How do you review the arts?

I think it’s safe to say that no two people review the arts the same, but there is a general set of clichés or stereotypes that people fall into when they attempt to review to arts. The one important thing to remember is that a review is an opinion. An educated opinion hopefully, but nevertheless, an opinion. This means that there is no right, and there is no wrong. When a critic attends an event with the intention of writing a review, several things can affect the review that the event itself has no control over.

First off, is the critics’ background. For example, in the recently released film Speed Racer, a critic who grew up watching Speed Racer will write a very different review than someone who didn't. Along the same vein if that person grew up hating Speed Racer will also affect the review. A critic's life and personality greatly affect how they perceive an event. Someone who loves racecar driving would write a very different review of Speed Racer from someone who hates it.

The second item that affects a review is the critics’ expectations. A critic can go into a film with low expectations and be more impressed than he would have if he/she had gone in with high expectations. More likely, however critics enter an event with unrealistic expectations and are left disappointed. People who visit review websites (or newspapers, I suppose) use reviews not only to find out what events to see and what to avoid, but also to use them to base their expectations on. Since all the critics on rottentomatoes.com seemed to loath Speed Racer, I lowered my expectations, and was pleasantly surprised when I enjoyed the movie.

An important question a critic has to answer is, “Was the [writer, director, performer, etc.] ‘s goal reached? Whatever it was, be it a particular emotional response, a tribute to something long passed, or a simple bit of entertainment. If the goal was reached, then one can hardly give a negative review. All you can give is your reaction, and whether or not you thought the goal was reached.

So what am I saying? Well, as the assignment asks, “How do you review the arts?” Each review is unique to the person writing it. Each reviewer enters with a unique background with different expectations. That means that no reviews will completely mimic how I experience an event, no matter how many I read. Does that mean that they are useless? No, reviews help people choose what events to attend, and how to mentally prepare for them. They help to inspire competition for rival production studios, to inspire establishments to come out with better events. But also, they are a form of entertainment in and of themselves. It is entertaining to read reviews (albeit it is more entertaining to read negative reviews, which is why there are more of those written). I can’t possibly count how many times in conversation someone has asked me If I’ve seen a movie, and I replied by stating how badly or well it did in the reviews. It makes for interesting conversation.

There are certainly other parts and criteria of which some might consider to be a “proper” review, but in my opinion, as long as a critic writes the most objective review possible, while injecting a bit of their unique perspective, I consider it to be a successful review (providing it is well-written). Everything else is icing on the cake.

It's like taking Janet Reno for a make-over

The Harrison Red Line Stop. For five years I have departed the southbound trains onto this stop for school. It is dark, wet, creepy, cold, and overwhelmingly smells like a toilet. Pretty much everything has an “out of order” sign on it. The walls have been painted far too many times, and it is almost always flooded to some extent. About six months ago Columbia College Chicago, in collaboration with Jones College Prep school took on the task of "brightening up" the 80-year old station. Their project, entitled "Harrison Haiku" consists of placing colored vinyl stickers on the white tile of the lobby of the station in various designs. Then the walls are littered with eight student authored haikus, written on the walls with black vinyl lettering. The result is a painfully bright and rather unattractive display.

For me, I don't care what the Columbia students and staff are trying to say with this project. Like everyone else who uses the Harrison stop, I want to spend as little time in that smelly hole as humanly possible. I would much rather the station be remodeled, or stripped and repainted, or at least cleaned thoroughly. No one has the time or motivation to stand around in the lobby and read random 17 syllable haikus. This project feels like putting cheap mustard on a turd sandwich. It’s not very appealing, and it doesn’t really make it any better.

The Roosevelt station, in contrast was taken over by the museum campus. Despite the fact that their graphics are much more tastefully done, the station as a whole is clean, well-lit, and looks very nice. Even then, I wouldn’t really want to stand around and read Haikus, but the designers of Roosevelt station don’t expect you to. They expect you to glance at them in passing, to enjoy them aesthetically. They even go to the level of putting in some ambient music to add to the short experience.

