Vo l u m e I I I , N u m b e r X X I V
Celebrating The Precious Human Tapestry
April 3, 2009
Before the voyage to America, a journey inwards
BY MAXWELL PRICE
Editor
There’s a moment towards
the end of “Philadelphia, Here I
Come!” in which Adam Patterson
’11, playing the human embodiment of protagonist Gar’s subconscious (referred to as his private
self), advised his public counterpart, played by Patrick Donworth
‘12 to roll his mental video camera. It’s a nifty metaphor, for we’ve
all experienced that sensation of
trying to preserve a memory that
we will replay in our minds over
and over again. Likewise, we can
view Irish dramatist Brian Friel’s
play as a rare opportunity to
watch a screening of that internal
home movie through which we
experience not only remembered
actions and words from one character’s point of view, but also his
personal thoughts and feelings.
Yet just as an old copy of a VHS
tape inevitably comes with its distortions and imperfections, BET’s
production of the play, directed by Cassie Seinuk ‘09 showed
some blemishes. Nevertheless, the
power of the material itself was
conveyed with enough sincerity
PHOTO courtesy of Jordan Warsoff
FINAL GOODBYES: Public Gar (Patrick Donworth ‘12, right) struggles to communicate with his father (Ernest Leon Paulin ‘09,
center) one the eve of his departure, while the embodiment of his private self (Adam Patterson ‘11, left) runs wild.
and earnestness that it wasn’t too
difficult to see through the rough
patches.
The play details the final evening and morning before Gar,
a conflicted yet hopeful young
man from a small Irish village
sets forth for the promised land
of…Philadelphia. The symbolic significance of the “New
World” and its bold, surging
vitality in contrast to the “Old
World” of drudgery and tradition
makes Gar’s move all the more
meaningful. Gar lives with his
estranged father, played by Ernest
Leon Paulin ’09 and housekeeper
Madge, played by Vicki Schairer
‘09. In the last remaining hours
before his departure we learn of
Gar’s struggles through a series of
“You’re Just a Bloody Woman!”
flashbacks and through the interactions of his public and private
selves.
One of the most clever, artful
uses of staging came in the first
moments of the play when we
were introduced to Gar’s private
self. Patterson appeared with a
lampshade over his head in Gar’s
bedroom, and as the shade was
suddenly raised up into the flyspace, it was as if Gar’s mind had
finally come uncorked.
Sadly, at certain points I
couldn’t help but wish that shade
had never been lifted. Patterson’s
performance emphasized the
taunting, nagging aspects of the
protagonist’s subconscious with
great physical gusto. If the public Gar was constrained and
stiff, the private Gar was wildly
demonstrative in his movements,
alternately flailing his arms and
whimpering in the fetal position
on the ground. Yet by playing this
oppositeness up to the extreme,
Patterson neglected to convey the
nuances of Gar’s dilemmas. For
example, in recalling an emotionally powerful memory involving
Gar’s relationship with his father,
See JOURNEY INWARDS, p.. 11
Female subservience examined in an evening of Pinter
BY ARIELLE KAPLAN
Staff
Pinter, by definition, is a man’s
playwright. His works offer many
creative, well-rounded opportunities for male actors to work in
his world—to develop worthwhile
characters, so to speak. However,
as Olivia Mell ’09 stated in the
program, “the female is diminished, not evolved, and she fights
a constant battle against submission within her domestic universe.” Her senior project, Woman
in the Background: Scenes by
Harold Pinter, is misleading in
its title. Each of the three women
Mell portrayed managed to push
herself out from the background
and the overwhelming masculinity which dominated the scenes.
This, in itself, is a testament not
only to Olivia’s skill as an actor,
but also to the depth that there
is to be found in these oft overlooked roles.
Starting off the one hour show
was a scene from "The Betrayal,"
which was produced here in the
fall of 2006. Mell plays Emma,
a married woman having an
affair with her husband Robert’s
(Joshua Mervis ’08) best friend,
Jerry. As a side note, Pinter is only
properly done using British dialects, and for the most part, this
was a success with the four actors.
