Category: Arts & Life

By Carolyn Williams

Senior Writer

There has been much speculation about the return of James Cameron’s 1997 blockbuster “Titanic” to theaters in 3D this spring. The purported reasoning behind the new launch of the beloved classic is a memorial of the disaster’s 100th anniversary. Since its original release, “Titanic” has achieved cult status, catapulted Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio into overnight stardom, and held the title of highest grossing film of all time until it was overtaken by Cameron’s latest vehicle, “Avatar”. In case you’ve been living under a rock since 1997, here’s the basic plot rundown.

In 1996, a treasure hunter is combing the underwater wreck of the RMS Titanic for the fabled “Heart of the Ocean,” a fabulous stone which supposedly went down with the ship. His expedition attracts the attention of an elderly woman who, it turns out, wore the stone the night of the sinking, and the story is told in a series of flashbacks to her experience on the ship more than 80 years before.

Rose DeWitt Bukater (Winslet) is our narrator, and her story begins when, at 17 years old, she boards the Titanic with her mother and wealthy fiancée. Dissatisfied with her elitist circle, Rose attempts suicide by almost jumping overboard, but is convinced to live by the charming and artistic drifter Jack Dawson (DiCaprio). The two begin a love affair that defies class and prior commitments, but which is violently interrupted when, as we all knew must eventually happen, the ship strikes an iceberg, transforming the second half of the film from a period romance to a disaster thriller.

There is no denying the greatness of “Titanic.” It won Best Picture and Best Director in one fell swoop. It made the careers of two of today’s critically acclaimed actors. It’s on TV practically once a week. But, we must admit, it is not perfect. The disparity between first and third classes is a little overdone, and Cameron’s dialogue at times seems forced, taking away from the terrific acting and truly fantastic plot. Still, we can’t help but be riveted.

Putting it in 3D, as strange as it may seem, only increases the movie’s staying power. The fact that a film released 15 years ago can still fill theaters is remarkable in and of itself, but “Titanic” in 3D is a completely different experience. The change in medium is a little jarring at first, but once you’ve acclimated, it’s impressive. The haunting scenes of the wreck are that much more heart-wrenching. The third-class party becomes more vibrant than before. And the actual sinking is made all the more real by the greater clarity. Falling stacks of china and people jumping overboard in an attempt to expedite the inevitable are brought home in a brand new way. This massive tragedy is just that–a tragedy, and the 3D does not let you forget it for a second.

And especially for those of us who were too young to see “Titanic” in theaters the first time, it is absolutely worth the price of admission. Cameron’s vision has been made to realize heretofore unknown potential. “Titanic” in 3D is entirely epic.

By Juliet Kelso

Staff Writer

For viewers of the hit American television series “How I Met Your Mother,” Barney Stinson epitomizes the “bro code.” Barney is the classic womanizer. Burnt by love in his youth, he re-invents himself as an uber-macho personality who adheres to the present manifestations of conventional gender stereotypes. Barney repeatedly goes to absurd lengths in order to sleep with as many women as possible. This is his primary function, driven by the impulsive sexualization and objectification of every woman he encounters. He stringently resists emotion and is generally unfeeling. 

Thomas Keith’s 2011 documentary “The Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men” interrogates masculine-labeled identities like Barney Stinson and their implications to societal gender issues. The film was shown in the Gallery Theater at 8 p.m. on April 10 and was followed by a panel discussion. Initial responses by students in the audience were collectively overwhelmed by shock and disturbance.

Have you ever wondered how we learn to view the opposite sex? Or where our ideas of femininity versus masculinity come from? I would advise you to watch Keith’s film to find out what are most likely the answers to such questions, but unfortunately a copy of the DVD is sold for a steep $250 to colleges and universities and $125 to high schools, community colleges and non-profits. Since the Media Education Foundation refuses to sell the film to individual customers, we can only hope it will show up on the shelves of Ellen Clarke Bertrand Library’s DVD collection.

“The Bro Code” focuses on the dominant role of multi-media in shaping contemporary ideas of masculinity. Essentially, the queues are all over the place, inundating society at large with images of a problematic gender dynamic. Music, comedy, television, movies and sports all contribute to the mass perpetuation of gendered ideals, which sell. The entertainment industry determines what will likely be popular, exposes it to the public, and supply creates its own demand. 

