win tax immunities. Not content with just donating money to disaster relief, many celebrities are taking a hands-on approach helping victims of Hurricane Katrina. Sean Penn made headlines when he took it upon himself to obtain a boat and wade through toxic waters in order to rescue close to 40 people stranded in New Orleans. While some people criticized Penn's efforts, claiming it was a publicity stunt for his next film-All the King's Men, which was shot in New Orleans-others commended his proactive behavior. Author Douglas Brinkley, who witnessed the rescues, told the New York Daily News that in the case of Katrina, Penn "was an American hero." Other celebrities, working as a part of Oprah Winfrey's "Team Angel," also provided hands-on relief for victims. Some notable efforts: Chris Rock helping to staff a food bank in Houston, John Travolta and Kelly Preston flying in supplies to Baton Rouge and Lisa Marie Presley trucking in food and toiletries to Mississippi. Maybe instead of criticizing Oprah and company for using Katrina as a publicity stunt, the media should be criticizing President Bush and his administration for not following their example.
(05/24/05 4:00am)
A student was arrested for allegedly sending a bomb threat via e-mail to several administrators that resulted in the shutdown of the Sachar Academic Complex on May 5 and the cancellation of final exams in progress there. A student was arrested during an exam in the Gerstenzang Science Library. He refused to comment for this article.
Director of Public Safety Ed Callahan said he contacted Information Technology Services to pinpoint the threat's origin. Callahan said his conversation with ITS led him to a specific computer on the ground floor of the Shapiro Campus Center.
The Department of Public Safety, with the help of the Waltham Police, identified the student as the person who committed what Callahan described as a "crime against public peace."
The police apprehended him at 4:30 p.m., during his last exam of the semester.
"One person was identified and, obviously, we looked at some of the information we had in terms of the Waltham police and had a collaborative effort with sufficient probable cause, which is basically reasonable information that leads a person to believe that an offense has been committed or is being committed," Callahan said.
Jay White, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said he could not find any information about this incident and that it is not unusual since such cases are usually handled by city or state police.
Although an arrest was made, Lt. Bryan Navin of the Waltham Police Department said that no sign of a bomb was evident when police arrived at Sachar to investigate the threat.
"We responded up there on report of a bomb threat," Navin said. "Administrators got e-mails saying a bomb would be there on that day and we also sent a bomb dog ... for the northeast area, both the dog and the fire department didn't find anything."
The student spent a night in jail and was bailed out by a friend in the morning.
The student denied making the threat in a petition he circulated via e-mail the next day. He claimed that he was suspended from the University, barred from entering the campus and would receive a no-grade (NG) in all his classes for the semester, including those for which he completed exams. He asked students to sign the petition in support of his claim of innocence.
"I was in New York on 9/11, and having experienced such a tragedy personally, would never even think of doing such a horrific thing," the e-mail read. "I had absolutely no motive-none of my finals were at the International Business School."
A pre-trial hearing for the student was scheduled for May 17, but, according to the Middlesex County district attorney's office, it has been postponed until June 15.
According to Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer, the student was allowed to finish his finals and his claims about receiving "NGs" on his transcript are false.
"Given the timing of this, there was concern and sensitivity toward completing coursework, but also acknowledging that a very serious charge has been made against a student of ours and that a judgment should have been made," Sawyer said.
According to Callahan, there have been several bomb threats made, both by e-mail as well as by telephone, over the course of his tenure.
Commenting on a May 2003 incident when two bomb threats that were received at the science complex did not interfere with final exams, Callahan said each unique threat requires different responses.
Callahan said the investigation into the student will continue through the fall, and though the academic year has concluded, the University is planning its next steps.
"It's preliminary to say, but obviously this is a serious situation and this will move through the court process and the University processes," Callahan said.
(04/19/05 4:00am)
It is not very difficult to be constructively critical of Tympanium Euphorium's finely directed and choreographed production of John Kander's and Fred Ebb's Kiss of the Spiderwoman, which features an array of talented students and an ambitiously focused production staff. It is a musical that simultaneously masquerades as a show about the struggles of a political prisoner holding to his beliefs and explores the narcotic and sociopolitical powers of art.Kiss of the Spiderwoman tells the story of Valentin (Andrew Giordano '08), who, due to his Marxist convictions, is jailed on suspicions that he is a terrorist and political insurgent. In prison, he meets Molina (David Klasko '07), a homosexual who changes Valentin's views on society and sexuality by encouraging him to hold fast to his dreams, rather than political ideology. The effect the prisoners have on each other drives the plot toward an exploration of escapism and realism, pondering whether idealism is a function of one or the other, if not both. Director and choreographer Avital Asuleen '06 demonstrated tremendous sensitivity to each character's mannerisms. But her attention to the artier aspects of the musical-the costumes, lighting, set and elaborate dance numbers-at points outshined even the actors and their script. Although capably and entertainingly executed by a chorus of prisoners, some of the show's dance sequences could have been removed at little harm to the production, if only for time's sake (the show runs two hours and 45 minutes.) The musical came together as a whole, however, because of Asuleen's ability to advantageously use the show's flashiness; its "narcotic" aspects functioned to fuel the show's exploration of escapism and art. Kiss of the Spiderwoman was held together by a well-assembled cast. Klasko and Giordano had convincing rapport on stage, even in scenes of high emotional and sexual tensions. In the show, both are haunted by the Spiderwoman, a psychological construction played evocatively by Lauren Becker '08, whose kiss draws dead prisoners away from the world. Even the supporting cast-particularly the prison warden (Alex Martynov '08) and Molina's former prison lover (Eli Hannuna '08)-helped keep the show moving at a decent pace. While Valentin's line, "You don't get this sort of thing in dialectical materialism," comically asserted that while the show might be a worthwhile escape from one's studies, this show still may not be for everyone. When the musical ends with Molina's death, the audience is left with the uneasy feeling that we are irrevocably trapped in a world allowing for neither a full embrace of the arts nor the most noble of political beliefs. Marta (Jordan Butterfield '07), Valentin's girlfriend, represented this concept best, wearing a bright scarf depicting the American flag designed to remind the audience that there are political rumblings beyond the glitzy, narcotic-induced production.Kiss of the Spiderwoman would be very alluring for those who enjoy progressive works that offer intellectual and aesthetic stimulation, but a risky venture for those seeking a distinctly happy ending.