I am generally of the opinion that
if you can’t do a dialect correctly,
don’t do it at all, but I found little
fault with the overall vocal work
done by the cast. Particularly
impressive was Mell’s ability to
sustain her dialect throughout the
entirety of the evening. Her first
incarnation as Emma is one of
quiet fear; the guilty wife who
can’t bear to keep her silence
any longer. Mervis dominated
the text of the scene and set her
up for great physical reactions
which expressed Emma’s guilty
conscience better than any more
lines would have. The dynamic
between Mervis and Mell was an
extremely comfortable start to the
evening between two seasoned
actors.
Between the first two scenes,
Olivia performed an onstage costume change/dance which she
collaboratively choreographed
with the director, Justin Becker
’09. Stepping out of her first
outfit, a floaty floral dress, she
revealed a black top and skirt,
shifting out of Emma’s world into
that of Sarah. As she swung the
material around the stage, finally
throwing it at Mervis’ feet, the
quiet, meek first character was
flung off as well, leaving the audience ready to meet the next one.
The second scene was from
Pinter’s play, “The Lover,” in which
Sarah and her husband Richard
(Samson Kohanski ’08) share a
vibrant fantasy life where he plays
her lover, “Max,” and she plays
the whore. From the moment
Olivia re-entered the space, it was
obvious that this was her favorite
scene. There were several things
about part two which made it
the standout of the evening: the
first ten minutes of this scene
was a silent etude of seduction
between Sarah and “Max,” involving a heightening of the sexual
tension with drumbeats and furtive glances exchanged by both
parties. The lack of dialogue only
added to the feeling of voyeurism
for the audience, punctuated by
the well placed gasps and breathing of both actors.
Eventually, we were shown a
montage of roleplay, which culminated in Mell crawling underneath a table with Kohanski, leading to a cry of, “Oh, Max!” and
the two then appearing on opposite sides from beneath the tablecloth. It is interesting textually to
note that Sarah never referred to
her husband as Richard; he was
Max to her during their entire
afternoon tryst. It is during the
multiple seductions we truly got
to see Kohanski’s strengths as an
actor. He sustained three voices in
British dialect, each one matching
a fantasy character. He also had
the strongest and most consistent accent out of the three male
actors in the show. Every different
voice accompanied original pos-
PHOTO courtesy of Amira Mintz-Morgenthau/The
PINTER’S WOMEN: Emma (Olivia Mell ‘09, right) faces her husband (Josh Mervis ‘08
after having an affair with his best friend in a scene from Pinter’s “The Betrayal.”
tures, gestures, and motives for
the shifting roleplays. However,
the amusing sexual escapades
took a sharp, painful turn when
Richard finally expressed his dis-
satisfaction with their games and
demanded to stop them for good.
The chemistry between Mell
and Kohanski was wonderful and
See REDISCOVERING WOMEN, p. 10
Diverse City 9
April 3, 2009
VOICES
A dream for peace within Pakistan
BY MYRA CHAUDHARY
Staff
The first time I met Benazir Bhutto is a
wonderful memory that I can never forget.
She was the first ever woman prime minister of a Muslim country. And what a lovely
New England autumn day it was. I fondly
remember how she looked at the blue sky
and the red-orange leaves and said "this
is my version of heaven on earth." While
that day will always be incredibly special
to me, what she symbolized is even more
important: hope, courage, and determination. Benazir was a great source of inspiration. Like so many others I was devastated
to see her go. What a terrible loss! I still
cannot bear to think of that tragic day in
December when she was assassinated.
Benazir is gone but her message to never
lose hope will live on. She never gave up
her struggle for democracy in Pakistan.
Her book, “Daughter of Destiny,” is a powerful reminder of the significance of the
need for democracy. This principle truly
is the most beautiful and wonderful thing
about America. The best example of this
is when Benazir says, “America, it was in
America that I had experienced democracy
for the first time, and where I had spent
four of the happiest years of my life.”