Porn is a flawless example. A recent fad in pornography, Gonzo.com, has popularized troublingly violent fetishes. The site’s multi-million-member “hateporn” division features videos which venture far beyond the parameters of some naturally mutual S&M. Most involve the physical abuse and defiling of women by men. Female porn stars are portrayed as struggling, powerless and submissive while their male counterparts appear overtly aggressive, angry and merciless. As Gonzo produces more material and forces exposure, they extend the reach and hype of hateporn, augmenting a mass demand which by natural means never would have existed. 

Like never before, porn is readily accessible to an expansive portion of the population. Most young American boys, typically between the ages of 12 and 14, are introduced to sexuality via the fantasized world of porn. For many, this will become their perception of sexual reality. Developing boys are unlikely to be independently aware of their own sexual preferences, and porn teaches them what to strive for. Later in life, they are then likely to find themselves begging their confused and unconvinced girlfriend to reenact a kinky porn-star move they saw on the web. Porn is not reality. 

The Bro Code also specifically addresses the prevalence of masculinity issues on college campuses. Keith includes a haunting statistic which states that 56 percent of college men surveyed say yes, they would rape a woman if they absolutely knew they would get away with it. Another clip shows a group of drunk Yale men chanting, “No mean yes, yes mean anal.” Within the context of a relatively safe campus like the University’s, facts like this are difficult to believe, but thought advocating sex-related crimes is not alien to us. A prominent aspect of the bro code is the notion of taking whatever you want by whatever means possible, which rape certainly satisfies. This concept of dominance and entitlement applies to all men and calls them to identify with one of three takes on it: the Wrestlemania physical macho man, the charming and handsome Edward Cullen or the awkward but relentlessly desperate McLovin who is willing to try anything for sex. Those who do not fit into one of the above categories are marginalized and/or often mocked for being the worst thing a man could possibly be: feminine.

It is important to recognize, as Keith does, that women are also culprits. The media is stocked with degrading examples of how women ought to conduct themselves. Maxim and other magazines of the like objectify women as sexual playthings made for masculine pleasure. Many women project these images onto themselves, believing them to be true. In response to the traditional sexist value that men are meant to seek out sex with as many partners as possible, women are expected to compete with one another in desirability. This is reflected in hip-hop, sexist jokes and many other cultural practices. It seems that half of pop songs by female artists are encompassed by sexual competition, with lyrics like the Pussycat Dolls’, “Don’t you wish your girlfriend was hot like me? Don’t you wish your girlfriend was a freak like me?”

The post-film discussion was directed by a panel consisting of four faculty and staff members: Sheila Lintott, Vincent Stephens, Chipper Dean and Kate Parker, and IFC president Pat Zailckas ’13. Attendees discussed how Keith’s ideas apply to the University climate. Assistant professor of psychology Chipper Dean asked the audience what they feel defines the broad culture at the University. Answers included the familiar “work hard, play harder” mentality, the unavoidable overarching Greek system and the University’s adoration of convention and tradition. The latter attests to the concept that although current mainstream manifestations have evolved, campus social structure is nothing new. Women compete, viciously, for desirability. They obsess over social rank and categorizations, largely associated with sororities. Women in relationships are somewhat removed from the competition because they, in a way, have won the game and proven their desirability. Single women gain power by the quantity and quality of men who desire them. In this case, quality is often defined by wealth, charm and power: the three ingredients for the perfect womanizer.

The same traditional sexist values are being imitated by modern pop culture and can be found at the center of University culture. The looming question remains: Where do we go from here? We can’t censor the media and we definitely can’t harness the Internet. We can’t ensure that every child will have a parent, or that those who do are raised to embrace their personal identity, independent of media impositions. But we can educate. Films like “The Bro Code” deliver a fresh perspective on the contemporary social climate, are capable of revealing truths about identity and create leap-off points for open discussion.

“The Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men”  was shown as part of the Masculinity Film Series presented by IFC. Upcoming films in the series include “Manhood and Violence: Fatal Peril” on Tuesday, April 17 and “Wrestling with Masculinity” on Tuesday, April 24.

By Jen Lassen

Arts & Life Editor

Richard Wilbur wrote a famous poem entitled “Love Calls Us to the Things of This World.” And for artist Makoto Fujimura ’83, it’s a love of creativity that has called him to art.

