(11/26/02 5:00am)
Films released at this time of year often contain holiday overtones, but probably none like those in "Friday After Next," the latest extension of the Ice Cube-driven "Friday" series. Continuing in the tradition of "Friday" and "Next Friday," this movie brings another hour and a half of slapstick comedy to the screen, and at a base level, differs quite little from its predecessors. Still, there are some new qualities in this recent installment of a low-budget and highly profitable franchise, and the audience of the advance screening laughed the entire night. Ice Cube and Mike Epps return to their respective characters Craig and Day-Day Jones, two lazy men -- cousins, to be exact -- in their 20s. At the start of the picture, they have moved out of the suburbs where they spent the events of "Next Friday," and back to south central Los Angeles, where they share an apartment at the Shady Palms housing complex.With Christmas just around the corner, they are robbed clean by a masked Santa Claus, who takes everything in sight, including the all-important rent money. Of course, this robbery happens overnight between Thursday and Friday, setting up another end-of-the-week adventure for the two as they must attempt to break free of a tenant's worst dilemma.In their first attempt to retrieve the money, Ice Cube, of all people, who a decade ago rapped "Fuck the Police," calls the police. There is a humorous sequence between Craig and Day-Day and the cops, in which the director exaggerates the authorities' general disregard for the victims and for a very healthy marijuana plant. Following this disappointment, the unlucky Jones cousins are visited by their grizzly, mustached, landlady (Bebe Drake of "Space Jam"), who threatens them with the wrath of Damon, her over muscled and ill-tempered brute of a son. Fearing for their lives and desperate to reclaim their belongings, Craig and Day-Day finally get jobs -- as strip mall security guards.Once they are at the mall, the film becomes a nonstop sequence of slapstick antics for the security guards. Epps' portrayal is not surprising: Day-Day is foolish and abuses any imagined power that comes with strip mall protection. Cube, who once again serves as writer and producer, makes Craig believably intelligent in this film. A few other characters return from past "Fridays," most notably Craig and Day-Day's fathers (John Witherspoon of "Little Nicky" and Don "DC" Curry, respectively), who now own a barbecue restaurant with the tag line, "Tastes so good, it makes you want to slap your Momma!" Unfortunately for their mothers, the slogan rings true.A few more characters are introduced at the mall, including Moly (standup comedian Maz Jobrani), the mall owner and proprietor of a filthy doughnut shop, Money Mike (Katt Williams, another comedian), a diminutive clothing retailer in full pimp garb, and an attractive woman named Donna (K.D. Aubert of "The Scorpion King") who quickly becomes Craig's object of desire. With the exception of two or three, the characters are purposefully over-exaggerated, a technique that works only to a certain point. After the cousins leave the strip mall and return to the apartment, the humor slows down, but fortunately the movie is nearly over at this point, when a climactic holiday party ensues.These characters are by no means complex, and the jokes are mostly stupid and lowbrow. But, most of Ice Cube's script works, despite the minimalist plot. By the end of the film, the viewer has almost forgotten the missing rent money. Nevertheless, the audience ate up almost all of the humor, and never seemed to care about the blatantly gaping plot holes. "Friday After Next" isn't good, but it isn't necessarily horrible. As I said at the beginning, the movie is just simple holiday entertainment.