(03/08/05 5:00am)
Ol' Dirty BastardOsirus on JC/Sure Shot RecordsBFans of Ol' Dirty Bastard know that when he died last year, he left the music industry in the same way he entered it: on his own terms. Since the Wu-Tang Clan's debut in 1994, hip-hop nation has been hooked on the "dirty" rapper. Through most of the '90s, ODB was everywhere. His persona never changed-in some strange way, he was both offensive and lovable. If you couldn't hear his sing-songy rhymes on the radio, then you could turn on the television and catch him doing something crazy and hilarious, like when he allowed MTV to tape him picking up a welfare check in his limo. In 2004, ODB was ready to make up for lost time. After his release from jail, he signed with Roc-a-Fella Records and recorded a slew of tracks in the studio. Osirus, named after one of the ODB's many nicknames, is a collection of these studio recordings. So listening to the album is a bittersweet experience. On one hand, you get 15 completely fresh tracks by ODB; on the other, you get an album that could've been so much more if he had only lived to finish it. Osirus is ODB's best album since his 1995 solo debut Return to the 36 Chambers. The beats are among the most creative of any Wu-Tang album. In "Dirty Run," a sample of David Bowie's "Fame" and Run-DMC's "Rock Box" are seamlessly mashed together."Dirty Dirty" has a rocking organ beat only slightly tempered by an obnoxious high-pitched vocal hook. Even the incredibly misogynistic "Pussy Keep Calling" has one of the best and most smoothed-out beats on the album.Lead single "Pop Shots (Wu-Tang)" is the best cut on the album, and it proves that the only person who should sing ODB's hooks is ODB. Backed by an amped-up piano beat, Dirty rhymes, "That's a trick to try to keep you where you're at/All content, while [they] riding Bentley's and Maybachs."If you enjoyed Ol' Dirty Bastard more for his entertainment value than his talent as a rapper, this album should give you something to think about. While he lacks the masterful flow of Method Man or the literary rhymes of GZA, his grimy style has a unique appeal on its own, one that is unfortunately lost forever. Osirus will not only get your head bobbing, but will also offer a fascinating glimpse into the future of Ol' Dirty Bastard that will never be.-Jon ZimmermanIron & WineWoman King EP on Sub Pop RecordsA-After a magnificent year that included a spot on the Grammy-winning soundtrack Garden State and several television appearances, Sam Beam, the heart and soul of indie folk group Iron & Wine, has returned with a new six-song EP. What Woman King lacks in quantity, it makes up for in quality, at times even besting last year's popular Our Endless Numbered Days.The record opens with the title track, which introduces us to the manic rhythm section that appears throughout the disc. With this new EP, Beam emphasizes his experimental side, especially with "Evening on the Ground (Lilith's Song)," which finds the usually reserved Beam cursing and, even more unusually, playing a full-out electric guitar solo. He also references the hushed simplicity of past releases in "Jezebel," where the most prominent instrument is Beam's powerful and soothing voice.With Woman King, Sam Beam creates a solid albeit short masterpiece that is as great-and at times even better-than the songs that cast the songwriter into the limelight in the first place.-Leor Gali
(02/15/05 5:00am)
Dear Editor,In January I visited Palestine and witnessed a family held at gunpoint by Israeli soldiers who had gathered at the checkpoint leading from Jerusalem to Nablus. Their dying father/grandfather was in an ambulance about a hundred yards away. The family's tears and pleas to see him, kiss him goodbye were considered too great a security risk to Israel. In Nablus I visited for two days with the family of Professor Khaled Salah and his son, peace activists who had appeared on Israeli TV. One dark evening last summer, the family endured several hours of assault on their home by 1,000 troops, following the killing of two militants who happened to have passed through the neighborhood, according to media reports. The Israeli military identified the location of the family a week earlier, neighbors say. They attacked with helicopter gunships, missiles fired from tanks, submachine gunfire and snipers. Professor Salah pleaded for his family's life. They shot him and his 16 year old son and held his wife and surviving children hostage until the father and son died. According to Salam, the widow, as she escourted me through what remains of her former home, the Israelis soldiers mocked and ridiculed her as she pleaded to allow waiting ambulances to assist her dying husband and son.In Jerusalem I attended a Palestinian-Israeli peace conference (FFIPP) where two students from Gaza, in attendance with valid permits and IDs, were arrested while visiting Jerusalem's Old City tourist sites. If a group of Internationals including two professors, an Israeli and Israeli American, had not intervened, the students' fate would have been like so many others - to be sentenced to 5 - 20 years in Israeli jails where they would have been tortured and used as political pawns. US tax dollars support Israel's illegal occupation, daily horror Palestininians are made to endure, and continued land and water theft. Is this the path to a desperately needed peace? Is this the face the Jewish community wants presented to the world?Genevieve Cora FraserBrandeis MFA 1981Orange, MA
(02/15/05 5:00am)
Dear Editor,(Revised - typos)In January I visited Palestine and witnessed a family held at gunpoint by Israeli soldiers who had gathered at the checkpoint leading from Jerusalem to Nablus. Their dying father/grandfather was in an ambulance about a hundred yards away. The family's tears and pleas to see him, kiss him goodbye were considered too great a security risk to Israel. For two days I visited in Nablus with the family of Professor Khaled Salah and his son, peace activists who had appeared on Israeli TV. One dark evening last summer, the family endured several hours of assault on their home by 1,000 troops, following the killing of two militants who happened to have passed through the neighborhood, according to media reports. The Israeli military identified the location of the family a week earlier, neighbors say. They attacked with helicopter gunships, missiles fired from tanks, submachine gunfire and snipers. Professor Salah pleaded for his family's life. They shot him and his 16 year old son and held his wife and surviving children hostage until the father and son died. According to Salam, the widow, as she escourted me through what remains of her former home, the Israeli soldiers mocked and ridiculed her as she pleaded to allow waiting ambulances to assist her dying husband and son.In Jerusalem, I attended a Palestinian-Israeli peace conference (FFIPP) where two students from Gaza, in attendance with valid permits and IDs, were arrested while visiting Jerusalem's Old City tourist sites. If a group of Internationals including two professors, an Israeli and Israeli American, had not intervened, the students' fate would have been like so many others - to be sentenced to 5 - 20 years in Israeli jails where they would have been tortured and used as political pawns. US tax dollars support Israel's illegal occupation, daily horror Palestininians are made to endure, and continued land and water theft. Is this the path to a desperately needed peace? Is this the face the Jewish community wants presented to the world?Genevieve Cora FraserBrandeis MFA 1981Orange, MA
(01/25/05 5:00am)
2004 (Another Year of the "Naughty Aughties") Reflecting on this decade, one can't help but conclude that many "naughty" things have happened in many fields i.e.: entertainment, sports, politics and economics. Hence the name "Naughty Aughties". A brief recap of this year alone includes the Superbowl Jackson/Timberlake half-time show, the Pistons/Pacers basketball brawl, Ashlee Simpson lipsynching on SNL, and Martha Stewart going to jail. And in politics, Ohio's claim that paper ballots were not made on heavy enough paper, Schwarzenegger winning as Governor, and Bush's re-election cabinet desertion. Highlights of previous years of the "Naughty Aughties" yield things like the Enron and Tyco accounting practices, Journalist Jason Blaire's false reporting, and Pete Rose admitting to gambling. I'm sure readers could add to these lists, keeping in mind that the purpose of the "Naughty Aughties" is to show the lighter side of shortcomings. Obviously, there has been tragedy that has never seen the light of day until this decade, which no one should ever take lightly. "Naughty Aughties" is the most appropriate nomenclature for this decade. The phrase summarizes this decade's character, and it gives the time period an identity that locates it chronologically. Even now, when one says Generation X or Generation Y, most people have a difficult time referring to the exact years. But with naught AND aught meaning zero, it should not leave much doubt in anyone's mind. Soon, the entertainment industry will be marketing compilations of music, videos, etc. produced in this decade, and unlike titles such as "Heartbeat of the 80's", "Music from the 00's" is not appealing from a marketing standpoint. "Naughty Aughties" fills the void. IT IS THE DAWN OF A NEW MILLENIUM, THE DECADE OF CHANGE. Scott Pedersen 1006 N. Aurora St.Ithaca, NY 14850(607) 277-4299(607) 339-1382 (cell)Digital Imagery available upon request.
(11/23/04 5:00am)
Hollywood has a way of taking the worst of its bad movies and redistributing them decades later as icons of its historic underbelly. Prominently lauded as some of Hollywood's worst films, the five surviving features directed by the horrific filmmaker Edward D. Wood Jr. are now available in a DVD boxed-set from Image Entertainment. The set includes Wood's first feature, Glen or Glenda?, a 1953 film about a confused transvestite (that could have made a remarkable cultural impact if only it were any good); Jail Bait (1954), about a troubled cop-killer who gets plastic surgery to hide his identity; Bride of the Monster (1955), about a mad scientist trying to create a legion of "atomic supermen"; Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959), infamously known as "worst Hollywood film of all time," about grave-robbing space aliens in skating skirts invading Earth; and finally Night of the Ghouls (1959) which is a Woodian ghost story of sorts. Wood has been well-known since the '80s for being the worst Hollywood filmmaker of all time. What I was hoping for, but did not expect, was just how much fun it would be to watch them. There is something enormously appealing about exceptionally bad films. These are the sorts of films that I can imagine my friends getting together to see on a cold winter break night, not for the quality of the film, but for the quality of the laughs. Plan 9 from Outer Space, Wood's most infamous film, begins with the famous 1950s pop-psychic, Criswell, setting the stage with, "Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future."At this early point in the film, I did not know whether to laugh or not-was it taking itself seriously? The film continues, and soon enough, pilots, in what looks like a cardboard cockpit right out of a middle school play, encounter something flying past them in the air. They see it, and we see...yes, a little toy flying saucer hanging in front of a backdrop on a string.The funniest thing about Plan 9 from Outer Space-and all of Ed Wood's films for that matter-is that they are meant to be taken seriously. Wood saw himself as an artist and a visionary and kept hoping (in vain) for a budget as large as his vision. For Plan 9, Wood practically swindled an entire church congregation for the production funds, vowing to make Plan 9 a success that would finance additional biblical films like DeMille's The Ten Commandments.Included with these films is an additional DVD of additional features, including a wonderful two-hour documentary, The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood Jr. (1996) that explores Wood's complicated life through interviews with the oddballs and drama queens that were his occasional entourage. Wood was idiosyncratic and surrounded himself with the strange, quirky B-movie types that frequented Hollywood's lesser-known studios in the 50s and 60s. Maila Nurmi, who performed as "Vampira" in several films and television shows, and Bela Lugosi (Dracula)-the famous horror film star who worked for Wood when no one else would hire him-opine on Wood in various interviews. They are joined by a motley crew of Wood's former friends and lovers, all of whom speak not only of Wood, but of the world of sub-Hollywood Hollywood where the hefty Tor Johnson (Plan 9) was as big a name as he was in appearance.Although Wood's films are marvelous to laugh at, there is a bittersweet poignancy to his story. He was ambitious beyond his means and abilities, but he never let that slow him down. At the end of his life, Wood could not afford an apartment. He died of a heart attack in 1978 while living with a sympathetic friend who had taken him in. It was not until the following decade that his films began to achieve the sort of notoriety Wood might have wished for them.
