Posts
By Jeff Webb
So, my American Literature class just finished reading—or Sparknoting, for some—Herman Melville’s _Moby-Dick_. While I found the novel to be quite the classic and well-deserving of its “Great American Novel” reputation, I think it did leave something to be desired. Then it hit me: the book needs a sequel.
Picture this: the last time we saw Ahab, he was being pulled down to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, tangled up in some lines attached to the Whale. We assume he dies, but what if he doesn’t?
Thus, the book’s sequel, tentatively titled _Moby-Dick 2: Ahab’s Revenge_. It begins with a legless, old man being washed up on some remote Pacific island. He is unconscious and stumbled upon by some of the island’s natives. They take him and nurse him back to health.
It is then that Ahab tells them the tale of Moby-Dick, how the Whale possesses supernatural powers, how he seeks revenge on it. He recounts how he survived the events of the first book, that he was being pulled down, but he managed to cut himself loose and the tide must have carried him to this island.
Ahab befriends the islanders, and maybe, just maybe, he might develop a romance with one of the women. However, his passion for revenge and the White Whale’s blubber overrides his want of a peaceful life. He convinces the islanders to help him construct a boat out of the island’s trees, and then he puts together a crew. During the course of this, too, he fashions himself a new leg out of a tree branch (and, if Robert Rodriguez were filming this, Ahab might go so far as to turn this branch into some sort of Gatling gun).
After a heartfelt goodbye with his romantic interest on the island’s shore, Ahab sets sail once again, seeking revenge upon Moby-Dick.
Just imagine it, though. The woman asks him, standing there in the sunrise, the boat rocking back and forth on the ocean, she asks and pleads, “Ahab, why do you have to do this? Stay here and be happy.”
Ahab, the most sentimental we’ll ever see him, kisses her face and says, “It’s what I have to do. Billions of years have led to this moment. I’m going to kill the Whale.”
Thus ends Act 1 of _Moby-Dick 2: Ahab’s Revenge_.
Act 2 could see Ahab return to his old self, captain and dictator of the ship. It could also lend for some interesting—and, at times, humorous—events, as Ahab will be working with a ragtag team of islanders who have never manned a whaling vessel before. Unlike the experienced Starbuck or Stubb, Ahab must not only lead these men, but he must also teach the basics of maritime etiquette. All the while, they steadily get closer and closer to Moby-Dick.
Act 3 could conclude the novel with an epic fifty-page showdown between Ahab and the Whale. This time, instead of letting the Whale ram the ship, Ahab turns the ship toward the Whale, and the two crash in a head-on collision. The ship—it’s only made of trees, remember?—breaks apart and men fall into the ocean, drowning. Ahab treads water as the Whale comes toward him, opening its mouth, and, like Jonah, swallowing Ahab whole.
However, inside the Whale, Ahab sees this as a perfect opportunity for victory. He somehow makes his way to the heart, stabs it with his harpoon, then he claws his way out as Moby-Dick finally perishes. Ahab has, at last, achieved his revenge.
The novel can end with a little epilogue, detailing that Ahab returns home to Nantucket. After his voyage with the Pequod and then his time on the island and his voyage with the islanders, Ahab had been at sea for nearly five or six years. He was thought dead, and, as such, his wife has moved on, marrying another man.
Ahab, also, finds that a young man named Ishmael had survived the Pequod endeavor and told everyone the story about his madness, thus ending any whaling company ever wanting to hire Ahab as a captain. He may have killed the White Whale, but, in doing so, he has garnered a reputation as a madman, and nobody wants to entrust a ship to a madman.
Thus, we end with Ahab, old and alone, drinking in a bar and telling stories of his glory days to anybody that will listen. His life and love had always been at sea, but now he can never go back. He must end his poor, miserable life on land.
The question becomes this: Ahab has gotten his revenge, but at what cost?
Tell me you don’t want to read that book.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
'Invictus' Trailer Now Online
Over the past decade, Clint Eastwood has proven to be the most consistent and best American director working today. With films like "Mystic River," "Million Dollar Baby," "Letters from Iwo Jima," and "Changeling," Eastwood's films offer a tough view of the world, but they are, always, full of human emotion and power. It looks like Eastwood's latest effort, "Invictus," will be no different. The film, due out later this year, tells the true story of Nelson Mandela and the South African rugby team's quest to make the 1995 World Cup Championship. The trailer was just recently released online, and we have embedded it below. Feel free to take a look:
Monday, October 26, 2009
C'etait un rendez-vous
With Halloween approaching, it's always worth looking at some scary movies, and, though _C'etait un rendez-vous_ isn't a scary movie in the classical sense of the term, it is, nonetheless, absolutely 8 minutes of suspense. On an early Sunday morning, Claude Lelouch set out on the streets of Paris in his Mercedes, and the result is one of the best car chases--it's not a chase, but you get the idea--ever filmed. There is also some romance involved, which is always a bonus. So, check out the video below. Feel free to turn up your speakers and enlarge the screen to get the full effect.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
SYC Wants You!
My Experience as a Tutor at Stockert Youth Center
By Jeff Webb
It’s that time of the year again. The leaves are changing color, people are getting sick with the flu, and Stockert Youth Center is asking for volunteers.
As an education major, I’ve put in two semesters at Stockert, and, I must say, the time I spent there was some of the most rewarding time I’ve ever had in my life. It was even more rewarding than the time I met LFO (anybody? anybody?) after their performance at the Charleston Sternwheel Regatta, but that’s the topic for a future blog post.
During my time at Stockert, I worked with two separate students. Without breaching confidentiality, I’ll simply say that one was an elementary-aged girl, and the other was a middle school-aged boy. The girl was perfectly nice and eager to learn and quite the conversationalist. She’d tell me about her day, and then I’d help her with her homework and maybe we’d play a couple games of “Hangman” or something to end the session. For one hour, two days a week over the course of one semester, this is what I did.
The boy, on the other hand, was a bit more difficult. He had some learning disabilities, and it was often hard to get him to focus. There were days where he was completely uncooperative and just sat at the desk with his head down, refusing to work or even to talk. Being the young educator I was—I’m still a young educator—I was left a little lost. I didn’t know what to do with a kid that so stubbornly refused to work. All of education, though, can be summed up in doing whatever you can to “get their attention,” so I learned the kid’s interests—he liked football, I remember—and I tried to gear the learning in our session toward football in someway.
Alas, this still didn’t work, and, actually, my inability to reach the student still irks me a bit to this day. But, that’s life. It’s never going to come out perfect, and there are some students—no matter how hard you try—you just might not be able to reach.
The important thing is, though, I kept meeting with the student for the remainder of the semester. Granted, I was required to for one of my education classes, but, every tutoring session, I still tried to engage him. I tried and tried and tried different methods, none of them really working, but I kept trying, and, from that, I got my reward.
Knowing that I had some effect on these students—be it positive or negative—was perfect intrinsic motivation. Knowing, though, that I was doing something useful with my time—when, normally, I’d probably be spending that hour in the afternoon sitting in my dorm room, reading a book for Russian literature or, more likely, watching Youtube videos—was, perhaps, even more rewarding. In some small way—call it the butterfly effect, if you will—I was doing my part in bettering the world. That’s really the essence of all volunteer services, and it’s also really something you probably wouldn’t understand until you take part in a volunteer service.
So, yes, now that Stockert is looking for volunteers and tutors, perhaps you should give it a consideration. It can be difficult, indeed, but it can also be so satisfying.
If you are interested in volunteering at Stockert in some capacity, you may contact SYC at (304) 473-0145.
By Jeff Webb
It’s that time of the year again. The leaves are changing color, people are getting sick with the flu, and Stockert Youth Center is asking for volunteers.
As an education major, I’ve put in two semesters at Stockert, and, I must say, the time I spent there was some of the most rewarding time I’ve ever had in my life. It was even more rewarding than the time I met LFO (anybody? anybody?) after their performance at the Charleston Sternwheel Regatta, but that’s the topic for a future blog post.
During my time at Stockert, I worked with two separate students. Without breaching confidentiality, I’ll simply say that one was an elementary-aged girl, and the other was a middle school-aged boy. The girl was perfectly nice and eager to learn and quite the conversationalist. She’d tell me about her day, and then I’d help her with her homework and maybe we’d play a couple games of “Hangman” or something to end the session. For one hour, two days a week over the course of one semester, this is what I did.
The boy, on the other hand, was a bit more difficult. He had some learning disabilities, and it was often hard to get him to focus. There were days where he was completely uncooperative and just sat at the desk with his head down, refusing to work or even to talk. Being the young educator I was—I’m still a young educator—I was left a little lost. I didn’t know what to do with a kid that so stubbornly refused to work. All of education, though, can be summed up in doing whatever you can to “get their attention,” so I learned the kid’s interests—he liked football, I remember—and I tried to gear the learning in our session toward football in someway.
Alas, this still didn’t work, and, actually, my inability to reach the student still irks me a bit to this day. But, that’s life. It’s never going to come out perfect, and there are some students—no matter how hard you try—you just might not be able to reach.
The important thing is, though, I kept meeting with the student for the remainder of the semester. Granted, I was required to for one of my education classes, but, every tutoring session, I still tried to engage him. I tried and tried and tried different methods, none of them really working, but I kept trying, and, from that, I got my reward.
Knowing that I had some effect on these students—be it positive or negative—was perfect intrinsic motivation. Knowing, though, that I was doing something useful with my time—when, normally, I’d probably be spending that hour in the afternoon sitting in my dorm room, reading a book for Russian literature or, more likely, watching Youtube videos—was, perhaps, even more rewarding. In some small way—call it the butterfly effect, if you will—I was doing my part in bettering the world. That’s really the essence of all volunteer services, and it’s also really something you probably wouldn’t understand until you take part in a volunteer service.
So, yes, now that Stockert is looking for volunteers and tutors, perhaps you should give it a consideration. It can be difficult, indeed, but it can also be so satisfying.
If you are interested in volunteering at Stockert in some capacity, you may contact SYC at (304) 473-0145.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of "Inglourious Basterds"
By Jeff Webb
There is a scene in the final act of Quentin Tarantino’s WWII drama “Inglourious Basterds” wherein two characters—on opposing sides of the war—shoot each other dead. Said scene is bloody, loud, and fused with wonderful Ennio Morricone music, and, then, Tarantino cuts away from it, as well he should. The characters are dead; their story is done. But, just a couple minutes later, as mayhem ensues in other realms of the story, Tarantino cuts back to the two characters, an overhead shot—almost God-like—looking down on the stillness of the bodies laying side-by-side. It is, perhaps, the most poignant shot in the film.
Likewise, the whole story of “Inglourious Basterds” just might be summed up in that one single shot. Two characters—two forces, essentially, or two ideologies—clash, and they destroy each other in brutal fashion.
Or, perhaps it’s better described with the words of the film’s Lt. Aldo Raine, that he didn’t come all the way from the Smoky Mountains to be humane to the “Natzee” bastards.
In short, war is hell, and both sides, when paired with absolute certainty and fanaticism, are equally capable of destroying one another.
In this meditation on violence, Tarantino does for war movies what Peckinpah’s “Wild Bunch” did for Westerns. That is, Tarantino takes our classic idea of the hero and twists it, perverts it, and, doing so, he reveals that oftentimes the good guys aren’t good.
In this case, it’s the Basterds, a group of American-Jewish soldiers who blaze their way through Europe, scalping and torturing any German soldier that crosses their path. As the audience, we cheer for them because—why? They’re American, yes, and perhaps the Nazis have it coming to them, but do even the Nazis deserve such cruel punishment? And what of the ones who fight more out of compulsion, out of allegiance to home or their fellow countrymen as opposed to out of allegiance to the Fuhrer? Do they deserve to die such horrific deaths?
See, the Basterds use intimidation and torture and suicide-bombings as standard war tactics. Does any of this sound familiar? Yet, we see them as the good guys, and we want them to succeed, but, yet, they are just as savage as the evil in which they fight.
Tarantino isn’t insinuating that the Americans who fought in WWII were just as bad as the Nazis or that they used terrorist tactics, because, in short, this isn’t a real WWII film. It’s an alternate reality, the WWII time period serving more as a filmic allusion than as a historical setting. Tarantino, in his usual style, wanted to make a film that harkened back to war films like “The Dirty Dozen” and Spaghetti-Westerns like “Once Upon a Time in the West.” The WWII setting simply provides Tarantino a setting in which to blend those two genres.
After that blending, though, the story becomes entirely his. He distorts history to his own means, as any artist should. However, to dismiss “Inglourious Basterds” for this reason is a tremendous mistake, for, even with its distortions, it is, still, perhaps one of the best war films to emerge from Hollywood in recent years. The commentary on violence and justice, feminism and nationalism—it’s all there, handled maturely, handled well.
However, perhaps what is most interesting about the film is one of its many subplots. In this case, the subplot revolving around the premiere of a German propaganda film entitled “Nation’s Pride,” and the pride, indeed, the Germans take in such a film. They watch and cheer as a German sniper kills hundreds of Allied troops, and, at the same time, we watch and cheer as a squad of American soldiers kill German troops. This cannot be coincidence on Tarantino’s part. No, this is his own propaganda film, and, perhaps the only reason we ever find ourselves cheering for the Basterds is because Tarantino, very subtly, has conditioned us that way. The Germans are presented on ominous terms, the Americans on light terms. This is Tarantino’s own propaganda film making a statement about propaganda. That is, we are all capable of being fooled, of being roped in under false pretenses, of being tricked by our governments, or, on a more personal basis, our friends, for a thread of deceit runs all throughout the film.
“Inglourious Basterds” is not Tarantino’s best film; that would still be “Pulp Fiction.” However, in its layering of theme and story, it is his most complex film, his one most provocative for discussion. And that’s a good thing.
On a technical level, the film is near perfect. The cinematography—especially in the first fifteen minutes—is so beautiful and, at times, so unbelievably tense, almost delivering Hitchcock-like suspense. As for the acting, there is not a single weak performance. Much has been said of Eli Roth’s Bear Jew, but Roth, exuding arrogance and temper, does just as the part requires. The true stand-outs of the film, though, as many other reviewers have commented, are Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa and Melanie Laurent as Shosanna. Both of them, especially Waltz, deserve nominations when the time comes.
For those that love movies, “Inglourious Basterds” is all the more wonderful with its frequent allusions to older films. For those that don’t necessarily possess quite an encyclopedic knowledge of film as Tarantino does, that’s okay; the film still has much merit. It teaches us about violence, about war, and, with its epic theatre atmosphere, it constantly removes us from the story, asking us to see it objectively, to see it as it is: a story. Thus, at the end of things, we can view it clearly, that the Basterds are just bastards and the Natzees are just Nazis, and there is just so much hatred, so much aggression, that it all just explodes in a hail of gunfire, dynamite, and celluloid.
By Jeff Webb
There is a scene in the final act of Quentin Tarantino’s WWII drama “Inglourious Basterds” wherein two characters—on opposing sides of the war—shoot each other dead. Said scene is bloody, loud, and fused with wonderful Ennio Morricone music, and, then, Tarantino cuts away from it, as well he should. The characters are dead; their story is done. But, just a couple minutes later, as mayhem ensues in other realms of the story, Tarantino cuts back to the two characters, an overhead shot—almost God-like—looking down on the stillness of the bodies laying side-by-side. It is, perhaps, the most poignant shot in the film.
Likewise, the whole story of “Inglourious Basterds” just might be summed up in that one single shot. Two characters—two forces, essentially, or two ideologies—clash, and they destroy each other in brutal fashion.
Or, perhaps it’s better described with the words of the film’s Lt. Aldo Raine, that he didn’t come all the way from the Smoky Mountains to be humane to the “Natzee” bastards.
In short, war is hell, and both sides, when paired with absolute certainty and fanaticism, are equally capable of destroying one another.
In this meditation on violence, Tarantino does for war movies what Peckinpah’s “Wild Bunch” did for Westerns. That is, Tarantino takes our classic idea of the hero and twists it, perverts it, and, doing so, he reveals that oftentimes the good guys aren’t good.