(11/26/02 5:00am)
Both administrative policy and student opinion indicate that Brandeis is a relatively inhospitable environment for smokers. A report by the American Lung Association (ALA) indicates that smoking is most prevalent among people between the ages of 18 and 24, with 27.9 percent smoking. A 1998 study, reported in the Los Angeles Times, showed that college smoking had risen 28 percent from 1993 to 1997. But, according to a recent poll conducted by the Justice, Brandeis students have a predominantly negative attitude toward the habit. Out of 666 voters, 86 percent said they did not smoke, and a majority specifically defined it as "disgusting."Brandeis changes approach to smokingDespite, or perhaps in reaction to, the upward trend in the number of college smokers, Brandeis has implemented a more restrictive policy toward smoking during the last decade. Assistant Dean of Student Life Alwina Bennett explained that approximately 10 years ago, Brandeis University President Sam Their began a two to three year movement toward restricting both the sale of cigarettes and the areas designated for smoking. According to Bennett, Their was prompted by frequent complaints about smoking in residence halls. Around that time, Residence Life conducted a survey of participants in the housing lottery on their views towards smoking. The results indicated that an overwhelming number of students were uncomfortable with smoking in their dorms. The results of the survey and an acknowledgment of a lack of sufficient ventilation led Residence Life to ban smoking in residence halls. The measure was first enforced only in freshman dorms but the policy was eventually extended to upperclassmen as well.Bennett said she correlates the anti-smoking sentiments on campus with the emergence of information about the dangers of second-hand smoke. She said the consequent changes in policy were essentially triggered and enforced by students, adding they were a "result of what the students want."Their continued to expand the restrictions on smoking and declared the interior of all buildings on campus smoke-free. Dean of Student Life Rick Sawyer recalled some of the areas where smoking was allowed, including "lounges in the student center, lobby areas of Spingold, athletic facilities and private faculty offices." A designated area in the Boulevard was the most prominent place for student smoking. According to Bennett, this area was made smoke-free mostly due to student complaints. She said as a result of non-compliance, some students were referred for judicial action.To be consistent with the policy of smoke-free interiors, Sawyer said Their made the decision to "refrain from making cigarettes available for sale on campus. The bookstore was asked to discontinue selling, and the vendor at the time was asked to remove all cigarette machines." Bennett said Their was "shocked that we were selling cigarettes on campus," and deemed it "irresponsible" on the part of the administration.While many colleges also have explicit restrictions on smoking in campus buildings, the policies are often more lenient. For example, Tufts prohibits smoking only in most buildings. New York University allows smoking in offices and sets aside designated smoking areas. Harvard also has designated smoking areas and allows smoking in private offices with an independent ventilation system.Current policy elicits mixed student opinionA prevalent force behind the decade old change in Brandeis' smoking policy was student opinion. Today, many non-smokers say they support the current regulations. Kate Brophy '06, a non-smoker, said "people should have a right to smoke, just not at the expense of other people's health or comfort."Gabe Reif '04, also a non-smoker, said "students here pay nearly $30,000 a year, and should have the choice to avoid cigarette smoke." Bennett said "it is no longer socially acceptable to smoke indoors, and whenever the rights of smokers and non-smokers conflict, the rights of non-smokers are supreme." Arven Saunders '05, a smoker, said he is sympathetic to the preferential treatment of his non-smoking peers. "Some people don't smoke and you have to respect their feelings." Although he pointed out the ease of adapting limited areas of residence halls to the needs of smokers, Saunders said, "It's not a big deal. Smokers can just go outside," facetiously adding, "I guess they tend to be lazy."Leo Dorfman '04, also a smoker, said, "while I'm not thrilled by Brandeis' smoking policy, I can understand the reasons. From what I understand, insurance is lower for non-smoking dorms as they are less likely to ignite." But, like Saunders, he too expressed some discontent. "Some people consider the 20 feet from the building rule a license to be rude to smokers and that is unacceptable," he said. "There are enough smokers on this campus to warrant some sort of facilities to make smokers more comfortable, especially in the winter."Attitude towards the habit of smokingAccording to Sawyer, as in "all of America at one time, smoking was pretty much tolerated and accepted (at Brandeis)." Due to an increase in medical information and health consciousness, Bennett said that now, "smoking has become less socially