Fujimura, a world-renowned artist, visited his alma mater on Tuesday, April 3 to speak with President Bravman, a professor of engineering and scientist himself, for the Creativity: Beyond the Box Forum. The two discussed the topic “Creative Engagement: The Questions Science and Art Ask of Each Other.”

Fujimura’s work has been featured in places all across the globe, including New York City, Tokyo and Hong Kong. He was also the illustrator for the King James Bible in 2009, and was the first artist ever to illustrate all four gospels.

Before the discussion took place, Christina Cody ’12 presented Wilbur’s poem. Behind her performance, the song “Delicacy,” composed by Fujimura’s son, C.J. Fujimura ’13, was playing.

C.J. Fujimura composed this song from a feeling inspired by his father’s infamous painting “Golden Sea.” This incredible piece of artwork, composed of gold leaf and crystal pigment paint elements, was displayed on stage throughout the presentation.

Bravman opened the discussion by asking Fujimura if artists perceive science as a way of art.

“I grew up in a household where that question was in everything we did. Creativity is shared in these disciplines; science is an objective analysis. It does have to begin with an intuitive knowledge. Creative language is shared between the two,” Fujimura said.

Fujimura then questioned Bravman about science and how Bravman made his connection between science and art. Bravman said that as a scientist, he was attracted to two main things: how Fujimura makes his own paints from crystals and his use of gold leaf as a creative substance.

Bravman told the anecdote of his visit to Fujimura’s studio in New York City, and how this visit opened his eyes to how science and art relate.

“I instantly made a connection between science and art. I was stunned by the material content of your work,” Bravman said.

Progressing to the topic of mystery, Fujimura asked Bravman about mystery as part of the creative process.

“To me, mystery [in science] is why complex materials do what they do; I don’t understand that, but I want to,” Bravman said.

Fujimura then responded with his take on mystery.

“The role of creativity in art has been challenged and questioned in some sense. This creativity flows in the same way in the sciences,” Fujimura said.

Fujimura drew on the analogy of an idea being “pregnant with possibility.” He discussed how an idea can grow and grow, then eventually open up, rather than close, to expose a new idea that “leads to a generational dialogue.”

Conversely, Bravman and Fujimura then discussed the limits of creativity and failure. 

“[With science] the issue is, even if you have notions, your freedom has been diminished due to a lack of funding. Few scientists have the ability to pursue anything they want to,” Bravman said.

Fujimura noted how these external limits to science parallel the internal limits artists place on themselves.

“Don’t be afraid of limitations; that’s how you can really find your voice. Limitations allow me to reach these levels,” Fujimura said.

Both Fujimura and Bravman admitted to failures in their endeavors, yet Fujimura pointed out how failure can be positive.

“I look for failures. It turns the question upside down and allows you to see something differently,” Fujimura said.

Fujimura’s limitations and failures very much influenced his creation of “Golden Sea.” He talked about how he did not want the application of the painting to affect the outcome of its creation, and his painting took two and a half years to successfully finish

“I wanted to slow down, to let the painting speak back to me,” Fujimura said.

The completion of “Golden Sea” can also be seen as one of Fujimura’s greatest labors of love.

“The love of what we do can call us into and engage reality. This was about my love for these materials. I exercised a discipline of love,” Fujimura said.

After a short question and answer period, Fujimura surprised Bravman and the entire audience by gifting the University a beautiful, one-of-a-kind painting, composed of Fujimura’s signature gold leaf and crystal elements. The entire audience erupted in a round of applause and a standing ovation.

“I am in a complete state of speechlessness; this is extraordinary,” Bravman said.

“It was incredibly enlightening and inspiring. I really enjoyed watching Bravman and Fujimura draw the ‘golden lining’ between art and science,” Asha Harvey ’15 said.

Ending his discussion with advice to future artists, Fujimura closed with an inspiring idea.

“Remember your first love; that is so easily forgotten when we become successful. Ask questions about your first love and ability to dream dreams,” Fujimura said.

By Carolyn Williams

Staff Writer

Director Gary Ross’ film adaptation of “The Hunger Games” has been arguably the most anticipated book-to-movie release since the end of the Harry Potter era. Either way, Suzanne Collins’ best-selling series is well on its way to becoming one of those rare instances in which the movie bests the book.

