157 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/17/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s hard to believe that it was almost a decade ago that then-“Teen Queen” Lindsay Lohan was on top of the world. What would become her most popular film, “Mean Girls,” was being released, she had a record deal, and she was never wanting for work.Nine years later, Lohan is better known for being a celebrity jailbird and a national punch line. But, after all the rehab stints and arrests, I’m still rooting for Lohan to get back on her feet. You should be, too.During the peak of Lohan’s success, I made the mistake of proclaiming to my family that, “Lindsay Lohan is my life.” I haven’t heard the end of it. I’ve been paying for my Lohan obsession for years. I’m still hoping to have the last laugh, though it seems less and less likely all the time.Recently, a piece was published in the Sunday edition of The New York Times entitled “Here Is What Happens When You Cast Lindsay Lohan in Your Movie.” Stephen Rodrick chronicled the story, profiling Lohan, various Hollywood players and the tumultuous production of her latest film “The Canyons.”The story, while a juicy read for any pop culture aficionado, is hardly salacious. Rather, it portrays a tragic portrait of Lohan, a girl clearly in need of the right guidance — or any guidance at all.Lohan has been borderline unemployable in recent years due to her many public catastrophes and substance abuses. Film studios have refused to insure her. “The Canyons,” though, was so low-budget that there wasn’t insurance.Before shooting even began, director Paul Schrader briefly summed up Lohan’s involvement.“We don’t have to save her,” he said. “We just have to get her through three weeks in July.”Lohan was repeatedly late for shooting, she disobeyed her director and producer and she was fired on more than one occasion. Getting Lohan through three weeks in July was easier said than done. But, Lohan’s personal life has hardly been a breeze.She is surrounded by people entirely apathetic to her well-being. She has two fame-seeking and deluded parents more concerned with their Dr. Phil appearance than their daughter. Lohan received scathing reviews for her portrayal of Elizabeth Taylor in the recent Lifetime movie “Liz & Dick.” She also hasn’t been in a theatrically released film since 2010’s “Machete."It’s not easy to sympathize with her, but Lohan is truly a tragic figure, a cautionary tale riding the dark underbelly of Hollywood. And, while she’s turning 27 this year, you can’t help but feel Lohan has no idea what it’s like to be an adult. It might be hard to believe, but a part of me is always going to root for Lindsay. She had a spark in her earlier work that was undeniable, a bright foreshadowing of the work she might one day be capable of. It’s going to be a long, hard road to recovery, both personally and in the public sphere. But, we should want Lohan to triumph — if not for her career, then for her own good.
(01/17/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Chris Colfer, the Emmy-nominated star of “Glee,” leads the rickety ship that is “Struck by Lightning” as both the lead actor and screenwriter. He does so valiantly, even when the movie merges too far into cheap film school project territory. The audience knows from the get-go that Carson (Colfer) meets his untimely death before he achieves his dreams of leaving his small town and writing for The New Yorker. Beforehand, Carson blackmails his peers into helping him jumpstart a literary magazine. It sounds like morbid stuff, and it is.It’s unfortunate the filmmaking overall feels too novice. The film’s tones of grey and blue eventually push us straight into a gloom that not even Colfer’s snarky wit can bring us out of. Luckily, there’s a cast of inspired supporting players with Allison Janney as Carson’s boozy mother and Rebel Wilson as his so-called best friend, who elevate the film even when the morose takes over. “Struck by Lightning” is a fine jumping off point for Colfer’s writing career. Let’s just hope next time the production is able to match his efforts.
