246 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/27/06 4:00am)
The crazy thing about Nicole Holofcener's "Friends With Money" is that I didn't notice there wasn't a plot until I'd reached the end, but by then I had enjoyed the movie enough that it didn't really matter.\nOstensibly, "Friends With Money," bestowed the honor of opening film of the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, is a study of women and their relationships to each other and to their husbands. In that regard, it doesn't beat too far off the path of Holofcener's previous films -- 1996's "Walking And Talking" and 2001's "Lovely & Amazing," also studies of women and their relationships -- but hey, when something works for you, keep it working.\nBecause the movie is so much about the daily lives of people and the problems or pleasures that can come from money (or lack thereof), the cast is of the utmost importance. Fortunately, Holofcener scores four of the best working actresses today. \nAt the center of the storm is Olivia (Jennifer Aniston), a pot-smoking maid who seems adrift as the middle of her life approaches. The "Friends with Money" title references her friends, and boy do they have money in comparison: Jane (Frances McDormand) is a successful clothing designer who sells $800 dresses that people keep buying; Christine (the always lovely Catherine Keener, in her third Holofcener film) is a successful screenwriter; and Franny (Joan Cusack, here very underused), comes from big money.\nIt's always hard being the friend who isn't as well off financially as everyone else or who's "the single friend" -- like Olivia, who tolerates a lot from intolerable men -- but Holofcener is quick to point out money does not always equal happiness. \nJane is in a mid-life crisis, waxing prophetic about death, while her gay-ish husband Aaron (Simon McBurney) makes new friends. Christine and her husband David (Jason Isaacs) are building a second story to their home while their argumentative marriage is deteriorating. Franny and her husband Matt (Greg Germann) are well-to-do, except she worries too much about her friends and he couldn't care less.\nTogether, they all bounce off of one another, bitch at and counsel each other. We see some problems though towards the end, but the film makes no qualms about the fact that some problems go on longer than 90 minutes. \n"Friends with Money" is witty and clever, often laugh-out-loud worthy, but it would be wrong to say it is a constant pleasure. The film takes a rather serious and depressing dip in its middle, so much so I felt like Holofcener was going to lead me through to the end without any more smiles. Life's more painful and upsetting side is never too far behind its cheery and casual side; fortunately, the film rebounds enough that I was as satisfied at the end as I was when it all began.\nIt would seem incorrect to me to label the movie a "chick flick," although it is a flick about chicks. Holofcener has a keen sense of human observation; if I were writing the film, I'd probably put four guys in the starring roles, but I imagine I'd reach much of the same conclusions about interactions among friends as Holofcener does with her irresistible women.
(04/26/06 9:52pm)
The crazy thing about Nicole Holofcener's "Friends With Money" is that I didn't notice there wasn't a plot until I'd reached the end, but by then I had enjoyed the movie enough that it didn't really matter.\nOstensibly, "Friends With Money," bestowed the honor of opening film of the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, is a study of women and their relationships to each other and to their husbands. In that regard, it doesn't beat too far off the path of Holofcener's previous films -- 1996's "Walking And Talking" and 2001's "Lovely & Amazing," also studies of women and their relationships -- but hey, when something works for you, keep it working.\nBecause the movie is so much about the daily lives of people and the problems or pleasures that can come from money (or lack thereof), the cast is of the utmost importance. Fortunately, Holofcener scores four of the best working actresses today. \nAt the center of the storm is Olivia (Jennifer Aniston), a pot-smoking maid who seems adrift as the middle of her life approaches. The "Friends with Money" title references her friends, and boy do they have money in comparison: Jane (Frances McDormand) is a successful clothing designer who sells $800 dresses that people keep buying; Christine (the always lovely Catherine Keener, in her third Holofcener film) is a successful screenwriter; and Franny (Joan Cusack, here very underused), comes from big money.\nIt's always hard being the friend who isn't as well off financially as everyone else or who's "the single friend" -- like Olivia, who tolerates a lot from intolerable men -- but Holofcener is quick to point out money does not always equal happiness. \nJane is in a mid-life crisis, waxing prophetic about death, while her gay-ish husband Aaron (Simon McBurney) makes new friends. Christine and her husband David (Jason Isaacs) are building a second story to their home while their argumentative marriage is deteriorating. Franny and her husband Matt (Greg Germann) are well-to-do, except she worries too much about her friends and he couldn't care less.\nTogether, they all bounce off of one another, bitch at and counsel each other. We see some problems though towards the end, but the film makes no qualms about the fact that some problems go on longer than 90 minutes. \n"Friends with Money" is witty and clever, often laugh-out-loud worthy, but it would be wrong to say it is a constant pleasure. The film takes a rather serious and depressing dip in its middle, so much so I felt like Holofcener was going to lead me through to the end without any more smiles. Life's more painful and upsetting side is never too far behind its cheery and casual side; fortunately, the film rebounds enough that I was as satisfied at the end as I was when it all began.\nIt would seem incorrect to me to label the movie a "chick flick," although it is a flick about chicks. Holofcener has a keen sense of human observation; if I were writing the film, I'd probably put four guys in the starring roles, but I imagine I'd reach much of the same conclusions about interactions among friends as Holofcener does with her irresistible women.