In this case, it’s the Basterds, a group of American-Jewish soldiers who blaze their way through Europe, scalping and torturing any German soldier that crosses their path. As the audience, we cheer for them because—why? They’re American, yes, and perhaps the Nazis have it coming to them, but do even the Nazis deserve such cruel punishment? And what of the ones who fight more out of compulsion, out of allegiance to home or their fellow countrymen as opposed to out of allegiance to the Fuhrer? Do they deserve to die such horrific deaths?
See, the Basterds use intimidation and torture and suicide-bombings as standard war tactics. Does any of this sound familiar? Yet, we see them as the good guys, and we want them to succeed, but, yet, they are just as savage as the evil in which they fight.
Tarantino isn’t insinuating that the Americans who fought in WWII were just as bad as the Nazis or that they used terrorist tactics, because, in short, this isn’t a real WWII film. It’s an alternate reality, the WWII time period serving more as a filmic allusion than as a historical setting. Tarantino, in his usual style, wanted to make a film that harkened back to war films like “The Dirty Dozen” and Spaghetti-Westerns like “Once Upon a Time in the West.” The WWII setting simply provides Tarantino a setting in which to blend those two genres.
After that blending, though, the story becomes entirely his. He distorts history to his own means, as any artist should. However, to dismiss “Inglourious Basterds” for this reason is a tremendous mistake, for, even with its distortions, it is, still, perhaps one of the best war films to emerge from Hollywood in recent years. The commentary on violence and justice, feminism and nationalism—it’s all there, handled maturely, handled well.
However, perhaps what is most interesting about the film is one of its many subplots. In this case, the subplot revolving around the premiere of a German propaganda film entitled “Nation’s Pride,” and the pride, indeed, the Germans take in such a film. They watch and cheer as a German sniper kills hundreds of Allied troops, and, at the same time, we watch and cheer as a squad of American soldiers kill German troops. This cannot be coincidence on Tarantino’s part. No, this is his own propaganda film, and, perhaps the only reason we ever find ourselves cheering for the Basterds is because Tarantino, very subtly, has conditioned us that way. The Germans are presented on ominous terms, the Americans on light terms. This is Tarantino’s own propaganda film making a statement about propaganda. That is, we are all capable of being fooled, of being roped in under false pretenses, of being tricked by our governments, or, on a more personal basis, our friends, for a thread of deceit runs all throughout the film.
“Inglourious Basterds” is not Tarantino’s best film; that would still be “Pulp Fiction.” However, in its layering of theme and story, it is his most complex film, his one most provocative for discussion. And that’s a good thing.
On a technical level, the film is near perfect. The cinematography—especially in the first fifteen minutes—is so beautiful and, at times, so unbelievably tense, almost delivering Hitchcock-like suspense. As for the acting, there is not a single weak performance. Much has been said of Eli Roth’s Bear Jew, but Roth, exuding arrogance and temper, does just as the part requires. The true stand-outs of the film, though, as many other reviewers have commented, are Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa and Melanie Laurent as Shosanna. Both of them, especially Waltz, deserve nominations when the time comes.
For those that love movies, “Inglourious Basterds” is all the more wonderful with its frequent allusions to older films. For those that don’t necessarily possess quite an encyclopedic knowledge of film as Tarantino does, that’s okay; the film still has much merit. It teaches us about violence, about war, and, with its epic theatre atmosphere, it constantly removes us from the story, asking us to see it objectively, to see it as it is: a story. Thus, at the end of things, we can view it clearly, that the Basterds are just bastards and the Natzees are just Nazis, and there is just so much hatred, so much aggression, that it all just explodes in a hail of gunfire, dynamite, and celluloid.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Woodstock Remembered
Forty years ago, from August 15th to August 18th, nearly half a million people gathered in upstate New York to watch the likes of Arlo Guthrie, Santana, Canned Heat, the Who, Janis Joplin, and Jimi Hendrix. Below is a video of one of the best of these performances. So, without further ado, here is Joe Cocker performing the Beatles' "With a Little Help from My Friends."
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of "Julie & Julia"
By Jeff Webb
First of all, I liked “Julie & Julia.” I didn’t necessarily expect to, but I had a great deal of fun watching the film. The charming performances of the leads, the vicarious experience of encountering wonderful foods, and the straightforward and simple comedy all create a light-hearted, escapist atmosphere. Perhaps above anything else, it is an incredibly relaxing film.
Now, with that aside, it’s probably not a film I would care to see ever again.
The problem with “Julie & Julia” is the script. It revolves around two stories, the first taking place in the mid-twentieth century and depicting chef Julia Child’s efforts to create a French cookbook for American women. The film’s second story is set in 2002 and shows blogger Julie Powell’s attempt to make every recipe in said cookbook within a year’s time.
It is the latter story that I take issues with. Amy Adams plays Julie Powell, and Adams is wonderful, as always. However, when the main conflict of a story is whether or not a character will meet her deadline in time, it’s a little hard to be enthralled or to leave the theater feeling you have learned something monumental about life. Now, perhaps perseverance is the life lesson here, but when it is about something so mundane as cooking, it still feels empty. Perhaps if the film was in the hand’s of a more competent director, someone adept with the mundane—someone like Jim Jarmusch, for instance—something could be taken away from the story, but, alas, the film is in the hands of Nora Ephron, a talented romantic-comedy director but really nothing more than that.
There are moments of real human drama in Julie Powell’s story, but they are brief moments, fleeting moments. There never is any tension, and that is because the conflict isn’t engaging. Every story, no matter the genre, needs a conflict, and it needs to engage the audience.
The film’s other story, revolving around a young Julia Child, is a bit more fulfilling to watch, but even it suffers from a similar problem. Its tone is too light to be accommodating as a biopic for a real person, and its suspense is killed by the interjection of the Julie Powell story. Perhaps more than anything else, though, the audience never comes to know Julia Child. We see her efforts to publish her book, but she is the same woman at the end of the film as she is at the beginning. There is no real development to her as a character, as a person.
Yes, Meryl Streep is fantastic and proves, once again, why she is the best actress of her generation, but she really isn’t given much to work with. Her Julia Child becomes a parody of the real thing, an embodiment of the woman on TV, and Streep, with the exception of one or two scenes, never probes deeply into the person that was Julia Child. But that’s a flaw of the script.
“Julie & Julia” is a good way to kill two hours, and it fits perfectly into the summer movie season. It just fails to deliver human drama, and, while funny, it’s nowhere close to being a classic of the comedy genre. To end with a terrible food analogy, the film is almost like hospital food: it’s not necessarily bad, it’ll fill you up and taste alright, but it’s not something you ever really want to eat ever again.
By Jeff Webb
First of all, I liked “Julie & Julia.” I didn’t necessarily expect to, but I had a great deal of fun watching the film. The charming performances of the leads, the vicarious experience of encountering wonderful foods, and the straightforward and simple comedy all create a light-hearted, escapist atmosphere. Perhaps above anything else, it is an incredibly relaxing film.
Now, with that aside, it’s probably not a film I would care to see ever again.
The problem with “Julie & Julia” is the script. It revolves around two stories, the first taking place in the mid-twentieth century and depicting chef Julia Child’s efforts to create a French cookbook for American women. The film’s second story is set in 2002 and shows blogger Julie Powell’s attempt to make every recipe in said cookbook within a year’s time.
It is the latter story that I take issues with. Amy Adams plays Julie Powell, and Adams is wonderful, as always. However, when the main conflict of a story is whether or not a character will meet her deadline in time, it’s a little hard to be enthralled or to leave the theater feeling you have learned something monumental about life. Now, perhaps perseverance is the life lesson here, but when it is about something so mundane as cooking, it still feels empty. Perhaps if the film was in the hand’s of a more competent director, someone adept with the mundane—someone like Jim Jarmusch, for instance—something could be taken away from the story, but, alas, the film is in the hands of Nora Ephron, a talented romantic-comedy director but really nothing more than that.
There are moments of real human drama in Julie Powell’s story, but they are brief moments, fleeting moments. There never is any tension, and that is because the conflict isn’t engaging. Every story, no matter the genre, needs a conflict, and it needs to engage the audience.
The film’s other story, revolving around a young Julia Child, is a bit more fulfilling to watch, but even it suffers from a similar problem. Its tone is too light to be accommodating as a biopic for a real person, and its suspense is killed by the interjection of the Julie Powell story. Perhaps more than anything else, though, the audience never comes to know Julia Child. We see her efforts to publish her book, but she is the same woman at the end of the film as she is at the beginning. There is no real development to her as a character, as a person.
Yes, Meryl Streep is fantastic and proves, once again, why she is the best actress of her generation, but she really isn’t given much to work with. Her Julia Child becomes a parody of the real thing, an embodiment of the woman on TV, and Streep, with the exception of one or two scenes, never probes deeply into the person that was Julia Child. But that’s a flaw of the script.
“Julie & Julia” is a good way to kill two hours, and it fits perfectly into the summer movie season. It just fails to deliver human drama, and, while funny, it’s nowhere close to being a classic of the comedy genre. To end with a terrible food analogy, the film is almost like hospital food: it’s not necessarily bad, it’ll fill you up and taste alright, but it’s not something you ever really want to eat ever again.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of "Funny People"
By Jeff Webb
It’s interesting to watch the direction of Judd Apatow’s directorial career play out on cinema screens. With his first film, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” Apatow introduced audiences to his stories of “bromance” and men stuck in adolescence. With “Knocked Up,” Apatow covered similar territory, but this time making it a bit more personal, basing it somewhat on his own experiences with becoming a father. Still, there was a sense of the cartoonish in the characters, an outrageousness to the film. With his third and latest film, though—the newly released “Funny People”—Apatow has hit his stride. It is his most focused feature yet, completely realistic and understated and restrained.
The problem with Apatow’s previous two films is not that the stories lack a moral—for they do have a point—but that they sometimes lose focus of that moral, wandering into territory where it just seems like comedy for the sake of comedy. Nothing is learned. Plot and characterization is not advanced.
That is not the case with “Funny People.” Yes, the movie is long—perhaps a bit too long—but every scene plays a part in the bigger story. That story revolves around George Simmons, a popular comedian who, upon finding out he has leukemia, starts to reevaluate his life. Helping him on this journey of self-discovery is young and insecure comedian Ira Wright.
Adam Sandler plays Simmons, and Seth Rogen plays Wright. For the latter, it is clearly the best role of his career, one that is truly unique from his other characters. For Sandler, it is his best since work since 2002’s “Punch-Drunk Love,” and, even at that, Sandler may be even better here than in PTA’s mini-masterpiece. Simmons is Sandler, Sandler is Simmons, and through the course of the film, Sandler plays his part to perfection, never ringing a false note, never going for the zany over the dramatic. It is a character wrought with pain and disappointment, and Sandler plays him just as such.
Some people will walk into the film expecting a comedy, and, while the film is a comedy, it carries quite a bit of dramatic weight with it, as did Apatow’s “Knocked Up.” However, unlike “Knocked Up,” the drama in “Funny People” doesn’t come across as forced or schmaltzy. It feels natural, perhaps because the premise is a serious premise. It is about a man dying. If anything, it is the laughs that feel forced, but the very fact that the man in question is a comedian makes it all seem right.
There is nothing outrageous about “Funny People,” no hair-waxing scene or mushroom trips to Las Vegas or shock value shots of female genitalia. No, like the characters in his films, Apatow finally seems to be growing up, not only addressing themes of adulthood, but also addressing them like an adult: serious, focused, and in control.
Without giving it away, the ending of the film is enough evidence of Apatow’s maturity as a filmmaker. There is nothing grandiose about it. It’s just a plain and simple ending to a fairly plain and simple story, and, thus, by making it all the more real, it becomes all the more relatable.
And that is something every filmmaker—be the genre comedy or drama—should strive to achieve.
By Jeff Webb
It’s interesting to watch the direction of Judd Apatow’s directorial career play out on cinema screens. With his first film, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” Apatow introduced audiences to his stories of “bromance” and men stuck in adolescence. With “Knocked Up,” Apatow covered similar territory, but this time making it a bit more personal, basing it somewhat on his own experiences with becoming a father. Still, there was a sense of the cartoonish in the characters, an outrageousness to the film. With his third and latest film, though—the newly released “Funny People”—Apatow has hit his stride. It is his most focused feature yet, completely realistic and understated and restrained.
The problem with Apatow’s previous two films is not that the stories lack a moral—for they do have a point—but that they sometimes lose focus of that moral, wandering into territory where it just seems like comedy for the sake of comedy. Nothing is learned. Plot and characterization is not advanced.
That is not the case with “Funny People.” Yes, the movie is long—perhaps a bit too long—but every scene plays a part in the bigger story. That story revolves around George Simmons, a popular comedian who, upon finding out he has leukemia, starts to reevaluate his life. Helping him on this journey of self-discovery is young and insecure comedian Ira Wright.
Adam Sandler plays Simmons, and Seth Rogen plays Wright. For the latter, it is clearly the best role of his career, one that is truly unique from his other characters. For Sandler, it is his best since work since 2002’s “Punch-Drunk Love,” and, even at that, Sandler may be even better here than in PTA’s mini-masterpiece. Simmons is Sandler, Sandler is Simmons, and through the course of the film, Sandler plays his part to perfection, never ringing a false note, never going for the zany over the dramatic. It is a character wrought with pain and disappointment, and Sandler plays him just as such.
Some people will walk into the film expecting a comedy, and, while the film is a comedy, it carries quite a bit of dramatic weight with it, as did Apatow’s “Knocked Up.” However, unlike “Knocked Up,” the drama in “Funny People” doesn’t come across as forced or schmaltzy. It feels natural, perhaps because the premise is a serious premise. It is about a man dying. If anything, it is the laughs that feel forced, but the very fact that the man in question is a comedian makes it all seem right.
There is nothing outrageous about “Funny People,” no hair-waxing scene or mushroom trips to Las Vegas or shock value shots of female genitalia. No, like the characters in his films, Apatow finally seems to be growing up, not only addressing themes of adulthood, but also addressing them like an adult: serious, focused, and in control.
Without giving it away, the ending of the film is enough evidence of Apatow’s maturity as a filmmaker. There is nothing grandiose about it. It’s just a plain and simple ending to a fairly plain and simple story, and, thus, by making it all the more real, it becomes all the more relatable.
And that is something every filmmaker—be the genre comedy or drama—should strive to achieve.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Neil Young with the Band
Neil Young is a great musical artist, and, perhaps, he has never been better than seen here, performing "Helpless" with backing from the Band. Enjoy.
Monday, July 20, 2009
It's An Honor Even To Be Nominated
By Jeff Webb
A little less than a month ago, Academy president Sid Ganis announced that 82nd Academy Awards will feature ten Best Picture winners, as opposed to featuring just five as in years past.
To some, this may be occasion to rejoice, and having ten nominees might not be that bad. For instance, take last year’s Oscars as an example. Films like Rachel Getting Married and The Wrestler most certainly deserved a Best Picture nomination, but they were shut out. Widening the field to ten would likely include these films.
Likewise, animated films and lower-budget indie films might also gain an advantage, with the Academy looking elsewhere than big-budget December releases to fill their Oscar pool.
Lastly, the revenue brought in by having ten nominees should be positive for studios, theaters, and the Academy broadcast. Ten films gaining critical praise means more people rushing to see these movies in theaters, as well as more people tuning into the broadcast to see whether or not their film will win.
However, even with these benefits—and there are more, as you can read on some other blogs devoted to this—having ten nominees may have its drawbacks. In a way, it seems more fair to be including more nominees, but that may just be a fantasy. Already the Academy nominates things that shouldn’t be nominated and leaves out things that should be nominated. Why would widening the field to ten be any different? Instead of having two mediocre nominees and three good ones, now we might just end up with four mediocre nominees and six good ones, with other good films left out.
The Academy might also be more likely to nominate something just to give it the honor of a nomination rather than nominating it on the basis that it could—and should—win the Best Picture Oscar—cough, cough, The Dark Knight.
It does not seem quite the honor of receiving a nomination when the field is ten as opposed to five. The club isn’t as exclusive, and for a program that is supposed to recognize the very best in the year’s motion pictures, exclusivity should be a consideration.
If a film truly is great, it should, theoretically, be good enough to receive a nomination, and that shouldn’t change whether the field is five or ten, though that doesn’t always happen. But why would that happen with ten nominees as opposed to five? The Academy is going to nominate what it’s going to nominate.