So the project was a nice thought, but it really should wait until the CTA does something with that station. It has to happen sometime soon. The only silver lining here is that this whole project could be literally ripped off of the wall in minutes, which hopefully they do sooner, rather than later.

The Musician's Studio

Meant to resemble “Inside the Actor’s Studio,” The Musician’s Studio is a television show featuring in-depth interviews of guests that have been successful in the field of music. Aside from the guest and host, this is an entirely student run production. This collaborative project had students from the Television department offering their services as camera operators, sound operators and grips, the Arts/Entertainment Media Management department was represented by the stage management team, and the students in the Music department made up most of the audience. The stage was set like it was prepared for a concert, littered with instruments, a grand piano, a stand-up bass, a drum set, a xylophone.

For anyone who’s ever been part of a “live” studio audience for the taping of a television show, you know that it is rarely shot in order from start to finish. The stage manager began the evening with a short introduction, followed by a request for the audience to be taped “performing” some reaction shots to use in the post production process. He wanted chuckling, laughter, thoughtful interested looks, polite clapping, and finally louder clapping. Where those shots end up in the finished product is completely up to the editor.

The host of the show then introduced the guest; Fred Wesley Jr. Among many other musical achievements, Wesley was music director, arranger, trombonist and a primary composer for James Brown from 1968-1975. When Wesley walked onto the stage carrying his blue-belled trombone, I expected Columbia music students to take their places at the many instruments carefully placed on the stage. Unfortunately, that did not happen. It became obvious that the instruments on stage were merely set pieces when Wesley began playing one of his songs by himself. He is obviously a very skilled trombonist, but I could not help but be disappointed by his performance with no accompaniment. The trombone is just not meant to be played by itself. While he played his four song set, I found myself wondering if all the Musician’s Studios were like this one, where the guest performs by him/herself. If so, that is really disappointing. To have a group of Columbia students involved with the performance would really have added a much needed dynamic to the show, and would have been a unique experience for those students.

After the short performance, the stage manager instructed the crew to set up for the interview. Two plush chairs, a small in-table and two red coffee mugs appeared on the stage within a few minutes. The interview began with the host explaining the goal of the interview, which was to explore the life, art and business of being a musician. For the most part, the interview followed that formula. It came across as a nice conversation between two music lovers. About halfway into the interview, I found myself fidgeting in my seat. This was really not much of an interview, more of an opportunity for Fred to recite his career’s story from start to finish.

I would like to see the finished product of this show, mainly to see how all the post-production elements come together, but I left with one question on my mind: What was the motivation in producing this show? Is it meant to entertain? Then the producers need to rethink the format. The interview is nice and casual, but will get very dull very quickly to anyone who isn’t a huge fan of jazz or funk music. Is it to educate music students? This is probably the case, but I have a hard time imagining what the students could have gotten out of this particular experience. They might be able to extract a few morsels of wisdom from the interview, but not much else. The Musician’s studio will premiere on a Friday night in the near future (the stage manager wasn’t specific) on channel 20 WYCC.

CCC Field Work

I will be the first to admit that I have not utilized CCC to its fullest potential. After almost 5 years of attendance at CCC, I find myself knowing just about as much about Columbia now as I did when I first started. This was mostly my choice. To me Columbia is a place where I go to school to get a degree in order to get a better job than I would with just a high school diploma. CCC is not a place to hang out, it is a place to be taught, then you go home. Im sure that this is not the case with a lot of students at CCC, but it is with me. So when im asked what two places are the most representative of Columbia, I have a hard time answering.

One place that is very representative of ccc is the lobby of 624 S Michigan ave. Like all of Columbia's buildings, it was not originally built to be a college building. So lots of things just don't serve the purposes of a school, especially the elevators. Like clockwork, everyday around 15 minutes before the morning, afternoon and evening classes start, the lobby fills up to the point that you can't close the door behind you. Everyone is struggling to get on one of the extraordinarily slow elevators, trying to balance being polite enough not to piss anyone off and being aggressive enough to get to class on time. Then 20 minutes later, the lobby is dead quiet. This emulates exactly how I see Columbia. Everyone trying to get to their destination (or graduation date) as efficiently as possible, and little more.