(04/12/06 5:16am)
I don't believe this campus has an East Coast/Midwest divide. In reality, students congregate around those with whom they feel comfortable, which needn't be based on geography. Friends are forged from similar backgrounds, personality traits, drug habits, etc.\nThat said, I do believe there's a nice/jerk divide that has nothing to do with where you lived before. I've been here for four years. I wish I had more friends from all over, but face it: A lot of you are jerks. From east to west, north to south, left to right, here and abroad, forget cultural stereotypes: We're just massive jerks to people we don't know. It doesn't need to be this way. We don't need to drudge up cultural stereotypes, we need etiquette classes.
(04/03/06 5:35am)
I'm not much of an expert on Web sites -- I'm better versed in political matters -- but I know a bad site when I see it. So allow me to say: Baron Hill, your site sucks.\nHill, the disposed congressman who represented the 9th district for three terms, seems the likely frontrunner in the four-way May 2 Democratic primary. If nominated, as I imagine he will be, he will face Republican Rep. Mike Sodrel for the third time in three elections.\nI'm no fan of Sodrel, who has become exactly what I expected him to be -- a toady lockstep behind the president and the Republican congressional leadership on almost every issue. But I'm not much of a Hill fan, either. I held my nose and voted for him in 2004. But this year, after reviewing Hill's anemic campaign Web site -- the alliterative www.bringbackbaron.com -- I'm going to have to vote for someone else.\nIt's not that his site's design is flawed. It loads promptly and is full of pictures of fields of corn and Hill glad-handing voters. As political sites go, it's standard fare.\nExcept for one thing. You could spend an hour on the site and still not know where Hill stands on the issues.\nThe information about Hill is out there; it's just hidden from his Web site. He filled out Project Vote Smart's issue guide for the 2004 campaign, which was vague but nonetheless tried to hone in on where he stands. This year he seems content to lay low and avoid issues on his site until he has the nomination, after which he'll continue to lay low and hope anti-Republican sentiment will make people to vote against Sodrel (and not really for him). \nThe Internet is one of the most valuable tools in political campaigns, both in how candidates can reach voters and how voters can research candidates. But more and more it's a race to mediocrity, and candidates are shying away from any kind of "Issues" section on their sites that establishes what they believe and how they might vote, besides an "R" or "D" next to their names. Hill has moderated himself to the point he can't be scrutinized because you don't know what he thinks.\nFor his part, Sodrel's staff seems to have done a decent job providing info. Sodrel didn't fill out Project Vote Smart's issue guide in 2004, but at least his congressional site, http://sodrel.house.gov, has some more detailed positions in votes he has cast and stands he has taken while in the House. Hill should follow suit. There's still a month before the primary, and seven months before the general election, and that's plenty of time to get issues posted on his Web site. \nBarring any revelatory action on Hill's part, I'm going to cast my primary vote for Gretchen Clearwater. Her site, www.clearwaterforcongress.com, contains a valuable "Issues" section outlining what she believes and what specific actions she might take or specific votes she might cast to address the issue. I don't agree with everything position she takes, and she's probably too liberal to win in this district that President Bush carried handily. But she's got the brass to post on her own Web site what she believes. Right now, that's more than you can say about Baron Hill.
(03/29/06 4:40am)
It happened last semester. I had to blink a few times. There, off in the distance: the first parking space at the School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation building was empty, the spot closest to Seventh Street, a mere hop, skip and a jump away from my Indiana Daily Student office. No one else had it, and no one else would have it. It was mine. All mine. \nThis moment sticks out in my mind because my other parking experiences haven't been so thrilling.\nYou don't need me to tell you that sometimes as you're looking for a parking space in the middle of campus on a busy afternoon, circling lot after lot, the clock ticking away, it feels like you've got Virgil and Dante riding shotgun. It's like trying to find a space at the mall during Christmas season, except the frustration lasts August through April.\nIt's vexing, and I know I'm not the only one who feels it. The Bloomington Faculty Council voted March 21 to support, in only an advisory role, an ad-hoc parking study committee's recommendation to limit the sale of A and C parking permits to faculty and staff only. \nThe report recommended five changes, including the current universal bus transportation fee and the new garage slated for construction, but slashing permits is certainly the most controversial. Although it recommended cutting student permits, the report ultimately doesn't cut to the two-pronged heart of the matter: 1) We must realize we are addicted to an overly convenient parking situation, and \n2) Not all parking spaces are created equal.\nIU has too many parking passes, and those passes grossly outnumber of the number of available spaces. Logically you have to have more tags than spaces so that cars can come and go, but the current statistics are mind-boggling. Right now, there are 2.6 permits for every A space and 1.7 permits for every C space, a greater ratio than any other Big Ten university. More than 700 nonteaching students somehow managed to get an A pass last year, an utterly outrageous figure, but eliminating all students would only decrease the statistic to 2.3 permits for every A space and 1.3 permits for every C space, still far from being manageable.\nStudents have alternatives, primarily walking if you're near the campus. Also, each bus in this city is pre-paid, either through fees or by virtue of University IDs, and conveniently shuttles students to and from class. The buses aren't always the most convenient way to travel, but often they are the most practical at a campus designed for horse travel of the 18th century, not SUV travel of the 21st century.\nIt makes sense that we need to cut back drastically on student A passes, but elimination just creates unnecessary animus. Graduate students, for example, teach as well and should be able to put in for a permit if they can afford it. A more reasonable solution would be a stricter litmus test for A passes, including passes only for those who can prove they work a certain number of hours per week in an area that requires a certain level of permit to park and proof that your home is far enough from your teaching location that a car is imperative. \nBut students aren't the only guilty culprits in this parking game. I readily accept that professors need parking more, just as it should be, but they should exercise discretion as well. Many don't live within walking distance of the University, but some do, and if we're going to expect parking to get any better on this campus, professors who can bite the bullet need to as well. Similarly with graduate students, another approach would be to sell A permits to professors who can prove an imperative need to commute to campus via their cars.