It seems as though the Academy might be grasping as straws to make the awards more open and appealing, but, in doing so, it might be hurting the prestige of the Oscars. If they really do nominate ten of the year’s best films—of which I am skeptical—what will it say for the winner? Whereas under the previous system, two or three frontrunners would emerge, with ten nominees, we might have four or five frontrunners. Votes will be divided, and there might never be a clear winner. Not only would it seem less impressive to say a film has been nominated, but it might be just as underwhelming to say that a film even won.
A little less than a month ago, Academy president Sid Ganis announced that 82nd Academy Awards will feature ten Best Picture winners, as opposed to featuring just five as in years past.
To some, this may be occasion to rejoice, and having ten nominees might not be that bad. For instance, take last year’s Oscars as an example. Films like Rachel Getting Married and The Wrestler most certainly deserved a Best Picture nomination, but they were shut out. Widening the field to ten would likely include these films.
Likewise, animated films and lower-budget indie films might also gain an advantage, with the Academy looking elsewhere than big-budget December releases to fill their Oscar pool.
Lastly, the revenue brought in by having ten nominees should be positive for studios, theaters, and the Academy broadcast. Ten films gaining critical praise means more people rushing to see these movies in theaters, as well as more people tuning into the broadcast to see whether or not their film will win.
However, even with these benefits—and there are more, as you can read on some other blogs devoted to this—having ten nominees may have its drawbacks. In a way, it seems more fair to be including more nominees, but that may just be a fantasy. Already the Academy nominates things that shouldn’t be nominated and leaves out things that should be nominated. Why would widening the field to ten be any different? Instead of having two mediocre nominees and three good ones, now we might just end up with four mediocre nominees and six good ones, with other good films left out.
The Academy might also be more likely to nominate something just to give it the honor of a nomination rather than nominating it on the basis that it could—and should—win the Best Picture Oscar—cough, cough, The Dark Knight.
It does not seem quite the honor of receiving a nomination when the field is ten as opposed to five. The club isn’t as exclusive, and for a program that is supposed to recognize the very best in the year’s motion pictures, exclusivity should be a consideration.
If a film truly is great, it should, theoretically, be good enough to receive a nomination, and that shouldn’t change whether the field is five or ten, though that doesn’t always happen. But why would that happen with ten nominees as opposed to five? The Academy is going to nominate what it’s going to nominate.
It seems as though the Academy might be grasping as straws to make the awards more open and appealing, but, in doing so, it might be hurting the prestige of the Oscars. If they really do nominate ten of the year’s best films—of which I am skeptical—what will it say for the winner? Whereas under the previous system, two or three frontrunners would emerge, with ten nominees, we might have four or five frontrunners. Votes will be divided, and there might never be a clear winner. Not only would it seem less impressive to say a film has been nominated, but it might be just as underwhelming to say that a film even won.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
My Top Ten Movie Theater Experiences
By Jeff Webb
I have loved movies all my life. Seeing recent summer blockbusters like “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “Star Trek,” I have been thinking about some of my best movie-going experiences, the films and the energy that really made me feel involved in the picture. I have listed ten of these experiences below, and I encourage you to list some of your favorite movie-going experiences in the comments below this posting.
Note: The years correspond to the year the film was released, not the year I saw the film in theaters.
1. Grindhouse (2007): Probably the most fun I ever had in a movie theater. I went and saw this on opening day with about four or five of my friends, and the theater was packed. “Planet Terror,” full of tongue-in-cheek fun, had the audience all pumped up, though the energy dwindled some when “Death Proof” came around and the pace of the film slowed down. However, the climatic car chase redeemed it all, and still ranks as one of the best car chases, in my opinion, in film history.
2. Titanic (1997): Anybody growing up in my generation listing movie-going experiences and not including “Titanic” is lying. It was an event movie, and in the twelve years since—even with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Harry Potter, and the trend of superhero movies—nothing has still approached the epic reception of “Titanic” by the public. You didn’t just see it once. You saw it two times. Three times. Middle-aged couples planned evenings around it, like they were getting dressed up to see a play, but, rather, they went to the cinema. I, for one, saw it in the now defunct Kanawha Cinemas, with water dripping slowly from the ceiling, giving it all an air of realism. It was my first experience with Kate Winslet, too, giving my fifth-grader self a movie star crush that lasts even to this day.
3. The Dark Knight (2008): If any movie has come close to “Titanic,” it is “The Dark Knight.” I saw it five times, and every time was fantastic, though the best was opening night. It was a midnight showing at Marquee Cinemas, a sold-out theater, and, that first showing, it all was so much darker and intense than I had ever anticipated, and I loved it for it. It’s not a film masterpiece, as some would suggest, for it does have some flaws script-wise, but, in terms of summer blockbusters, “The Dark Knight” is one of the absolute best.
4. No Country for Old Men (2007): Perhaps the most suspenseful movie I have ever seen in theaters. I sat in the front row with two of my friends, in a packed theater, and perhaps because the crowd was into it, or perhaps because I was so close to the screen that I felt actually in the action, I was completely tense. I remember actually feeling a weight lifted off me when the film concluded, a conclusion that many people criticized but I felt to be absolutely genius.
5. There Will Be Blood (2007): The film that should have won 2007’s Best Picture Oscar. I could not convince anybody to go with me, so I drove alone one Friday evening from Buckhannon to Morgantown to see it. The theater itself was new to me, and was a very clean facility, which was nice. The film, though, was what really impressed, with Paul Thomas Anderson’s direction reminiscent of such greats as Kubrick or Huston, and Daniel Day-Lewis, as Daniel Plainview, turning in one of the best performances of motion picture history. The audience was completely engrossed by the time the final scene came around, and I just remember everybody sitting in stunned silence at the shocking ending the film serves up.
6. The Wrestler (2008): My friend and I anticipated this film for a good six months before its release. I ended up seeing it twice, once with said friend in Pittsburgh, and once more with a girl in Buckhannon. In Pittsburgh, on the film’s opening weekend in the town, the theater was packed, and the audience energy was high, responding to such scenes as the hardcore match and the Ram working in the deli. In Buckhannon, it was just the girl and me alone in the theater, but “The Wrestler,” is, in all essence, a simple film, one that can enjoyed both with a crowd and with only one other person.
7. Jurassic Park (1993): I only have a vague memory of this experience, as I was five years old at the time I saw it, but I remember it was at a drive-in theater, and it was at night. I remember being scared, thinking that dinosaurs might come out from behind the movie screen and attack us all. It was, probably, the first time I was terrified by a movie, but I also loved it. Spielberg films have always been dear to me, playing important roles in the development of my childhood, and “Jurassic Park” is no exception.
8. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981): Speaking of Spielberg, I saw this at the Warner Theater in Morgantown in Spring 2009. I have loved Indiana Jones since I was a child, going so far as naming a pet cat, when I was six years old, after the iconic movie character. The film is completely mesmerizing on the big screen and in a dark theater. However, I had already seen it countless times on home video, so I knew what to expect, but I must wonder what it would have been like seeing it for the first time in 1981, and how exciting that must have been.
9. Blindness (2008): The film received poor reviews, but I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why. I saw it by myself, in a theater completely empty but for me, and that was an experience. That has only happened a couple times in my life, and it is such an outstanding feeling. It makes you feel important, like it’s a private screening all for you, and, with a film like “Blindness,” it makes it all much more intense and scary, which, perhaps, is why I have a more favorable opinion of the film as opposed to others.
10. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999): I saw this with my brother and his friend, Kenny. I don’t remember much about the experience, though I do remember it was at Park Place Cinemas in Charleston right after they had remodeled, and that it was a tremendously funny movie. I just had a good feeling that night, and that, of course, is the end result of a good movie-going experience.
I have loved movies all my life. Seeing recent summer blockbusters like “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “Star Trek,” I have been thinking about some of my best movie-going experiences, the films and the energy that really made me feel involved in the picture. I have listed ten of these experiences below, and I encourage you to list some of your favorite movie-going experiences in the comments below this posting.
Note: The years correspond to the year the film was released, not the year I saw the film in theaters.
1. Grindhouse (2007): Probably the most fun I ever had in a movie theater. I went and saw this on opening day with about four or five of my friends, and the theater was packed. “Planet Terror,” full of tongue-in-cheek fun, had the audience all pumped up, though the energy dwindled some when “Death Proof” came around and the pace of the film slowed down. However, the climatic car chase redeemed it all, and still ranks as one of the best car chases, in my opinion, in film history.
2. Titanic (1997): Anybody growing up in my generation listing movie-going experiences and not including “Titanic” is lying. It was an event movie, and in the twelve years since—even with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Harry Potter, and the trend of superhero movies—nothing has still approached the epic reception of “Titanic” by the public. You didn’t just see it once. You saw it two times. Three times. Middle-aged couples planned evenings around it, like they were getting dressed up to see a play, but, rather, they went to the cinema. I, for one, saw it in the now defunct Kanawha Cinemas, with water dripping slowly from the ceiling, giving it all an air of realism. It was my first experience with Kate Winslet, too, giving my fifth-grader self a movie star crush that lasts even to this day.
3. The Dark Knight (2008): If any movie has come close to “Titanic,” it is “The Dark Knight.” I saw it five times, and every time was fantastic, though the best was opening night. It was a midnight showing at Marquee Cinemas, a sold-out theater, and, that first showing, it all was so much darker and intense than I had ever anticipated, and I loved it for it. It’s not a film masterpiece, as some would suggest, for it does have some flaws script-wise, but, in terms of summer blockbusters, “The Dark Knight” is one of the absolute best.
4. No Country for Old Men (2007): Perhaps the most suspenseful movie I have ever seen in theaters. I sat in the front row with two of my friends, in a packed theater, and perhaps because the crowd was into it, or perhaps because I was so close to the screen that I felt actually in the action, I was completely tense. I remember actually feeling a weight lifted off me when the film concluded, a conclusion that many people criticized but I felt to be absolutely genius.
5. There Will Be Blood (2007): The film that should have won 2007’s Best Picture Oscar. I could not convince anybody to go with me, so I drove alone one Friday evening from Buckhannon to Morgantown to see it. The theater itself was new to me, and was a very clean facility, which was nice. The film, though, was what really impressed, with Paul Thomas Anderson’s direction reminiscent of such greats as Kubrick or Huston, and Daniel Day-Lewis, as Daniel Plainview, turning in one of the best performances of motion picture history. The audience was completely engrossed by the time the final scene came around, and I just remember everybody sitting in stunned silence at the shocking ending the film serves up.
6. The Wrestler (2008): My friend and I anticipated this film for a good six months before its release. I ended up seeing it twice, once with said friend in Pittsburgh, and once more with a girl in Buckhannon. In Pittsburgh, on the film’s opening weekend in the town, the theater was packed, and the audience energy was high, responding to such scenes as the hardcore match and the Ram working in the deli. In Buckhannon, it was just the girl and me alone in the theater, but “The Wrestler,” is, in all essence, a simple film, one that can enjoyed both with a crowd and with only one other person.
7. Jurassic Park (1993): I only have a vague memory of this experience, as I was five years old at the time I saw it, but I remember it was at a drive-in theater, and it was at night. I remember being scared, thinking that dinosaurs might come out from behind the movie screen and attack us all. It was, probably, the first time I was terrified by a movie, but I also loved it. Spielberg films have always been dear to me, playing important roles in the development of my childhood, and “Jurassic Park” is no exception.
8. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981): Speaking of Spielberg, I saw this at the Warner Theater in Morgantown in Spring 2009. I have loved Indiana Jones since I was a child, going so far as naming a pet cat, when I was six years old, after the iconic movie character. The film is completely mesmerizing on the big screen and in a dark theater. However, I had already seen it countless times on home video, so I knew what to expect, but I must wonder what it would have been like seeing it for the first time in 1981, and how exciting that must have been.
9. Blindness (2008): The film received poor reviews, but I, for the life of me, cannot figure out why. I saw it by myself, in a theater completely empty but for me, and that was an experience. That has only happened a couple times in my life, and it is such an outstanding feeling. It makes you feel important, like it’s a private screening all for you, and, with a film like “Blindness,” it makes it all much more intense and scary, which, perhaps, is why I have a more favorable opinion of the film as opposed to others.
10. Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999): I saw this with my brother and his friend, Kenny. I don’t remember much about the experience, though I do remember it was at Park Place Cinemas in Charleston right after they had remodeled, and that it was a tremendously funny movie. I just had a good feeling that night, and that, of course, is the end result of a good movie-going experience.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of "Bruno"
By Jeff Webb
With “Bruno,” star Sacha Baron Cohen crosses every line of taste, and, while such boldness succeeded in “Borat,” it just can’t help feeling recycled and tired in the latest effort. It is a funny movie, yes, and, at times, it achieves moments of comedic greatness, but, by the end of the film, one has learned nothing. It is almost all comedy of shock value and no comedy of intelligence.
Chiefly, “Bruno” fails where “Borat” succeeded in that Cohen, in a way, holds back. No, he doesn’t hold back in terms of gags and graphic content, but he holds back in terms of the challenges he makes to his audience. “Borat” was a wonderful satire, exposing in both over-the-top and subtle ways the prejudices of American society. With “Bruno,” all the subtlety is gone, and, at that, all the satire is gone. Of course someone is going to act angrily when a naked man comes to his tent in the middle of the night. It is funny, yes, but it is cheap, and it lacks the intelligence of Cohen’s previous effort.
In addition, the story is practically a rehashed story of “Borat,” making the film feel rather stale. The story arcs are the same: a foreigner comes to America, causes some trouble with Middle America, loses his partner-in-crime about halfway through the film, sinks into a depressed slump, and, at the end, is reunited with his partner and all is alright. That was the plot of “Borat,” and that is the plot of “Bruno,” only in “Bruno,” it’s nothing new.
Cohen, for all his effort, is an amazing acting talent, becoming so completely the characters he plays. It would truly be interesting to see him in a more serious role, something akin to his brief performance in 2007’s “Sweeney Todd.”
Director Larry Charles, who directed “Borat” and is noted as a prime creative force behind TV’s “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is also genius at dissecting the idiocy of American society, but, once again, with “Bruno,” all the honesty and patience feels lost.
Perhaps more than anything else, though, the film feels rehearsed. There are many more staged scenes in “Bruno” as compared to “Borat,” and, while that might work if the story were truly compelling, it can’t help but make the film feel more false. Because the film is not real, because Cohen goes more for the insane than the subtle, one never really feels challenged. The satire is lost, and the film is nothing more than unintelligible comedy garbage.
But, strangest thing of all, it is one of the funniest things you will ever see in your life.
By Jeff Webb
With “Bruno,” star Sacha Baron Cohen crosses every line of taste, and, while such boldness succeeded in “Borat,” it just can’t help feeling recycled and tired in the latest effort. It is a funny movie, yes, and, at times, it achieves moments of comedic greatness, but, by the end of the film, one has learned nothing. It is almost all comedy of shock value and no comedy of intelligence.
Chiefly, “Bruno” fails where “Borat” succeeded in that Cohen, in a way, holds back. No, he doesn’t hold back in terms of gags and graphic content, but he holds back in terms of the challenges he makes to his audience. “Borat” was a wonderful satire, exposing in both over-the-top and subtle ways the prejudices of American society. With “Bruno,” all the subtlety is gone, and, at that, all the satire is gone. Of course someone is going to act angrily when a naked man comes to his tent in the middle of the night. It is funny, yes, but it is cheap, and it lacks the intelligence of Cohen’s previous effort.
In addition, the story is practically a rehashed story of “Borat,” making the film feel rather stale. The story arcs are the same: a foreigner comes to America, causes some trouble with Middle America, loses his partner-in-crime about halfway through the film, sinks into a depressed slump, and, at the end, is reunited with his partner and all is alright. That was the plot of “Borat,” and that is the plot of “Bruno,” only in “Bruno,” it’s nothing new.
Cohen, for all his effort, is an amazing acting talent, becoming so completely the characters he plays. It would truly be interesting to see him in a more serious role, something akin to his brief performance in 2007’s “Sweeney Todd.”
Director Larry Charles, who directed “Borat” and is noted as a prime creative force behind TV’s “Seinfeld” and “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” is also genius at dissecting the idiocy of American society, but, once again, with “Bruno,” all the honesty and patience feels lost.