(01/17/13 4:03am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Keeping in tune with the TV show that inspired it, “Girls, Vol. 1: Music from the HBO Original Series” is an eclectic mix of pop-dance sweetness and indie alternative rock that succeeds on its tender charms. We kick off with Robyn’s bittersweet loner anthem “Dancing On My Own,” which gave life to one of the series more compassionate moments between main character Hannah and her BFF Marnie. From there we meander between new tracks from Fun, (lead guitarist, Jack Antonoff, dates “Girls” writer/director/actress Lena Dunham) and Santigold, singing the aptly named “Girls,” which gyrates with a club-flavored new wave beat. Elsewhere, more sensitive tracks like Harper Simon’s “Wishes and Stars” and Belle & Sebastian’s “I Don’t Love Anyone” give the soundtrack its much needed lighter, chill moments. With its cohesive structure, the album makes the ideal companion the original HBO series. Most songs echo the show’s themes like fear of the future, fear of loneliness and the acceptance of one’s individuality. If you’re in the mood to relax with your girls, make-out with your gay ex-boyfriend and live the dream one mistake at a time, you’ve got your playlist right here.8.0
(01/14/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The first week of classes is hardly as easy as everyone says it is. You find yourself confronted with a few metric tons of new people in new classes that you have to get used to, and, chances are, a solid 90 percent of those people are imbeciles. Being the progressive 21st-century kind of guy I am, I don’t want discriminate. So, I hate everyone equally. At least, until given reason otherwise.Having made it to my first class Monday, I slouched into my seat and tucked in for the ride. Almost immediately, a few guys, who most people I know would deem as “frat stars,” placed themselves directly behind me. I allowed myself a peek, and my fears were confirmed. Ties. Sperries. Backwards sports hats. Strike one.We almost made it through class without incident, but, in the last minute, a boy near the front began asking a series of pointless questions. No one was having it, myself included. Strike two.Then, Frat Star 1, Frat Star 2 and Frat Star 3 began hurling a slew of mumbled insults regarding the inquisitive boy’s ethnicity. Strike three. Now, I was just as aggravated as the gentlemen behind me. I had places to be, and no one was leaving the classroom until this guy had his every last thought out in the open. But, my beef was with the kid’s entirely irrelevant questions. His race was beside the point. You may be asking, “Dane, if you’re not going to bring up the annoying kid’s ethnicity, then why mention these boys behind you were frat stars?” To which I would reply, “Valid question.” Here’s why.Because the inquisitive boy didn’t choose his ethnicity. He chose to be a pain and ask all those dumb questions. That’s fair. Frat Stars 1, 2 and 3 chose to act like idiots and perpetuate stereotypes of a society they decided to join. So, at least in my book, poking fun at their social identities is fair game. For anyone keeping score at home, there were five people acting like jerks in this scenario — the inquisitive kid who dragged class into overtime, the three merry frat stars with their prejudices and myself. Yes, me. Why do I feel entitled to judge these people? Who died and made me king of the castle?I’m being just as awful and hypercritical as anyone else in this situation, but I accept that and feel no shame. I welcome all the hate and shade that should be thrown on me.The cold, hard truth is that, at some point every single day, someone is going to be annoyed with you. Someone is not going to like you. They will think they are justified to doing so, and they very well may be. Just don’t beat at the stereotypes and enforce bigotry of ethnicity, race, creed, sexuality or whatever. Loathe people for who they are and not what they are. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(01/04/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If you were to liken the four yours of high school to America’s brief novella of a history, taking the SAT or ACT could comfortably be compared to a teen’s Vietnam. Like Vietnam, the grueling preparation and test taking is like a hopeless and pointless war that fails to accomplish much beyond stressing puberty-ridden teenagers halfway to the grave. But don’t take my word for it. Celebrity personality Conan O’Brien once said, “It has taken 20 years to forget the trauma of that damned test, and looking up my scores would be like going back to Vietnam.” Defenders of the SAT and ACT have long championed the tests’ devotion to an elevated academic standard and its supposed predictability of both collegiate and career success. They see the SAT as a logistical ruler to place up against any John or Jane Doe applicant. But what does that matter when you consider the limited access to educational resources and opportunity some lower income students may face? Trust fund babies and prep school Gossip Girls can throw money at tutors to help them perform exactly to the typicality of the SAT and ACT. It’s education and capitalism working hand in hand to favor the top percentiles. The level of opportunity is heavily skewed. Students may choose not to apply to their top-choice schools because they don’t believe their test scores