\nThe University needs to step up, too. Encourage more biking by providing more racks outside of buildings and painting in more biking lanes. (How about starting with Third Street?) Realize that building another parking garage will only be effective if we don't increase the number of permits given out. Allow daytime staff members to park for reduced rates in the Union parking lots instead of in A spots. Also, and perhaps most importantly, recognize that not all parking places are created equal. An A spot in the Ballantine Hall garage is obviously not the same as an A spot outside Eigenmann Hall, but as long as you have an A permit, they're the same. \nIt's been famously said that there's always a spot available on campus, it's just never where you want it to be. That could very well be true, but it also avoids the issue. Maybe we're due for another level of parking, one more geographically centered than what we have now. \nThe semester of the Immaculate Parking Space next to the HPER was the semester I had an A decal for my car. I shelled out the money because I was pulling 13- or 14-hour days five days a week, taking classes and working as one of the IDS managing editors. Most of the time, I never could find a spot, but I still kept driving into campus. (If parking corrupts, then A-parking corrupts absolutely.)\nBut this semester, I'm without my A decal and back to the basics, and it's liberating. I'm walking to class and I'm taking the bus. I'm certainly feeling less stressed than I did when I was spending half my day searching for a parking space. (Ironically enough, it often took more time than if I had just walked or ridden the bus.)\nThe key is exercising discretion and giving up a little to gain a lot. If you -- the student, the professor, the staff member, etc. -- don't need a car to get into campus, then don't drive your car into campus. Before we eliminate permits, or build garages, or scream at each other again, we have to realize that's going to be the first and most logical step to beginning to solve our parking crisis.
(03/23/06 5:00am)
Never have I struggled the way I did with "A History of Violence" to figure out what the big damn deal is. David Cronenberg's film is the definition of a "critical darling," passionately landing on more than 150 top ten lists. But even after a second viewing I can't seem to piece together much of a logical explanation as to why anyone should see this movie. For starters, when I first saw this movie in the theater, the audience was laughing hysterically. And this isn't a comedy.\nTom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) owns a quaint diner in a small Midwest town, has a beautiful wife (Maria Bello) and some cute kids and is generally a well-respected man in his community. When two men attempt to rob the diner at gunpoint, however, mild-mannered Tom unleashes the fury of God's own thunder and kills the thieves. Understandably, no one in the town really sees that one coming, but Tom becomes a local hero. After appearing on TV following the incident, some mob characters start to visit Tom, prompting the audience and his family to question whether Tom is who he claims to be.\nThat's the first half, and while it would be unprofessional of me to disclose what you'll learn in the second half, allow me to say that it's pretty awful. Cronenberg is successful at creating an initially suspenseful atmosphere, and the action scenes of Tom defending his diner are well crafted, but you couldn't keep the entirety of this film together with industrial strength glue. It's like someone kneecapped this movie, and it had to limp through to the end. \nIt would be hard to pinpoint exactly what sends "A History of Violence" over the edge since the failure seems so sweeping. There is some extraordinarily hammy dialogue. There's also atrocious acting -- somehow William Hurt was nominated for an Oscar for what has to be one of the worst performances I've ever seen trapped on celluloid. Plus, there are some awkward and remarkably uncomfortable sex scenes between Mortensen and Bello.\nFor the DVD, Cronenberg does some director commentary, there's an hour-long documentary and a featurette detailing the differences between the U.S. version and the international version of the film (the U.S. version is watered down on the bloody violence). What is missing from the extra features is a pat on the back for making it all the way through the film. I say, turn this movie off after the first half and create your own ending. It's sure to be better than the one we're given. Or better yet, just don't rent this at all.
(03/23/06 2:48am)
Never have I struggled the way I did with "A History of Violence" to figure out what the big damn deal is. David Cronenberg's film is the definition of a "critical darling," passionately landing on more than 150 top ten lists. But even after a second viewing I can't seem to piece together much of a logical explanation as to why anyone should see this movie. For starters, when I first saw this movie in the theater, the audience was laughing hysterically. And this isn't a comedy.\nTom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) owns a quaint diner in a small Midwest town, has a beautiful wife (Maria Bello) and some cute kids and is generally a well-respected man in his community. When two men attempt to rob the diner at gunpoint, however, mild-mannered Tom unleashes the fury of God's own thunder and kills the thieves. Understandably, no one in the town really sees that one coming, but Tom becomes a local hero. After appearing on TV following the incident, some mob characters start to visit Tom, prompting the audience and his family to question whether Tom is who he claims to be.\nThat's the first half, and while it would be unprofessional of me to disclose what you'll learn in the second half, allow me to say that it's pretty awful. Cronenberg is successful at creating an initially suspenseful atmosphere, and the action scenes of Tom defending his diner are well crafted, but you couldn't keep the entirety of this film together with industrial strength glue. It's like someone kneecapped this movie, and it had to limp through to the end. \nIt would be hard to pinpoint exactly what sends "A History of Violence" over the edge since the failure seems so sweeping. There is some extraordinarily hammy dialogue. There's also atrocious acting -- somehow William Hurt was nominated for an Oscar for what has to be one of the worst performances I've ever seen trapped on celluloid. Plus, there are some awkward and remarkably uncomfortable sex scenes between Mortensen and Bello.\nFor the DVD, Cronenberg does some director commentary, there's an hour-long documentary and a featurette detailing the differences between the U.S. version and the international version of the film (the U.S. version is watered down on the bloody violence). What is missing from the extra features is a pat on the back for making it all the way through the film. I say, turn this movie off after the first half and create your own ending. It's sure to be better than the one we're given. Or better yet, just don't rent this at all.