acceptable. While a lot of young people are still smokers, only a handful of people identify themselves as such."Statistics from the ALA support these assertions. They indicate that smoking rates among all age demographics have steadily declined since 1963, when evidence that smoking poses health risks began to circulate, until the 1990s. The total percentage of smokers in 1990 was 40 percent less than it was in 1963. Since 1990, however, overall smoking rates have remained virtually unchanged. The Justice poll demonstrated similar results. Out of 576 voters, an overwhelming majority of 80 percent said they felt smoking today is considered less 'cool' and peer pressure is less 'strong' than it was five to ten years ago. Our attitude towards smoking is not only different from that of other generations, but also from that of other countries. Irina Ivanushkina '05 said "In America, smoking is more taboo than in Europe, and it shows because smoking is socially looked down upon." Dan Fogelman '03 studied abroad in Paris and noted that "it is not frowned upon there like it is here." But he added, "it is only a myth that everyone smokes in Europe." Bennett said that one explanation for the prevalence of smoking in other countries is a lesser emphasis on public health concerns. In reference to his native Turkey, Saul Helera '06 said, "while information about health risks from smoking is available there, people are not as conscious of it as they are here."The Justice poll indicates that health concerns are the most common reason for not smoking. Out of the 553 student voters, 57 percent said it was why they don't smoke.The opinions of many non-smokers in Brandeis voice the declining toleration of smoking particular to our country and our generation. Len Pader '05 said, "smoking is gross, and I don't understand why anyone would do it." Max Levavi '06 specified that "smoking by women is very unattractive." Josh Raffel '06 said he strongly objects to anyone smoking, adding that "because the government is forced to pay for anti-smoking advertisements and for health care caused by smoking, cigarettes are undemocratic." Jonathan Silverstein '06 went even further,and said he believes that cigarettes should be illegal. Other sudents, like Sharon Lewin '05, take an opposing view, defending the rights of students to "do to their own bodies as they please." Ivanushkina also expresses discontent at intolerance towards smoking. "For all our obsessiveness about health, there are many things that people do which aren't healthy -- like drinking -- yet they focus on smoking as the great evil which is unfair to those of us who like it."Despite the wide range of perspectives on smoking, the issue seems to have caused very little animosity between individuals or groups on campus. "Smoking in general is not a very big issue here," Reif said. Aaron Gorodetzer '03 said "smoking seems to be no more or less prevalent here than elsewhere in the U.S., and people generally accept it how it is." Jonathan Schwartz '06 sums up the atmosphere on campus by pointing out that "Brandeis is all about mutual respect, and smokers and non-smokers alike generally uphold this spirit by honoring the wishes and rights of others around them.
(10/22/02 4:00am)
To the Editor:I find myself once again rocked by the extent of the power of ignorance. Evan Lerner's '04 column, "Not pro-choice or pro-life: Pro-abortion," struck me in a very painful place. I am pro-life and can defend my position with both secular and religious arguments. Since I became interested enough to research the topic a few years ago, I have seen many interesting essays on the topic of abortion. In summer 2001, an op-ed piece appeared in the New York Times that asked why a woman can make the choice to not support a fetus whereas a man cannot. I've heard arguments based in rabbinic law claiming that abortion is not immoral because a fetus cannot sustain its own life for a reasonable period of time. I even once heard the (extremely worrisome) argument that an abortion is immoral because it defies a woman's natural place as vessel for man's seed. But, Lerner's position that we should support abortion as a means of population control is perhaps the most outrageous that I have ever heard. The position does not seem to be grounded in either conservative or liberal politics, but rather a simplistic view of the future and an uncontrollable urge to "piss off some religious-types." Simplified, Lerner's argument reads that the world is overcrowded and has limited resources, and the only way to ensure reasonable survival of the species therefore becomes to tell people to abort their fetuses unless they can promise a life without poverty or struggle. Similar arguments were made by believers of eugenics in America 80 years ago and by the Nazi Party 20 years later. What a beautiful dream Lerner has. Imagine a world where only the fit and the elite survive, taking the most from life, not needing to give their "hard-earned" money to support welfare mothers, not needing to watch thousands dying of hunger, not needing to watch precious natural resources squandered on the unworthy.It sometimes worries me that I never saw a pre-Reagan America. I do not know what America was like in the days before the era of self-indulgence and justified egotism. What I do know is that I am tired of hearing what people are "entitled" to, the attitude akin to,"If I'm rich it's because I've earned it; if you suffer in poverty it's only because you haven't worked as hard as I did and how dare you ask me for another handout."Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I would ask Lerner to look deep within himself and ask why he has taken a position of sheltered ignorance. What he's advocated is murder. The world is too crowded; let's kill those who cannot appreciate it the way that you or even I, in our hard-earned positions of luxury: Unborn fetuses, the homeless, the old, inhabitants of overcrowded Third World nations, the mentally-challenged, the physically-handicapped, the money-grubbing Jews, the eternally lazy African-Americans, the job-stealing Asian-Americans, the sabotaging Liberals - the "not me." Genocide is a dangerous way to start thinking. It doesn't worry me that Lerner doesn't have a uterus and is making this argument; it worries me that he doesn't flinch in the face of mass-murder and is making this argument.-- Dave Firestein '05
(10/22/02 4:00am)
Mark Dunn'Ella Minnow Pea: A Novel In Letters'Anchor BooksGrade: A-The Greek comedic writer, Aristophanes once said, "High thoughts must have high language." While this may seem a senesced reference, its significance is alive and well in Mark Dunn's October release, "Ella Minnow Pea: A Novel In Letters." Whereas it is within any author's job description to have an ample vocabulary, Dunn's command of the English language is on proud display in this book. In this case, the ancient quote is circular. Language, and its overlooked but significant role in our lives, is the subject of his high thoughts as well as the vehicle for them.The book is set on the fictional island nation of Nollop, off the coast of South Carolina, where the English-speaking natives are a highly literate lot with a "devotion to liberal arts education and scholarship, effectively elevating language to a national art form . " The island's very peculiar name is in honor of Nevin Nollop, who penned the famously terse pangram, "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." The residents so worship this man of letters that in the capital city of Nollopton stands a statue commemorating him.The inhabitants of this island avoid technology the way some Brandeis professors do, and therefore take advantage of their articulacy communicating via the good old-fashioned, hand-written letter. Many letters in fact. Mind you this book is placed in present day Nollop, despite a certain initial semblance to the Victorian period. The book is an epistolary novel, or in other words, the story is revealed through the frequent written discourse between residents. Our protagonists are Ella Minnow Pea and her cousin Tassie Purcy, both in their late teens, who reveal through an almost daily correspondence the events as they unfurl in Nollop. You may be pondering what noteworthy events could happen in this seemingly paradisiacal but invented world, and further, how this could possibly merit a book, nevermind a book review. Worry not, the first pages are the last unblemished moments in Nollop. Directly under the statue of the island nation's hero is his celebrated phrase in ceramic letters, and the letter 'z' has fallen from the phrase. While some of the residents consider this a trivial incident, the governing council decides it is Mr. Nollop communicating from the grave, and ascertains that the fallen letter was meant to be stricken from the alphabet. Since the letter is such an easy one to avoid, few people protest, including Ella and Tassie even when excessive punishments are put in place to enforce the new decree, the third offense resulting in either banishment from the island or execution. A few denizens commit first offenses, but no one visibly objects. Then another letter falls, and another after that. With each successive absent letter, the council deleteriously edits the nation's alphabet. The girls' letters become less eloquent, residents begin to worry and some plan action. It is here that the scenario becomes intriguing. To go any further into the story would be to spoil the pleasure of reading it, but in the end the book becomes an extremely witty metaphor for what happens when freedoms are slowly taken away, and how inconspicuous limitations can be dangerous to a nation's citizenry. We watch an idealized culture degrade into one we hope to avoid, however benign the diminutive fictional nation may seem. Despite this very serious topic, the book is written in a light enough manner so as to allow the reader to enjoy the sometimes silly word choices or inventions Ella and Tassie use in their letters as the language deflates. Also important to note about this novel is the genuine ease in reading it. The varied vocabulary may sound daunting, but Dunn is very skilled at using language instructively rather than obstructively. It is a highly recommended, swift, fun and thought provoking book for anyone who appreciates language.Mark Dunn will be at Newtonville Books in Newtonville this Thursday at 7:30 p.m.