(10/19/04 4:00am)
In discussing health care with some of my moderate to conservative friends (yes, these people really do exist at Brandeis), I noticed something interesting. There seems to be this pervasive feeling that nothing John Kerry says about the issue can be taken seriously because he picked John Edwards as his running mate. As a trial lawyer, they say, Edwards was directly responsible for the rising health costs he now says he wants to fix. I even heard one person go so far as to say, "John Edwards got rich by stealing money from doctors."People's basic argument against the trial lawyers goes somewhat like this: Trial lawyers sue doctors for stupid and frivolous things. Juries award large multimillion dollar verdicts to people who don't really deserve it. Insurance companies are forced to pay this out. To make up for this, the insurance companies have to raise malpractice premiums on doctors, who in turn have to raise medical costs on their patients.However, this argument is false in several key ways. The first is that cases with verdicts over a million dollars in fact make up a very small fraction of all malpractice lawsuits. The largest verdicts, especially when they are for obviously stupid things, tend to get the most press coverage. This makes people think they are far more common than they actually are. In addition, not all multimillion dollar verdicts are for frivolous reasons. There are probably some on the far right who would like to see the entire medical profession--or more likely, the entire business world-exempt from lawsuits altogether. However, I think most people would agree that, if a doctor makes a bad decision, and this causes serious damage the health of the patient, then the patient ought to have some recourse to get compensation. This sort of award-large as it may be-could certainly not be considered stealing from the doctor.Yet another reason the trials lawyers are not responsible is due to this vicious cycle whereby the insurance companies themselves are responsible for the high awards they need to pay out. A patient goes to the doctor. The doctor determines the patient needs a certain expensive procedure. However, the patient's HMO says they will not pay for this treatment. The doctor is then forced to use a less expensive--but also less effective--treatment. This leads to injury for the patient. The patient then has no choice but to sue the doctor for malpractice. He wins the case and the very same insurance company that wouldn't pay for his treatment, now has to pay far more in the form of a malpractice award. The insurance company then uses this as an excuse to raise premiums for the doctors, and the cycle continues. I say excuse because, in fact, when insurance companies raise premiums on doctors, less than half of that money actually goes to litigation costs. If the insurance companies would just let the doctors make the proper medical decisions in the first place, they would not be subject to the high degree of litigation they keep blaming on the trial lawyers.The question now is: What needs to be done about the system? The key idea in the Republican plan is to institute an arbitrary cap on punitive damages, placing a maximum amount that someone can win in a malpractice suit. This will do little to fix the system. It is true that some verdicts are higher than they ought to be. However, an arbitrary cap will not allow those people who genuinely deserve high verdicts to get them. If a doctor mixes drugs that have a dangerous reaction with each other, and, in doing so, causes permanent brain damage to the patient, this patient deserves a multimillion dollar verdict. All capping damages will do is make our health care system worse, because the insurance companies will have even less fear of reprisal when they withhold needed services from patients. Empirically speaking, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office study recently showed no significant difference, on a state level, between health care costs in states with caps on liability and states in without.A much better way to reduce the number of frivolous cases in the system would be to give more discretion to judges. In a criminal case, the jury finds the defendant guilty, but the judge determines, within certain guidelines, just how long he ought to serve in jail for his crime. The same is true for lawsuits. If the jury finds in favor of the plaintiff, but the judge, who is not as easily swayed by a lawyer's emotional appeal, sees the case as frivolous, he ought to be able to drastically reduce the quantity of the award that is paid out.Another way to fix the system would be to make malpractice insurance more like auto insurance. Just as with auto insurance, if you get in an accident, your premium goes up. Malpractice insurance should adopt a similar system. If you lose a large verdict, your premiums should go up, and not doctor's costs. In fact, studies have shown that five percent of doctors are responsible for over half the money paid out in malpractice verdicts. If insurance rates would go up only on these five percent, heath care costs for people going to all the fully competent doctors, could be significantly lowered. Granted, a system like this would probably force a large number of that five percent to stop practicing medicine. But if you keep losing large malpractice suits, perhaps medicine isn't the career you ought to pursue in the first place.All this is not to say I think all trial lawyers are completely honest. They are not. But they are also not any more dishonest than other kinds of lawyers that Republicans seem to like. All I am saying is that trial lawyers are not responsible--at least not in any significant way-for high health care costs. Therefore, the plans of John Kerry and John Edwards ought to be taken seriously. And remember, the last person whose word you should take about someone being dishonest is a politician.
(10/05/04 4:00am)
Interpol has been soaring on repeat since the success of their 2002 debut, Turn on the Bright Lights, and has secured a monopoly over gloom, sharpness, and iciness. However that style isn't necessarily effortless-or frivolous for that matter. It is instead an important, distinct, and solitary glimpse into the manner one thinks of oneself. Through this, Interpol has succeeded in continuously pleasing their audiences. Interpol's much anticipated second album, Antics, arrives with considerable weight and expectation. The band succeeds with phenomenal substance and body, considering the anxiety. Antics proceeds with continual upbeat, bouncy rhythmic elements that give a thematic kick to their weighty reputation and thematic obsessions. It's a very pronounced and savvy shift that deserves a toast to the band's eminent and perpetuating style. The most immediate shift in this record is that the rhythm section is more prominent. Compositionally, the songs are much simpler than their earlier album, Turn on the Bright Lights. On Antics, the rhythm and core emotion are much more important. It's more of a pop record, less pretentious, more focused along with distilled song-writing. More importantly singer Paul Banks' voice has been pulled to the front of the mix, with the premium of the record being placed on the subtlety of his voice. As Interpol fans swoon over their gorgeous idol, the unimpressed will soon recede with the nuances of singer Paul Banks' delivery whereas such may have seemed novel before this record.The mythology concerning Banks' intensity and obsession over the production of the album lends a lot to its thematic delivery. As Banks has stated, his concerns with the album were simply "sex and fear." Maybe not so simply, Banks' pain and desperation mirror our own insecurities and concerns with the nature of adulthood, relationships, and need for grounding and love. Though we may miss the punctuation, we cannot evade the direness as Banks' questions his potential lover in the bouncy second track, "Evil:" "is this motion ever-lasting or do shadows pass in the night?""Not Even Jail," the best song on the album, is the height of this lyrical confrontation and obliquity. However unlike the trendy, nonsensical indie rockers who vomit words with frivolity, Banks has a certain command and urgency that is unavoidable. Rather than lyrical cheap shots at a culture of randomness, Banks' words are a perfect receptacle for our emotions and criticisms. As singers are often the object of affection, adoration, criticism for any band, Banks' wraps are concerns and evades typical rock self-effacement in search of a real sense of purpose. The character he presents to us is one who is continually conscious of presenting in the public sphere as well. Whether it is the premonitions of a public relationship ("Next Exit"), presentation of a public relationship ("Length of Love"), or internal construction of a public relationship ("NARC"), Banks is incredibly anxious and self-conscious to public expectations and his own public image.The album sits as a whole, consistent in production standards, but marked by few weak tracks. The finale, "A Time to Be So Small" is a disappointing closure to a thoroughly engrossing and intense album. In addition, "Length of Love" and "Slow Hands" while catchy and heavy, are not as contextually challenging for both the band and the listener. Antics is simply a strong collection of songs, without the cohesive, ambitious overarching elements of a more conceptual albums. The album is largely successful but still leaves one in want, especially with the poor closing. It's easy to get a kick out of Interpol's titles that have nothing to do with the content of their songs directly. However, this is a crucial element to the overall package. Just as the album's title suggests, Antics is an exploration of the nature of adulthood, the frivolity of relationships and desperation for grounding. It's not quite irony, but it's not quite prescriptive. This is where Interpol's message lies-in the reflection of one's situation and purpose.