In her book, Benazir often pointed
out examples when people from different
parties came together to fight for democracy. Given the current state of affairs in
Pakistan, now more than ever this is a time
for unity, not division. It is a time to move
forwards, not backwards. All party differences and political affiliations need to be
forgotten. Things are very difficult and
times are not good. It is very important
to set aside the differences at all levels of
society and government and move on as
one, before it is too late. Most importantly
this is not a time for blame or fights. In the
words of Gandhi, “an eye for an eye only
makes the whole world blind.”
Now more than ever, Pakistan needs to
work with the world, and the world needs
to work with Pakistan. India and Pakistan
need to work together. There is too much
in common and too much is at stake here.
Their destinies are tied together. They cannot afford not to be friends. Understand
that there are extremists on all sides who
do not want them to be friends. They
do not belong to any religion. And they
should not be allowed to destroy the peace
and prosperity of the region. People have
struggled and suffered far too long.
“Our object should be peace within, and
peace without. We want to live peacefully
and maintain cordial, friendly relations
with our immediate neighbors and with
the world at large.” These wise words were
spoken long ago by Muhammad Ali Jinnah,
founder of Pakistan, and they should not
be forgotten, especially now. The most
important goal is peace within, without
which nothing will ever be possible. For
as long as the people remain divided, they
only will be hurting themselves and going
in circles. One cannot expect total agreement in everything, which makes it essential that we learn to disagree peacefully.
Violence and anger never have and never
will solve any problems.
Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The
ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and
cruelty by the bad people but the silence
over that by the good people.” How true.
And how tragic that a nation of 160 mil-
lion people, a vast majority of whom are
moderate, peace -loving people, lets such
a small minority destroy their country!
Pakistan has always been one of the most
progressive Muslim countries in the world.
It is essential to keep it that way. No compromises should be made with the people
who are determined to destroy this country. People who are destroying schools are
destroying the hope and possibilities for
the future, and that should not be permitted.
What is the silent majority doing? Where
have they gone? This silence must end now.
Oh, peace loving people, wake up, wake up,
please wake up. Don’t be silent any longer
and don’t sit on the sidelines! Come out of
your sleep. Do something but don’t throw
stones and do not yell at each other. Write
and speak peacefully.
Someone once told me that hope is more
powerful than love. Without hope, everything would be hopeless. The opposite of
hope is despair and impossibility. It would
be foolish to lose hope and live in a world
of impossibility. We should create a world
where children can continue to have hope
and dream for a better future. Together we
can change the world. Let’s start now.
Write on a forum of hope: aforumofhope.
blogspot.com
a very concrete formulaic method to reel
in box office bucks while sacrificing quality
cinema.
The formula is simple: some cute animal characters with eccentric personalities,
voiced by A- or B-list celebs, enduring some
sort of zany plot twist while leaving enough
room for mild drama,
comedy, conflict, and
romance; all coming
full-circle to a satisfying happy ending
with bouncy music
over rolling credits, in the span of a
delightfully succinct
90-minute time slot.
Joy. Applause. Smiling
kids. Yawwwn.
The reason that
“Toy Story” was so
successful was because
it displayed groundbreaking animation
technology alongside
an enticing plotline
that was simple and
original for the genre.
Simple, cute, and not
done before (Not in
this medium, anyway.
We all know bedtime stories involving talking toys, albeit none that are quite as peppy
as Tom Hanks). Talking animal movies are
anything but original at this point. “Shrek,”
another tremendously popular cartoon flick,
had the talking animal factor but was also
very unique (I for one had never seen a
friendly ogre before then. And one voiced by
Mike Meyers? Instant success!).
But there’s another factor why my beloved
cartoon cinema has gone awry. I can sum this
up with a single word—nay, a single name—
that encompasses all of my girlhood hopes,
dreams, and musical preferences. I’m talking
about the head honcho in G-rated entertainment, at least throughout my childhood. I’m
talking about Walt Disney Pictures, of course.