Perhaps more than anything else, though, the film feels rehearsed. There are many more staged scenes in “Bruno” as compared to “Borat,” and, while that might work if the story were truly compelling, it can’t help but make the film feel more false. Because the film is not real, because Cohen goes more for the insane than the subtle, one never really feels challenged. The satire is lost, and the film is nothing more than unintelligible comedy garbage.
But, strangest thing of all, it is one of the funniest things you will ever see in your life.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Happy birthday, America!
'Tis July 4th, America's Independence Day, or, at least, the day we celebrate our independence as the true date of our Independence Day is kind of up to discussion. That said, spend the day with friends and family, but remember what the day is about. Be rebellious, because our forefathers were rebellious. You know, read a banned book or curse loudly or something bold like that. To put you in such a patriotic spirit, see video below:
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of "Public Enemies"
By Jeff Webb
“Public Enemies” is not new or original. The story of John Dillinger has, many times, been brought to life through literature and film, and the basic plot of “Public Enemies” follows along the same lines as many other classic—and superior—crime films, such as “The Untouchables” and “Heat.” However, perhaps never has such a story about Depression-era crime been told with such grit and honesty as “Public Enemies,” acclaimed director Michael Mann applying modern sensibilities to an old story. The end result is brutal, tense fun.
Mann, the director of the aforementioned “Heat” as well as “Collateral” and “Manhunter,” has always had a knack for depicting crime on film, and “Public Enemies” is very much a Michael Mann film. Yes, the people are pretty, the settings are nostalgic, but the camera work—while slow and clear at some points—can quickly become rapid and grainy, and that is pure Mann. Viewers aren’t used to seeing this type of old-style gangster movie filmed like a police procedural about two cops in South Central, but the lack of sentimentality makes the film unique. Even the legendary “Bonnie & Clyde,” which was groundbreaking in its portrayal of violence onscreen, digressed into comedy and melodrama at times.
Evidence of the power of this filmmaking objectivism is clearly evident in the climatic shoot-out with George “Babyface” Nelson. There is minimal music, minimal lighting. We just hear the punches, the gunshots, and we see the resulting corpses. In a way, it’s savage, but it’s so very real.
However, “Public Enemies” falls short of other classic crime dramas, though, mainly due to character development. John Dillinger robs banks, and Melvin Purvis is the FBI agent charged with tracking him down. That’s about all we know about the two main characters, and, while this fits with the film’s terse tone, it’s not quite as effective. What makes the film unique is the way it tells an old story in a new way. What makes it fail is that, while the technique is new, the story is still old.
At the end of the film, audiences might be left asking, “Why did we really care if Dillinger got away or not?”
That is a question that is never really resolved.
However, working with what they had, all the actors do an exceptional job. Johnny Depp delivers as John Dillinger, though, with the exception of one or two scenes, he isn’t necessarily electric. Christian Bale as Dillinger’s chief antagonist is quite wonderful, ever-stoic and tough, but it is Dillinger’s story, and Bale never really gets an opportunity to come alive, but that is a problem with the script and not a fault of the actor’s.
Marion Cotillard as Dillinger’s girlfriend, though, is the film’s real stand-out, perhaps because she is the best developed character, or perhaps just based on Cotillard’s sheer talent. Either way, she gives her character life and takes her through a whole range of emotions.
It should be interesting come next winter to see whether “Public Enemies” benefits from the expansion of the Academy’s Best Picture field from five to ten. It’s not winner-worthy, but, depending upon further releases this year, it might be good enough to warrant a nomination. At the very least, though, “Public Enemies” is certainly the best of the summer, thus far, one of those rare gems that comes along in the middle of the season that melds both blockbuster and arthouse flick into one enjoyable experience.
By Jeff Webb
“Public Enemies” is not new or original. The story of John Dillinger has, many times, been brought to life through literature and film, and the basic plot of “Public Enemies” follows along the same lines as many other classic—and superior—crime films, such as “The Untouchables” and “Heat.” However, perhaps never has such a story about Depression-era crime been told with such grit and honesty as “Public Enemies,” acclaimed director Michael Mann applying modern sensibilities to an old story. The end result is brutal, tense fun.
Mann, the director of the aforementioned “Heat” as well as “Collateral” and “Manhunter,” has always had a knack for depicting crime on film, and “Public Enemies” is very much a Michael Mann film. Yes, the people are pretty, the settings are nostalgic, but the camera work—while slow and clear at some points—can quickly become rapid and grainy, and that is pure Mann. Viewers aren’t used to seeing this type of old-style gangster movie filmed like a police procedural about two cops in South Central, but the lack of sentimentality makes the film unique. Even the legendary “Bonnie & Clyde,” which was groundbreaking in its portrayal of violence onscreen, digressed into comedy and melodrama at times.
Evidence of the power of this filmmaking objectivism is clearly evident in the climatic shoot-out with George “Babyface” Nelson. There is minimal music, minimal lighting. We just hear the punches, the gunshots, and we see the resulting corpses. In a way, it’s savage, but it’s so very real.
However, “Public Enemies” falls short of other classic crime dramas, though, mainly due to character development. John Dillinger robs banks, and Melvin Purvis is the FBI agent charged with tracking him down. That’s about all we know about the two main characters, and, while this fits with the film’s terse tone, it’s not quite as effective. What makes the film unique is the way it tells an old story in a new way. What makes it fail is that, while the technique is new, the story is still old.
At the end of the film, audiences might be left asking, “Why did we really care if Dillinger got away or not?”
That is a question that is never really resolved.
However, working with what they had, all the actors do an exceptional job. Johnny Depp delivers as John Dillinger, though, with the exception of one or two scenes, he isn’t necessarily electric. Christian Bale as Dillinger’s chief antagonist is quite wonderful, ever-stoic and tough, but it is Dillinger’s story, and Bale never really gets an opportunity to come alive, but that is a problem with the script and not a fault of the actor’s.
Marion Cotillard as Dillinger’s girlfriend, though, is the film’s real stand-out, perhaps because she is the best developed character, or perhaps just based on Cotillard’s sheer talent. Either way, she gives her character life and takes her through a whole range of emotions.
It should be interesting come next winter to see whether “Public Enemies” benefits from the expansion of the Academy’s Best Picture field from five to ten. It’s not winner-worthy, but, depending upon further releases this year, it might be good enough to warrant a nomination. At the very least, though, “Public Enemies” is certainly the best of the summer, thus far, one of those rare gems that comes along in the middle of the season that melds both blockbuster and arthouse flick into one enjoyable experience.
Monday, June 29, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
By Jeff Webb
Nobody walks into the theater to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with the expectations of seeing a serious film about such things as technology and war. No, people go to see the new Transformers film to escape, to live vicariously through the characters and be caught up in the action. They want to be entertained rather than stimulated in thought.
The question then becomes not whether Revenge of the Fallen is a good film, but is it an entertaining film? The answer to that is yes.
The story picks up where the first Transformers left off, with Optimus Prime and his band of Autobots protecting the world from the evil Decepticons. An audience member really needs to know nothing else to grasp the action of the story, though, and that is unfortunate. The first film’s biggest flaw was its script, and the same goes for the sequel. It lacks complexity, and it lacks detail. Why do the Decepticons despise the Autobots so much? Why is the Matrix of Leadership so powerful? No answers are given, and character motivations are not only hidden but practically non-existent. Yes, the film calls for a suspension of disbelief, but—as this summer’s Star Trek or last summer’s Dark Knight evidence—suspension of disbelief does not necessarily mean that a film still cannot be grounded in some reality.
Mostly, though, the shallow script does not allow the audience to connect with the characters. Yes, we know Sam Witwicky and the noble Optimus Prime, but, other than that, characters are two-dimensional. Even the most unbelievable of films must connect the audience with the characters, must allow the audience to relate to the film in that way, for, if the film fails in that regard, the audience will never be truly enthralled.
Still, with the lack of story depth, the film is entertaining, reliant primarily upon its visual effects. The action scenes look spectacular, even though some of them—including the climatic battle in the desert—are too frantic and, in the words of my father, “busy.” It’s easy to lose track of the characters, especially when many of the transformer robots bear such striking resemblance. However, there is truly one wonderful scene—perhaps the best of the summer—and that is the action scene in the forest about halfway through the film. Interestingly enough, it is the one scene where Michael Bay’s camera and editing are at their most deliberate and calm.
Say what you want about Michael Bay and his films, but the man has his own style, and that is a lot more than many directors can say. Yes, he specializes in cheesy, over-the-top action films, but it’s not generic action. It is Bay’s vision, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, and anybody that has a vision and can commit that vision to film should be applauded at least just a little bit.
It is worth mentioning, too, that Shia LaBeouf is another victim of unwarranted criticism. His acting in this film, while safe and typical, is not bad. Anybody that truly believes Mr. LaBeouf is a bad actor need only to watch A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.
In conclusion, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will probably be the highest-grossing movie of 2009’s summer movie season, and with its beautiful cast and stunning action, it’s easy to see why. However, it does lack a story, and, while such things can be expected or forgiven, one can only wonder how good a film it might really have been if it had been written just a bit better. If one can see the film, though, and truly suspend all disbelief and just be entertained, one should not be disappointed, for the film, with all of its flaws, is still a step above most other mindless Hollywood action flicks.
Just one step above, but a step, nonetheless.
By Jeff Webb
Nobody walks into the theater to see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen with the expectations of seeing a serious film about such things as technology and war. No, people go to see the new Transformers film to escape, to live vicariously through the characters and be caught up in the action. They want to be entertained rather than stimulated in thought.
The question then becomes not whether Revenge of the Fallen is a good film, but is it an entertaining film? The answer to that is yes.
The story picks up where the first Transformers left off, with Optimus Prime and his band of Autobots protecting the world from the evil Decepticons. An audience member really needs to know nothing else to grasp the action of the story, though, and that is unfortunate. The first film’s biggest flaw was its script, and the same goes for the sequel. It lacks complexity, and it lacks detail. Why do the Decepticons despise the Autobots so much? Why is the Matrix of Leadership so powerful? No answers are given, and character motivations are not only hidden but practically non-existent. Yes, the film calls for a suspension of disbelief, but—as this summer’s Star Trek or last summer’s Dark Knight evidence—suspension of disbelief does not necessarily mean that a film still cannot be grounded in some reality.
Mostly, though, the shallow script does not allow the audience to connect with the characters. Yes, we know Sam Witwicky and the noble Optimus Prime, but, other than that, characters are two-dimensional. Even the most unbelievable of films must connect the audience with the characters, must allow the audience to relate to the film in that way, for, if the film fails in that regard, the audience will never be truly enthralled.
Still, with the lack of story depth, the film is entertaining, reliant primarily upon its visual effects. The action scenes look spectacular, even though some of them—including the climatic battle in the desert—are too frantic and, in the words of my father, “busy.” It’s easy to lose track of the characters, especially when many of the transformer robots bear such striking resemblance. However, there is truly one wonderful scene—perhaps the best of the summer—and that is the action scene in the forest about halfway through the film. Interestingly enough, it is the one scene where Michael Bay’s camera and editing are at their most deliberate and calm.
Say what you want about Michael Bay and his films, but the man has his own style, and that is a lot more than many directors can say. Yes, he specializes in cheesy, over-the-top action films, but it’s not generic action. It is Bay’s vision, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, and anybody that has a vision and can commit that vision to film should be applauded at least just a little bit.
It is worth mentioning, too, that Shia LaBeouf is another victim of unwarranted criticism. His acting in this film, while safe and typical, is not bad. Anybody that truly believes Mr. LaBeouf is a bad actor need only to watch A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.
In conclusion, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will probably be the highest-grossing movie of 2009’s summer movie season, and with its beautiful cast and stunning action, it’s easy to see why. However, it does lack a story, and, while such things can be expected or forgiven, one can only wonder how good a film it might really have been if it had been written just a bit better. If one can see the film, though, and truly suspend all disbelief and just be entertained, one should not be disappointed, for the film, with all of its flaws, is still a step above most other mindless Hollywood action flicks.
Just one step above, but a step, nonetheless.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Remembering Farrah Fawcett and the King of Pop, Among Others
By Jeff Webb
Actress Farrah Fawcett, 62, and Michael Jackson, 50, both passed away yesterday. Their deaths follow the recent passings of David Carradine and Ed McMahon, all four of these recently deceased not only being renowned entertainers but also pop culture icons who played a large part in defining their respective generations.
Of course, news coverage of these stars' deaths can get excessive. The mourning people express can become obnoxious and pointless. Famous though they were, at the end of the day, Ms. Fawcett and Mr. Jackson--along with Mr. Carradine and Mr. McMahon--were just people, full of life but also full of flaws. Yes, they were imperfect, like all the rest of us.
So, we really can't spend too long mourning these persons, because they were, after all, persons, but they were persons that most of us knew only through a television screen.
However, by the very job description of "entertainer," they were persons who were ever focused on an audience, and that is where we, the fans, are hit hardest. We didn't know them, but we were affected by them, by their movies, their comedy, their music. Escapist entertainment most of it was, yes, but in a world that can get so depressing, escapist entertainment comes in handy sometimes.
Perhaps, then, it's with a sense of nostalgia that we mourn the deaths of these persons. Not so much are we mourning the absence of them, but more so are we mourning the absence of their characters, and, better yet, the emotional responses those characters evoked in us. That sense of loss is truly a testament to these individuals' skill in their respective art form.
They were gifted performers, the whole lot of them.
Actress Farrah Fawcett, 62, and Michael Jackson, 50, both passed away yesterday. Their deaths follow the recent passings of David Carradine and Ed McMahon, all four of these recently deceased not only being renowned entertainers but also pop culture icons who played a large part in defining their respective generations.
Of course, news coverage of these stars' deaths can get excessive. The mourning people express can become obnoxious and pointless. Famous though they were, at the end of the day, Ms. Fawcett and Mr. Jackson--along with Mr. Carradine and Mr. McMahon--were just people, full of life but also full of flaws. Yes, they were imperfect, like all the rest of us.
So, we really can't spend too long mourning these persons, because they were, after all, persons, but they were persons that most of us knew only through a television screen.
However, by the very job description of "entertainer," they were persons who were ever focused on an audience, and that is where we, the fans, are hit hardest. We didn't know them, but we were affected by them, by their movies, their comedy, their music. Escapist entertainment most of it was, yes, but in a world that can get so depressing, escapist entertainment comes in handy sometimes.
Perhaps, then, it's with a sense of nostalgia that we mourn the deaths of these persons. Not so much are we mourning the absence of them, but more so are we mourning the absence of their characters, and, better yet, the emotional responses those characters evoked in us. That sense of loss is truly a testament to these individuals' skill in their respective art form.
They were gifted performers, the whole lot of them.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Ed McMahon, 1923-2009
Ed McMahon, best known as Johnny Carson's sidekick on The Tonight Show and as the host of Star Search, died today, June 23rd, 2009, at UCLA Medical Center. He was 86 years old. The Pharos would like to extend its thoughts and prayers to all affected by Mr. McMahon's death.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Coppola Interview
Francis Ford Coppola is, quite possibly, America's greatest filmmaker, having directed such classic films as The Godfather trilogy, Apocalypse Now, and The Conversation. Below is an interview from KQED Radio with the man himself.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Better Pay for West Virginia Teachers
The following blog entry is a response to a prompt from aBetterWestVirginia.com, which asked bloggers in the state to "identify an obstacle that hinders West Virginia and discuss its solution." This opportunity was offered by aBetterWestVirginia.com as a way to celebrate West Virginia Day, which is a day remembering the birth of West Virginia's statehood: June 20th, 1863.
By Jeff Webb
West Virginia needs good teachers. With many young teachers opting to leave the state for better paying jobs and many experienced teachers approaching retirement age, the West Virginia educational system has positions to fill, and the state needs to offer some incentive—some enticement—to get educators to stay in the state.
Perhaps the solution is offering higher salaries for teachers. Over the past several years, with an average salary somewhere around $43,000, West Virginia has consistently ranked low in national rankings of teacher pay, while bordering states of Virginia and Ohio have consistently been ranked near or in the top ten highest-paying states for teachers. It is little surprise, then, that young teachers, fresh out of college and looking to start a life, migrate to these nearby states for more lucrative job opportunities.