(03/06/06 7:25am)
It was a great year for movies, and it was a great year for Oscars.\nOn the whole, I was pleasantly surprised with how much I enjoyed this year's Oscars. Usually I'm falling asleep or wanting to do something more productive, but this year's show was entertaining. Let me say that while I might be -- well, am in fact -- biased in favor of Jon Stewart and his Midas touch, I thought he was a spectacular host who mixed the right amount of genial humor with back-handed insults at the Hollywood establishment. Naturally, Hollywood didn't much go for it, but I bet Stewart and his crack team of writers had a good time doing it. The "political ads" criticizing certain nominees were some of the funniest bits I've seen at the Oscars in the last decade.\nPerhaps one of the reasons the Oscars seemed to go so well this year is that they seemed to go pretty much as everyone predicted. I, and many others, correctly predicted all four acting categories and the best director in a feature that ran last week in the IDS Weekend magazine. Each of those winners were quite deserving. The only category I incorrectly predicted was the one most other critics got wrong -- Best Picture. "Crash" is certainly an upset win over favorite "Brokeback Mountain," but one that isn't insufferable to swallow. All five films nominated were, for once, all good films. While I much preferred "Munich" and "Capote," and while I contend "Crash" still has its stilted problems, seeing it carry away the Best Picture statue isn't an extreme disappointment. It was a good movie overall, and it certainly isn't as bad as "Traffic" losing to "Gladiator," or "Chariots of Fire" knocking off "Reds" in 1981.\nThe only other disappointments for me were: 1) that Kathleen York's song "In The Deep" for "Crash" didn't win for Best Original Song, instead losing to Three 6 Mafia for the song "Hard Out Here For a Pimp" they did for "Hustle & Flow" (hey, let the chips fall where they may); and 2) that "Good Night, And Good Luck" didn't squeak out a win for cinematography and art direction. (Instead, the flashy "Memoirs of a Geisha" won in both categories, when it was clear to me that the more subtle black-and-white feel of "Good Night, And Good Luck" worked more effectively.)\nI'll forever beat my chest that the Oscars should cut out the silly montages and cut out categories most Americans haven't seen (all of the short films, for example). That could at least bring the show's length from three and a half hours to a more reasonable three, and if they continued to cut out the more technical categories, like sound mixing and sound editing, the show could even get down to two and a half hours. I shouldn't have to sit any longer watching people get awards for movies that weren't nearly as long as the presentation of awards.
(02/16/06 5:00am)
Now that the technology to quickly make animated movies has caught up with the intense desire to make them, each year there seem to be more and more animated theatrical releases. The more you have of something though, the more likely a dud will squeak through. \nWhen considering the animated film selection of 2005, there were some horrible misses -- "Chicken Little," "Madagascar" and "Robots" come to mind immediately -- and there were some stellar successes. Among those I would count as the year's truly great animated outings would be Tim Burton's lovely macabre "Corpse Bride" and "Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit," which is new to DVD.\nPerhaps what is so charming about "Wallace & Gromit," aside from the wonderfully funny characters, is the labor of love put into the series. Directors Nick Park, the characters' creator, and Steve Box have produced a beautiful stop-motion film -- a technique that depends very little on computer technology and instead relies on moving clay figures minimally per frame to create the animation. It succeeds wildly because the look of the film is as captivating as the story.\nPark created the characters back in the late 1980s, and since then they have starred in a series of short animated features. Dim-witted Wallace (voiced by Peter Sallis) is a crazy inventor whose morning routine involves flying down through chutes and trap doors in his house until he lands at the breakfast table. Gromit is Wallace's silent and brilliant dog, whose humanoid facial features are infinitely entertaining. Together they operate Anti-Pesto, a humane pest-control service that largely catches rabbits.\n"The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is the first full-length animated film featuring Wallace and Gromit. A giant mysterious creature is terrorizing their small English town and ruining entries for the town's annual giant vegetable competition hosted by Lady Tottington (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter). As the town's resident pest-control workers, Wallace and Gromit are called upon to investigate a series of vegetable vandalisms. While in pursuit of the culprit, Wallace contends with Victor (voiced by Ralph Fiennes), a gun-toting let's-shoot-the-rabbits sort of a guy, for the affection of Lady Tottington.\nAnything else about the plot would be giving away too much, and watching the film unravel was simply too enjoyable for me to ruin for you. The important thing to distinguish is that, although "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is ostensibly a children's movie, it just really isn't. Of course it's G-rated and completely suitable for children, but it's full of sly and bawdy British humor intended for adults. The DVD is also full of more adult-oriented features, such as an informative making-of-featurette, a short film and some funny deleted scenes.\nPark has won three Academy Awards over the last 15 years for his shorter length animated films, two of which were Wallace and Gromit episodes, and this year "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is nominated for best full-length animated feature film. "Corpse Bride" should give it some stiff competition from Academy voters, but ultimately Park really deserves to pick up his fourth Oscar for this sweet and entertaining movie.