(10/05/04 4:00am)
Although Kobe Bryant's criminal trial has officially ended, some startling facts have only now been revealed about the situation that occurred in the Lodge and Spa at Cordillera in Eagle, Colo. last summer. On Sept. 1, the prosecutors announced that they were dropping the criminal case against Bryant, claiming that the accuser did not wish to go forward any longer. This ended a bitter 14-month legal battle between Bryant's lawyers and the Eagle County district attorney.But some important facts have come out since the case ended. As part of the deal to drop the criminal case, Bryant released an apology to his accuser."Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way that I did," Bryant said in the statement. How could it be that two people had two entirely different views of the same incident? Josh Ritz of Student Sexuality Information Services has one possible explanation. "It is easy for a person to misconstrue the signals of another, and for a difference in intention to be ignored or missed," Ritz said. "The signals that people use in sexual situations vary so greatly and invariably someone can overstep their boundaries." Bryant sees the encounter as very clear-cut."We were still only this close, and she gets up and she gives me a kiss," Bryant told police in an interrogation hours after the incident. (This transcript was leaked to the Vail News Daily, despite the defense's wish to suppress this evidence.) "So I kiss her back, and then, you know, I started caressing her or whatever. And then she puts her hand on my, you know, my thing or whatever, and it kind of goes from there." According to The Denver Post, Bryant told detectives that there were five minutes of intercourse when the woman bent herself over a chair. "It was consensual. There was nothing weird, you know what I mean?"Ritz referenced page 300 of The Hot Guide to Safer Sex by Yvonne Fulbright to explain the possible miscommunication. "Studies show that men are more likely than women to interpret a variety of verbal and nonverbal cues as evidence that a female is interested in having sex," Ritz said. "For example, studies have shown that men are more likely than women to rate revealing clothing, drinking alcohol, complimenting a date, secluded date locations, like the beach or his room, and tickling a date as indicative of a desire to have sexual intercourse."Of course, many suspect that this sort of case, sexual encounters between celebrities and young women, are not rare. Sports stars from Michael Jordan to the notoriously promiscuous Shawn Kemp have been involved in various romantic scandals.The latest tidbit to come out of the Los Angeles Times is that Bryant made comments about a similar scenario involving former teammate Shaquille O'Neal, during the interrogation hours after the incident."Bryant stated that Shaq would pay his women not to say anything," Detective Doug Winters wrote in the sealed police report. "[Bryant] stated Shaq has paid up to a million dollars already for situations like this." O'Neal's agent, Perry Rogers, said that Bryant's allegation was "undeserving of a response."Another take on the case could be that, once again, a superstar with a high-priced legal team was acquitted. Bryant is now a member of the list of sports stars acquitted from felonies, which includes O.J. Simpson, Ray Lewis and Jayson Williams, all of whom were acquitted of murder. Alan Grant of ESPN.com's Page 2 wrote: "Some will call it 'celebrity' justice. But I just call it justice. The charges were dropped not because the accuser unraveled, but because the prosecution's case unraveled."And on the defendant's side, Pamela Mackey's team came out swinging, trying to take down the rape shield law and making bold allegations about the alleged victim, including one allegation that she had sexual intercourse hours after the Bryant incident. On the prosecution's side, Eagle County District Attorney Mark Hurlbert's team bungled the case from the start. It was a dream team of aggressive legal experts battling a little rural district in Colorado.The alleged victim's name was leaked by Internet media, and court documents with her name were accidentally released."In this case, a series of court mistakes and the freedom of the internet meant that (the alleged victim) received relentless publicity and that could have made the difference in her decision to testify," Prof. Richard Gaskins (AMST) said.In addition, the trial was a media circus. Gaskins commented on the media's impact in cases of high magnitude. "So much that happens in a criminal proceeding happens outside the courtroom, especially in pre-trial periods, that publicity plays a significant role in trial dynamics," he said."Ideally we keep stereotypes and prejudgments out of the courtroom; but celebrity is all about stereotypes, and the courtroom may never get the chance to hear the case as a result," Gaskins said.Gaskins noted that the impact of the case may go well beyond Bryant. "Publishing the name of a possible victim of sexual assault may have an impact on the particular case, but also deter others from reporting assaults in the future," he stated.What's next for Kobe Bryant? He returns to the Lakers as the premiere star, as his alleged feuds with O'Neal spurred the big center's trade to the Miami Heat. Bryant's Lakers, with the addition of Lamar Odom, Brian Grant and Caron Butler, and the loss of O'Neal, have either lost the best player in the game or have become a better-rounded, team like the Detroit Pistons, depending on one's viewpoint.Bryant has maintained a great deal of his fan base, as he was voted into the all-star game last year, and cheered at many arenas around the country, not to mention the loud ovations received from Los Angeles fans. Even though advertisers have hidden him from recent commercials and promotions (Lebron James has replaced Bryant on Sprite commercials), Bryant's contracts with Nike and other companies have not been terminated. Nike eventually plans to release the retro Kobe Bryant Lower Merion High School jersey. (The school has called off the deal for now.)"Whatever I need to do without making this thing public, I will do, man," Bryant told detectives in the aforementioned investigation. "My biggest fear is my career... and my image." Bryant no longer has to worry about going to jail, but people have different views on his image, just like two people have different views on the encounter in Colorado.
(08/31/04 4:00am)
The LibertinesThe LibertinesOn Rough Trade Records Grade: CThe legend surrounding the Libertines has built to such proportions, it has begun to overshadow their music. Singer/guitarist Peter Doherty's problems have kept him out of the band since the Libertines completed their self-titled sophomore release. The list of issues is long and reads like a ready-made VH1 "Behind the Music" episode: heroin and crack cocaine addiction, weapons possession and burgling of the home of Libertine's singer/bassist Carl Barat (which resulted in jail time). Yet, regardless of Doherty's problems, the band's tour has garnered rave reviews across the globe, and critics, fans and curious music lovers all await their second release.I hope I don't disappoint the masses, but it's not that impressive.Doherty and Barat pull from the right sources; their sound is heavily influenced by the Clash and the Rolling Stones, and their mumbled lyrics sound like poetry from a drunk, British Bob Dylan. And they incorporate the right musical elements as well: driving basslines, crescendoing beats and building intensity. Doherty's lyrics seem appropriately rude and indifferent. I can see how their concerts would build to a frenzy that incites the crowd to fits of dancing, but popping The Libertines into your CD-player simply isn't going to do the trick. The songs feel slow and uninspired (the firstsingle, "Can't Stand Me Now," suffers greatly from that flaw), and the band often seems distracted. What would be riotous shouts and screams on stage are simple yelps that sound no more interesting than a friend shouting for another beer.It could be a by-product of a band on the verge of falling apart, or simply the sophomore slip-up that befalls many bands, but let's hope that their third effort (if they last that long) can actually capture the explosive spirit of The Libertines. This record certainly does not.SupergrassSupergrass Is 10On Capitol RecordsGrade: AIt's pretty hard to compile a bad greatest hits collection. In principle, such an album would be a collection of songs that have already established themselves as well-loved compositions. Yet, a greatest hits collection is only as good as the band it's documenting, and Capitol Records has done right by the public and by themselves by deciding that Supergrasss deserve a greatest hits present on their 10th anniversary.The band has remained relatively obscure on our side of the pond, but have become huge in their native England, touring with some of the island nation's top bands of the 1990s. They've occasionally managed to cross over, and most Americans will recognize the first three tracks on Supergrass Is 10, "Caught by the Fuzz," "Pumping on Your Stereo" (which got major MTV play because of a surreal video utilizing bizarre puppets) and "Alright" (which was featured in the movie Clueless).While the rest of the 21 featured songs may be unfamiliar, they all follow the same pattern of jangly guitars, catchy vocals, rich instrumentation, and some kind of irresistible hook. This is a hits collection of the best kind: commercial and faithful to the band, while offering something new for just about every listener.