There are some problems, though, when it comes to raising teacher salaries in West Virginia, namely that the state isn’t a very rich state to begin with, and the current economic recession in the United States can’t help matters, either. According to one recent survey from the U.S. Census Bureau, the median family income in West Virginia is somewhere around $44,000, and, in this respect, the average teacher pay is not far off from what most other West Virginians are earning.
However, using this excuse—that teachers do not need more money because they are right at the average income for the state—is frivolous, as the basic problem still exists: other states offer better pay, and, as a result, West Virginia is losing teachers.
The state’s two largest teacher unions, AFT and WVEA, have each offered their own ideas for pay raises, but there are flaws in their ideas. Namely, in the pay raise plans of both unions, not only do teachers receive a raise, but so, too, do superintendents. With the average salary for superintendents around $90,000—and the salary being even higher in some counties, such as Kanawha—there doesn’t seem much use in the superintendents receiving raises. Rather, it would be much more beneficial to the state and its educational system if the raise were only given to the people that need it: teachers.
Currently, the West Virginia legislature sets the minimum pay for teachers, and then individual counties, based on population and taxable income, can pay more than the minimum. Perhaps, then, what the legislature needs to do is raise the minimum salary by a couple thousand dollars in order to bring West Virginia up to par with other states. If financing for this is hard to come by, perhaps some superintendents and other government officials might consider a pay cut.
Humility. That is the simple answer to this problem. Nobody becomes a teacher for the money. A person becomes a teacher to help others, and that person will do the job no matter what the pay. It’s just that, in the current society, money is necessary to living, and wanting to receive more money for a job whenever possible is not a difficult motive to grasp.
However, it will take humility for West Virginia teachers to accept what they need, not what they want. Likewise, it will take the humility of government leaders to cut back on excess, to give more money to those that need it and not, perhaps, to those that don’t.
Receiving a proper education is one of, if not the most, important things in a person’s life. Paying West Virginia teachers a better salary makes the profession both more respectable and appealing, and that, right now, is exactly what the state’s educational system needs.
By Jeff Webb
West Virginia needs good teachers. With many young teachers opting to leave the state for better paying jobs and many experienced teachers approaching retirement age, the West Virginia educational system has positions to fill, and the state needs to offer some incentive—some enticement—to get educators to stay in the state.
Perhaps the solution is offering higher salaries for teachers. Over the past several years, with an average salary somewhere around $43,000, West Virginia has consistently ranked low in national rankings of teacher pay, while bordering states of Virginia and Ohio have consistently been ranked near or in the top ten highest-paying states for teachers. It is little surprise, then, that young teachers, fresh out of college and looking to start a life, migrate to these nearby states for more lucrative job opportunities.
There are some problems, though, when it comes to raising teacher salaries in West Virginia, namely that the state isn’t a very rich state to begin with, and the current economic recession in the United States can’t help matters, either. According to one recent survey from the U.S. Census Bureau, the median family income in West Virginia is somewhere around $44,000, and, in this respect, the average teacher pay is not far off from what most other West Virginians are earning.
However, using this excuse—that teachers do not need more money because they are right at the average income for the state—is frivolous, as the basic problem still exists: other states offer better pay, and, as a result, West Virginia is losing teachers.
The state’s two largest teacher unions, AFT and WVEA, have each offered their own ideas for pay raises, but there are flaws in their ideas. Namely, in the pay raise plans of both unions, not only do teachers receive a raise, but so, too, do superintendents. With the average salary for superintendents around $90,000—and the salary being even higher in some counties, such as Kanawha—there doesn’t seem much use in the superintendents receiving raises. Rather, it would be much more beneficial to the state and its educational system if the raise were only given to the people that need it: teachers.
Currently, the West Virginia legislature sets the minimum pay for teachers, and then individual counties, based on population and taxable income, can pay more than the minimum. Perhaps, then, what the legislature needs to do is raise the minimum salary by a couple thousand dollars in order to bring West Virginia up to par with other states. If financing for this is hard to come by, perhaps some superintendents and other government officials might consider a pay cut.
Humility. That is the simple answer to this problem. Nobody becomes a teacher for the money. A person becomes a teacher to help others, and that person will do the job no matter what the pay. It’s just that, in the current society, money is necessary to living, and wanting to receive more money for a job whenever possible is not a difficult motive to grasp.
However, it will take humility for West Virginia teachers to accept what they need, not what they want. Likewise, it will take the humility of government leaders to cut back on excess, to give more money to those that need it and not, perhaps, to those that don’t.
Receiving a proper education is one of, if not the most, important things in a person’s life. Paying West Virginia teachers a better salary makes the profession both more respectable and appealing, and that, right now, is exactly what the state’s educational system needs.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Annual Conference Update
By Jeff Webb
Day Four: Nice Hand
Well, today was my last day at the 2009 West Virginia Annual Conference. I actually woke up at 4:20AM today and crawled out of bed at 5. For some reason, I have been sleeping terribly at Conference, perhaps because of the lack of air circulation in my dorm room, even though I do have a huge fan blowing in from the open window.
I went jogging around the track again this morning, though, in all honesty, it was quite pitiful compared to my previous work-outs. No need to go into details.
I went to breakfast again, and had a lovely conversation with WVWC's Grandma. The fake eggs Aladdin served weren't very lovely, though.
Ms. Harriet Olsen led the morning Bible study again, focusing on the character of God. She told the congregation "it's your turn" to take God into the world.
Bishop Lyght elaborated on this, saying, "This is the acceptable time. You are in mission. Go, therefore."
Business got started at 10AM. Bishop Lyght began the session by saying, "As we do our business, we will remain kind to one another, we will love one another, and we will be respectful to one another."
Perhaps the biggest issue of the day was the voting for the constitutional amendments. Amendment #1 drew the most discussion.
If accepted, the amendment would clarify that the United Methodist Church is in ministry to all persons.
Some people read this as indirectly including homosexuals in the church, though, funny enough, the word "homosexuality" was never uttered, and "gay" was only mentioned once.
It was all like one big elephant in the room.
One gay man stood up during debate on the amendments and said that he is a gay man, that his church knows this and they show God's love to him.
This man said, "I would hate to see anyone not accepted into membership for something other than the love of Jesus."
Reverend Monty Brown added that the United Methodist Church has always been, and should always be, open to all people. The Discipline already proclaims that "all persons shall be eligible to attend...worship services, participate in its program, receive the sacraments, and upon baptism be admitted as baptized members."
Of course, another person countered that the Church needs to guard against permissiveness. Such permissiveness, according to this person, might bring about divisiveness in our church membership.
The final vote was 281 for the amendment, and 411 against. These totals will be added to totals from other Annual Conferences to reach the final vote tally and to decide whether the amendment is adopted.
On another note, Conference Director of Communications Laura Allen presented the campaign to "Rethink Church," asking, "Will we tell our story anew, through our actions?"
Allen said the Church should "speak the language of love."
After going over topics of finance, Bishop Lyght said, "A basic stream is flowing, a stream of spirituality. When the stream of spirituality is flowing, congregations don't sit around talking about money issues. They talk about ministry and mission."
It was announced that David Jasper, who has served in the cabinet for eight years, will be returning to the local church. He will be serving at Morris Memorial in Kanawha City.
Ellis Conley will replace Jasper as superintendent of the Mon Valley District.
Bishop Lyght said that there wasn't a clergy member in the room who hadn't secretly imagined being a superintendent one day. The Bishop added, "Superintending is the toughest job in the United Methodist Church. It's the frontline. It's frustrating, but with joy comes frustration, and with frustration comes joy."
I departed Buckhannon after the 3PM worship service, which ended with Bishop Lyght lifting up a prayer for those embarking on and considering ministry.
I left Jenkins Hall for what should be my last time ever staying in the place, but who really knows? As I said, it somehow just keeps pulling me back in. I would not be surprised if Camden collapses before the beginning of next school year and I get transferred back to the third floor of Jenkins, which, you know, might not be that bad. I've grown quite accustomed to the insanity of the place.
Next year's Annual Conference, in June 2010, will be June 10th-13th. The guest speaker will be Bishop Gregory Palmer.
So, in closing, I leave with this thought:
God abides. The Dude abides.
Shalom.
Day Four: Nice Hand
Well, today was my last day at the 2009 West Virginia Annual Conference. I actually woke up at 4:20AM today and crawled out of bed at 5. For some reason, I have been sleeping terribly at Conference, perhaps because of the lack of air circulation in my dorm room, even though I do have a huge fan blowing in from the open window.
I went jogging around the track again this morning, though, in all honesty, it was quite pitiful compared to my previous work-outs. No need to go into details.
I went to breakfast again, and had a lovely conversation with WVWC's Grandma. The fake eggs Aladdin served weren't very lovely, though.
Ms. Harriet Olsen led the morning Bible study again, focusing on the character of God. She told the congregation "it's your turn" to take God into the world.
Bishop Lyght elaborated on this, saying, "This is the acceptable time. You are in mission. Go, therefore."
Business got started at 10AM. Bishop Lyght began the session by saying, "As we do our business, we will remain kind to one another, we will love one another, and we will be respectful to one another."
Perhaps the biggest issue of the day was the voting for the constitutional amendments. Amendment #1 drew the most discussion.
If accepted, the amendment would clarify that the United Methodist Church is in ministry to all persons.
Some people read this as indirectly including homosexuals in the church, though, funny enough, the word "homosexuality" was never uttered, and "gay" was only mentioned once.
It was all like one big elephant in the room.
One gay man stood up during debate on the amendments and said that he is a gay man, that his church knows this and they show God's love to him.
This man said, "I would hate to see anyone not accepted into membership for something other than the love of Jesus."
Reverend Monty Brown added that the United Methodist Church has always been, and should always be, open to all people. The Discipline already proclaims that "all persons shall be eligible to attend...worship services, participate in its program, receive the sacraments, and upon baptism be admitted as baptized members."
Of course, another person countered that the Church needs to guard against permissiveness. Such permissiveness, according to this person, might bring about divisiveness in our church membership.
The final vote was 281 for the amendment, and 411 against. These totals will be added to totals from other Annual Conferences to reach the final vote tally and to decide whether the amendment is adopted.
On another note, Conference Director of Communications Laura Allen presented the campaign to "Rethink Church," asking, "Will we tell our story anew, through our actions?"
Allen said the Church should "speak the language of love."
After going over topics of finance, Bishop Lyght said, "A basic stream is flowing, a stream of spirituality. When the stream of spirituality is flowing, congregations don't sit around talking about money issues. They talk about ministry and mission."
It was announced that David Jasper, who has served in the cabinet for eight years, will be returning to the local church. He will be serving at Morris Memorial in Kanawha City.
Ellis Conley will replace Jasper as superintendent of the Mon Valley District.
Bishop Lyght said that there wasn't a clergy member in the room who hadn't secretly imagined being a superintendent one day. The Bishop added, "Superintending is the toughest job in the United Methodist Church. It's the frontline. It's frustrating, but with joy comes frustration, and with frustration comes joy."
I departed Buckhannon after the 3PM worship service, which ended with Bishop Lyght lifting up a prayer for those embarking on and considering ministry.
I left Jenkins Hall for what should be my last time ever staying in the place, but who really knows? As I said, it somehow just keeps pulling me back in. I would not be surprised if Camden collapses before the beginning of next school year and I get transferred back to the third floor of Jenkins, which, you know, might not be that bad. I've grown quite accustomed to the insanity of the place.
Next year's Annual Conference, in June 2010, will be June 10th-13th. The guest speaker will be Bishop Gregory Palmer.
So, in closing, I leave with this thought:
God abides. The Dude abides.
Shalom.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Annual Conference Update
By Jeff Webb
Day Three: I See Your Raise
I've come to the conclusion that this year's Annual Conference is a slow burning one. The business sessions and worship services, while good, are not quite as energetic or passionate as they seemed in years past, but that's okay. After tonight's worship service, with an awesome message delivered by Bishop Nhiwatiwa and powerful music performed by the praise band, things really do seem to be heating up.
Like yesterday, I started today with an early morning jog around the track. Then, I headed over to the dining hall for breakfast, where I also checked my mailbox and--surprise, surprise--I had an envelope from none other than Dr. McNamara herself. I opened it to find two graded Irish literature exams and my paper on Samuel Beckett. Good stuff.
I went to the morning Bible study at 8:30AM in the Chapel. It was led by Ms. Harriet Olsen, who spoke about Acts 1 and asked the people in attendance, "If you could serve as an eyewitness for Christ, what would you report on?"
The business session began at 10AM. After a laity address delivered by 16-year-old Mark Evans, who shared his experiences about volunteering in the Dominican Republic and at Spring Heights church camp, the Conference moved on to vote for our first set of resolutions.
One particular resolution, "Support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," should have caused some debate, but it did not. Surprisingly, the resolution was adopted with little opposition. Who would have thought Christians could actually agree on something from time to time?
At the evening worship service, Bishop Nhiwatiwa challenged the congregation, asking, "Are you the Church?" and instructing us to "go and tell in Jesus' name."
Near the conclusion of the service, Bishop Lyght offered up a prayer for the unchurched before dismissing the congregation by saying, "Our service has ended, but our service begins."
Bishop Lyght also invited people to stop and have ice cream on their way out of the Chapel, as tonight was the annual ice cream social sponsored by the Conference Youth.
Tomorrow, which is the last day for business, proves to be very interesting. We will be voting on a set of constitutional amendments that will probably be cause for some discourse, so that should be fun.
Once again, morning prayer and Bible study is in the Chapel beginning at 8:30AM. Business starts at 10AM.
Shalom.
Day Three: I See Your Raise
I've come to the conclusion that this year's Annual Conference is a slow burning one. The business sessions and worship services, while good, are not quite as energetic or passionate as they seemed in years past, but that's okay. After tonight's worship service, with an awesome message delivered by Bishop Nhiwatiwa and powerful music performed by the praise band, things really do seem to be heating up.
Like yesterday, I started today with an early morning jog around the track. Then, I headed over to the dining hall for breakfast, where I also checked my mailbox and--surprise, surprise--I had an envelope from none other than Dr. McNamara herself. I opened it to find two graded Irish literature exams and my paper on Samuel Beckett. Good stuff.
I went to the morning Bible study at 8:30AM in the Chapel. It was led by Ms. Harriet Olsen, who spoke about Acts 1 and asked the people in attendance, "If you could serve as an eyewitness for Christ, what would you report on?"
The business session began at 10AM. After a laity address delivered by 16-year-old Mark Evans, who shared his experiences about volunteering in the Dominican Republic and at Spring Heights church camp, the Conference moved on to vote for our first set of resolutions.
One particular resolution, "Support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform," should have caused some debate, but it did not. Surprisingly, the resolution was adopted with little opposition. Who would have thought Christians could actually agree on something from time to time?
At the evening worship service, Bishop Nhiwatiwa challenged the congregation, asking, "Are you the Church?" and instructing us to "go and tell in Jesus' name."
Near the conclusion of the service, Bishop Lyght offered up a prayer for the unchurched before dismissing the congregation by saying, "Our service has ended, but our service begins."
Bishop Lyght also invited people to stop and have ice cream on their way out of the Chapel, as tonight was the annual ice cream social sponsored by the Conference Youth.
Tomorrow, which is the last day for business, proves to be very interesting. We will be voting on a set of constitutional amendments that will probably be cause for some discourse, so that should be fun.
Once again, morning prayer and Bible study is in the Chapel beginning at 8:30AM. Business starts at 10AM.
Shalom.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Annual Conference Update
By Jeff Webb
Day Two: It's On
Annual Conference officially got started today. For me, it began at 5AM when I woke up in my dorm room and couldn't get back to sleep.
After laying in my bed, awake, for a further forty minutes, I got up and went for a jog around the football field. The sun was already up--it came up early--and the sky was a beautiful orange.
Opening worship was at 9:30AM in the Chapel. The Africa University choir, who will be touring the state after Conference's conclusion, sang a wonderful song that got everybody inspired. Bishop Eben Nhiwatiwa, of the Zimbabwe Annual Conference, delivered the message, asking the congregation, "What kind of Christ do you know?"