are high enough, or worse, they may not choose to apply to college at all. While a healthy dose of pressure is necessary, where is the line between positive nerves and fear tactics? It’s drastically important to understand test scores are just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to a college application. Colleges consider everything on your application, including your grades, extracurricular activities, class performance and personal statements. Colleges are seeking humans, not numbers. And if a college is seeking numbers and not your social and academic contribution to their campus, you probably shouldn’t want to go there. Research has also shown that people who score low on the SAT will score high on their next go around purely by chance. There’s no tried and true science to it. You can prep and prep and prep all you want, but scores will rarely jump more than 20 points. Though the number of students taking the SAT has increased annually for the last seven decades, more colleges than ever are making SAT or ACT test scores optional on college applications. This showcases a generation of students determined, even at their own sanity, to distinguish themselves from the rest of the crop. But in the end, it’s just a number. And there will never be any clean-cut way to measure your intelligence. It sounds like the end of a Disney cartoon, but if you’ve worked hard and tried your best, why let a silly number control your outlook on your future? — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(12/07/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Perhaps it’s just me, but in my three years at this University, “dead” isn’t the descriptor I’d prescribe to this last week of classes.By the time you’re reading this, it will be Friday and you will have survived. So congratulations. But even when teachers decide to drop a proverbial ton of work on us before finals, the excess drudgery still isn’t my least preferred element of dead week. That belongs to course evaluations. I don’t dislike course evaluations because I find them to be a waste of time or because I feel as if my judgment of a class or teacher doesn’t matter. I believe those statements are true, but they’re not my reasoning.I loathe course evaluations because of how often I hear students around me in class proclaiming, “Oh man. I’m going to tear this teacher to shreds.” Course evaluations are the one time we as students think we can stick it to our teacher, and by extension, stick it to the University at large.I’ll be honest. I’ve had my share of piss-poor educators at IU. After all, they can’t all be gems. But I’ve never detested a teacher so much I felt the need to blacken every “strongly disagree” bubble on their evaluation.I’ve attempted to make any and all criticism constructive. You’ve probably heard the sentiment that teachers learn just as much from us as we learn from them ad nauseum, but I think it’s valid.Ripping them apart on a course evaluation is just a waste of your unnecessary negative energy.Don’t allow the notion that these evaluations are anonymous to let you turn into the equivalent of a nasty Internet troll. But do these course evaluations really matter, anyways? I highly doubt that during Christmas break my fall semester teachers will be hopelessly combing through their stack of evaluations, pluck mine from the pile, scan it once and see I’ve handed them the key to unlocking their success as an educator.A solid three-fourths of the teachers I’ve had here at IU have handed the evaluations out while trying to maintain the same tried and true methodology of handling a class they’ve taught for years.Pardon me if my inner nihilist is showing, but I just refuse to envision I could be making that much of a difference to the IU education system. It would be nice if I was, but a pointless white and brown survey is hardly the way to go about it.
(11/30/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There are many differences that separate Hoosiers. Some religiously follow IU basketball, while others are in committed relationships with Netflix accounts. Some live in campus housing, while others actually have interesting lives. But in the midst of this dreary holiday season, I’ve come to notice a more distinct difference between Hoosiers. There are those who consider Bloomington home and count the days until they return from break and those who run home as soon as they can and hide in their parent’s bed until they’re forced to return. Anyone who knows me personally can tell you I fall into the latter category. Once my last class was finished before Thanksgiving, I bolted home and into bed with my dogs. I’m a homebody, and I’m proud of it. I absolutely adore Bloomington. For five semesters, I’ve had some really amazing times, but I’ve had some really horrible times, too. I can say with full confidence that I picked the right University, but a major part of that confidence is enforced by the fact that I’m a brisk 70-minute drive from my front door. My family is my safe place and, at least for me, my home is where my family is. So truly, Bloomington has never and will never feel like home. I know not everyone shares this sentiment. I have plenty of friends who will go home for the holiday break and be ready for B-Town by Dec. 26. Probably sooner. And that’s great. Truth be told, I might even be a little envious. I think the root of my disconnect