(03/23/04 5:00am)
It seemed that a play with such esteemed and versatile actors as Richard Dreyfuss and Eric Stoltz (The Butterfly Effect, Pulp Fiction) could not disappoint. Unfortunately, expectations proved too high, and the evening of theater was, at best, mildly entertaining.Still, the blame cannot be placed on any of the performers, but instead on the weak plotline and coarse humor. A revival from Larry Gelbart's (creator of TV series M*A*S*H) 1976 original comedy, Sly Fox revolves around several greedy and unappealing characters -each out to con one another and obtain as much gold and riches as possible. Set during the California Gold Rush, people are falling all over themselves, literally, to get rich quick. With all this hysteria, the appropriately named Foxwell J. Sly (Dreyfuss) and his dedicated assistant Simon Able (Stoltz) embark together to swindle their friends and foes alike. Throughout the story, Sly pretends to be bedridden with a fatal illness to dupe the others into sharing their secrets, as well as their money. Naturally, more miscommunication, confusion and deceit ensue, infiltrating the production with outrageous scenes and over-the-top comedy. Although the constant jokes are clever at times, they become tedious and vexing. The audience reaction verified this as its initial boisterous laughs developed into polite giggles. Lines that were particularly witty included Sly's statements "Gold ... God with an 'L'" and "[Gold] ... find it, fondle it, lie next to it in the earth ... this is the only advantage to dying." Still, even these were disconcerting and unappealing. But, to be fair, in the rare moments that a character was being serious, the dialogue was smart and entertaining. Nearly redeeming qualities of Sly Fox included the performances of Dreyfuss and Stoltz, as well as the supporting cast. The actors played their roles with energy and wit, and each one brought a solid performance to the stage. Veteran stage and movie actor Richard Dreyfuss was indeed ideal for Foxwell J. Sly, as he seems to excel as grumpy, sarcastic, "irritating pests and brash, ambitious hustlers" (www.imdb.com). His next endeavor will surely delight when he takes over for Nathan Lane as Max Bialystock in the wildly funny The Producers on Broadway. Although Lane is a terribly hard act to follow in this or any role, Dreyfuss has the experience and talent to succeed.Eric Stoltz had a gentle demeanor about him and, even as an avaricious accomplice, was one of the only endearing characters in "Sly Fox." His subtle acting and comedic skills shined while everyone else tried too hard. Always playing diverse characters in theater and film (from the bit part of John Brooke in 1994's Little Women to the larger role as Alan MacDonald in 1995's Rob Roy), Stoltz has a wonderful range, which was refreshing to experience.Two other supporting cast members worth mentioning were Bronson Pinchot (memorable as quirky cousin Balky from the late 80's sitcom Perfect Strangers) and Elizabeth Berkley (best known to Generation X as Jesse from Saved by the Bell). Mainly an actor on TV and the stage, Pinchot gave a fine performance as Lawyer Craven, an old "friend" of Sly's, who really wants his "good buddy" to pass on quickly, so he can collect the riches. Additionally, Berkley has come far from her Showgirls days, and displays her development as an actress in her role as the naave, puritan Mrs. Truckle, who has a hint of rebelliousness and verve that come out periodically. Beyond these performances, the most impressive element of Sly Fox was the set design. With a revolving stage that turned into five diverse locations, including Sly's bedroom, Truckle's living room and a jail cell, the versatility proved impressive. In addition, the illuminating color schemes and decorations were true to San Francisco in the late 1800's. The two Scenic designers-four-time Tony nominee, George Jenkins and a virgin to Broadway productions, Jesse Poleshuck-deserve much praise. Furthermore, costumes were tasteful and appropriate for the era.Sly Fox is heading to Broadway as we speak. Its run in Boston ended in early March, and it opens at the Barrymore Theatre on April 1. If you are lucky enough to visit the Big Apple to see a show or two, do not make this one a priority. A vast number of superb dramas, comedies, and musicals are open on Broadway now, so take advantage of those.
(02/10/04 5:00am)
As we anxiously await the end of another New England winter, the Brandeis theater department's performance of The Winter's Tale seems oddly appropriate. Tina Packer, nationally renowned director and actress, came to Brandeis for a limited time to direct this play. In only five weeks, she has coached her crew of graduate and undergraduate actors to capture one of Shakespeare's lesser known works. Tina PackerTime at Brandeis: 5 weeksRole at Brandeis: Director of the theater department's The Winter's TaleRole outside Brandeis: Artistic director of Shakespeare & Co., a national theater companyJustFeats: When did you start working at Brandeis?Tina Packer: January 5 we started work on The Winter's Tale. We were also preparing a bit before then, but I had bits to do with Brandeis before.JF: What was the best show that you've directed?TP: It's very difficult to say. I don't know that you can say "what's the best" because you can't constantly look at the past. I have no idea which is the best because I am concentrating on the one I'm doing now, so that always seems like the best.JF: What was the funniest moment in acting that you've seen?TP: When I was on stage for Comedy of Errors and it was the end of the play. The woman who played the Abyss dried when she was supposed to say her lines. So she fainted and everyone carried her off stage. I was left on stage with no townspeople and we needed to get back somehow, and they didn't even lower the curtain.JF: If you could do anything but directing, what would you do?TP: I would emphasize my acting over my directing career. But, if I hadn't been in theater, I would have liked to become a writer, but I already even do that. I might even be part of some kind of governmental agency and I could help people that way.JF: What is your favorite book?TP: I have always liked Jane Austen, but even with books, I feel like the one I'm reading at the moment is also very good. I like Aristotle's Children, by Richard Rosenblum-about how Jews, Christians and Muslims changed the world. Also, about Shakespeare, I like The Genius of Shakespeare, by Jonathan Bate. JF: What is your favorite film?TP: Casablanca.JF: What is the best performance you have seen on stage?TP: Ariad Menushkin's 1783. I saw it at the Roundhouse theatre and it filled the house. Also, I liked Joan Littlewood's The Hostage, which I saw in the Theatre de Nations in Paris.JF: Who is your favorite playwright?TP: William Shakespeare.JF: What made you go into theater?TP: I always liked it and it always sparked my imagination.JF: What was your most inspirational moment?TP: When Nelson Mandela went to jail-when I was a teenager, I followed very closely his actions and it was an incredible example of how to succeed despite every economic and social pressure. I don't know whether it was an inspirational moment, but as a life example, it was.
(02/03/04 5:00am)
Back in 1969, Hollywood made its first crack at Elmore Leonard's story, The Big Bounce, starring Ryan O'Neal, Leigh Taylor Young and Lee Grant. It bombed. The second attempt, thirty-five years later, hasn't made a great deal of progress. The Big Bounce centers around Jack Ryan (Owen Wilson, The Royal Tenenbaums), a genial small time crook, who hits his foreman in the head with a baseball bat. He then befriends local judge and vacation property owner Walter Crewes (Morgan Freeman, Bruce Almighty) and his old boss' mistress Nancy Hayes (Sara Foster) after his short jail sentence. Ryan begins working for Crewes, and becomes friends with Hayes at which point she recruits him for the big scam, which is to con his old boss, Ray Ritchie (Gary Sinise, The Human Stain), out of $200,000. Though Wilson's comic nonchalance and goofiness is enjoyable, the plot in which he becomes mixed up is about as disorganized as my laundry hamper and proves too deep for him to stay afloat. Also, the Oscar-caliber Freeman, sitting back and playing dominoes with cameos by Willie Nelson and Harry Dean Stanton, seems all too ironic. That's what this movie seemed to be, in the end-everyone sitting around a table, making loose bets and drinking spiced rum. There is one scene where Freeman's performance is particularly notable, though sadly, it has nothing to do with advancement of the plot. Rather, there is a scene near the end of the movie where the camera focuses on Freeman's face as he gives a very neutral expression. Yet it expresses a feeling of quiet resignation to the fumbling plot that has just unfolded, as if to say, "Why am I here?" Most of the actors in the movie only had a few scenes, presumably being flown in for twenty minutes of actual filming. Charlie Sheen (Being John Malkovich) plays the crony of Richie for a few scenes and makes a fool of himself as an uncharacteristically geeky, aging wingman, as opposed to his usual, more masculine caricature. The Oscar-nominated Sinise, though he plays a character fairly central to the plot, makes only a few appearances. We see him first as the cutthroat Hawaiian businessman, ordering around his mistress and not caring for her feelings. His mistress sums up his character when she exclaims, "Oh Ray Ritchie, you're so ruthless." Next, he drives around in a Bentley, continuing to look sinister, and waves his middle finger at Hawaiian natives protesting his construction of property on a local sacred burial ground. The rest of the time, one might assume that the actors were getting paid millions of dollars to sit around and enjoy the beautiful Hawaiian scenery. And sadly, director George Armitage was not able to portray that well at all. Even with the movie completely devoid of plot, the filming could have been a showcase for the Hawaiian landscape, or even for the surf culture. Yet, both the scenes of the landscape and the surfing scenes themselves were done with a total lack of imagination or thought. One particular scene in which Armitage uses a dark filter to film the beach, taking away the striking color of the sand, sun and water stands out in my mind. The movie, at times, seems more like the camcorder leftovers of a Hollywood beach party in Hawaii, than anything remotely resembling a movie. In the end, the movie comes to some degree of resolution. And by resolution, I mean that audience has no clue exactly what has just transpired, but we are supposed to accept it for what it is. With the going price of a movie in the theater escalating by the day, a suggestion to anyone who has any sort of desire to see this movie: Rent it when it comes out on video, rethink your taste in movies, or maybe go read a good book.