The second place is the first floor of the film building. The reason this place feels like Columbia is because of the variety of things that go on here. On one hand, you have people relaxing, eating from the plum café, maybe reading the red eye, or surfing the web. On the other, you have people working on the audio visual equipment, perhaps getting ready for a performance on the stage. You have an art gallery being set up, you have people sitting in groups networking, or having production meetings. Theres always something going on here. So it stands out in my mind when I think of Columbia.

wii would like to play

Since its release the Nintendo Wii has taken the video game industry by storm. Even now, some stores still struggle to keep the console in stock. Nintendo’s plan was to create a non-intimidating console that was so easy to use, and intuitive, that people who have never touched a gaming console would be able to pick up the controller and play. The wii did not provide cutting edge graphics or media center capabilities like the Xbox 360 and PS3, instead, the wii provided a whole new form of control to the user. Aptly dubbed the “wii-mote,” this familiarly-shaped controller uses some of the standard buttons and triggers found on most controllers, but what really makes this controller different is the motion control. If you’re playing a baseball game, you swing the wii-mote mimicking the way you would swing a bat. If you’re bowling, you make the same movements you would as if you were bowling, with the wii-mote instead of a bowling ball. This has the potential to translate into all sorts of controls, like punching, slicing, shooting, etc. Nintendo’s ad-campaign consisted of two Japanese men driving around demoing the console to American families. The commercials would show people of all ages enjoying the console. Their goal was to create a console everyone in the family, even adults would enjoy playing with their kids.

For the most part, they succeeded. The console is intuitive, and simple, to a fault. Aside from the new controller and a few web applications, the wii fails to bring anything new to the table. The lack of real high-definition capability, online gaming, and media center capabilities turn away most of the “hardcore” gamers. Also, the game developers have struggled with the utilization of the motion-controlling. The wii’s release shooter, Red Steel, with its point-and-shoot type control, felt clumsy and unfinished. The role playing game Zelda fared much better, but it had a much more limited use of the motion control.

Many people, myself included, searched for a wii in the “shortage” (there is still speculation on whether or not the shortage was deliberate, creating false demand). After finally getting my hands on one, I began playing the game that came with the console, wii sports. This game is meant to get gamers used to the new motion controls, and it uses them to the fullest. Gamers can choose bowling, tennis, baseball, boxing, and golf, all of which use the motion control. These mini-games are simplistic, especially graphically-speaking, however they use the motion controls well, and are very entertaining.

Wii is not a bad console, in fact to an extent it lives up to its original name, “Revolution.” It is a good little system, and it has forced Microsoft and Sony to reevaluate their consoles. However, to someone used to playing online with the Xbox 360, or staring in awe at the amazing graphics of the PS3, the wii seems more like a novelty than anything else. I ended up selling my wii, and honestly, I haven’t missed it. It’s great for families or a group of friends, but personally, I’ll stick with my 360.

Sicko

A lot of people hate Michael Moore. Why? I’m not sure, maybe it’s because he forces people to see things they don’t want to see, brings ugly truths to light, where most people would be happy leaving them in the shadows. Some say his research is flawed, or false, or fabricated. Well, I have to tell you, if that’s the case, I was fooled by Sicko. This film literally pissed me off. Which I think was Moore’s intention. His point was to fire you up, get you pissed off and hopefully make a difference. Now, do I think everything, every fact, in the film is completely true? No, not at all. I’m not that gullible. But if even half of what Moore presented is true, it should be enough to piss off anyone living in the US. I come from a small family, where until I was 20 years old and got a job that had benefits, I had zero health insurance. My mother couldn’t afford it. She still took me to the doctor when I got sick, but I had no insurance. I was so proud the day I signed up for health insurance with my work. I knew that health insurance companies were shady, but I thought, “Surely they wouldn’t or couldn’t deny me care that would save my life, I have health insurance!” Apparently, I was wrong. Health insurance companies in the US are businesses, and are built and function within a business model, in which the goal is always to make the company money. The only way for Health insurance companies to make money is to collect insurance money, and deny care. Regardless of what Michael Moore says, that fact’s logic is irrefutable. Socialized medicine may not be all candy and roses like Moore portrays, but they are based on being a public service, not a business. That makes all the difference in the world.