(02/16/06 1:58am)
Now that the technology to quickly make animated movies has caught up with the intense desire to make them, each year there seem to be more and more animated theatrical releases. The more you have of something though, the more likely a dud will squeak through. \nWhen considering the animated film selection of 2005, there were some horrible misses -- "Chicken Little," "Madagascar" and "Robots" come to mind immediately -- and there were some stellar successes. Among those I would count as the year's truly great animated outings would be Tim Burton's lovely macabre "Corpse Bride" and "Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit," which is new to DVD.\nPerhaps what is so charming about "Wallace & Gromit," aside from the wonderfully funny characters, is the labor of love put into the series. Directors Nick Park, the characters' creator, and Steve Box have produced a beautiful stop-motion film -- a technique that depends very little on computer technology and instead relies on moving clay figures minimally per frame to create the animation. It succeeds wildly because the look of the film is as captivating as the story.\nPark created the characters back in the late 1980s, and since then they have starred in a series of short animated features. Dim-witted Wallace (voiced by Peter Sallis) is a crazy inventor whose morning routine involves flying down through chutes and trap doors in his house until he lands at the breakfast table. Gromit is Wallace's silent and brilliant dog, whose humanoid facial features are infinitely entertaining. Together they operate Anti-Pesto, a humane pest-control service that largely catches rabbits.\n"The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is the first full-length animated film featuring Wallace and Gromit. A giant mysterious creature is terrorizing their small English town and ruining entries for the town's annual giant vegetable competition hosted by Lady Tottington (voiced by Helena Bonham Carter). As the town's resident pest-control workers, Wallace and Gromit are called upon to investigate a series of vegetable vandalisms. While in pursuit of the culprit, Wallace contends with Victor (voiced by Ralph Fiennes), a gun-toting let's-shoot-the-rabbits sort of a guy, for the affection of Lady Tottington.\nAnything else about the plot would be giving away too much, and watching the film unravel was simply too enjoyable for me to ruin for you. The important thing to distinguish is that, although "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is ostensibly a children's movie, it just really isn't. Of course it's G-rated and completely suitable for children, but it's full of sly and bawdy British humor intended for adults. The DVD is also full of more adult-oriented features, such as an informative making-of-featurette, a short film and some funny deleted scenes.\nPark has won three Academy Awards over the last 15 years for his shorter length animated films, two of which were Wallace and Gromit episodes, and this year "The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" is nominated for best full-length animated feature film. "Corpse Bride" should give it some stiff competition from Academy voters, but ultimately Park really deserves to pick up his fourth Oscar for this sweet and entertaining movie.
(01/26/06 5:00am)
If you think you're going to learn something from Albert Brooks' ("Mother," "Taxi Driver") new film, "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World," you've got another thing coming. This movie is a distinctly no-learning zone, despite a premise chock full of creativity and a trailer that seems to suggest the possibility of a hilarious quasi-documentary. \nInstead, this film is a straightforward and half-assed comedy with a couple funny moments, which are really neither about Muslims, nor about what makes them laugh. Writer-director-actor Brooks bypasses all of his co-stars and even the title of the film, turning the spotlight on himself. By the tacked-on and lame ending, I was looking for people in the theater who were still chuckling. \nThe set-up is intriguing and full of squandered potential: the U.S. government, in an attempt to understand the people of the world to a greater degree, has launched a project aimed at discovering what makes Muslims laugh. To spearhead the project, the government commissions comedian Albert Brooks to travel to India and Pakistan and write a 500-page report on Muslim humor. Brooks hires an intelligent Indian girl (Sheetal Sheth) to serve as his tour guide of the country. She turns out to be the only radiant part of an otherwise dreary experience, which in Brooks' world translates to: give her less screen time than she deserves.\nNaturally, there are many self-deprecating opportunities to show Brooks as a fish out of water and a man out of his element. There are plenty of jokes about the fact that he is Jewish, and there are plenty of jokes about how people don' t recognize him as a comedian. They get a little tiring five minutes after they begin. \nI should say something about the ending, without giving away too much: there really isn't an ending. I unwisely assumed from the title of the movie the goal was to find some semblance of comedy in the Muslim world. But that would be silly, I suppose; Brooks just wants to go looking for it, take us three-quarters of the way there, and then drop us off at the last moment. If I were a studio executive, I might suggest renaming the film "Still Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, Even When the Credits Begin Rolling."\nUltimately, Brooks' fatal sin of filmmaking isn't very hard to miss: He thinks his audience will find him more interesting than the Muslim people he uses as a backdrop. He is just sorely mistaken.