(10/15/02 4:00am)
It seems that for the second week in a row, Evan Lerner and I are butting heads over something he's written in this paper. I should probably make it clear that this is not a personal thing and I'm pretty sure I don't even know who Mr. Lerner is. That said, I find myself once again rocked by the extent of the power of ignorance. Mr. Lerner's Column "Not pro-choice or pro-life: Pro-abortion" struck me in a very painful place. I am pro-life and can defend my position with both secular and religious arguments. Since I became interested enough to research the topic a few years ago, I've seen many interesting essays on the topic of abortion. In the summer of 2001, an Op-Ed piece appeared in the New York Times which asked the question why a woman can make the choice to not support a fetus whereas a man cannot. I've heard arguments based in rabbinic law claiming that abortion is not immoral because a fetus cannot sustain its own life for a reasonable period of time. I even once heard the (extremely worrisome) argument that an abortion is immoral because it defies a woman's natural place as vessel for man's seed. However, Mr. Lerner's position that we should support abortion as a means of population control is perhaps the most outrageous that I've ever heard. The position does not seem to be grounded in either conservative or liberal politics, but rather a simplistic view of the future and an uncontrollable urge to "piss off some religious-types." Simplified, Mr. Lerner's argument reads that the world is overcrowded and has limited resources. Therefore, the only way to ensure reasonable survival of the species becomes to tell people to abort their fetuses unless they can promise a life without poverty or struggle. Similar arguments were made by believers of eugenics in America 80 years ago and by the Nazi Party 20 years later. What a beautiful dream Mr. Lerner has. Imagine a world where only the fit and the elite survive, taking the most from life, not needing to give their "hard-earned" money to support welfare mothers, not needing to watch thousands dying of hunger, not needing to watch precious natural resources squandered on the unworthy.It worries me sometimes that I never saw a pre-Reagan America. I don't know what America was like in the days before the era of self-indulgence and justified egotism. What I do know is that I'm tired of hearing what people are "entitled" to; If I'm rich it's because I've earned it; If you suffer in poverty it's only because you haven't worked as hard as I did and how dare you ask me for another handout. Mr. Lerner, everyone is entitled to an opinion but I would ask you to look deep within yourself and ask why for the second week in a row, you've returned to a position of sheltered ignorance. What you've advocated is murder. The world is too crowded, let's kill those who can't appreciate it the way that you or even I, in our hard-earned positions of luxury: unborn fetuses, the homeless, the old, inhabitants of overcrowded third-world nations, the mentally-challenged, the phyisically-handicapped, the money grubbing Jews, the eternally lazy African-Americans, the job stealing Asian-Americans, the sabotaging Liberals, the not me. Genocide is a dangerous way to start thinking. It doesn't worry me that you don't have a uterus and are making this argument, it worries me that you don't flinch in the face of mass-murder and are making this argument.