from Bloomington lies with the fact that when I came to IU, not a whole lot changed for me. Most kids come to college and feel this onslaught of freedom. Freedom from restrictions, freedom from parents, freedom from responsibility. The list goes on. But I never felt that ambush of freedom, because I’d already had it. My parents trusted me in high school. I maintained above average grades. I participated in a plethora of activities, which mostly kept me out of trouble. I was still able to be extremely social, going out with friends and staying out late. I never had a curfew. But I always let my parents know where I was and that everyone I was with was being responsible. I wasn’t perfect, but my parents knew I had a good head on my shoulders. I understand for some kids going home means a return to the days when freedom was merely a collegiate dream. That’s OK. I respect that, and you’ll be back in Bloomington soon enough. I’m just going to ask you not to judge me when I’m curled up on the couch with my parents watching my entire Disney DVD collection. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(11/16/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>While I could not be more thrilled that this long-fought-for presidential campaign is finished, I’m sure there’s a vast audience out there pouting in a corner anxiously awaiting 2016. To tide you crazies over for the next four years, I thought I’d compile a list of some of the best and juiciest politically flavored flicks, to sate your appetite for scandal for another four years. Looking at the current political landscape, frankly, these films may not be too far from reality. Enjoy.1. “Good Night, and Good Luck” Detailing the 1950s rift between broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow and anti-communist Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy, George Clooney’s black-and-white 2005 film explores themes of government dissension and media accountability. Clooney used archive footage of McCarthy instead of casting another actor, giving the film an ominous and foreboding tone. In an age of such political polarization, especially on broadcast television, the film feels more important than ever. 2. “Election” It’s politics on a small scale, but it’s just as significant and much more hilarious. Tracy Flick, played to perfection by a young Reese Witherspoon, is a manipulating high school senior set on being elected class president in a three-way election. Matthew Broderick plays the high school teacher determined to undermine her every step of the way. The setting of Nebraska is bland, but the dialogue and performances are dynamite. 3. “The Ides of March”Clooney’s second directorial appearance of this list, this film chronicles the days leading up to a Democratic primary where two candidates are attempting to secure an endorsement from a North Carolina senator.The politics are dirty and the politicians are even dirtier, pitting the two campaigns against one another in a tale of sex and scandal. The American political system has never looked so filthy. 4. “Charlie Wilson’s War” The premise couldn’t be more yawn-inducing as a U.S. congressman joins together with a CIA operative to initiate a plan to coordinate and support the Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. But with a script by “The West Wing” and “The Social Network” writer Aaron Sorkin, the cast, which includes Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman, has plenty of enthralling material to work with. Reagan-era foreign policy has never been this appealing.5. “Thank You For Smoking” Featuring a star-making performance from Aaron Eckhart, Jason Reitman’s film depicts the labors of a big tobacco spokesman who lobbies for cigarettes while trying to be a role model for his 12-year-old son. The rotting scab of the lobbying structure, the film surveys the distinct lack of humanity left in the American political system, and by extension, the lack of humanity left in humans. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(11/14/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>All I’ve heard about for these past months is President Barack Obama vs.
former-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, but I’m concerned
with a significantly more imperative battle, an unspoken one that is
occurring even as you read this. That battle?Sir Sean Connery vs. Daniel Craig. Fifty
years after the Bond film franchise began and with the release of the
latest entry “Skyfall” in mind, one must consider the age-old question
of all good Bond fans: Who is truly the best James Bond? I think everyone can agree that Connery and Craig are certainly the top contenders.With that in mind, the conventional side of my conscious has to throw the match to the remarkable Connery. Since
1962’s “Dr. No,” Connery has permanently stamped his signature swag on
the timeless British spy. For six films, Connery played Bond with equal
parts sex appeal and dangerous sensibility. To quote a suitable cliché,
women wanted to sleep with Connery’s Bond, and men wanted to be him.
Though five actors have stepped into Bond’s shoes since Connery’s
tenure, many still consider him the best of the Bonds. I’m
taking a huge time jump here — 33 years, to be exact — but overall, Bond
was played to very mixed and polarized reactions in the following
years. For my two cents, Roger Moore played Bond too vanilla.