(01/27/04 5:00am)
False Advertising performed their first show of the spring semester at Chomondley's last Thursday night. Chum's was typically packed and bursting at the seams, as was the trend at False Ad shows. When the group walked through to get to the stage, they were tripping over the audience. The group consists of Jake Kamins '04, Eric Sirota '04, Michael Popper '05, Caitlin Steitzer '05, Tamara Fleischer '06, Alex Goldstein '06, Weldon Kennedy '06, Abby Orenstein '06 and Mark Samburg '07, and they had a very successful show.The show began with a game called "Ding," played by Kennedy and Orenstein. The premise was to act out a scene, but when someone called "ding" they had to restart their last sentence. This game turned out to be only mildly funny and quite short compared to later skits and activities.The next came was called "Clue," in which the audience picked an occupation, location and murder weapon. Popper was responsible for acting it out which Kamins was left to guess. However, only gibberish could be spoken. Then Kamins, based on his presumption and before they were confirmed, had to act it out for Orenstein. Watching Popper and Kamins jump around on stage was hilarious. One of the most entertaining moments of the whole game was when Orenstein, trying to guess, looked at Kamins in sheer bewilderment. Her vulnerability on stage didn't make her falter but actually made her funnier.Following "Clue" was a game called "Five Genres" in which Kamins and Popper had to act out a scene as if they were characters from five different genres. As they acted out two jail inmates in different ways, the funniest part was when they broke into a song and dance routine for the musical genre character. Popper ended up performing a dance on stage that was hilarious and that the entire audience clapping along with him.Next was a line game called "Five Minutes Before And Five Minutes After," where everyone in the group made a short joke about what went on five minutes (or, really, any amount of time) before or after a historical event. Some of the events picked were the Battle of Gettysburg, the 1969 moon landing and Britney Spears getting married. This game also heralded the start of the Bush jokes, especially about his decision to go to the moon ... again. The political nature of the show continued in the next game called "Movie Critics" where Kamins and Popper reviewed fake movies from the 80's. The first movie was supposed to be about Ronald Reagan. Other movies included one from the 1880's and then a parody of the brat pack movies of the 1980's.Next was a game called "Triple Dubbing," which was played by Sirota, Steitzer and Goldstein. In this game, Sirota spoke for Steitzer, Steitzer spoke for Goldstein and Goldstein spoke for Sirota. The scene took place in a Tacqueria and hilarity ensued with Goldstein playing Sirota as a Yosemite Sam-esque character, Sirota playing Steitzer as a ditzy waitress and Steitzer playing Goldstein as a famous waiter critic. With each person speaking for someone else it was really funny to see how the scene unraveled. The next game was called "Compilation," which was Fleischer and Sirota talking about a compilation CD that featured pirate songs. Some of the other members sang very funny songs, however Fleischer and Sirota took the "arrgh" jokes a little too far, replacing every "r" with "arrgh."The final game was called "Newscast" where Goldstein was an imbecile newscaster, Samburg played the expert, Steitzer played the anchor and Sirota played everyone Steitzer was interviewing. The topic that the audience picked was the State of the Union address. Goldstein quickly turned it into being about the addition of a state called Union. It was quite funny as Goldstein played a complete idiot and Steitzer seemed to get so overexcited that she literally started to turn red.The show was a little political for False Ad, which usually has a wide range of material that isn't as politically charged. However, the show was still very funny as was apparent by the audience's reaction and laughter to the crowd. Overall, False Ad's debut performance of second semester was a success.
(11/11/03 5:00am)
It's difficult to see a production of "Chicago" today without bringing to mind images from last year's Academy Award-winning film adaptation. But when the production is as energetic and sexually charged as the one that came to Boston last week, the differences become irrelevant. The production at the Wang Theater stood on its own as a stunning example of musical theater. The dancing was flashy and smooth, the singing was mostly passionate and the music was right on target. The show included everything one would expect in a musical about two attention-craving murderesses emerging from the 1920s jazz scene. These fiery characters, Roxie Hart (Bianca Marroqu?n) and Velma Kelly (Brenda Braxton), are based on two real women who were accused of murdering their husbands in 1924. Roxie, an aspiring Vaudeville performer, and Velma, already a diva in the Vaudeville scene, are both sent to jail. There, they compete for the public's attention and sympathy, each woman hoping that her own trial will inspire more headlines and create a bigger stir than her rival's trial. With the help of their cunning but shamelessly dishonest defense lawyer, Roxie and Velma develop schemes to prove their (false) innocence and emerge from the ordeal as newly crowned queens of the Vaudeville stage. Vibrant dance and song dramatize the action and the characters' fantasies each step of the way. The play is actually a comment on the superficiality of American values and the ease with which the press and the judicial system can be manipulated through smoke and mirrors. If you put on a good show, you can get away with murder, says the play. And that's just what Roxie Hart and Velma Kelly did.To cleverly remind the audience that this was all an act, the orchestra members were on the stage itself, sitting in a multi-level, gold-framed box above the actors. At times, actors entered the stage from underneath, rising through the center of this orchestra box. Actors also engaged the conductor - Roxie gave him a newspaper to read, for example - as a way of tying the orchestra into the plot and demonstrating that jazz and music were at the center of the characters' lives and were ultimately their moral corruption. This orchestra box constituted nearly the entire set, save a ladder on each side of the stage and a few sporadic chairs. Thus the focal point at any given time was the actors and their bawdy, mesmerizing dancing.The actors were scantily clad in black; the men wore sheer shirts and tight pants, while the women accentuated their figures with leotards, thongs, short skirts and bras. Lines, textures and patterns crisscrossed in lingerie frenzy. The all-black ambience added a layer of alluring sophistication, as wearing all black is usually faux pas. Though a row each of red, yellow and green lights shone from each side of the stage throughout the production, color did not take a prominent role until the second act. Just prior to Roxie's trial, during the number "Razzle Dazzle," red and purple lights illuminated the actors as glitter sprinkled down from the ceiling. This showcased the crazy, yet impressive contortions of the actors' bodies as they rhythmically layered themselves into evocative positions, drawing attention to the song's message that Roxie's trial was a spectacle more than it was a legal proceeding. In groups, they intertwined their limbs and reached through open spaces in a mass of lust. In one dance move, a row of actors lay on their stomachs, lifted themselves up on their arms and then slid down to the ground in a backwards-arching wave. In another, a man held a woman upside-down by her thighs with his face dangerously close to her "womanhood."A row of gold lights then descended on the stage to begin Roxie's trial. This was accompanied by a large American flag that appeared devoid of color. It is interesting to note that amidst this long-awaited burst of color, the flag, a symbol of American ideals and purity, consisted only of gray tones. This implies that in "Chicago," glamour and hype overpowered all else.A rare instance of visual contrast in the first act occurred during the song "All I Care About," featuring the womanizing defense attorney Billy Flynn (Gregory Harrison) surrounded by admiring women. The women each held two large white round feathers, which they used to fan and encircle Billy. At one point, the women surrounded Billy completely with their feathers, leaving only his head visible to the audience. He laughed pleasurably as if he was being "pleasured" underneath.By far, the show's strongest asset was its choreography and dancing. The dancers pulled off complex moves, including lifts, leaps, kicks and turns, all in sync. Even abrupt movements flowed together with a sort of grace. The dancing was extremely erotic - hips, butts and breasts all jutted and strutted with confidence and power. In each number, the dancers flaunted their sexuality in a new in-your-face manner so that the entire show was driven by their libidos. Their movements were bold and outward, with