(01/26/06 12:22am)
If you think you're going to learn something from Albert Brooks' ("Mother," "Taxi Driver") new film, "Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World," you've got another thing coming. This movie is a distinctly no-learning zone, despite a premise chock full of creativity and a trailer that seems to suggest the possibility of a hilarious quasi-documentary. \nInstead, this film is a straightforward and half-assed comedy with a couple funny moments, which are really neither about Muslims, nor about what makes them laugh. Writer-director-actor Brooks bypasses all of his co-stars and even the title of the film, turning the spotlight on himself. By the tacked-on and lame ending, I was looking for people in the theater who were still chuckling. \nThe set-up is intriguing and full of squandered potential: the U.S. government, in an attempt to understand the people of the world to a greater degree, has launched a project aimed at discovering what makes Muslims laugh. To spearhead the project, the government commissions comedian Albert Brooks to travel to India and Pakistan and write a 500-page report on Muslim humor. Brooks hires an intelligent Indian girl (Sheetal Sheth) to serve as his tour guide of the country. She turns out to be the only radiant part of an otherwise dreary experience, which in Brooks' world translates to: give her less screen time than she deserves.\nNaturally, there are many self-deprecating opportunities to show Brooks as a fish out of water and a man out of his element. There are plenty of jokes about the fact that he is Jewish, and there are plenty of jokes about how people don' t recognize him as a comedian. They get a little tiring five minutes after they begin. \nI should say something about the ending, without giving away too much: there really isn't an ending. I unwisely assumed from the title of the movie the goal was to find some semblance of comedy in the Muslim world. But that would be silly, I suppose; Brooks just wants to go looking for it, take us three-quarters of the way there, and then drop us off at the last moment. If I were a studio executive, I might suggest renaming the film "Still Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, Even When the Credits Begin Rolling."\nUltimately, Brooks' fatal sin of filmmaking isn't very hard to miss: He thinks his audience will find him more interesting than the Muslim people he uses as a backdrop. He is just sorely mistaken.
(01/25/06 5:09am)
With more colleges emphasizing life sciences, we're told everything about campus dynamics will strengthen. Here at IU, the University could gain bargaining power for state and federal funding and open itself up to more grants from the private sector. We could rise in rankings and become a more prestigious hotbed of intellectual activity and research that could attract and produce the brightest minds of a new generation, all equipped with unicorns and the sword of destiny.\nWell, maybe not that last part. The idea of life sciences, though, does carry with it a transformative essence. Biotechnology is on the rise, and as we enter the 21st century, the strongest opportunities to make money seem to be in the technological fields. These facts make it easy to understand why IU President Adam Herbert recently declared that "life sciences is now our highest University priority." \nBut should it be? Proponents suggest an increase in life sciences could help the whole University, while others suggest it's a zero-sum game in which one side -- most likely liberal arts -- will lose marginally. As the idiom goes, will this rising tide of life sciences research lift all of IU's boats? Or does it offer a more unsettling situation, where it raises only a few of IU's boats while capsizing others? \nOur first and foremost priority is a general commitment to education. We are the largest public university in the state, and we provide the tremendous ability to get an education to many Hoosier students. Next, as the largest state university and the only university in Indiana widely renowned for its liberal arts programs, we have a commitment to the liberal arts. \nI won't exhaustively belabor the benefits of a liberal arts education. While many see liberal arts as an intangible fog with no immediate practicality, the truth is liberal arts educations provide students with a utilitarian groundwork to lead a productive life and become strong employees in a variety of fields.\nLike a farmer hanging a carrot in front of a mule, the state is pushing for a stronger emphasis in life sciences at its public universities. IU wants in on a slice of that pie, but our priorities can't be linked entirely to the state. The state has its own objectives, and although we're indelibly tied to them, we have our own too. We've made significant progress with donations to aid our liberal arts programs, such as the record-setting donation to the newly christened Jacobs School of Music. \nThere's nothing wrong with aggressively pursuing life sciences research and dollars. We should; we must. Our medical school needs it, and our growing research programs need it. I want all aspects of the University to succeed as much as the next loyal Hoosier. But we can't let the mystical transformative notion go to our heads. We shouldn't flip IU upside down and re-establish our mission and become another Purdue University. We owe it to the state and to the students to keep our liberal arts boats afloat.
(01/12/06 5:00am)
The trend to make characters in films wholly unlikable is one that I'm not sure I'll ever understand. There is a lot of ground to be gained by making characters 99 percent unlikable, with a glimmer of hope or redemption. But if a writer or director can't reel the audience in, all could be lost, as it is in Noah Baumbach's ("Mr. Jealousy," co-writer "The Life Aquatic") insufferable "The Squid and The Whale."\nI suppose "likable" is in the eye of the beholder. After watching "The Squid and The Whale," I took a little sigh of relief that I didn't know any of the characters in the movie. Oh sure, I know people like the characters in the movie -- egocentric, pretentious, immature -- but the ensemble cast is a special blend of repulsive. It's unfortunate, really, that the film never digs itself out of its own grave because it could've been something.\nThe film is said to be autobiographical, adapted from Baumbach's adolescence. The Berkmans are a middle-class family in 1980s Brooklyn, torn apart by a nasty divorce of a snobbish failed novelist (Jeff Daniels) and an unwoven wife reaching literary success (Laura Linney). Their divorce creates a strain on their children, teenaged Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) and child Frank (Owen Kline), who then forge allegiances -- Walt sides with the father, and Frank goes with his mother.\n"The Squid and The Whale" is primarily a movie about two worlds clashing: mother against father, son against father and son against self, but mostly it's about intellectual against anti-intellectual. Snobs are bad, the film seems to keep saying. I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I can't help but note the hypocrisy of an intellectual film about how awful and destructive intellectuals are. \nThere are a few high points in this generally low movie. Daniels' performance is quite good, even if you hate him at the end. Much of the movie's dialogue is rather well written, although I don't know anyone who speaks like that. The idea of the squid and the whale is interesting as well, although it comes in far too late in the movie.\nUltimately, one of the thoughts I can't shake after seeing "The Squid and The Whale" is that maybe film was just the wrong medium for Baumbach to exorcise his demons. It might have been nice to read as a short story, one that I would perhaps spend less than an hour and a half enduring. As a movie though, something's gone wrong. It's just not welcoming or entertaining.