Ah, yes, those illustrious Disney movies.
Sure, they were all predictable (no Disney
movie could ever possibly have an unhappy ending, even if it
involved tweaking the
original fairy tales a
bit). But in all their
predictability they still
managed to produce
amazing soundtracks
that appealed to all
age groups. Disney
music had created a
genre in and of itself,
so much so that a
couple of Broadway
musicals have been
spawned as a result.
But besides the
catchy tunes every
Disney movie exhibited throughout the
nineties (what I consider to be the Golden
PHOTO courtesy of internet source
Age of Disney movies)
they all had one other important factor: stunning animation. Perhaps computer-tweaked,
but initially all of my favorite girlhood films
were hand-drawn. Something about good
old-fashioned animation makes it so much
more pleasing to the eye, and more natural
looking. Or maybe that’s just me.
There is something else about Disney movies, though, that also seems a bit formulaic.
Mainly, those pretty princesses. You know,
most of those Disney flicks had them. They’d
all create an elaborate musical around a clas-
sic fairy tale plot line, making sure to conjure
up a gorgeous female protagonist or supporting damsel in distress. This was all very
appealing to me at the tender age of seven,
for much the same reason that Barbies and
American Girls dolls were.
Disney understands this appeal, which is
why they created a whole “Disney Princess
Collection” based on these diverse beauties.
Dolls, clothes, and stickers have been created
in their names, and marketed to innocent
little girls like I once was. But when I say
diverse, I do a double take, and notice that
those politically incorrect fools up at Disney
had forgotten to represent a major ethnicity
among its Princesses. That is to say, there is
no black Disney Princess!
But have no fear, Disney Princess enthusiasts. We won’t be let down. As a matter
of fact, Disney is working on this problem
right now. The newest (traditionally animated!) Disney feature will have an AfricanAmerican female protagonist. "The Princess
and the Frog," set to be released in December
2009, is a fairy tale about on a young girl
named Princess Tiana who lives in New
Orleans' French Quarter during the Jazz
Age. So we can rest easy at night knowing
that now every ethnic group has been represented…or has it? They don’t have a Hispanic
princess, do they? Better get working on that,
Disney.
So wherein lies the future of my beloved
cartoons? The world of American animation, like every other form of entertainment,
is constantly being innovated and changed.
Nevertheless, I will be on the lookout for
promising animated features, though I won’t
have the patience to sit through another
talking animal movie for a long time. And
if American cartoon movies continue to be
disappointing, there’s always anime, right?
Yup, now that’s entertainment.
PHOTO courtesy of internet source
My reflections on animation
BY SAMANTHA SHOKIN
Columnist
I grew up with cartoons. As a kid, I was so
fond of moving pictures on my TV screen
that I would snub any entertainment with
real people in it. My current ethical foundation is based on whatever morals TV networks could pack into individual half-hour
episodes throughout my childhood, save a
few commercials in between. I am a devout
fan of old-school nineties Nickelodeon, and
am firmly set in my belief that ‘toons from
back in the day—shows like “Hey Arnold,”
“Doug,” “Rugrats,” and the like—are of a
much higher caliber than the drivel they
stream for kids nowadays.
But television cartoons aside, there is much
more to be said about today’s animation
produced for the big screen. Over the past
decade or so since Pixar released “Toy Story”
(1995), the first animated film using only
computer-generated technology, there have
been many attempts to reach the initial success of this feature. Accordingly, Pixar and
DreamWorks (the leading companies in
computer animation) have produced several
computer-only animated flicks appealing to
G-rated audiences.
After seeing enough of these adorable features, however, I started to notice a pattern
that was rather unsettling for a cartoonenthusiast like myself, giving me a sickening
feeling of déjà-toon. Basically, after sitting
through about the twelfth talking animal
movie, those snarky one-liners they all seem
to have stop being funny and start being
painfully predictable. The humor is geared
towards the parents of young audience members but is constricted to G-rated boundaries.