(10/08/02 4:00am)
Several times during the school year, Brandeis students elect representatives who advocate on their behalf. According to the Student Union Secretary Ana Yoselin Bugallo '03, however, "In the most popular election, only a quarter (about 800) of the students vote." This turnout, she said, has been the trend in recent years. In the Student Union presidential elections, nearly 800 votes were cast in both 2001 and 2002. "Presidential elections generate the highest turnout, while Senate elections fall far behind," Bugallo said. In light of this observation, Brandeis boasted a higher voter turnout in this September's quad senator elections than in the past few years. Seven-hundred and sixty two students voted in total, compared to last year's 536. First-years vote most often. Approximately 400 students live in each of the first-year residence quads and of these, 221 voted in the Massell Quad Senator election, and 200 in the North Quad Senator election. This 50 percent turnout exceeds the level of voting campus-wide. Bugallo attributes the lack of participation mostly to "voter apathy and misinformation." As stated in a survey conducted by Youth Vote Coalition in July 2002, the three primary reasons that young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 do not vote is because: They do not care (19 percent), they believe that voting doesn't matter or make a difference (13 percent), or they are not informed (11 percent). Len Pader '05 supported Bugallo's hypothesis. When asked if he voted this fall, he responded, "I meant to, but I forgot." On the whole, he added, "Teenagers are preoccupied with other things." Laziness was also a commonly cited reason for not voting, although no one was willing to owe up to this statement. To counteract the apathy of students, the Student Union recently moved to online voting. This is the third year that people have been able to vote online.Some people say they feel even though voting has moved to online, people still feel indifferent to the Brandeis elections, and feel more aware of national politics."I think the (national) government makes a difference; on the Brandeis level, people aren't as concerned," Pader said.David Groman '03, affirmed this view. "People are apprehensive about voting at Brandeis because they don't see any direct rewards or results from the student government." Groman said he believes the Student Union "does not represent a diverse sample of the student body."Skye Morse '03, offered another perspective. "Things aren't so bad here," he said, explaining that we don't have an urgent need to vote. "I still vote," he said, "but I don't really put much stock in it."Morse recalled that a few years ago, students wanted Brandeis to charter buses into Boston. In Morse's memory, more students voted then, because "there were things they really wanted." Extending this idea to the national sphere, Morse said he feels that for many college students, especially those at Brandeis, "again, things are pretty good." "Teenagers make up a large part of consumer society. Everyone has their cell phone and IMac. If we were really pressed, people would be more inclined to vote," Morse added. "Whether we elect a Republican or a Democrat, our daily lives won't radically change. That's a good thing," Groman said. These remarks are consistent with facts gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau: Thirty-six percent of 18 to 24 year-olds voted in the November 2000 election, the lowest percentage of all the age groups. There was a sharp increase to a 50.5 percent turnout in the 25 to 34 age range. The small numbers in Brandeis elections, however place a greater emphasis on the individual vote. "Brandeis voting is a good first step, a good way to introduce yourself to the democratic process . With only 700 votes, you can see that your vote really counts," Noah Cohen '05 said. For example, in this fall's East Quad Senator election, Andrei Khots '05 defeated Bryan Kurtzberg '05 by only three votes; the count was 74 to 71.Bugallo said she does not feel there is a particular demographic of Brandeis student who votes. "I think at one point or another, every student has an investment in Student Union, whether it be through his or her club, quad, or class." She said she does wish for more consistent turnout. "It would be wonderful if as many people voted as went to Pachanga every semester.
(10/01/02 4:00am)
I used to think I was a good driver. Then, last Tuesday, I came to question what had before seemed an innate ability. It took me an hour-and-a-half to find my way from Exit 18 of the Massachusetts Turnpike to 13 Lansdowne St., a scant few miles away. The more I think about it, however, the less I blame myself for this absurd waste of time, and the more I blame the city of Boston, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Bostonians in general.I don't mean to vilify an entire regional grouping of hard-working, patriotic Americans, but I think it is safe to say that, the majority of these otherwise fantastic people have no idea where anything is. I mean, how else can you explain a native Bostonian responding to my asking where Lansdowne Street is - at the time, three blocks away - with, "Ummm . pop a