Moore’s Bond lacked Bond’s essential sense of uncaring risk. Timothy
Dalton lost all sense of self-deprecating humor and played Bond too
darkly severe and dramatic. Contrastingly, Pierce Brosnan descended into
the very bowels of ridiculous camp with his portrayal. I’m even
hesitant to mention George Lazenby, who played Bond for one film in
1969. His performance can be likened to that of an over-glorified
stuntman. Finally in 2006, a savior emerged. A long four
years after the unmentionable “Die Another Day,” Bond officially came
roaring back to life after the lackluster Brosnan years. With
just one performance in “Casino Royale,” Craig solidified himself as a
Bond not to be reckoned with. Early naysayers who defined the casting of
the blond-haired, blue-eyed Craig, in one critic’s words, as “Bland,
James Bland” were quickly silenced. Craig harkened back to
Connery’s Bond as a fusion of sex and danger. But he did it differently
and, in my opinion, even better. With “Casino Royale” and the casting of
Craig, Bond went back to basics. We saw him earn his double-0 status
and establish his dangerously trigger-happy persona. Most
significantly, as a first for Bond, we saw him fall in love with the
Bond girl to end all Bond girls, the incomparable Vesper Lynd. Through
this act, Craig concretely secured his best Bond position. This was a
21st century Bond with all the grit and realism of a post-9/11 spy
married with the humanizing notion that he could ultimately fall in
love. At the end of the day, Connery and Craig both fuse that necessary Bond quality of sex appeal and precarious intrigue. But in today’s hazardous world, my vote’s for gritty and unapologetic Craig. — dmcdona@indiana.edu
(11/02/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Belle. Cinderella. Princess Jasmine. Snow White. Princess Leia?It seems the famed Disney princess lineup has a new bun-headed, rebel princess among its ranks. The deafening thud you heard earlier this week was the result of every nerd and Jedi this side of the galaxy dropping their jaws as the Walt Disney Company announced it acquired Lucasfilm Ltd. for a whooping $4.05 billion. No word on if the gold bikini from Episode VI will be Leia’s traditional garb in all future promotions. What’s the only way to eclipse the sale of one of the most profitable film companies of the last four decades? Simple. Just have Disney announce they’re producing Star Wars: Episode VII for a 2015 release. I’m more stunned than an Ewok during an AT-AT attack. What you have to understand about me is I was one of the many young boys who grew up wielding a green plastic lightsaber, dueling an imaginary Darth Vader in the safety of my bedroom. I’m a hardcore Star Wars nerd, and I don’t care who knows it.For those of you who don’t know your Death Stars from your Star Destroyers, let me give a little context. George Lucas, director and writer of the majority of the Star Wars films and the saga’s creator, simultaneously gave us our childhoods and destroyed our lives. The original trilogy, episodes IV-VI, is a classic narrative that remains unparalleled in the sphere of film. The new trilogy, episodes I-III, is largely a mixed bag of unfulfilled nostalgic tolerance from our childhoods. We love George Lucas for giving us Star Wars, but we hate him for running it into the ground. After the 1980s, the Force just wasn’t with George Lucas. Many fans also ridicule Lucas for the various modifications he’s made to the original trilogy since their initial release. The promise of a new trilogy under the Disney banner brings a new hope to the Star Wars universe and fandom. The bright side is that Lucas will serve only as a creative consultant, leaving the direction and writing in more capable hands. The dark side is that the franchise could head even further south than it has. Should we really make more Star Wars films? Might it just be better to remember the original films as they were? Riveting and timeless? At the end of the day, if someone has to do it, I trust the Walt Disney Company. All I’m asking for is the swift death of Jar-Jar Binks, and we might have something worthwhile on our hands.Oh, and George? Han Solo shot first. No matter how many times you edit your films. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(10/26/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>It’s almost here. Can you smell it? The scent of designer gowns and freshly gilded statuettes awarded to Hollywood’s brightest and most talented stars? Yes, the best season of the year is almost upon us: Awards season. Every season of 2012 has brought me yet another mundane national happening with which I just can’t get on board. This summer belonged to the London Olympics, which for me was a grueling three-week period in which I endured nearly all my friends’ constant fan-girling about various athletes who they’ll never lay eyes on again. The only thing dampening this unseasonably warm fall for me is the presidential election. It’s not the election itself, but the way everybody on my Facebook feed has to attack and degrade one other. I’m counting down the days until Nov. 6.Now, it’s finally time for my favorite season of the year.Now everybody can be annoyed with me as I constantly discuss and socially network the ins and outs of the 2013 awards season. For a film buff like me, the real awards season begins all the way back in January with the Sundance