In terms of the film’s style, Michael Moore discards the typical “talking heads” documentary style in lieu of a more relaxed, “follow me with a camera, let’s see what we find” kind of style. This style is apparent in all aspects of the film. His rather dark comedic/ironic undertone is apparent in his choice of music, and even his choice of narrating the film himself. Personally I don’t care for him as a narrator, but it adds to the relaxed, personal feel he wants to deliver. Overall his technique was very entertaining, and made a potentially dull topic interesting, fun and at the same time, infuriating to watch. I have to say my favorite part in the film is where Moore walks around Europe, and asks citizens how much they pay for healthcare. They laugh at him. They literally laugh. The thought of being burdened with healthcare costs is laughable to them.

Looking at rottentomatoes.com, where I usually go to find reviews that conflict with my own, I found myself staring at a screen full of positive reviews. Critics called Sicko Moore’s best film to date, evenly funny, moving, and an eye opener. I completely agree. Even if this film went a little overboard at times (did he really need to go to Guantanamo Bay?) it is a film that needed to be seen in America. Michael Moore’s ultimate goal is awareness, to force people to see what they need to see. This film may have had a direct impact on the current presidential campaign as well. The democratic campaigns are both touting what they call “universal healthcare” plans. Now, neither of these plans are universal healthcare in Moore’s definition (he made that publically known recently) but at least it proves that the government has been forced to look at it more closely. I’m trying to be optimistic, but I’m not holding my breath (I hear holding your breath is bad for you, and my medical insurance probably doesn’t cover it ;)

Asian Street Fashion

Street fashion is clothing designed by (and worn) by people who are not fashion designers. The Center for Asian Arts and Media at Columbia College has given us the opportunity to participate in an experience they call: Everyday Runway: Asian Street Fashion and Beyond. Located in the C33 Gallery at 33 E Congress, this is a collaborative art gallery that takes the viewer through the streets of Tokyo, Seoul and back to Chicago again. This gallery primarily consists of photography, but there are also several non-photographic displays of clothing, shoes, accessories, and even toys. In terms of presentation, they really let the photographs speak for themselves. The pictures are focused, but often busy, so the artists didn’t bother to clutter the area around them too much. They even resisted hanging items from the ceiling, something often seen in galleries. The pictures, mostly printed on matte paper and mounted on foam core, are around 18x24 inches, with a few being a larger 35x48. The foam core gives the photographs a slight (but much needed) depth.

One item that vastly influences the viewer’s experience in this gallery is the nine-page booklet available at the entrance. Viewers may choose to pick up and read this booklet as they walk around the gallery, or they may choose to pick up the book after they have already seen the gallery. The reason that this booklet makes such an impact is the amount of information it reveals. As I said before, there is little on the walls aside from the pictures. Each picture has a number next to it, and there are some circular decals on the walls, but that’s about it. Each of those numbers corresponds to a description in the booklet. Knowing what the style of clothing is in each photo creates a very different experience than just blindly walking through the gallery.

I enjoyed the variety between the two major cities visited, Seoul and Tokyo. The clothing in Tokyo is very bold, with many contrasting colors (like black with red accents) and is an interesting mixture of different styles (punk, Lolita, kimono, etc.). Seoul is more toned down, but still unique. I think it is safe to assume that everyone in these cities don’t dress like what is displayed at this gallery, however there are certainly some bold design choices out there. The Chicago display was more of a modeling shoot, unlike the somewhat candid or real-life shots of Tokyo and Seoul.

I would have been nice if the photographers asked some of the people in their photos questions, like “Where did you come up with the idea for this outfit?” or “What styles influence the way you dress the most.” They could have added the answers to the descriptions in the booklet, and it would have added a different perspective.

I left the gallery wondering what a gallery would look like filled with pictures of American street fashion. Perhaps it is because I live here, but I don’t think that gallery would be nearly as interesting.