hands and fingers pulsing away from their bodies.In contrast, the second-to-last number, "Hot Honey Rag," which featured the original Bob Fosse choreography, was more inward in nature. Roxie and Velma bent down with each step and crossed their arms in front of them, instead of thrusting up and out as they had done earlier. This was fitting for their Vaudeville duo debut, as their steps seemed reminiscent of those performed by 1920s flappers.Despite the spectacular dancing, the actors' talent was unbalanced. Marroquin, as Roxie, was not as innocent as one might expect, but had a bubbly schoolgirl energy. This eagerness made her convincing in her obsession with fame and the lengths she would go to attain it. While singing, she occasionally revealed her more feisty side and took on a guttural and throaty tone. Braxton, as Velma, conveyed power in the form of sass and haughtiness, though she was not threatening at all. This was a very different interpretation than the one Catherine Zeta -Jones gave in the film, but it still worked. It did not seem that Velma would have retaliated with much oomph if Roxie had challenged her.Harrison was disappointing as Billy Flynn. Though he was supposedly a charmer, he didn't seem to charm the cast or the audience. His singing and dancing were proficient, but his performance was flat and lacked vim and vigor.Carol Woods played Matron "Mama" Morton, the jail-keep of the women's prison. As she belted her solo "When You're Good to Mama," her sonorous voice filled the large theater. Her spectacular vocal range became evident when she delivered a warbling finale. Unfortunately, her stage presence and her dancing fell short of the sexual potential of the song and the rest of the show. Lines like "You put in for Mama, she'll put out for you" practically beg for a striptease, but in a conservative pantsuit, Woods stood almost stationary on stage.Despite these few shortcomings, "Chicago" was radiant. The cast was motivated and exuberant, and the dancing was sleek, sensual, and supremely satisfying. So in Roxie's words, "stay away from jazz and liquor" - unless, of course, you want to see "Chicago.
(11/11/03 5:00am)
Five Union Senators have filed a Union Judiciary (UJ) case challenging the decision that a Union Constitutional amendment aimed at revamping union finances passed by a two-thirds vote. The petitioners, who named the entire Union Government as the defendant instead of Union Secretary Danny Silverman '05, who certified the vote, claim that abstain votes should have been included when calculating if the amendment received two-thirds of the vote. After the case was filed, the UJ issued a "gag order" Sunday night requesting that parties involved in the case "refrain from discussing the financial amendment in any capacity with any member of the Brandeis community."Silverman certified the vote last Wed. saying the amendment passed by a vote of 591 (76.8%) in favor to 180 (23.2%) against, with 133 abstentions. The Union Constitution states that an amendment passes if "two-thirds of the voting members of the Union vote in favor of the amendment." The petitioners, who include Union Senators Mitchel Balsam '05, Jonathan Cohen '06, Mark Samburg '07, Gabriel Reif '04 and Andrew Katz '06, claim that anyone who abstains also counts as a voting member. As a result, the petition claims that the amendment should have failed as only 65.4% of the 904 total votes were in favor of the amendment. Silverman said in an e-mail to the Justice that according to "Robert's Rules of Order," on which the Union Constitution and Bylaws are based, abstension is defined as a decision not to vote. He also said that the rules make the "clear distinction" between times when a vote requires a certain proportion of the membership as opposed to a percentage of the voting membership."In cases such as ours where only the voting membership is counted, abstains do not count in determining the total vote count," Silverman said.President of the Brandeis Orthodox Organization Yoni Goodman '04, who is not a party in the case but supports it, told the Justice in an e-mail he believes that, "there were ethical if not legal principles that were violated in the running of this election." "Though I considered filing the suite, I decided not to do so because I felt that it conflicted with other elements of campus that I am involved in," Goodman said. "The counting process needs to be examined. Hearing that others were interested in pursuing these ends I decided to pull myself from the process."Goodman said he believes that the case is important. "(It) is serving as a needed check on the office of the Union Secretary," he said. It will also "set straight the procedural question of whether or not abstentions need to be counted.""It is disturbing, but my research shows that in the past, secretaries determined vote counting policies as they pleased," Goodman said.The UJ e-mailed everyone in Union Government Sunday night notifying them of the "gag-order.""Although we realize that this will apply to a large group of people, many of whom may not view themselves as personally involved in the case, we believe that it is important that this injunction against implementation of the financial amendment, including publicity, be applied to the named defendant," the UJ's e-mail said."Because the pending case regards the legitimacy of the financial amendment, we believe that the publicity that the amendment receives at this time has the potential to unfairly affect its future," the e-mail said. "Please consider this decision to be in effect until this matter is resolved."A follow-up e-mail was later sent by the UJ after receiving "valid questions regarding the authority of the UJ.""The Union Judiciary is not the Supreme Court of the United States; we do not have jail cells or penal measures," it stated. "Consider that email a request at the behest of the UJ not to discuss the Financial Amendment with those outside the named parties in the suit. Obviously we have no means to enforce a so called "gag order" but we consider actions such as these necessary in order to ensure fair proceedings for the remainder of this matter."Justices on the UJ did not respond to the Justice's request for comment.According to Adam Herman '04, Assistant to the Union President, during his tenure as Union Secretary in 2001-2002 he only allowed for two choices on Constitutional amendments, "in-favor" and "against:" abstain wasn't an option.Last year, however, on some amendments voters were given four choices of in-favor, against, abstain or no-vote - with no vote not counting towards the total number of votes.According to Silverman, the "no-vote" option is a construct of the UNet elections system which is used during votes. He wrote in the e-mail that "the system in no way conforms to the Union Constitution or Union policy, and the labeling and tallying methods it uses are irrelevant to what we do.""It is my personal belief that abstentions should always be counted," Goodman said. "People who vote to abstain are clearly distinguishable from the students who do not log onto the system to vote. Regardless of what past policy has been, this seems most logical to me. Further, a 'no vote' option should be instituted because it would make the distinction between abstaining and not voting crystal clear.""It is clear that our Constitution does not handle elections and votes in a clear and consistent manner, and a voting review similar to what we did with finances is probably in order," Silverman said. "This case is not the correct way to go about conducting a full and fair review of the provisions of the Constitution that deal with balloting.""Just because someone disagrees with a vote doesn't mean they can just go and try to overturn the will of the voters," Silverman said. "No one has demonstrated that this vote was carried out in a way that is inconsistent with the last ten amendments and petition votes."During the vote, Goodman, in an e-mail to BOO, said that he opposes the amendment because he believes its requirement to "open some financial information to the public" would hurt the amount of money BOO receives from the Allocations Board (A-board) - which the amendment would replace with a different board named the Finance Board."I believe the vote on this amendment was fair and consistent with Union practice." Silverman said. "The Constitution was followed fully and accurately.""It is just silly to think that 'abstain' means the same as 'no' - If it meant the same thing, why would we have it? Abstain is a decision not to vote and a symbolic way of saying so," Silverman said.Union President Josh Brandfon '05 agrees. He said that he believes abstentions do not count towards the total number of "votes." However, Brandfon said he chose to abide by the UJ's "gag-order" and refused any further comment on the case. "If the court feels that there is possible harm caused by additional communication beyond the all campus e-mail, press release and web site postings, then we will abide by their request to not speak about the amendment," Brandfon said.No one from the party filing the case commented on the matter to the Justice.