Film Festival. Many films that went on to receive serious awards and praise debuted at Sundance, like eventual Academy Award nominees “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Precious,” “An Education,” “The Kids Are All Right” and “Winter’s Bone.” Then we move to the Cannes Film Festival in May in which in 2011 eventual Best Picture nominee “The Tree of Life” received the festival’s Palm d’Or, its top prize.September brings the Toronto Film Festival, which has gained traction in recent years for awarding the Blackberry People’s Choice Award to eventual Best Picture winners “Slumdog Millionaire” and “The King’s Speech.” It will be interesting to see if this year’s winner, David O. Russell’s “Silver Linings Playbook,” will ride the same wave to Oscar gold. The Golden Globes have always been the Academy Awards’ less attractive, backwoods cousin. Yes, they mean something. But they don’t mean a whole lot. At least this year they have the luck to be hosted by Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, certainly trumping the Oscar producers’ bizarre choice of Seth MacFarlane. Early drinking game suggestion: drink every time he complains “Ted” didn’t get nominated.It all leads up to one extravagant night. She’s the undeniable queen of awards season. She’s the Academy Awards, and she’s a beauty. We can only speculate what the big winners will be this year, but I’ll be there live tweeting every perfect gown and dramatic upset. Buckle up, kids. It’s going to be a doozy.— wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(10/19/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>During Tuesday night’s presidential debate, Governor Mitt Romney’s use of the phrase “binders full of women” when defending his stance on equal pay sparked an immediate viral rampage. Twitter, Tumblr, you name it, all dedicated to Romney’s unintentional humor. I’m here to demand a new sensational app called “Bindr,” which would allow conservative male candidates, whose opinions on women’s rights are straight from the 1940s, to instantly find binders full of women willing to support these old geezers. “Bindr” is of course a play off the name of the gay social networking app “Grindr”, which allows lonely gay men to find love anytime, anyplace, if only for the night. But the beauty of “Bindr” is we can all finally see these women who are willing to put their vaginas on full lockdown in support of these conservatives. In the name of a more prosperous society, I feel it necessary that we have a master list of women, like Ann Romney and whoever has the unfortunate luck to be married to Rick Santorum, willing to stand behind men whose smirks drip with misogyny and ignorance. I realize this election is about much more than just women’s rights. We need a stronger economy, increased job creation and education needs to be given the attention it deserves. But I’m getting down to the grindstone and calling men like Mitt Romney out on their character. I don’t care whether you’re running for president of the United States or working 9-to-5 to support a wife and six kids. What kind of man wouldn’t support equal pay for women and the right for women to make decisions regarding their bodies? It just doesn’t make sense. Are some men really so threatened by the rising tide of powerful, independent women that they are throwing one last Hail Mary to suppress them? If you’re spending your time fighting against women instead of supporting them, then you don’t deserve to call yourself a man, let alone a president. But even worse than the men has to be the women who stand behind them. It’s like the gay man who must have been styling Sarah Palin during the 2008 election. You’re going to betray your people to support this maniac? I just don’t get it. Birds of a feather flock together for a reason. I’m not saying stick exclusively to your own kind. But be wise to the people with which you share common interests and needs.So ladies, if you want to elect men who want you to be restricted to the bedroom and the kitchen, go ahead and register for “Bindr.” I’m sure Mitt Romney’s account is going to have plenty of room for you. — wdmcdona@umail.iu.edu
(10/16/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Nothing can ruin my ideal fall day. I’ve zipped up my boots, my jeans are lined with flannel, my sweater is oversized and I’ve got a pumpkin spice latte in hand. There’s a very obvious strut in my step as I make my way through campus to class. But sure as the changing leaves, I hit that stretch of grass between Ballantine and Woodburn halls, and I’m greeted by religious crackpots telling me about my inevitable journey to hell. During my freshman year, seeing these people degrading the masses of IU held entertainment value. I was new to college and while I am from a very small religious Indiana town, I’d never seen someone so vigorously condemning people in the name of Jesus. I always pulled my ear buds out and stopped to listen for a bit. I found their signs, plastered with fun words like ‘Homosex’, hilarious. There was one man who came with his family. I always pictured him guarding the pearly gates of heaven, an air of Gandalf about him, yelling, “You shall not pass.” Now during my third year at this University, I have a very different viewpoint. Any time I’m approaching Woodburn and I see people grouped at that week’s current batch of crazy, I keep my sunglasses