The Kiss (working title)

Living out loud is little more than “just another 90’s comedy slash drama”. Sure, it feels like it’s from the 90’s, in the kind of way only a 90’s movies can, but unlike some of the nonsense the 90’s Hollywood cranked out, I get the sense that the director (Richard LaGravenese) had some things to say, and those things boil down to a message of inspiration and a message of “life sucks, deal with it.” The film presents us with the somewhat parallel stores of Judith Moore, a recently divorced nurse, and Pat Francato, a retired gambler, now working as a doorman in Judith’s apartment building. These main characters are played by Holly Hunter and Danny DeVito, respectively. The two cross paths in an elevator, and reach out to each other forming a much-needed friendship.

It becomes rather obvious early on that despite the two main characters, this film is really about Judith. Pat’s story is touching, but it’s something we’ve all seen before: a person makes all the wrong decisions, and struggles to get back on their feet late in life. Judith’s story is by no means original, but her means of coping with her situation provide the audience with some interesting scenes. She goes through phases, starting with a sort-of mental breakdown followed by a rebellious period and finally coming to terms with who she really is. She realizes how much she changed and sacrificed for her marriage, and that becomes one of the most important messages in this film. Judith discovers this in a series of day-dreams, where she remembers the kind of person she once was and/or the kind of person she wants to be. Her unlikely friendship with nightclub performer Liz Bailey (Queen Latifah) becomes a catalyst that feeds her overall theme, “be true to one’s self.”

The film’s primary flaw resides in the awkward romantic relationship that begins between Pat and Judith. Critic James Berardinelli, however, finds the relationship appealing, "Obviously, the friendship is at the core of Living Out Loud. It's carefully developed never to go too far too fast, and both of the characters are intensely sympathetic." But in all actuality, this is a relationship that any unbiased third party would label “unrealistic,” which I find to be an interesting concept. Why is it so difficult to imagine these two people in a happy healthy relationship? Is it physical? Is it their backgrounds? Whatever the reasons, it causes the audience to be concerned with the outcome of that particular topic, and that takes away from the actual focus of the story. This film also boasts actors Queen Latifah and Danny DeVito, but in all actuality, they have rather minor roles in comparison to Holly Hunter. Perhaps if the director had chosen to make the roles more even to create more of an ensemble cast, it would have made a stronger film.

There isn’t much to say in terms of the actors’ performances. Holly Hunter certainly explored her character in great detail, but DeVito and Latifah didn’t have as much to work with, so their performances are less memorable. The music managed to elevate this mediocre film, as Michael Dequina states, "LaGravenese makes up for his occasional missteps with his musical choices. George Fenton composed the silky score, which effectively extends the mellow jazz/R&B sounds beyond the walls of the nightclub. The smooth, soothing soundtrack could not be a better fit." Looking at this film ten years after its release, I am not at all surprised with how it was received. Living Out Loud is not a bad film, but it’s not really a good film either. It probably attracted a following with some small demographic, but it wasn’t enough to call the film a success.

America's Decision

Being a white, 20-something male, there are often times such a large amount of advertisements, products and media being force-fed to me that my head spins. Buy this, watch that, this is what you should want (based on our focus groups), this is what is ‘in’ this is what is ‘out.’ Even political candidates are nearly decided for us. On the democratic side, just a year ago, there were half a dozen or so candidates that honestly had the capacity and capability to be president. What happened to them? They never had a chance. Kucinich, Richardson, and yes, even Edwards. Edwards may have held on the longest, but he never really had a shot. Our choices were narrowed down to Obama and Hillary. The other candidates were eliminated from the media and debates as their electability dropped off. And from my standpoint, this country cannot possibly be ignorant enough to elect another Republican into office at this point in time, so in all likelihood, either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will become president of the United States.

This brings me to the point of my review. Obama’s candidacy is designed to appeal to me. Not just me, of course, as that would be political suicide, but it is aimed strategically at me and my demographic. Here is what Obama (and his staff) sees:

1) The majority of voters are middle-class. The more voters in one group, the more you should focus your campaign.

2) Obama typically wins 8 out of 10 of the black votes.

3) Hillary typically wins 2/3 of the Latino vote.