Communion was held at the end of the service. It always amazes me how they manage to do communion with so many people in the space provided, but they get it done somehow.
The first business session started at 1:45PM. Wesleyan's Dr. Marvin Carr was presented with the Francis Asbury award "for his countless acts of kindness." In addition, WVWC President Pamela Balch gave a report about the current status of the College, how enrollment has continued to climb, graduate programs have been added, and students continually participate in service-oriented projects.
Next week, according to Balch, the College will start to focus on its Master Plan, which will bring changes to the campus not seen "since the 1960s Stanley Martin era."
The Cabinet ended the first business session with their State of the Church address, referencing scripture about the Tower of Babel and urging churches to work on building bridges, not towers. Wesleyan District superintendent Ken Ramsey stressed that building these bridges and forming connections with people in the name of Jesus Christ is an urgent task.
Overall, it was a good day. Tomorrow proves to be even more interesting as business gets further underway. Opening worship is at 8:30AM in the Chapel, and business starts at 10AM in the Chapel.
On one additional note, as I referenced it in my previous post: Theta Chi no longer needs to cut its grass. It was mowed today, and the yard looks quite lovely.
Day Two: It's On
Annual Conference officially got started today. For me, it began at 5AM when I woke up in my dorm room and couldn't get back to sleep.
After laying in my bed, awake, for a further forty minutes, I got up and went for a jog around the football field. The sun was already up--it came up early--and the sky was a beautiful orange.
Opening worship was at 9:30AM in the Chapel. The Africa University choir, who will be touring the state after Conference's conclusion, sang a wonderful song that got everybody inspired. Bishop Eben Nhiwatiwa, of the Zimbabwe Annual Conference, delivered the message, asking the congregation, "What kind of Christ do you know?"
Communion was held at the end of the service. It always amazes me how they manage to do communion with so many people in the space provided, but they get it done somehow.
The first business session started at 1:45PM. Wesleyan's Dr. Marvin Carr was presented with the Francis Asbury award "for his countless acts of kindness." In addition, WVWC President Pamela Balch gave a report about the current status of the College, how enrollment has continued to climb, graduate programs have been added, and students continually participate in service-oriented projects.
Next week, according to Balch, the College will start to focus on its Master Plan, which will bring changes to the campus not seen "since the 1960s Stanley Martin era."
The Cabinet ended the first business session with their State of the Church address, referencing scripture about the Tower of Babel and urging churches to work on building bridges, not towers. Wesleyan District superintendent Ken Ramsey stressed that building these bridges and forming connections with people in the name of Jesus Christ is an urgent task.
Overall, it was a good day. Tomorrow proves to be even more interesting as business gets further underway. Opening worship is at 8:30AM in the Chapel, and business starts at 10AM in the Chapel.
On one additional note, as I referenced it in my previous post: Theta Chi no longer needs to cut its grass. It was mowed today, and the yard looks quite lovely.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Annual Conference Update
By Jeff Webb
Day One: Arrival
I left my house in Charleston, WV, sometime around 5:30PM, and, roughly two hours later, I arrived in Buckhannon for my third consecutive Annual Conference. I drove into town listening to Kiss' "New York Groove," a song that always gets me in the mood for returning to Wesleyan. After turning onto College Avenue and driving past the Theta Chi house (which, by the way, needs to have its grass cut), I ended up in the Chapel Oval, parked outside Rockefeller Gymnasium.
I made my way inside to the gym and registered. Then, I went over to Jenkins, where I checked out my room and also retrieved some items I had stashed on Jenkins' fourth floor at the end of last semester.
After dinner and a quick stop at Walmart, I returned to my room to relax and prepare for tomorrow, for tomorrow is when the real fun begins. Opening worship kicks off at 9:30AM in the Chapel, and the first business session starts at 1:45PM in the Chapel.
At that, I bid you good night. Check back here tomorrow for more updates.
Day One: Arrival
I left my house in Charleston, WV, sometime around 5:30PM, and, roughly two hours later, I arrived in Buckhannon for my third consecutive Annual Conference. I drove into town listening to Kiss' "New York Groove," a song that always gets me in the mood for returning to Wesleyan. After turning onto College Avenue and driving past the Theta Chi house (which, by the way, needs to have its grass cut), I ended up in the Chapel Oval, parked outside Rockefeller Gymnasium.
I made my way inside to the gym and registered. Then, I went over to Jenkins, where I checked out my room and also retrieved some items I had stashed on Jenkins' fourth floor at the end of last semester.
After dinner and a quick stop at Walmart, I returned to my room to relax and prepare for tomorrow, for tomorrow is when the real fun begins. Opening worship kicks off at 9:30AM in the Chapel, and the first business session starts at 1:45PM in the Chapel.
At that, I bid you good night. Check back here tomorrow for more updates.
Annual Conference Updates
This week, the West Virginia Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church will be meeting at Wesleyan's campus. Starting today, Assistant Editor Jeff Webb will cover the event, reflecting on his experiences each day and posting the reflections to this blog. So, if you find yourself curious about the going-ons of the UM Church, check back here. Shalom.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of Drag Me to Hell
By Jeff Webb
Drag Me to Hell is one of the best horror films to emerge from Hollywood in recent years. Directed by Sam Raimi, the man responsible for the iconic Evil Dead trilogy, the film is just pure scary, campy fun.
The story revolves around bank employee Christine Brown, played sweetly and innocently by Allison Lohman, who denies a housing payment extension to gypsy Mrs. Ganush in the interest of earning a job promotion. In retaliation for the bank foreclosing her house, Mrs. Ganush places a curse upon Christine. For three days, Christine will be tormented by evil, and on the third day she will be, as the title indicates, dragged to Hell.
The film is full of Raimi’s trademarks: evil spirits, possession, scatological and physical humor, quick camera zooms, absurd close-ups. The overall effect gives the film a somewhat light-hearted tone, despite the dark territory of the story. However, that is precisely Raimi’s objective. Completely tongue-in-cheek, Drag Me to Hell doesn’t make the mistake of taking itself too seriously. As a result, the film is all the more refreshing when compared with most other contemporary horror films, films that tend to be overly serious and exist for nothing more than punishing their audiences. Drag Me to Hell, meanwhile, harkens back to horror films of old, when scary movies would terrify their viewers, but, at the same time, provide an endless amount of fun.
If the film has one major flaw, it is that it indulges in the technology of today to tell its story. Here, Raimi, once a masterful low-budget filmmaker, uses CGI as opposed to good, earnest make-up effects for most of the film. However, most of these CGI effects, while ambitious, come across as incredibly cheap and fake looking, some of them laughably bad. One really must wonder, though, if this was perhaps Raimi’s point. The entire film is purposefully cheesy, so why not the effects? Whether intentional or not, this one flaw—if it is a flaw—does little to detract from the overall effect of the film.
In this still-young summer movie season, Drag Me to Hell ranks right up there with Star Trek as the best of the season. Refreshing, campy fun, Drag Me to Hell is, pun intended, one hell of a film.
By Jeff Webb
Drag Me to Hell is one of the best horror films to emerge from Hollywood in recent years. Directed by Sam Raimi, the man responsible for the iconic Evil Dead trilogy, the film is just pure scary, campy fun.
The story revolves around bank employee Christine Brown, played sweetly and innocently by Allison Lohman, who denies a housing payment extension to gypsy Mrs. Ganush in the interest of earning a job promotion. In retaliation for the bank foreclosing her house, Mrs. Ganush places a curse upon Christine. For three days, Christine will be tormented by evil, and on the third day she will be, as the title indicates, dragged to Hell.
The film is full of Raimi’s trademarks: evil spirits, possession, scatological and physical humor, quick camera zooms, absurd close-ups. The overall effect gives the film a somewhat light-hearted tone, despite the dark territory of the story. However, that is precisely Raimi’s objective. Completely tongue-in-cheek, Drag Me to Hell doesn’t make the mistake of taking itself too seriously. As a result, the film is all the more refreshing when compared with most other contemporary horror films, films that tend to be overly serious and exist for nothing more than punishing their audiences. Drag Me to Hell, meanwhile, harkens back to horror films of old, when scary movies would terrify their viewers, but, at the same time, provide an endless amount of fun.
If the film has one major flaw, it is that it indulges in the technology of today to tell its story. Here, Raimi, once a masterful low-budget filmmaker, uses CGI as opposed to good, earnest make-up effects for most of the film. However, most of these CGI effects, while ambitious, come across as incredibly cheap and fake looking, some of them laughably bad. One really must wonder, though, if this was perhaps Raimi’s point. The entire film is purposefully cheesy, so why not the effects? Whether intentional or not, this one flaw—if it is a flaw—does little to detract from the overall effect of the film.
In this still-young summer movie season, Drag Me to Hell ranks right up there with Star Trek as the best of the season. Refreshing, campy fun, Drag Me to Hell is, pun intended, one hell of a film.
Thursday, June 04, 2009
David Carradine, 1936-2009
Actor David Carradine, best known for his roles on TV's Kung Fu and as the title character in Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, died Wednesday, June 3rd, at the age of 72. To remember this talented actor and pop-culture icon, we have included a video below. In it, Carradine, playing Bill in Kill Bill, ponders the mystery and wonder of life and death.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Pharos Joins the 21st Century
Taking a page out of the Chloe O'Brian playbook (anybody? anybody?), The Pharos is going high-tech this summer. Follow us here at our blog, or check out our Twitter page at http://www.twitter.com/wvwcpharos or join our Facebook page at facebook.com.
Friday, May 22, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much
A Review of Star Trek
By Jeff Webb
The new Star Trek film, directed by J.J. Abrams, is perfect entertainment for the summer movie season. Full of action, adventure, romance, and special effects, Star Trek has all the elements and spectacle of a big-budget blockbuster. Though lacking some in thematic depth, the film more than makes up for it in other arenas, its dialogue and acting and directing firing on all cylinders. It is an amazingly consistent and absorbing film.
The film begins with an epic space battle that is both suspenseful and sad. From there, viewers meet a young James T. Kirk, not yet a legendary Starfleet captain but rather just an arrogant and thrill-seeking adolescent rebelling against all forms of establishment. However, after a conversation with Captain Pike, played by the underrated Bruce Greenwood, Kirk’s fate begins to take shape. He joins Starfleet, and from there the Star Trek characters audiences know and love are introduced. Spock, Bones, Sulu, Scotty, Chekhov, Uhura. They’re all there, albeit a bit younger than their 1960s counterparts.
The film’s casting is near perfect. As Kirk, Chris Pine is perfect, emoting a playboy charm but also a melancholy depth. He is a reluctant hero, carefree and sarcastic, someone who wants to live life for himself and no one else, but that all changes. In many ways, Star Trek is a coming-of-age story for Kirk as much as it is a story about time travel and space exploration.
Likewise, Zachary Quinto as Spock is wonderfully cast. He brings a coldness to the character, yet also a desperateness to succeed. His human side forever in conflict with his Vulcan side, Spock is a complex character, torn between two ways of life, between reason and passion.
Abrams just might be a great director someday. Almost with the ease of Spielberg, though not quite, Abrams understands the balance between commercialism and depth. He has a sense for cinematography and a sense for atmosphere, yet there is also an undeniable sense of fun running throughout the film. Star Trek is, if nothing else, a great adventure story.
The heart of the film, though, is the relationship of Kirk and Spock. It is a film about friendship, about the discovery of that friendship. For audiences, the film is nostalgic, a rediscovery of the friendships we all had with these characters, and perhaps a rediscovery of the humanity within us all. Star Trek is full of diverse personalities, from whites to blacks to Asians to alien creatures all working together for the common good. It is an optimistic thought, an inspiring thought, that maybe, someday, in the 23rd century perhaps, all peoples and creatures can come together and boldly go, together, to where no one has gone before.
By Jeff Webb
The new Star Trek film, directed by J.J. Abrams, is perfect entertainment for the summer movie season. Full of action, adventure, romance, and special effects, Star Trek has all the elements and spectacle of a big-budget blockbuster. Though lacking some in thematic depth, the film more than makes up for it in other arenas, its dialogue and acting and directing firing on all cylinders. It is an amazingly consistent and absorbing film.
The film begins with an epic space battle that is both suspenseful and sad. From there, viewers meet a young James T. Kirk, not yet a legendary Starfleet captain but rather just an arrogant and thrill-seeking adolescent rebelling against all forms of establishment. However, after a conversation with Captain Pike, played by the underrated Bruce Greenwood, Kirk’s fate begins to take shape. He joins Starfleet, and from there the Star Trek characters audiences know and love are introduced. Spock, Bones, Sulu, Scotty, Chekhov, Uhura. They’re all there, albeit a bit younger than their 1960s counterparts.
The film’s casting is near perfect. As Kirk, Chris Pine is perfect, emoting a playboy charm but also a melancholy depth. He is a reluctant hero, carefree and sarcastic, someone who wants to live life for himself and no one else, but that all changes. In many ways, Star Trek is a coming-of-age story for Kirk as much as it is a story about time travel and space exploration.
Likewise, Zachary Quinto as Spock is wonderfully cast. He brings a coldness to the character, yet also a desperateness to succeed. His human side forever in conflict with his Vulcan side, Spock is a complex character, torn between two ways of life, between reason and passion.
Abrams just might be a great director someday. Almost with the ease of Spielberg, though not quite, Abrams understands the balance between commercialism and depth. He has a sense for cinematography and a sense for atmosphere, yet there is also an undeniable sense of fun running throughout the film. Star Trek is, if nothing else, a great adventure story.
The heart of the film, though, is the relationship of Kirk and Spock. It is a film about friendship, about the discovery of that friendship. For audiences, the film is nostalgic, a rediscovery of the friendships we all had with these characters, and perhaps a rediscovery of the humanity within us all. Star Trek is full of diverse personalities, from whites to blacks to Asians to alien creatures all working together for the common good. It is an optimistic thought, an inspiring thought, that maybe, someday, in the 23rd century perhaps, all peoples and creatures can come together and boldly go, together, to where no one has gone before.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
2009-2010, Volume 101
The Pharos congratulates next year's Editor in Chief, Alic' Shreves. Her assistant editor will be Jeff Webb.
Best wishes to everyone next year, and thank you to the current staff of The Pharos for a great year of publication!
Best wishes to everyone next year, and thank you to the current staff of The Pharos for a great year of publication!
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Message From the President
Note: Due to space constraints, this week's Message from the President was not run in the print edition. It is being run here instead. Questions? Comments? Email pharos@wvwc.edu.
As I sit here and write this column, it is the evening of the ribbon cutting ceremony of the new Virginia Thomas Law Center for the Performing Arts. Today is truly a huge success for Wesleyan. This center has been years in the planning and making and another goal will have been achieved for Wesleyan. I believe this campus should give a big hand to President Balch, the Trustees, and Wesleyan’s entire administration for taking this project from a picture to a completed success that stands on College Avenue.
The ribbon cutting ceremony is the kick off event for the spring Board of Trustees Meeting. Also to be included during this spring session is a tour of the new research center and also the Fleming renovation project. I am very excited to see the progress of both projects and also to see how much closer Wesleyan is to complete more goals.
In thinking about the goals that Wesleyan has completed, I think of the leaps and bounds we have made as a Student Senate this semester. For those not directly involved with Student Senate I would like to update you on our completed goals. We have raised and continue to raise funds to be offered to student organizations, we have pushed and continue to push the Student Bill of Rights and the Honor Code through the channels of approval, and also we have increased attendance tremendously. Julie Keehner spoke up at our Student Senate retreat and shared with us that when she arrived at Wesleyan, there were approximately 4-5 students that attended each meeting. Now, we have over 40 students that attend each meeting.
Since I arrived at Wesleyan as a freshman I have been involved with Student Senate and I have personally seen how it has grown not only in attendance but also in the tasks that it achieves. This has been a very successful semester for Student Senate and for the Wesleyan Community. I hope we will all stay focused on Wesleyan’s goals and as President Balch says, “continue to take Wesleyan from good to great!” I wish you luck in the last few weeks of the semester. Our last meeting will take place at Dean Julie Keehner’s house on April 21st at 6pm.