Thus, none of the jokes are ever actually
funny for either demographic. It also seems
to me that screenwriters of this genre follow
10 Diverse City
April 3, 2009
CHORUS
It’s like punk rock, only it’s a pig
BY JONATHAN SUSSMAN
Redisovering
women in Pinter
Staff
Jean-Jacques Rousseau once noted that
even if the ancient Athenians were wrong
to put Socrates to death, at least it meant
that they took his ideas seriously. This is
the eternal dilemma I carry with me whenever I’m in the presence of the members
of Students for a Democratic Society. It’s
not just that they are shades more radical
than their counterparts in Democracy for
America, more outspoken, not clean-shaven. More to the point, SDS members take
ideas seriously – very seriously. How can
a thoroughly bourgeois individual such as
myself walk into their midst and remain
unscathed?
It was precisely this thought that raced
through my Dayquil-addled mind as I
stepped into the back room of the radio
station Wednesday night. Their hit talk
show, “Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out”, had
just wrapped up to be replaced by a sports
chat program, but the atmosphere was still
charged and energetic, coming off of a
heated discussion of the revived squatting
movement on the Eastern seaboard.
Carrie Mills, who goes by the radio
handle of “Carrie Nation”, strikes a powerful figure. Her flowing blond locks and
delicate features come from a heritage that
marks her as a Daughter of the American
Revolution; tonight, however, and pretty
much every night, she elides the trappings
of a conservative Connecticut upbringing
to radicalize the Brandeis campus. At the
moment, she cradles in her arms black and
pink spray paint and a large plastic drop
cloth, an indication that – as the youth
like to say – something big was about to
go down.
I pointed at the implements of instruction and jabbered through a mental fog
of phenylephrine and dextromethorphan:
“What are those for?”
Ms. Mills glowered at me. “Pigasus is
running for Student Union President, and
I’m his general manager. There’ll be a press
conference on Rabb steps tomorrow at
high noon – ask questions then.”
Clearly, I would just have to wait and see.
The next day, with significantly less
mucus and a song in my heart, I proceeded
down the Rabb steps after a rousing lecture on the anarcho-syndicalist movement.
What greeted me was a sight to behold: a
huge banner, reading “Vote Pig!” featuring
a strikingly realistic flying pig. The press
conference was more of a political rally
PINTER (from p. 8)
on the cheap. Ms. Mills, clad in a flowing
green tunic she previously sported at a
Black Panther memorial event, yelled slogans down the Rabb steps.
“You Can’t Possibly Go Wrong With
A Pig!” she thundered. “Vote Pigasus for
President!” Her impressive vocals and the
odd acoustics of the Rabb steps helped
propagate the message; witnesses claimed
they could hear her from halfway across
campus.
Other SDS members and hangers-on
chimed in, resembling in tone and style
a Mississippi camp revival for latter-day
hippies. “All Politicians are Pigs Anyway
– Might As Well Vote for a Real One!”
yelled Guy Rossman, a towering specimen of Minnesota manhood. “Pigasus Will
Make Brandeis Kosher!” shouted Amanda
Hoffman, a thin slip of a girl decked in an
eternally cool Johnny Cash t-shirt. Their
exhortations clearly had an effect on some;
when the crowd walking to their 12:10
classes was polled, an exuberant Vu Truong
screamed back “PIGASUS!”
Others, however, were not so enthusiastic. One junior, who wished to remain
anonymous, feared that it was precisely
these sorts of tactics that made people
apathetic, something which could lead to
the election of the next Ronald Reagan.
However, she added that the revival of the
Yippie’s 1968 Presidential candidate was
“cute”, prompting her to giggle slightly and
remove the pencil ensnared in the tightlywound bun of her strawberry hair.