(01/12/06 5:00am)
On first viewing, it might take you a little while to figure out what's going on in writer-director Stephen Gaghan's "Syriana," but once the seams come off and the film becomes whole, it's a worthwhile experience. It's a complex, fascinating and sobering movie with stories about American interests in oil abroad, and the various interlocking lives of the many different people affected. George Clooney, Matt Damon, Chris Cooper and Jeffrey Wright all give strong performances as players absorbed into the wildcard game. Much like "Traffic," which Gaghan won an Academy Award for writing, "Syriana" is a smart and conscious movie, even if it seems a tad too conspiratorial at times and might make America's energy policies seem like a downer.
(01/12/06 1:27am)
On first viewing, it might take you a little while to figure out what's going on in writer-director Stephen Gaghan's "Syriana," but once the seams come off and the film becomes whole, it's a worthwhile experience. It's a complex, fascinating and sobering movie with stories about American interests in oil abroad, and the various interlocking lives of the many different people affected. George Clooney, Matt Damon, Chris Cooper and Jeffrey Wright all give strong performances as players absorbed into the wildcard game. Much like "Traffic," which Gaghan won an Academy Award for writing, "Syriana" is a smart and conscious movie, even if it seems a tad too conspiratorial at times and might make America's energy policies seem like a downer.
(01/12/06 12:46am)
The trend to make characters in films wholly unlikable is one that I'm not sure I'll ever understand. There is a lot of ground to be gained by making characters 99 percent unlikable, with a glimmer of hope or redemption. But if a writer or director can't reel the audience in, all could be lost, as it is in Noah Baumbach's ("Mr. Jealousy," co-writer "The Life Aquatic") insufferable "The Squid and The Whale."\nI suppose "likable" is in the eye of the beholder. After watching "The Squid and The Whale," I took a little sigh of relief that I didn't know any of the characters in the movie. Oh sure, I know people like the characters in the movie -- egocentric, pretentious, immature -- but the ensemble cast is a special blend of repulsive. It's unfortunate, really, that the film never digs itself out of its own grave because it could've been something.\nThe film is said to be autobiographical, adapted from Baumbach's adolescence. The Berkmans are a middle-class family in 1980s Brooklyn, torn apart by a nasty divorce of a snobbish failed novelist (Jeff Daniels) and an unwoven wife reaching literary success (Laura Linney). Their divorce creates a strain on their children, teenaged Walt (Jesse Eisenberg) and child Frank (Owen Kline), who then forge allegiances -- Walt sides with the father, and Frank goes with his mother.\n"The Squid and The Whale" is primarily a movie about two worlds clashing: mother against father, son against father and son against self, but mostly it's about intellectual against anti-intellectual. Snobs are bad, the film seems to keep saying. I wholeheartedly agree, which is why I can't help but note the hypocrisy of an intellectual film about how awful and destructive intellectuals are. \nThere are a few high points in this generally low movie. Daniels' performance is quite good, even if you hate him at the end. Much of the movie's dialogue is rather well written, although I don't know anyone who speaks like that. The idea of the squid and the whale is interesting as well, although it comes in far too late in the movie.\nUltimately, one of the thoughts I can't shake after seeing "The Squid and The Whale" is that maybe film was just the wrong medium for Baumbach to exorcise his demons. It might have been nice to read as a short story, one that I would perhaps spend less than an hour and a half enduring. As a movie though, something's gone wrong. It's just not welcoming or entertaining.
(01/10/06 5:52am)
The most talked about issue in Washington this month will probably be the confirmation process of Samuel Alito. While I'm not one to say the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice is any small occasion, I'm worried serious discussion about the renewal of the Patriot Act will slide off the radar.\nRight before the holiday season, Congress -- stymied in the way only Congress can be -- failed to renew the controversial law, notorious for hastily broadening law enforcement powers after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. After staunch objections by civil libertarians, liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans alike, Congress temporarily imposed an extension of the act until Feb. 3. \nMy exact feelings regarding the Patriot Act are mixed. On the one hand, I want a strong national security system that works to fulfill the promise protecting the country against domestic or foreign enemies. On the other hand, I highly value my privacy and am not comfortable with the idea of the government tapping my telephone, reviewing my library books or looking into what I Google.\nI imagine most Americans are with me on that. So, now comes the hard part: balancing security with liberty.\nThis debate seems to be more about how many changes can be made to ensure as much privacy protection as possible rather than if the act should be renewed at all. Certainly, if pinned to the wall, a majority of congressional representatives would support the act's renewal, which is why we should proceed with an actual debate.\nThe Patriot Act is not, as it is often made out to be, a 500-page document that strips away freedom at every punctuation mark. The vast majority of the law contains necessary provisions for our national defense strategy. \nBut its controversial provisions -- the ones that allow an unfettered government to snoop into our personal lives -- should be heavily streamlined. Many of the provisions were given sunset status and were to expire by 2006. Once renewed, these provisions should always have a "sunset" built in to allow elected Congresses and presidents in the future to modify them when they come up for debate every few years. This should also keep the public alert that such provisions still exist and require attention. \nThere are checks and balances that could be put into place to help harmonize liberty with security. Currently, the government can search homes without notices. Requiring the government to contact a person whose home or business was looked at within a week of the search would help ensure accountability. Requirements to provide stronger links between a person and alleged illegal activity would also be extraordinarily valuable, as would more court oversight in the realm of wiretapping.\nThe time for a debate regarding safety and liberty is now. If the worst were to happen and the United States was hit again by foreign or domestic terrorists, there would be even less debate than there was when the Patriot Act was originally shoved through. We should be thinking about protecting civil liberties now when we're as rational as we'll probably be.