U-ey, go a few blocks, and it's a left and a right." Maybe these vague bits and pieces of directions mean something somewhere on this planet, but where I'm from, those kind of directions are usually interpreted by the less naive citizen as, "I have some sense of where it is, but I am much to lazy to tell you."It seems that to the average Bostonian, actually leading someone to his destination is not the most important part of the response to a confused out-of-town driver. I once asked someone how to get back to Waltham from some other remote Boston suburb. The man kindly responded that Brandeis' location was called "Walthaaam," and not what I had mistakenly said, "Walthum." After correcting my inexcusable mistake, he very helpfully gave me completely useless directions; I guess I was asking for it.Remembering that day, I am now considering the possibility that all those Bostonians I asked where Lansdowne Street was -- all within a five-block radius of it -- who had no idea where it was, had an alternative motive in leading me astray. More and more, I ask myself, "Was it my friend's New York license plate that made them want to give me bad directions? Are they that bitter?" I think so.I've done better with directions when driving with my own New Jersey plates. I guess I've fooled them into believing New Jersey is a different state from New York. Everyone knows there are no Yankees fans in Jersey. But, I nevertheless have gotten to my destination with a little more ease when Bostonians can separate my identity from the many failures of their home team.On three separate occasions, I have indeed found my way with a little help from the locals. Of course, on each of these Massachusetts driving adventures, the kind people who answered my difficult driving queries, such as, "Do you know where Blockbuster is?" or "Could you tell me how to get to the Mass Pike?" tried very hard to explain how to guide my car to these destinations, but in the end, all three decided it would be easier to lead me by letting me follow their own cars.I am certainly thankful for the magnanimity of Massachusetts residents, but I have never been to a place where people have thought it easier to put their own lives on hold for a minute, and in one case, half an hour, just so they don't have to give directions.The kindest of the three whom I followed to wherever I was heading was a postman, who led me back to Brandeis after I had gone astray. He had started to give me some pretty decent directions when the whole explanation came down crashing. "You'll see a big sign for the Mass Pike as you drive, which you can't miss," he told me, and I listened intently, making a mental note not to forget the Pike. "Ignore it! Pretend it doesn't exist, and go right by it!" I knew this was going to get ugly. The postman tried to regroup, but to no avail. He decided to take a lunch break and spend half of it leading me home.I thought to myself, "what a damn nice guy." But, let's face it. The man just couldn't give directions if his life depended on it. Luckily, Bostonians and residents of greater Boston are some of the nicest people I've ever encountered on the East Coast, and whatever direction-giving deficiencies they may have, they will do what they can to get you where you're going. Bad directions, like bad baseball, are a part of the culture of this region, and those of us not from this region should really just accept it. I have come to the conclusion that bad directions in Boston are like bad food in England: One must appreciate it, if one wants to understand the place. When a Bostonian responds to your request for directions to the nearest gas station with, "turn left at the house with the shattered window two blocks and a left up the street," accept it as part of a well-rounded Brandeis education. We are here to learn more than science.- Matthew Bettinger '05 submits a column to the Justice
(08/27/02 4:00am)
After a six month absence of headlining shows in their native United States, The Strokes embarked on a mini-tour with the White Stripes for four days of music in Detroit and New York City. Playing co-headlining sets for two consecutive nights in each band's hometown, The Strokes and the White Stripes created much havoc amongst longtime fans and newcomers who scrambled for the precious tickets. On August 14 the bands played Irving Plaza and on August 15 they played the legendary Radio City Music Hall, both in New York City.Although both shows sold out within minutes of the public sale, the audience at the two shows were significantly different. For Wednesday night's show at Irving Plaza, the 1,100 capacity crowd crammed into the small club venue on a hot, steamy evening. The entire balcony was closed for VIP only. The White Stripes, comprised of guitarist/keyboardist Jack White and drummer Meg White played an hour long set consisting mostly of songs from their first two albums. The set included personal favorite "We're Going To Be Friends" off their new album "White Blood Cells" and the Dolly Parton cover, "Jolene." Dressed in their peppermint candy-motif of red and white, the two Whites, in jovial moods, seamlessly played song after song of blues-inspired garage-rock. Much to the surprise of the audience, the