PHOTO courtesy of internet source
Mariel Gruszko, a slightly calmer SDS
member, explained that the campaign
for Pigasus was run with two goals in
mind: to point out the absurdity of Student
Union elections, which only waste resources and induce hyperventilation in overserious candidates, and to highlight the
lack of choice available to students. Maia
Stamieszkin, another SDS member with
an unpronounceable last name, chimed
in that she got behind Pigasus because he
represented her values. When I put it to
them that Pigasus was ineligible for the
position – not being enrolled as a Brandeis
student, not to mention that his campaign
banner was not made of approved Student
Union materials – Ms. Gruszko shrugged
this off. Ms. Stamieszkin darkly declared
that “it’s not possible that he won’t win”,
and returned to yelling at passerby.
The Pigasus campaign clearly represents a new direction for Brandeis politics.
Mr. Rossman indicates that a large vote
for Pigasus could signal a move towards
leaderless democracy on campus. When
pressed for future details, he could only tell
students to “Stay tuned”.
At 12:20, with the lunchtime stomach
rumbles setting in, most of the campaigners began gathering their things. Ms. Mills
turned one last time to face the campus,
warmed by the overhead sun but still
struggling to leave the last vestiges of winter behind. “It’s Time For A Dictator on
the Brandeis Campus!” she announced,
and turned away, fist clenched in solidarity.
Intercultural Center Calendar
CULTURE X 2009: RISE UP
Saturday, April 4th:
Doors at 6pm, show at 7pm
Levin Ballroom
A Message from the Coordinators:
All remaining tickets have been given out
for Culture X. There is no official waiting
list. However, on the day of the show, we
will have a separate line for those who do
not have tickets.
Depending on the number of people who
show up and the capacity limit, we will take
people from the waiting line on a first come,
first serve basis.
We apologize for any inconvenience and
appreciate your cooperation!
Culture X 2009 Coordinators
MHC's Second Annual
Mixed Monologues
Monday, April 6: 10:00pm
Chum's Coffeehouse
Triskelion presents:
FIERCE! - The Drag Show
Tuesday, April 7: 8:00pm
Shapiro Theater
Schedule of performances:
10 p.m.: Monologues and poetry
11 p.m.: Mochila
11:30 p.m.: Code Rad
The green grass is showing (most days),
the snow is gone (almost), and spring
break is within reach... this means it is once
again time for Brandeis University's Spring
Drag Show. Come see kings, queens, and
all sorts of Brandeis Royalty perform with
some added surprises!
The Mixed Heritage Club is pleased to
announce its second annual performance
of the Mixed Monologues!
Join us for a night of poetry, prose, and
music as students of mixed and non-mixed
backgrounds alike come together to share
their points of view and experiences of
mixed race.
And be sure to stay after the poetry and
monologues for our special guests, Mochila
and Code Rad!
This year's show will feature performances
by new and past performers and groups
such as Company B, Starving Artists,
Michael Castellanos, Crowd Control,
B.O.M.S. Slam Poetry Team, as well as
special GUEST performer, slam poet Sean
Patrick Conlon who will be performing
some of his original performance pieces.
His performance is sponsored by Triskelion
and the Brandeis Open Mic Series.
the second half of the scene quickly deteriorated into what was like watching a
heart-wrenching breakup. Samson’s quiet
desperation as the tired husband who just
wants to be with his wife in reality, and
Olivia’s frantic pleading as her dreams are
destroyed in one conversation was so raw
and emotional, it became uncomfortable
to watch—as if we weren’t supposed to be
there. When he slammed the door behind
him as she ran to it, calling out his name, I
felt pangs of sympathy, sadness, and a certain camaraderie with the broken woman
we saw before us.
In the second transition, a different sort
of woman was onstage. It was as if the
Pinter-esque female had broken out of the
text and was expressing the anger and passion that can be felt within the scenes but
could never be fully expressed. This time,
the objects thrown at the man’s feet were
evening gloves and pearls, presumably
signifying the drama and fantasy which
were now gone. Mell ended this interlude
by destroying roses on the table, throwing
petals over her shoulders.