(01/06/06 3:52am)
This winter break, while images of sugarplum fairies should have been dancing in my head, I experienced instead a different sort of hallucinogenic experience: recovery from wisdom teeth removal.\nThe dentist told me uprooting the teeth wasn't of a timely manner. They weren't causing me any pain, and he estimated they wouldn't be problematic until 10 years from now, when they would slowly begin to destroy my jawbone. Now or later, he said.\nI chose now, even if it meant sacrificing Christmas peppermints for gaping, bloody holes in my mouth. Like thousands of students, I'm covered as a dependent by my parents' health insurance. Without the help of insurance, the whole procedure would have been about $100 per tooth. \nWhen graduation rolls around in May though, and I'm no longer a full-time student, I'm going to join the ranks of the nation's fastest-growing uninsured population: ages 18 to 24. \nAccording to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics, 30 percent of young Americans had no health insurance in 2003. To a neurotic like myself, that prospect is frightening.\nDon't get the impression I sit around thinking about health insurance all day. I've spent three-and-a-half proud years of college not thinking about not only health insurance, but a string of other things I find to be nauseatingly adult. Typically I would put the phrase "health insurance" alongside other sleep aids, like Nyquil or the Sealy Posturepedic bed or the movie "The Thin Red Line." \nThere's no doubt that health insurance is long, boring and complicated. But, reluctantly, I've come to realize that like most long, boring and complicated things, it's necessary for my well-being. \nI've noticed they have "exciting" and "young" and "hip" names to target the college-aged demographic. During the break, I read about Tonik, a product from Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., that has low-cost, high-deductible plans with condescending names ranging from "Thrill Seeker" (the cheapest) to "Part-Time Daredevil" (mid-priced) to "Calculated Risk Taker" (the most expensive).\nAt first, my pride was hurt. I hate being catered to like I'm some 22-year-old moron. Then I realized, wait, I am a moron when it comes to this. So I kept reading, and found that Tonik -- which isn't available in Indiana yet -- turns out to be pretty easy to understand and easy to use. Admittedly, that's something I'm looking for in an insurance provider.\nUnless I'm lucky to score a nice job with full benefits, there's going to be this uncomfortable limbo between school and the workforce. That gap will take a backseat to more pressing concerns -- securing a job, making car payments, finding a place to live, etc.\nBut that gap also provides the perfect window for an insurance company to win me over. With the amazing number of uninsured young people, it's surprising the insurance industry isn't actively promoting health care plans. We're a gigantic untapped market, teeming with potential customers. \nAnd if it takes some "hip" insurance provider treating us like we're morons to get us covered for health care concerns, well, I suppose that's better than paying $400 to get some teeth removed.
(12/01/05 7:03pm)
Artists rarely get the biographical films they deserve. Ed Harris splattered the story of Jackson Pollock; Christine Jeffs' attempt at Sylvia Plath's career was suicidal; and while Jamie Foxx shone as Ray Charles, the faltering film "Ray" couldn't find its way out from its star's spotlight. \nFortunately, music legend Johnny Cash gets his due in "Walk the Line." On the surface, it's a simple tale of the artist known as the Man in Black. But a surface film this is not; rather, it's a deeply lyrical and finely crafted film from director James Mangold. It's captivating and unabashedly romantic, and it's one of the best movies I've seen this year.\n"Walk the Line" examines the early, pivotal years of Cash's life, from his early days on a New Deal farm to when he broke into the music scene with Sun Records in 1950s Memphis and toured with fellow artists Elvis Presley, Roy Orbison and Jerry Lee Lewis. \nCash is portrayed in a dead-on performance by Joaquin Phoenix. At first Phoenix comes off as a little too pretty and a little less weathered to play the baritone-voiced Cash -- but then again, so did Cash at first. When Cash auditions as a gospel singer for Sun Records producer Sam Phillips (Dallas Roberts), it's painfully embarrassing. "If you was hit a truck, and you was lying out in that gutter dying, and you had time to sing one song," Phillips tells Cash, "it better be the one song that would let God know what you felt about your time here on Earth." The effect on Cash was profound, and from then until the end, Phoenix slides into the role of Cash startlingly well.\nCash's early years on the road is just a fraction of the story in "Walk the Line." Perhaps the most influential person for Cash was June Carter, played by Reese Witherspoon in the film's second knock-out performance. She radiates energy as Cash's personal angel, the woman he falls in love with even when she initially wouldn't return the affection. Skillfully, the film weaves Cash's music career with his love for Carter. After all, she had such a profound effect on him that either story would be incomplete without the other.\nFor their source material, the screenwriters took from Cash's two autobiographies. It's the same biopic formula audiences have become accustomed to: a poor childhood with an oppressive parent, then huge success followed a troubled marriage and problems with drugs and alcohol. While those can seem like mere plot points in other films, they resonate in "Walk the Line" through the high-caliber performances.\nWith the Oscar buzz flying around the film -- particularly with the lead performances and the soundtrack, sung convincingly by Phoenix and Witherspoon -- it will be impossible for people not to draw comparisons to the buzz "Ray" had at this time last year. But beyond that, the comparison is flimsy. While "Ray" came off as a big-budget episode of "Behind the Music," "Walk the Line" packs an emotional punch. It's a movie Academy members will appreciate, and it's the movie Cash deserved.