Our heroine Katniss Everdeen, (Jennifer Lawrence “Winter’s Bone,” “Like Crazy”) is a scrappy huntress from the outlying District 12, a poor coal-mining community. The story begins on the day of the Reaping, in which each of the 12 districts is forced to draw the names of two children, a boy and a girl between the ages of 12 and 18, and offer them up as tributes (basically sacrifices) to compete in the annual Hunger Games. The games represent a reminder of the Districts’ failed revolt against the Capitol, for which the children of the Districts pay each year. It’s a battle to the death, and the last man standing is crowned champion, at a bloody price.

So, naturally, Katniss, in a show of bravery, volunteers herself as tribute to go in place of the chosen girl tribute, her younger sister. Alongside her is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson “The Kids Are All Right,” “Bridge to Terabithia”), the other tribute from District 12, and the two set off for the famed Capitol. Their handlers include the insufferably superficial Effie Trinket (a nearly unrecognizable Elizabeth Banks), their guide of sorts from the Capitol, and the drunken Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) the only tribute from District 12 to have won the games in the past. With his help, Katniss and Peeta are meant to practice their fighting and survival skills, as well as making nice with the cameras in an attempt to encourage support of their unpopular district. Dazzled and disgusted by the finery of the Capitol compared to the abject poverty they were raised in, Katniss and Peeta are transformed by styling crews and coached for interviews with Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), complete with electric blue hair. All anyone is wondering, though, is what will happen when they step into the arena of the games, and who of the 24 entering will be walking out.

“The Hunger Games” has everything necessary to make a good movie: action, suspense, romance, an underdog hero, elements of a corrupt dystopia, a strong cast and a huge budget to make the otherworldly set look as good as possible. The movie actually draws tears at times, and gasps of fear and surprise at others, and overall it has the potential to genuinely entertain a wide audience of viewers.

“It went back to what movies should be about; it isn’t the level of special effects that is important but instead the story itself,” Kendall Woods ’14 said.

Lauren DelloStritto ’14 had a similarly positive experience, calling the film “exhilarating and exciting.” 

So whether or not you have read the books, “The Hunger Games” is definitely this spring’s must-see film.

By Rob O’Donnell

Columnist

Other critics have dismissed Tegan and Sara’s album “So Jealous” as too commercialized and self-conscious for folk-rock, or even indie rock. Luckily, I’m not one of those critics, and I have no idea what they’re talking about. This album is incredibly raw and emotional with a hard anti-commercial bite to it. Compared to their previous albums, it is much more rock-oriented, but not in a bad way. In fact, it’s incredibly refreshing.

This is the problem that almost every folk musician will eventually run into: as soon as the band changes its sound, it is accused of selling out even if the new material is just as anti-commercial as the previous songs. It’s the Bob Dylan Curse. As open-minded as they say they are, folkies apparently don’t appreciate too much change.

For me, it is the vocals that keep “So Jealous” from being commercial or pop music. Both sisters have beautiful voices on other albums, but on this album they mixed them with effects to make their sound more grunge-like. For this album, though, Sara Quin has a very unusual, somewhat nasally voice and when mixed with reverb it sounds as punk rock as Tom Gabel. And that is what I don’t understand about the critics. Before I read them, I was fully prepared to say that this was almost a grunge album, albeit with synths. The White Stripes covered a song off the album, “Walking With a Ghost,” and that could be the final proof that this is not a commercial album. “Jack White” and “pop music” cannot be said in the same sentence. 

The music on “So Jealous,” as I said before, is more rock- and grunge-oriented than the group’s previous albums. The first two albums were pure folk acoustic music and the third was a blend of acoustic and folk-rock. The albums followed a steady progression, each one a bit harder and edgier than the last. So, the sound of this album is the next logical step. It feels very unpolished, and yet is even more beautiful because of that. Even the synths are aggressive for such a mellow instrument. As someone once said, a truly great artist is one that constantly stays in the “becoming” stage and is not content with simply “being.” Once you’re happy with where you are, you start to slip. And that is what makes Tegan and Sara so great; every album builds on the last one and improves on the previous mistakes.

This album is perfect when you’re just having one of those days where everything seems to go wrong, or you’re having relationship trouble, or you just have some general angst. It is the best of punk and grunge-pop with lyrics for those of us with ears too delicate for most other bands in the genre. If you’re a fan of Metric or Florence and the Machine, this album is absolutely essential.