The third scene, this one from “The
Homecoming,” began with Lenny (Robert
St. Laurence ’11), a small-time pimp, pacing around the stage in a fit of sleeplessness. In another silent beginning, he
picked up a clock and cradled it in his arms
while meandering downstage. Through
his movements and expression, he created a dangerous character from his first
appearance. He gave a cruel smile, seemingly to the audience, when Mell entered
from behind the seats. In this incarnation,
she played Ruth, Lenny’s sister-in-law,
who had just returned to England with
her husband after living in America for six
years. As this character, she had the fewest
lines but created the most in control and
dominant woman out of the three.
St. Laurence’s usage of vocal pitch and
dialect were surprising but bold, which
was refreshing to see. However, as a fellow
audience member mentioned later, the
somewhat transient dialect didn’t work
out as well as Mervis and Kohanski’s did,
though this can be attributed to having
the least amount of dialect training. That
aside, his downright creepy portrayal of
Lenny was dead on and enough to make
you wish he wasn’t focusing that smile on
the seemingly naïve Ruth. The best part
of their interactions, aside from the twist
ending, was their timing on the lines and
the way her silences and reactions played
off of his macabre storytelling.
It was at the climax of this scene when
Mell created her strongest character of
the evening. Turning the tables on Lenny,
Ruth gained the upper hand in what he
believed to be a seduction of her and further throws him by seeming to verbally
seduce him and leave.
By the close of the scene, he is scratching his head and stammering, “What was
that supposed to be? Some kind of proposal?” at her retreating figure. This final
characterization of a woman showed us
what a female could be, even within the
constraints of a Pinter play. Olivia’s transformation in this scene took both us and
Lenny by surprise and ended the show on
a high note for the woman who was previously merely a talking prop.
Not too bad for the expression of
women in a very masculine world of the
play. Overall, Woman in the Background:
Scenes by Harold Pinter, was a success and
an enjoyable theatrical work.
Diverse City 11
April 3, 2009
END-NOTE
Yeah, it’s a decent third album
PHOTO courtesy internet source
restrained here, and there’s not the
same reckless abandon that say,
“Date With The Night” showed.
Nonetheless, she does an impressive
job of shaping her tone to the band’s
new sonic palette.
That new palette? It’s a lot more
electronic; fans will be somewhat surprised by the inclusion of synths.
Though it’s different, the compositions retain similar features. It’s certainly not the Yeah Yeah Yeahs going
dance pop, with a few exceptions.
There is, however, the sort of electro
sensibility that backs “Soft Shock”
which uses synths to a soothing effect.
It’s a bit jarring at first, but there’s a
gorgeous tension between the smooth
backing and Karen’s voice, which,
even when tamed into delicate “oohs,”
stands apart.
There are a few quiet moments, of
BY DANIELLE GEWURZ
Editor
One of the most recognizable
female lead singers in the past few
years, at least in alt-rock circles, has
been Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs,
whose ferocious bite and live show
to match have provided much of
the band’s propulsive force since the
release of “Fever to Tell,” their debut
album.
That same presence was somewhat
lacking in their sophomore slump
album “Show Your Bones” but has
thankfully returned in their latest,
“It’s Blitz!” It’s simply unfortunate that
the band gets somewhat caught up in
the need to progress, and though it’s
an enjoyable album, it’s less forward
momentum than lateral.
Karen O is somewhat more
which the stripped-down “Skeletons”
is possibly the best. Karen O still
can’t best “Maps” for sheer emotional
power, but there’s almost a standardesque element to her delivery that
makes it quite an affecting piece. Her
reserved take on, “Love, don't go/
Love, don't cry/Skeleton me” progresses gorgeously, imbuing the simplest lyrics with far more meaning
than they’d ever have on the page.
“Dull Life” is modern rock by numbers, with the instrumentation sounding just like any other post-2000 rock
band. Furthermore, the track follows a
“Fever to Tell” blueprint: lyrics, yelping
chorus, followed by instrumental breakdown and then the return of Karen O’s
voice to finish it off.