Stripes did not play their radio hit "Fell In Love With A Girl," a gutsy move that seemed to suggest the band either relied heavily on a strict fan base at the show or the success of the song was an annoyance to this commercially shy band. The Strokes took the stage shortly after the Stripes, with lead singer Julian Casablancas wobbling onstage on crutches. Casablancas had injured his knees several weeks before, causing the Strokes to pull out of their opening gig for Weezer. Despite the ailment, Casablancas explained to the audience that it had been a dream of the band to play Irving Plaza, and the show would go on, even if he had to sit through the evening. Indeed, for the rest of the night, Casablancas, as he did for the earlier Detroit shows, perched on a stool in front of his microphone, moving between songs to reach for his beer or cigarettes. The band played a blasting set of nearly every song off platinum debut album, "Is This It," excluding "When It Started." In its place was "New York City Cops," a track that was pulled from the album immediately after the World Trade Center tragedy because it contains offensive lyrics about New York City police. In the recovering atmosphere of the city, the audience gladly welcomed the banned track which includes blistering guitar solos from guitarist Nick Valensi. The group also played four new songs, the two better ones being "You Talk Way Too Much" and "Ze Newie." The latter, in particular, has an outstanding and catchy hook in tune with typical Strokes fashion. The chorus features Casablancas repeating "I never needed anybody / I never needed anybody / I never needed nobody" over and over again. The new songs run in the same musical vein as the highly popular tracks off "Is This It." Throughout the show, the audience remained highly energetic, as some audience members standing at the front proved with visible bruises and hoarse voices post-show. The following night at Radio City was less brutal for the crowd. The 6,000 capacity seated venue with its grandeur and elegance lent an awkward setting for a night of New York garage music. Half of the crowd showed up in stilettos or polished shoes, while the other half came in ragged T-shirts and sneakers. The White Stripes took the stage first again, playing a slight variation of their Irving set. Jack White heartily thanked his tour-mates for the opportunity to play in the historical venue, and rewarded the packed and standing audience with a one-song encore. After the set, a murmur swept through the confused crowd who were clearly waiting for the radio hit, which was not delivered again. Still, many came away from the Stripes' set thoroughly impressed. The Strokes began their set with new song "The Way It Is," and played the same tracks as the previous night, though in a different order. The band managed to keep the attention span of everyone from the hardcore fans to the society girls who were there to be seen, though most of the crowd barely moved despite the set's bouncy energy.Once again from his stool with a small table for beer and cigarettes next to it, Casablancas sang in his signature lazy monotone while his band members jammed behind him. Hypnotizing with either his guitar playing spasms or his Muppet-like hair wafting in the wind, guitarist Albert Hammond, Jr. outshone his fellow band members. Casablancas marvelled about playing at the venue, in which he claimed he had never been, and then for the finale, the band invited Jack White onstage. White rushed on with his guitar and plugged in during the intro of a mind-blowing "New York City Cops," sharing guitar solos with Valensi. After the ender, the White Stripes joined the Strokes for a bow to the appreciative yet mellowed audience, hugging each other like triumphant heroes. Casablancas, leaning on Meg White for support, threw down one crutch and hobbled offstage. Indeed, the sold out shows were a triumph - for the musical underdogs that The Strokes and the Stripes have been for so long, for the return of New York rock and for the new age of young garage bands. At last, the downfall of the teen pop band.Michael Twarog '03 contributed to this article.
(05/28/02 4:00am)
Hey what's goin on Justice person,I just read Victoria Wong's letter, and all I gotta say is, right on, right on. I too am asian (vietnamese). I don't play tennis. I don't play piano. I am not going to become a doctor, and I don't eat my meals on the "yellow corner". I actually play lacrosse, hockey, and basketball. I am a drummer. Oh yeah, fuck being a doctor, graphic design is my thing. Although I have a lot of asian friends at Brandeis, I still maintain my individuality and I always do my own thing. I don't and will not get upset over matters such as the "Men's Room" incident. Clearly those guys never read a book on class, but whateva, to each their own. Anyways, I am only writtin this cuz I looked up Victoria Wong in the dircetory to write her an email in reply to her article but I couldn't find it...so I was wonderring if you guys could somehow fwd this to her or give me her email address. I've been meaning to write something for the Justice along the lines of Vickie's letter, but I'm lazy.thankstamp.s: (I don't want this published)