All the best,
Eric Hillyard
President, Student Senate
As I sit here and write this column, it is the evening of the ribbon cutting ceremony of the new Virginia Thomas Law Center for the Performing Arts. Today is truly a huge success for Wesleyan. This center has been years in the planning and making and another goal will have been achieved for Wesleyan. I believe this campus should give a big hand to President Balch, the Trustees, and Wesleyan’s entire administration for taking this project from a picture to a completed success that stands on College Avenue.
The ribbon cutting ceremony is the kick off event for the spring Board of Trustees Meeting. Also to be included during this spring session is a tour of the new research center and also the Fleming renovation project. I am very excited to see the progress of both projects and also to see how much closer Wesleyan is to complete more goals.
In thinking about the goals that Wesleyan has completed, I think of the leaps and bounds we have made as a Student Senate this semester. For those not directly involved with Student Senate I would like to update you on our completed goals. We have raised and continue to raise funds to be offered to student organizations, we have pushed and continue to push the Student Bill of Rights and the Honor Code through the channels of approval, and also we have increased attendance tremendously. Julie Keehner spoke up at our Student Senate retreat and shared with us that when she arrived at Wesleyan, there were approximately 4-5 students that attended each meeting. Now, we have over 40 students that attend each meeting.
Since I arrived at Wesleyan as a freshman I have been involved with Student Senate and I have personally seen how it has grown not only in attendance but also in the tasks that it achieves. This has been a very successful semester for Student Senate and for the Wesleyan Community. I hope we will all stay focused on Wesleyan’s goals and as President Balch says, “continue to take Wesleyan from good to great!” I wish you luck in the last few weeks of the semester. Our last meeting will take place at Dean Julie Keehner’s house on April 21st at 6pm.
All the best,
Eric Hillyard
President, Student Senate
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Mid-Atlantic Undergraduate Research Conference
The Pharos reminds everyone that the Mid-Atlantic Undergraduate Research Conference will be held on campus this Friday, March 13. We encourage everyone to attend and support the scholars and their work. After all, that's part of what college is about, right?
Below is the schedule, taken directly from the school's website. Find something you're interested in and check it out!
1:00 Friday March 13th MRC 200
Amanda Seebaugh, WVWC: “A Potential Role for Kisspeptin in Puberty Onset in Sheep.”
Sarah Owen, WVWC: "The role of MucC in antibiotic susceptibility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain PAO1."
Kimberly Larch, Casey Burroughs, Amanda Wriston, WVWC: “Analysis of Chloride, Nitrite, Nitrate and Sulfate in Waters from the Peck’s Run Sub-watershed using Ion Chromatography.”
2:00 Friday March 13th MRC 200
William Hilinski, Clinton Hirschfeld, Morgan Locy, Andy Harner, and Richard Robenstine, Capital University: “ An Analysis of Rhizospheric Nitrogen Fixation Among Common Crops”
Jeremy Hay, WVWC: “Development of a microfludic device for the analysis of perchlorates.”
Rachel Yoho, Capital University: “Application of a Novel Microbial Fuel Cell Design for Voltage Production in a Sus domesticus Manure Holding Area.”
3:00 Friday March 13th MRC 200
Stephanie Petitjean and RoxxAnn Williams, Capital University: “Post Hurricane Characterization and Distribution of Scleractian Corals on Reef Casa Del Mar Cozemal Mexico.”
Mary Teter, WVWC: “LptF mediated antibiotic susceptibility and biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa.”
Alex McElfresh, WVWC: “Photocatalytic Hydrogenation of Ethene Using a Supported Rhodium Catalyst.”
Katie O’Shaughnessy, Capital University: “A Comparative Study of Genetic Modification in Corn: United States verses Central and South America.”
1:00 Friday March 13th MRC 300
Cody Meglio, Marietta College: “Accounting Standards in the USA: Is the Adoption of IFRS the Answer.”
Jennifer Scott, WVWC: “The Akaka Bill: Supporting or Stifling Native Hawaiian Interests?”
Ashley Lewis WVWC: “Sin Qua Non.”
2:00 Friday March 13th MRC 300
Sarah Wilkinson, WVWC: “Revenge, Peace, or Anarchy: American Strategy and Politics Going into the Nuremberg Trials of Major War Criminals, 1945-46.”
Brian Smith, Marietta College: “Quaker Egalitarianism in Early America.”
Annie Martin, Brevard College: “How Were the Hairstyles of Ancient Roman Women Attained?”
3:00 Friday March 13th MRC 300
Tatiana Chattoo, WVWC: “Which start position, behind the bag or in front of the bag, produces the fastest time in NCAA Division II softball athletes while running from first base to second base?”
Brad Coleman, WVWC: “The Pondera Board: Will New Rehab Product Increase Balance and Increase Strength in Lower Extremity Muscles?”
Megan Holstein and Helen Breznicki, Marietta College: “Genetic Digit Determinants in Female Athletes.”
Kelly Blechl, WVWC: “The Femur: Determining Past Cultural Environments.”
1:00 March 13th Trustees Room
Mike Murphy, WVWC: “Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance.”
Jackie Queen, WVWC: “Spectroscope Analysis of Enceladus.”
Phil McElfresh, WVWC: “Biomedical Applications in Physics.”
2:00 March 13th Trustees Room
Josh Mullenax, WVWC: “Geothermal Energy and Ehermoelectricity.”
Duncan Oliver, WVWC: “Raman Scattering of Superconducting Materials.”
Robert Powell, WVWC: “Spectroscopic Analysis of Organic Materials Using Lasers.”
3:00 March 13th Trustees Room
Kyle Allard, WVWC: “Raman Analysis of Organic Materials.”
Corey Duke, WVWC: Supernovae and Neutrinos.” Beth Bradley, Marietta College: “Class Conflicts in the Civil War.”
4:30 MRC 200 KEYNOTE ADDRESS
"The Beginning of Time" by Professor Joseph E. Wiest Ph. D., professor of Physics and Engineering at West Virginia Wesleyan College.
Below is the schedule, taken directly from the school's website. Find something you're interested in and check it out!
1:00 Friday March 13th MRC 200
Amanda Seebaugh, WVWC: “A Potential Role for Kisspeptin in Puberty Onset in Sheep.”
Sarah Owen, WVWC: "The role of MucC in antibiotic susceptibility in Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain PAO1."
Kimberly Larch, Casey Burroughs, Amanda Wriston, WVWC: “Analysis of Chloride, Nitrite, Nitrate and Sulfate in Waters from the Peck’s Run Sub-watershed using Ion Chromatography.”
2:00 Friday March 13th MRC 200
William Hilinski, Clinton Hirschfeld, Morgan Locy, Andy Harner, and Richard Robenstine, Capital University: “ An Analysis of Rhizospheric Nitrogen Fixation Among Common Crops”
Jeremy Hay, WVWC: “Development of a microfludic device for the analysis of perchlorates.”
Rachel Yoho, Capital University: “Application of a Novel Microbial Fuel Cell Design for Voltage Production in a Sus domesticus Manure Holding Area.”
3:00 Friday March 13th MRC 200
Stephanie Petitjean and RoxxAnn Williams, Capital University: “Post Hurricane Characterization and Distribution of Scleractian Corals on Reef Casa Del Mar Cozemal Mexico.”
Mary Teter, WVWC: “LptF mediated antibiotic susceptibility and biofilm formation in Pseudomonas aeruginosa.”
Alex McElfresh, WVWC: “Photocatalytic Hydrogenation of Ethene Using a Supported Rhodium Catalyst.”
Katie O’Shaughnessy, Capital University: “A Comparative Study of Genetic Modification in Corn: United States verses Central and South America.”
1:00 Friday March 13th MRC 300
Cody Meglio, Marietta College: “Accounting Standards in the USA: Is the Adoption of IFRS the Answer.”
Jennifer Scott, WVWC: “The Akaka Bill: Supporting or Stifling Native Hawaiian Interests?”
Ashley Lewis WVWC: “Sin Qua Non.”
2:00 Friday March 13th MRC 300
Sarah Wilkinson, WVWC: “Revenge, Peace, or Anarchy: American Strategy and Politics Going into the Nuremberg Trials of Major War Criminals, 1945-46.”
Brian Smith, Marietta College: “Quaker Egalitarianism in Early America.”
Annie Martin, Brevard College: “How Were the Hairstyles of Ancient Roman Women Attained?”
3:00 Friday March 13th MRC 300
Tatiana Chattoo, WVWC: “Which start position, behind the bag or in front of the bag, produces the fastest time in NCAA Division II softball athletes while running from first base to second base?”
Brad Coleman, WVWC: “The Pondera Board: Will New Rehab Product Increase Balance and Increase Strength in Lower Extremity Muscles?”
Megan Holstein and Helen Breznicki, Marietta College: “Genetic Digit Determinants in Female Athletes.”
Kelly Blechl, WVWC: “The Femur: Determining Past Cultural Environments.”
1:00 March 13th Trustees Room
Mike Murphy, WVWC: “Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance.”
Jackie Queen, WVWC: “Spectroscope Analysis of Enceladus.”
Phil McElfresh, WVWC: “Biomedical Applications in Physics.”
2:00 March 13th Trustees Room
Josh Mullenax, WVWC: “Geothermal Energy and Ehermoelectricity.”
Duncan Oliver, WVWC: “Raman Scattering of Superconducting Materials.”
Robert Powell, WVWC: “Spectroscopic Analysis of Organic Materials Using Lasers.”
3:00 March 13th Trustees Room
Kyle Allard, WVWC: “Raman Analysis of Organic Materials.”
Corey Duke, WVWC: Supernovae and Neutrinos.” Beth Bradley, Marietta College: “Class Conflicts in the Civil War.”
4:30 MRC 200 KEYNOTE ADDRESS
"The Beginning of Time" by Professor Joseph E. Wiest Ph. D., professor of Physics and Engineering at West Virginia Wesleyan College.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Ash Wednesday Opportunities
Ash Wednesday, the start of the Lenten season of the Christian calendar, is tomorrow. Students wishing to observe this formally will have two opportunities on campus, one at 12:35 and one at 4:35, both in the West Meditation Chapel. Each service will last approximately 20 minutes.
Students wishing to observe off-campus have several opportunities as well. Holy Rosary Catholic Church will have services at 12:05 PM and 7 PM. Also at 7, First United Methodist on Florida Street will be hosting a community service featuring area ministers.
Students wishing to observe off-campus have several opportunities as well. Holy Rosary Catholic Church will have services at 12:05 PM and 7 PM. Also at 7, First United Methodist on Florida Street will be hosting a community service featuring area ministers.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Vandalia Submissions due SOONEST
Submissions to the Vandalia are due no later than March 6! All categories still are taking submissions-- fiction, nonfiction, poetry, art, photography, everything! You are eligible to submit to the Vandalia if you are a current student or faculty member at WVWC.
Send to vandalia@wvwc.edu as a MS word attachment. Make sure you give your name and contact information in the body of the email, but that your name doesn't appear on the document itself.
Be bold! Submit!
Send to vandalia@wvwc.edu as a MS word attachment. Make sure you give your name and contact information in the body of the email, but that your name doesn't appear on the document itself.
Be bold! Submit!
Pancake Breakfast for Relay for Life!
Wesleyan's Relay for Life committee will be hosting a Pancake Breakfast on March 14 at Horizons Church from 8 AM until noon.
The cost is $5 for adults, $3 for children, and $4 for Wesleyan students with ID. All of the proceeds from this event will be donated to the American Cancer Society at the Relay for Life.
Horizons Church is located next to Tennerton Elementary School. To get there, go towards Maroma's Mexican Restaurant (State Route 20), but turn left at the public library. Go up the hill and take the first left. The church will be directly in front of you.
Be sure to look for more information in your e-mail as the date draws closer. Come out to support a great cause!
The cost is $5 for adults, $3 for children, and $4 for Wesleyan students with ID. All of the proceeds from this event will be donated to the American Cancer Society at the Relay for Life.
Horizons Church is located next to Tennerton Elementary School. To get there, go towards Maroma's Mexican Restaurant (State Route 20), but turn left at the public library. Go up the hill and take the first left. The church will be directly in front of you.
Be sure to look for more information in your e-mail as the date draws closer. Come out to support a great cause!
Monday, February 16, 2009
Obama's First 16 Days
President Obama has sat in the Oval Office now for 16 days and he has already made drastic changes to America and Her future. While watching the coverage of the Inauguration Parade one could not help but wonder if President Obama thought he had better places to be and more important things to do than watch a parade. President Obama said from the beginning that he wanted to get to work “fixing” America and it has shown during his first 16 days.
During President Obama’s second day in office he signed three Executive Orders, or a type law that the President has Constitutional authority to make with out Congress’s approval. The first three Executive Orders all dealt with the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The First order dealt with closing the base and the proper and timely review and disposition of detained individuals. The second and third were made to review the detention policies at the base and to ensure that lawful interrogations were happening on the base.
These three Executive Orders, in many people’s eyes, were much needed. While some were pushing for reform at the base, many were pushing for closure in light of recent accusations by prisoners about poor treatment, facilities, interrogation tactics, and torture.
The President also signed three major Presidential Memorandas. The first two dealt with the President’s administration; the first set in motion a potential freeze on the Senior White House Staff’s salary and the second was a commitment by the President that his office and his administration would strive to have a transparent and open government. These two memorands were big steps in the President’s public relations by upholding one campaign promise, the open government, and a more recent promise to do what ever he can to help the economy and tax payers.
The third memoranda dealt with the Mexico City Policy, which has over turned or reinstated by every President since President Ronald Reagan. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGO) that receive federal funding from using the funds to pay for abortions as a family planning method. President Ronald Reagan expanded this act in 1985 to include any NGO that provided advice, counseling, or information to patients on abortion or lobbied a foreign government to legalize abortion, this became known as the Mexico City Policy. President Clinton revoked the policy in 1993, President Bush reinstated it in 2001, and now President Obama has followed tradition and revoked it. This was President Obama’s first step to changing America’s stance on abortion and trying to uphold Roe vs. Wade.
President Obama did also take some action dealing with the economy. He met on Tuesday January 27th; President Obama met with leaders of the House to work on passing his $825 billion stimulus package. He mainly focused on trying to make the vote as bipartisan as possible by talking to many Republican leaders. Currently the Senate is looking at passing a different version of the stimulus bill than the House did, which might cause confusion to some. However, if that happens what will take place is a conference of the two versions with members of both chambers participating and then both chambers would also have to vote on the conferenced version. President Obama has said that he hopes the bill will be on his desk to sign by mid-Friday.
President Obama has a long way to go on his agenda; after all he is only 16 days into his new job. However, so people have been asking me why is there so much focus on a President’s first 100 days? Well it started in 1932 when Franklin Roosevelt became President. In those days the economy and the nation was in the midst of the Great Depression and people wanted to see fast action. In Roosevelt’s first 100 days he was able to get Congress to pass 15 major bills. So now a days it is seen as a way to judge how fast acting and how productive a President can be. And President Obama only has 84 days left.
--Megan Hakes
Disclaimer: The facts cited in this article come from whitehouse.gov and cnn.com. Comments can be left here on the blog, or sent directly to pharos@wvwc.edu, where they will be forwarded to Ms. Hakes.
The Pharos acts both as a source of news and as a forum for free expression for the West Virginia Wesleyan community. The Pharos and its staff operate with editorial freedom and responsibility. The views and editorials printed with The Pharos reflect the opinions of the individual writers and not the college or The Pharos staff as a whole. Material in the paper and its online format, the Pharos Blog, is selected, edited, then produced.
During President Obama’s second day in office he signed three Executive Orders, or a type law that the President has Constitutional authority to make with out Congress’s approval. The first three Executive Orders all dealt with the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. The First order dealt with closing the base and the proper and timely review and disposition of detained individuals. The second and third were made to review the detention policies at the base and to ensure that lawful interrogations were happening on the base.
These three Executive Orders, in many people’s eyes, were much needed. While some were pushing for reform at the base, many were pushing for closure in light of recent accusations by prisoners about poor treatment, facilities, interrogation tactics, and torture.
The President also signed three major Presidential Memorandas. The first two dealt with the President’s administration; the first set in motion a potential freeze on the Senior White House Staff’s salary and the second was a commitment by the President that his office and his administration would strive to have a transparent and open government. These two memorands were big steps in the President’s public relations by upholding one campaign promise, the open government, and a more recent promise to do what ever he can to help the economy and tax payers.