There’s some actual dancing to be
done, too, especially to songs like
“Dragon Queen.” The underlying beats
do make the album quite catchy; it’s an
enjoyable listen for that reason alone.
The album artwork is instantly iconic;
Karen O’s manicured hand crushing
an egg with the yolk flying out. It’s an
expression of controlled blasts, much
like the album, and appropriately is a
much more focused image than the one
used for “Fever to Tell.”
It’s clear that there’s far more artistry and consideration given to these
songs, which sound far more constrained and composed, than the
more dashed-off feel of the Yeah Yeah
Yeahs’ earlier work. There’s a definite
difference in this album The same
ideas present in the past two LPs are
much more refined here. However,
there aren’t a lot of new ideas. This is a
refinement and an evolution, but not
a radical shift.
Self-discovery before
the journey begins
JOURNEY INWARDS (from p. 8)
Patterson practically spat his lines in disgust (his default
interpretation) rather than revealing any warmth or
human compassion beneath.
Nevertheless, in having to play off that raging zaniness,
Donworth found a satisfying, understated interpretation
of public Gar. Torn between his own desires and the need
to save face, he often resembled a J. Alfred Prufrock in the
making. Although Patterson’s performance made so much
of Gar’s internal anguish explicit, Donworth always challenged himself and the audience by discovering different
ways to relate to his “other half.” The director’s use of
blocking and space brilliantly explored this phenomenon.
The two-tiered set depicting a spare, typical middle class
home with beautiful wooden walls and a stylized painted
dreamscape above Gar’s bed aided in this depiction.
The supporting cast members that took Donworth’s
refined approach to the characters had most success.
Paulin, as Gar’s father, prevailed in the impossible task
of making a tight-lipped, conservative, out of touch old
man seem relatable to a college crowd. Likewise, Schairer’s
Madge possessed just enough of that feisty, matronly
quality to make her relationship with Gar seem genuinely
affecting. On the other hand, Herbie Rosen’s ’12 crossdressing performance as Aunt Lizzy seemed like a cheap
trick for a laugh that grew tiresome after a while. Like
Patterson, Rosen’s inability to channel his wild energy
successfully made the character more irritating than
comic.
Overall, Philadelphia, Here I Come! is a show about
being young and confused, striving for something greater
in the future while attempting to escape the past. It’s not
surprising, therefore, that most of the actors seemed to
relate to the material on a personal level. Ultimately, that
spirit made the performance exciting and moving despite
a few groan-worthy performances. Even as Gar’s mental
tape cracked and hissed, I couldn’t take my eyes off the
screen.
ADVERTISEMENT
-Showtimes-
Embassy Cinema
16 Pine Street Waltham, MA
Telephone: (781) 891-0911
Give a
Hoot!
April 3 – April 9 only
Title
THE CLASS
ADVENTURELAND
THE READER
SUNSHINE
CLEANING
GOMORRAH
KNOWING
WATCHMEN
COMING SOON
Rating
Friday
Sat - Sun
Mon Thurs
PG-13
(1:10)
(4:00)
6:50
9:30
(1:10)
4:00
6:50
9:30
(2:10)
(4:50)
7:40
PG-13
(1:30)
(4:30)
7:20
9:40
(1:30)
4:30
7:20
9:40
(2:30)
(5:00)
8:10
R
(4:10)
7:00
9:35
4:10
7:00
9:35
(5:10)
7:50
R
(1:40)
(4:40)
7:30
9:45
(1:40)
4:40
7:30
9:45
(2:40)
(5:10)
8:20
R
(1:00)
(3:50)
6:40
9:25
(1:00)
3:50
6:40
9:25
(2:00)
(4:50)
7:35
PG-13
(1:20)
(4:20)
7:10
9:40
(1:20)
4:20
7:10
9:40
(2:20)
(5:00)
8:00
R
(1:00)
(1:00)
(2:00)
SUGAR on 4/10
STATE of PLAY on 4/17
Shoot some Hoops...
Join the Hoot!
thehoot.net
[email protected]