(09/23/03 4:00am)
U.S. women off to flying start in World CupSunday in Washington, the U.S. national women's soccer team opened defense of their 1999 World Cup title with an impressive 3-1 victory over Sweden. American star Mia Hamm, playing on the home field of her former WUSA team (the now-defunct Washington Freedom), recorded three assists in front of 34,000 fans.The news wasn't all good for the U.S. women, however, as forward Brandi Chastain - made famous by her sports bra-enhanced celebration after the '99 championship - broke a bone in her right foot. She will miss the rest of the first round of action.With another win, the Americans will advance from Group A with either Sweden, Nigeria or North Korea.The North Koreans won't confirm or deny rumors that Kim Jong-Il is their emergency goalkeeper.Raider kicker arrested after vicious bar fightStocky Oakland Raiders kicker Sebastian Janikowski, no stranger to the inside of a jail cell, was arrested Saturday night for his involvement in a brawl at a Walnut Creek, Calif. bar. According to Monday's edition of the Contra Costa Times, the former Florida State Seminole was arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor assault, misdemeanor vandalism and being drunk in public after a fight at Slates Supper Club.Lt. Steve Skinner, who described Janikowski as being "very intoxicated," said the kicker capped off his night by shattering a number of parked car windows in the lot of the establishment.Janikowski's embarassing rap sheet is about to put the Poland-born athlete on par with the likes of O.J. Simpson, Robert Downey Jr. and former Diff'rent Strokes star Todd Bridges (who has yet to enter the California recall election).Late last December, Janikowski plead guily to a misdemeanor charge of drunken driving, receiving a $1,300 fine and three years of probation. In 2001, Janikowski faced up to five years in prison and possible deportation for his involvement in the sale of the "date-rape" druge GHB. He was acquitted.Henin-Hardenne denies rumors of dopingBelgian tennis star Justine Henin-Hardenne is losing her popularity faster than puberty-stricken former child star Haley Joel Osment. As Osment debuted in his latest bomb, "Secondhand Lions," Henin-Hardenne's rival and fellow Belgian national Kim Clijsters dropped a verbal bomb of her own, accusing the world's No. 1 of doping during the latter stages of the U.S. Open.The accusations stem from Justine's quick recovery from a gruelling three-set semifinal marathon with American Jennifer Capriati. Despite severe cramping and exhaustion following that match, and a night spent in the hospital with an intravenous drip in her arm, Henin-Hardenne took the court the next day and disposed of favored Clijsters.Upon her return to Brussels after the Open, Henin-Hardenne addressed the doping claims that were first made by Clijsters' father Leo. "I do not take any product, whatever they might be," she said, "apart from the water and other energy drinks prepared by the WTA."Justine's coach Carlos Rodriguez believes the inuendo from the Clijsters camp is motivated purely by jealousy. "Justine is better than Kim and will win more often than her," he told the Belgian daily, Le Soir. "In six months, Justine has become a different player, a lot stronger. I know that she works very hard, but she is not the only one. All players, including Kim, work on their muscular force."Haley Joel better hit the weights.
(09/23/03 4:00am)
You know how it is. It's late at night, you're with friends and that ubiquitous phrase is whispered to someone around you: "Come on, it's no big deal. Everyone does it."No, I'm not talking about sex and I'm not talking about smoking - well, at least, not in the way that people usually think about smoking. I'm talking about marijuana. Call it pot, call it dope, call it whatever you want, but it's a well-known fact that a large percentage of college students indulge in Mary Jane. We all know it happens at Brandeis and we've all heard stories about people being busted, getting kicked off campus or into a judicial hearing. Furthermore, most of us have heard stories about ridiculous jail sentences, overly harsh federal penalties, or any number of other weed-related horror stories. Lots of people smoke it, and that's an accepted fact. The real problem is how the authorities deal with pot.The U.S. government has one of the most restrictive and harshest policies on marijuana usage in the world. But this country also has one of the strongest and most vocal movements to legalize the drug, or at least decriminalize it. Although it was widely used in previous decades, Pot did not become a major American drug until the 1960s. Following those long-haired smokers are generations of intellectuals, scientists, high-school dropouts, lawyers, doctors and other respected and functioning Americans who are more than willing to take a risk to indulge in the drug. With so much apparent acceptance, why is marijuana such a legal hardship? And with all the support for decriminalization, why is the U.S. government so damn stubborn?The U.S. government has tried to be liberal before. Former president Jimmy Carter was actually a marijuana activist - as much as a president can be - before he was forced to get strict with all of his drug policies. Perhaps holding the government back are the ultra-conservative sectors of America who are ceaseless advocates of harsher drug laws. Programs like D.A.R.E. emphasize the notion that marijuana is a gateway drug by sending messages such as, "Give yourself some time to smoke pot and the next thing you know you'll be a junkie selling your body to get your next fix." The anti-drug propaganda in the United States is so extreme that you'd think a pothead is on the same level as a child molester. The criminal consequences of that propaganda reflect that overreaction as well. Under Massachusetts law, a first offense for possession of any amount of marijuana is a misdemeanor requiring six months probation (with records sealed upon completion of said probation) and a $500 fine. A second offense possession charge (again, for any amount) carries another $500 fine and another six months sentence - but not necessarily another six months on probation. That's right, if you get caught with a joint you may find yourself in jail next to real criminals for up to six months. Even worse, if you're caught with paraphernalia, you can be charged with a felony and receive up to two years in prison and $5,000 in fines. And if you sell paraphernalia to a minor, your sentence is practically doubled; up to five years in prison and a fine of at least $1,000. It's important to remember that this is just based on the word "paraphernalia" -- a word that could be construed by the police and the court system to mean just about anything that can be used to suction smoke in the direction of your mouth. No wonder everyone is so scared.Selling is even more dangerous. In Massachusetts, selling less than 50 pounds is a felony that can get you two years in jail and a mandatory $5,000 fine. Any larger amount carries at least a mandatory minimum one-year prison sentence. And remember, this doesn't even include penalties for cultivation. Surprisingly, Massachusetts is a very liberal state. In Maryland, on the other hand, possession of any amount of marijuana brings with it one year in jail. In Washington D.C., the possession fine is doubled, and sale of any amount gets you a year in jail - mandatory. If you sell to a minor or within 1000 feet of a school your sentence is doubled every time. Now, you can argue that with such obvious precedents in place, people should just stop using, stop selling and stop getting in trouble. The problem with that argument is it's not going to happen. Ever. Besides the fact that most people who use marijuana on a regular basis use it because they like what it does to them, a lot of people have also built it into their lives. Many living in poverty sell marijuana to keep themselves afloat. And while that particular aspect of the marijuana debate begs for discussion of civil services and the question of why such a rich country can't even feed its own people, it also begs the question of whether anything is being changed for the better by taking every offender - no matter how small- and throwing him in jail. Upon release, dealers' situations have often deteriorated, and they have to go back to selling drugs again. They aren't taught any skills or given any training to better their lives, and the fact that they've been in jail and now have a record can do irreparable damage to any efforts to get their lives back on track. And on top of all of that, it is massively expensive to put someone in jail - $129 million is spent on prison operation and upkeep annually, according to a Washington Post article.Talking about legalization or decriminalization, however, is often met by strong reactions induced by fear. What if decriminalization leads to massive marijuana use? What if decriminalization causes kids to turn to harder, more dangerous drugs? These fears are not unfounded, especially based on American propaganda, but the truth is not nearly as worrisome as our doubts are. In a 1999 study by the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM), the researchers stated that, "In sum, there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use." Similarly the Connecticut Law Review Commission found that "...reducing the penalties for marijuana has virtually no effect on either choice or frequency of use of alcohol or illegal 'harder' drugs such as cocaine." Furthermore, a 1989 study published in the Journal of Health found that "On the other hand, the so-called 'decriminalization' measures did result in substantial savings in the criminal justice system."We know decriminalization can work. Large parts of Canada and the United Kingdom have decriminalized pot without negative consequences and marijuana has been happily and safely legal in Amsterdam for years. So why won't America budge? Are we so stubborn and so unwilling as a country to admit that we were wrong in our perceptions that we will continue to harm our own people and our own society in an effort to prove that marijuana is the enemy? Are we so blind to the hurt and pain our policies are causing that we will continue to chip away at our cultural stability? Our marijuana laws don't just hinder a good Friday night, they also tear away at the foundations of our society by unjustly and unfairly harming the lives of our own citizens. And that needs to change.