on and my ear buds in. If someone is taking the time to go and yell at college students for the way they dress or act, they’re clearly seeking the attention they lack in their own lives. I, for one, am done giving it to them. Not only that, but they’re giving a bad name to Christians at large. As someone who faced religious bullying growing up, I’ve never been extremely open to Christianity or any other form of worship. I was raised to treat people’s beliefs with respect and hope they would return the same sentiment. Evidently, this isn’t happening when these ‘preachers’ visit our beautiful campus. Which is a shame because, by their own proclamations, Christians are supposed to be spreading acceptance and love to everyone, especially the sinners. I wasn’t alive 2,000 years ago, but I’m pretty sure Jesus wasn’t standing around schools calling girls in a low cut shirts whores. He probably had much better things to do. But let’s look at the bright side. If all us Hoosiers really are going to hell, maybe these religious tools won’t be there. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(10/05/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Lena Dunham is the most promising and important writer and director currently in the entertainment industry. That might seem like a lofty statement, but consider the facts. Dunham, the refreshingly clever young filmmaker best known for creating, writing, directing and starring in HBO’s freshman hit “Girls,” recently acquired four Emmy nominations for her numerous positions on the aforementioned series. Oh, and she just turned 26. I just turned 20, and I still don’t know how long I should toast my bagels without burning them. A native New Yorker born to affluent parents, Dunham attended Oberlin College in Ohio and graduated in 2008 with a degree with creative writing. She rose to modest fame in 2010 with her feature debut, “Tiny Furniture,” a pleasant precursor to “Girls” that can be viewed instantly on Netflix. The film, while not as polished “Girls,” got the attention of acclaimed comedic director Judd Apatow, executive producer of the HBO series. Dunham also has an unspecified role in Apatow’s upcoming quasi-sequel to “Knocked Up,” “This Is 40.”Not only is Dunham venturing into a male-dominated profession with minimal, albeit promising, experience. She’s doing so while battling the unflattering superficial expectations of our society. Dunham’s figure and visage are not what one typically expects to find taped up on grubby fraternity walls. But that shouldn’t mean much to her audience, as it clearly doesn’t register much with Dunham herself. Hardly an episode of “Girls” goes by in which we don’t see Dunham go completely or partially nude. Her body isn’t rail thin or the portrait of beauty we’ve been groomed to expect. And while that might be alarming to audiences at large, you get the sense Dunham and her collaborators are much more interested in presenting a realistic and modern story as opposed to aesthetically pleasing viewers. Most importantly, Dunham is the first successful filmmaker I would consider part of my generation. Each generation has a unique voice that, while still fundamentally human, contains a quirk that makes it distinctly diverse. Dunham is the first writer I feel has captured my humor and voice, and I’m not alone. I’ve yet to introduce “Girls” to anyone my age who hasn’t immediately fallen in love with it. As her career moves forward, we can only hope Dunham never fails to lose her contemporary vision. This week, her literary agents will begin shopping her first book around to publishers, tentatively titled “Not That Kind of Girl: Advice by Lena Dunham” at a $1 million asking price. She may not be that kind of girl, but she’s certainly my kind of girl. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(09/28/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I don’t claim to know a lot about feminism. I certainly support a woman’s right to make decisions about her body, and I don’t believe sexism has any place in contemporary society. But feminism encompasses far more territory than that, so it would be pure ignorance to call myself a feminist. What I can call myself, however, is a humanist. I think everybody should be able to do what they want regardless of gender, sexual orientation, color, race or creed, as long as they aren’t harming others. This philosophy occurred to me the other week wile I was watching a new film called “Bachelorette,” written and directed by Leslye Headland. The film, which debuted earlier this year at Sundance Film Festival, made headlines in August when it hit number one on the iTunes rental chart, a full month ahead of its Video On Demand and limited theatrical release. Critical reaction has been mixed. Some have knocked it as a poor man’s “Bridesmaids.” But I think there’s something more inspired going on here.Bachelorette centers on three snarky, narcissistic high school friends attending the wedding of a girl they once and still call “Pig Face.” For the first 20 minutes of the film, I was horrified. These girls cursed. They did ridiculous amounts of cocaine. They had wild, uninhibited sex that would make Hugh Hefner blush. Then it hit me. These girls are behaving the same way the main characters of “The Hangover” films did, and we celebrate them for it. Once I had this realization, “Bachelorette” became the finest comedy I’ve seen this year. Unlike the mostly dumb, characters of “The Hangover,” these female characters are whip-smart as well as deplorable. Yet because they’re women, audiences don’t want to see them behave badly. This is how my view of humanism was born. That’s why I like to think of Bachelorette’s so-called bad girls as humanists. They are people, first and foremost, doing exactly what it is they want to do, when and how they choose to do it. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(09/14/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve never found it very productive to dwell on the past. But this year, my cinematic experiences have forced me to put a caveat in that sentiment. It breaks my heart to admit, but 2012’s cinematic fare has me longing enormously for 2011. 2011 was a phenomenal year for film. By September, most of what I considered the year’s best work had already been theatrically released. J.J. Abrams’ sci-fi wunderkind “Super 8”, David Yate’s epic and thrilling “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part II”, Paul Feig’s side-splitting “Bridesmaids”, Nicolas Refn’s pulse-pounding “Drive”, Terrence Malick’s meditative “The Tree of Life” and Andrew Haigh’s tender “Weekend”, all great films, were released by this time last year. It’s unfortunate that studios wait until November and December to bloat theaters with traditional Academy Award fodder. I want to watch great films year round, not be forced to drive to the movies every day for three weeks when I’m home on Christmas break just to see half the stuff that’s will be nominated. GoldDerby.com, a website that predicts a film’s odds for award season, says seven of its 10 potential Best Picture nominees will released between September and December of 2012. That means American audiences have to wait eight months of the year to see what the best filmmakers have to offer. To be fair, in 2012 I have seen some good films. But I’ve only seen a few great films. You’d have to be blind not to appreciate the fan-boy adoration director Joss Whedon brought to “The Avengers.” Steven Soderbergh crafted “Magic Mike” into much more than a cheesy stripper flick, which may or may not be a good thing, depending who you ask. Rising filmmaker Benh Zeitlin directed the finest film of the year thus far, his affectingly haunting and powerful “Beasts of the Southern Wild.” It’s the only film from this year that I’ve experienced rather than watched. Sure, I’ve liked plenty of movies I saw this summer. “The Dark Knight Rises” was good, but it didn’t hold a candle to its predecessor. “Moonrise Kingdom” had its charms, but was I the only one who thought I was watching a 93-minute, moving Instagram picture? “Brave” was delightful. But I wasn’t moved by any of them. I implore you, Hollywood executives, release great work throughout the year. We’ll all be more grateful for it. — wdmcdona@indiana.edu
(08/24/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>For anyone who appreciates the power of the written word projected onto the screen, be it big or small, Aaron Sorkin is a God among men. Whether he’s winning Emmys for his work “The West Wing” or an Oscar for his brilliant 2010 screenplay “The Social Network”, expectations for a Sorkin project are exceedingly high. This summer, Sorkin-holics, including me, were especially amped for HBO’s “The Newsroom,” a scripted, one-hour dramedy detailing the revamp of a cable nightly news show and its traditionally moderate host, Will McAvoy.So June 24 finally rolled around, “True Blood,” enjoying a frightfully uneven fifth season, ended, and I tucked in for what I was sure would be my newest television addiction. I found Jeff Daniels, who plays news anchor McAvoy, incomparably fantastic, the writing as quick and witty as ever and the collective cast able to spurt Sorkin’s fast-paced dialogue with the perfect amount of poise and authenticity. It never crossed my mind that any sort of backlash would be brought against “The Newsroom.”Metacritic, which assigns grades to films, TV shows, music and video games based on professional critic reviews, gave “The Newsroom” a 57/100 grade for its first season. While it wasn’t universally panned, an alarming amount of them found it “smug,” “self-congratulatory” or “manipulative and shrieky.”I was floored. Did everyone see the same show I did? I saw political and economic relevancy presented by way of riveting entertainment. Sorkin’s choice to fictionalize a format in which real news and current events gave us both a sense of timeliness and real world consequences.But the critics’ message began to make sense to me. Rarely an episode goes by in which a character or five doesn’t take a few minutes to preach about declining public awareness and the dangers of our present media climate. “Self-congratulatory” suddenly made sense. But what if the characters on “The Newsroom” are right? It is their duty to inform a voting populace. Maybe if real newscasters were this gung-ho about presenting unbiased, important news, American citizens would tune in every night instead of watching “Dancing With The CSI: Miami Gossip Girls.” Maybe if newscasters shared news in a way more riveting than any scripted show, “The Newsroom” wouldn’t seem so smug. So I say, you go Aaron Sorkin.Phenomenal work will always rally a hater culture. Regardless, you’ve made my Sundays that more entertaining.— wdmcdona@indiana.edu