The third memoranda dealt with the Mexico City Policy, which has over turned or reinstated by every President since President Ronald Reagan. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGO) that receive federal funding from using the funds to pay for abortions as a family planning method. President Ronald Reagan expanded this act in 1985 to include any NGO that provided advice, counseling, or information to patients on abortion or lobbied a foreign government to legalize abortion, this became known as the Mexico City Policy. President Clinton revoked the policy in 1993, President Bush reinstated it in 2001, and now President Obama has followed tradition and revoked it. This was President Obama’s first step to changing America’s stance on abortion and trying to uphold Roe vs. Wade.
President Obama did also take some action dealing with the economy. He met on Tuesday January 27th; President Obama met with leaders of the House to work on passing his $825 billion stimulus package. He mainly focused on trying to make the vote as bipartisan as possible by talking to many Republican leaders. Currently the Senate is looking at passing a different version of the stimulus bill than the House did, which might cause confusion to some. However, if that happens what will take place is a conference of the two versions with members of both chambers participating and then both chambers would also have to vote on the conferenced version. President Obama has said that he hopes the bill will be on his desk to sign by mid-Friday.
President Obama has a long way to go on his agenda; after all he is only 16 days into his new job. However, so people have been asking me why is there so much focus on a President’s first 100 days? Well it started in 1932 when Franklin Roosevelt became President. In those days the economy and the nation was in the midst of the Great Depression and people wanted to see fast action. In Roosevelt’s first 100 days he was able to get Congress to pass 15 major bills. So now a days it is seen as a way to judge how fast acting and how productive a President can be. And President Obama only has 84 days left.
--Megan Hakes
Disclaimer: The facts cited in this article come from whitehouse.gov and cnn.com. Comments can be left here on the blog, or sent directly to pharos@wvwc.edu, where they will be forwarded to Ms. Hakes.
The Pharos acts both as a source of news and as a forum for free expression for the West Virginia Wesleyan community. The Pharos and its staff operate with editorial freedom and responsibility. The views and editorials printed with The Pharos reflect the opinions of the individual writers and not the college or The Pharos staff as a whole. Material in the paper and its online format, the Pharos Blog, is selected, edited, then produced.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
A Note from Wesleyan's Gay-Straight Alliance
Jennifer Jones, Convener of Wesleyan's Gay-Straight Alliance, writes:
Thursday, February 12th marks the first anniversary of the school shooting that claimed the life of openly gay, gender nonconforming eighth-grader Lawrence King at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, CA last year.
15-year-old Lawrence "Larry" King was shot in the head at the E.O. Green School in Oxnard, California, reportedly for being gay. He was in the eighth grade. King's killer, 14-year-old Brandon McInerney, apparently targeted the student because he was openly gay and sometimes dressed in women's clothes.
The GSA hopes everyone will take a moment to reflect on this event. To learn more about the GSA, contact Jennifer Jones. Her information is available from Wesleyan's online directory.
Thursday, February 12th marks the first anniversary of the school shooting that claimed the life of openly gay, gender nonconforming eighth-grader Lawrence King at E.O. Green Junior High School in Oxnard, CA last year.
15-year-old Lawrence "Larry" King was shot in the head at the E.O. Green School in Oxnard, California, reportedly for being gay. He was in the eighth grade. King's killer, 14-year-old Brandon McInerney, apparently targeted the student because he was openly gay and sometimes dressed in women's clothes.
The GSA hopes everyone will take a moment to reflect on this event. To learn more about the GSA, contact Jennifer Jones. Her information is available from Wesleyan's online directory.
Monday, February 09, 2009
I Admire Your Pictures Very Much: A Review of "The Wrestler"
The Wrestler is a heartbreaking film about loneliness and pain. The film’s hero, Randy “The Ram” Robinson, is a tragic hero, overcome by his own desire for escape. From the very beginning, the film tells a predictable story, but it is also an inevitable story, a story that constantly picks up speed as it moves along toward its final frames. The last twenty minutes of the film are staggering in their intensity and sadness.
The character of the Ram is, as he says in his own words, “an old, broken down piece of meat.” In the 1980s, he was an all-star professional wrestler. In the twenty years since, his career has left him damaged. He resorts to working in a supermarket and wrestling in independent wrestling circuits on the weekends to make his money. He has a strained relationship with his daughter, portrayed by Evan Rachel Wood, and, in his spare time, he hangs out at a strip club trying to woo a middle-aged dancer, portrayed by Marisa Tomei.
The film is, first and foremost, a character study. It is about a man who has pushed everything in his life away, a man who has lived his life “burn[ing] the candle at both ends.” The Ram cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality, insisting people refer to him with his stage name even when he is not onstage. He gives up in the face of his problems, succumbs to his demons of violence and drugs. Real life is hard, painful, and sad. It takes work to raise a family, to satisfy a lover, to keep one’s health. The Ram retreats into the fantasy of the ring when faced with the obstacles of life, preferring the cheers of an audience over the love of those that truly care about him.
Mickey Rourke plays the Ram. A washed-up wrestler, the Ram’s life mirrors Rourke’s real life, and Rourke certainly must pull from some very dark demons of his own to achieve his perfect portrayal of the character. It is a performance that, in its understatement and honesty, recalls the best of Brando, the best of DeNiro.
Wood and Tomei also turn in stellar performances, albeit their characters are both a bit underdeveloped, especially in Wood’s case. She only appears in a few scenes for few minutes of the film; however, in her scenes Wood perfectly conveys to the audience the anger and hate and disappointment her character feels toward her father.
Darren Aronofsky is the film’s director. His films are usually dark and full of spectacle, and while The Wrestler is dark thematically, it is anything but spectacular in terms of visuals. Aronofsky employs a minimalistic, handheld approach to the film, giving it all a very stripped down, gritty atmosphere. The camera is often placed behind the Ram. It follows along with him through the ring, the strip club, the supermarket, paving the way for some wonderful tracking shots. The honesty of the camerawork matches the honesty of the actors’ emotions. There are no gimmicks here, no tricks or special effects. It’s all very real, very quick and on-the-spot, the camera responding to the situation as opposed to the situation being controlled by the camera. A feeling of spontaneity exists in the film, as does a feeling of truth.
The film’s writer, Robert Siegel, said in one interview that he is very heavily influenced by films of the 1960s and 1970s, films that feature such isolated characters as Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver and Joe Buck from Midnight Cowboy. The Ram can take his place among such characters, a man who, unable to deal with the complications of life, isolates himself from life. By the end of the film, he invests himself wholly in the fake world of wrestling. He stands in front of his fans, putting on a showman’s façade and asking for their applause. In truth, deep down, he is a man that is hurting and dying, a man that has given up on life.
--Jeff Webb
The character of the Ram is, as he says in his own words, “an old, broken down piece of meat.” In the 1980s, he was an all-star professional wrestler. In the twenty years since, his career has left him damaged. He resorts to working in a supermarket and wrestling in independent wrestling circuits on the weekends to make his money. He has a strained relationship with his daughter, portrayed by Evan Rachel Wood, and, in his spare time, he hangs out at a strip club trying to woo a middle-aged dancer, portrayed by Marisa Tomei.
The film is, first and foremost, a character study. It is about a man who has pushed everything in his life away, a man who has lived his life “burn[ing] the candle at both ends.” The Ram cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality, insisting people refer to him with his stage name even when he is not onstage. He gives up in the face of his problems, succumbs to his demons of violence and drugs. Real life is hard, painful, and sad. It takes work to raise a family, to satisfy a lover, to keep one’s health. The Ram retreats into the fantasy of the ring when faced with the obstacles of life, preferring the cheers of an audience over the love of those that truly care about him.
Mickey Rourke plays the Ram. A washed-up wrestler, the Ram’s life mirrors Rourke’s real life, and Rourke certainly must pull from some very dark demons of his own to achieve his perfect portrayal of the character. It is a performance that, in its understatement and honesty, recalls the best of Brando, the best of DeNiro.
Wood and Tomei also turn in stellar performances, albeit their characters are both a bit underdeveloped, especially in Wood’s case. She only appears in a few scenes for few minutes of the film; however, in her scenes Wood perfectly conveys to the audience the anger and hate and disappointment her character feels toward her father.
Darren Aronofsky is the film’s director. His films are usually dark and full of spectacle, and while The Wrestler is dark thematically, it is anything but spectacular in terms of visuals. Aronofsky employs a minimalistic, handheld approach to the film, giving it all a very stripped down, gritty atmosphere. The camera is often placed behind the Ram. It follows along with him through the ring, the strip club, the supermarket, paving the way for some wonderful tracking shots. The honesty of the camerawork matches the honesty of the actors’ emotions. There are no gimmicks here, no tricks or special effects. It’s all very real, very quick and on-the-spot, the camera responding to the situation as opposed to the situation being controlled by the camera. A feeling of spontaneity exists in the film, as does a feeling of truth.
The film’s writer, Robert Siegel, said in one interview that he is very heavily influenced by films of the 1960s and 1970s, films that feature such isolated characters as Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver and Joe Buck from Midnight Cowboy. The Ram can take his place among such characters, a man who, unable to deal with the complications of life, isolates himself from life. By the end of the film, he invests himself wholly in the fake world of wrestling. He stands in front of his fans, putting on a showman’s façade and asking for their applause. In truth, deep down, he is a man that is hurting and dying, a man that has given up on life.
--Jeff Webb
Friday, January 30, 2009
Interactive TWIH
If you picked up the print edition of The Pharos that came out yesterday, and you read page two, you know that today (Jan. 30) is the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday incident in Londonderry (now just Derry), Northern Ireland.
The column mentioned the U2 song "Sunday Bloody Sunday." Below is a video of that song along with photos and news footage of the event.
The column mentioned the U2 song "Sunday Bloody Sunday." Below is a video of that song along with photos and news footage of the event.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Volume 100, Issue 7
Volume 100, Issue 7 of the print edition of The Pharos is now available. You can grab a copy on the ledge in front of the mailboxes in the campus center. Check out the inauguration pictures on page five, and our new cryptogram on page four!
As always, feel free to get in touch with us at pharos@wvwc.edu or Box 148. We always accept letters to the editor, but be aware that we reserve the right to edit for content or brevity, and reserve the right to print or not print.
As always, feel free to get in touch with us at pharos@wvwc.edu or Box 148. We always accept letters to the editor, but be aware that we reserve the right to edit for content or brevity, and reserve the right to print or not print.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Film Screening
Tomorrow, January 28, Dr. Eric Waggoner of English Department and The Frets fame will be screening Eraserhead, a 1977 film by David Lynch. The screening will be in Hyma Auditorium and will begin at 8 PM.
All are welcome to the screening of this semi-horror, surreal flick, but be forewarned: it is aggressively strange, in Dr. Waggoner's own words. Therefore, those with "delicate constitutions" might consider opting out this time.
This screening begins a semester-long series of David Lynch films, so if you can't make this one, there'll be another.
Since part of college is becoming a more cultured individual and really just being plain cooler than you were before, the staff and editorship of The Pharos highly encourages you to check this out!
All are welcome to the screening of this semi-horror, surreal flick, but be forewarned: it is aggressively strange, in Dr. Waggoner's own words. Therefore, those with "delicate constitutions" might consider opting out this time.
This screening begins a semester-long series of David Lynch films, so if you can't make this one, there'll be another.
Since part of college is becoming a more cultured individual and really just being plain cooler than you were before, the staff and editorship of The Pharos highly encourages you to check this out!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Masquerade Ball!
Everyone on the staff of The Pharos hopes to see you, yes, YOU at the Mardi Gras Masquerade Ball TONIGHT at 9 p.m. at the Bi-Ci! The ball is sponsored by CAB and a plethora of other organizations.
Dress is semi-formal, and masks are encouraged but not required. Those who are over 21 will have access to the bar at the 88 restaurant.
See the upcoming issue of the print publication for photos and a write-up.
Hope to see you there!
Dress is semi-formal, and masks are encouraged but not required. Those who are over 21 will have access to the bar at the 88 restaurant.
See the upcoming issue of the print publication for photos and a write-up.
Hope to see you there!
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Inauguration!
So, are you and your friends doing the American thing and cutting class to attend the Inauguration in DC Monday and Tuesday?
Then you should send The Pharos pictures of your experience at pharos@wvwc.edu ! We'll publish a selection of photos we receive in an upcoming print publication.
Just be sure to tell us who is in the photo and who took it. Have fun celebrating a new era for the USA!
Then you should send The Pharos pictures of your experience at pharos@wvwc.edu ! We'll publish a selection of photos we receive in an upcoming print publication.
Just be sure to tell us who is in the photo and who took it. Have fun celebrating a new era for the USA!
Friday, January 09, 2009
2009 Is Upon Us
Hey!
We realize this thing hasn't been updated since Heath Ledger died. Sorry about that. Things were pretty crazy here at The Pharos last semester, but we're back now. You'll see lots of stuff here, everything from opinion pieces to recipes to things that we just think are especially relevant for the college community and beyond. But first, let me give you a quick rundown of what's been going on personnel wise for us.
This year, The Pharos is headed up by senior Sarah Wilkinson and sophomore Alic' Shreves, serving as co-Editors in Chief.
News Editor Daniel Trader and Social and Community Editor Jeff Webb both returned to their respective positions, without too much pleading from Editor Wilkinson.
Entertainment Editor Jennifer Elkins also returned to her position, albeit after a semester-hiatus of study abroad in London, England. We are all very jealous. During her "sabbatical" as we'll call it, Krysta Rexrode filled her position as Interim Entertainment Editor, and everyone on staff is very grateful to Krysta for her service.
New in the fall was Sports Editor Carlee Gault. We are thrilled to have her; she's fantastic!
New this spring to our lovely Editorial Board is Alice Foley, who will fill the slot of Greek Editor. This position sat vacant last semester due to lack of available parties, but we're thrilled to have Alice on board. She'll be fantastic, and she's also quite entertaining.
Our print publication dates for this semester have not yet been set in stone, but look out here for updates on that. As far as this blog goes, you should have updates at least every other day, if not every day.
We look forward to a great semester of serving the Wesleyan community!
(Got something to say? Leave a note in the comments or email pharos@wvwc.edu!)
The Pharos acts both as a source of news and as a forum of free expression for the West Virginia Wesleyan community. The Pharos and its staff operate with editorial freedom and responsibility. The views and editorials printed within the Pharos and its affiliated forms reflect the opinions of the individual writers and not the college or the Pharos staff as a whole.
We realize this thing hasn't been updated since Heath Ledger died. Sorry about that. Things were pretty crazy here at The Pharos last semester, but we're back now. You'll see lots of stuff here, everything from opinion pieces to recipes to things that we just think are especially relevant for the college community and beyond. But first, let me give you a quick rundown of what's been going on personnel wise for us.
This year, The Pharos is headed up by senior Sarah Wilkinson and sophomore Alic' Shreves, serving as co-Editors in Chief.
News Editor Daniel Trader and Social and Community Editor Jeff Webb both returned to their respective positions, without too much pleading from Editor Wilkinson.
Entertainment Editor Jennifer Elkins also returned to her position, albeit after a semester-hiatus of study abroad in London, England. We are all very jealous. During her "sabbatical" as we'll call it, Krysta Rexrode filled her position as Interim Entertainment Editor, and everyone on staff is very grateful to Krysta for her service.
New in the fall was Sports Editor Carlee Gault. We are thrilled to have her; she's fantastic!
New this spring to our lovely Editorial Board is Alice Foley, who will fill the slot of Greek Editor. This position sat vacant last semester due to lack of available parties, but we're thrilled to have Alice on board. She'll be fantastic, and she's also quite entertaining.
Our print publication dates for this semester have not yet been set in stone, but look out here for updates on that. As far as this blog goes, you should have updates at least every other day, if not every day.
We look forward to a great semester of serving the Wesleyan community!
(Got something to say? Leave a note in the comments or email pharos@wvwc.edu!)
The Pharos acts both as a source of news and as a forum of free expression for the West Virginia Wesleyan community. The Pharos and its staff operate with editorial freedom and responsibility. The views and editorials printed within the Pharos and its affiliated forms reflect the opinions of the individual writers and not the college or the Pharos staff as a whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)