So what do these things mean? Where should he focus his efforts? Where do most of the swing votes come from? White middle-class Americans. So what does Obama do to narrow his campaign to appeal to this group? He listens to what they are concerned about:

1) The war in Iraq

2) The crippling economy

3) Healthcare

Obviously there are more issues in his campaign, and many more issues in this country on top of that, but the polls tell Obama that this is what he should talk about. So he does. He says that he will end the war in Iraq, and repeatedly states that he opposed the war in the beginning. He says that he will take tax cuts away from the rich, and use the revenue to create tax cuts for the middle class, create ‘green’ jobs, etc. And he lays out a healthcare plan for America. It is not a ‘universal healthcare’ plan, although that is what he calls it.

So Obama talks about the issues that affect the middle class. That isn’t enough. Hillary talks about those same issues. She has very similar solutions to the same problems. So how does America choose between them? What it comes down to is likability. Which candidate can the average American connect with? Who is more believable, more inspirational? As the last eleven primaries and caucuses show, many believe Obama is that candidate. A lot of people simply don’t like Hillary. Is that enough to base a vote on? We’ll see. Obama has captured the young vote, collected over a million small donations from his website, and continues to run a pretty clean campaign. Hillary has loaned her campaign five million dollars, and has consistently run a negative campaign out of desperation. Now to be perfectly honest, I would not be crushed to see Hillary in office. She is a very intelligent clever woman, with some really good ideas for this country. But I prefer Obama’s background, the very thing she attacks. Yes, he has less experience on the Senate floor, but to me that means that as president he would be less likely to fall into the same old song and dance, and would perhaps be able to deliver the change that has become the focal point of his campaign.

Review Assignment 2

The Columbia Chronicle

The Columbia Chronicle is Columbia's own campus newspaper, written, edited, and produced for Columbia students, by Columbia students. Overall it reads like you would expect a newspaper to read. It certainly has a biased group of topics, seeing as it is a college paper, the journalists tend to write more about issues that effect the lives of an average Columbia student. However, a few of the articles did extend outside the world of Columbia. I'm not convinced that the individual articles could hold their own by themselves, but as an overall publication, I have no doubt that the Chronicle is far superior to your average college-produced newspaper. It has a nice mix of professionalism blended with a laid-back, relaxed feel to it. I think the advertisements say a lot about a paper. In the Chronicle about half of the ads are from the college itself, from the bookstore, to promoting Manifest, to the Student Financial Services' direct deposits. But the rest of the ads seemed like whoever would give them money, thats who would end up in the paper. Which is fine, but its an easy way to tell the caliber of the publication just by looking at the ads. The higher profile the ads, the higher profile the publication.


I would have like to have seen some criticism of the college. For instance, the cover story was about the steady decline in the number of functional film cameras in the film cage. The reason for the declining numbers is because they are too damn old, and they dont make parts for them anymore. I understand their intention behind forcing students to use film, and I can't say I disagree with it, but the point is, I pay a lot for school, therefore I don't want to fight over equipment. That's the kind of argument I wanted to see in this paper. Another article described that Columbia would yet again be raising its tuition prices next semester. Instead of casting this news in the negative light it deserves, the article says: "well, at least its not as bad as some other colleges." I prefer hard-hitting, no holds-barred journalism, not this tiptoeing on the eggshells nonsense. That is not to say the articles were not well-written. They just didn't say what needed to be said.


I did, however, like the obituaries. No, I'm not some guy who enjoys reading about the misfortune of others. I liked the obituaries because of how long they were. In most papers, the obituaries are a short blurb about the person and where they will be buried. Usually a sentence or two. However in the Chronicle, one person takes up a half page. In this issue there were two people being honored on one page, and the additional room allowed the writer to go into some detail about their lives, who they were, and what they accomplished. I would hope that when I pass, I am fortunate enough to get half a page all to myself, and not be lost in the tiny paragraphs of the newspaper obituaries.

Post 1, Reviewing the Arts

Charlie Wilson's War


This film is based on a true story about a Congressman's initiative during the Cold War. It was written by Aaron Sorkin, the writer behind most of the West Wing series. Like the West Wing TV show, this film is all about the dialogue. The dialoge is intelligent, fast, witty and sharp. If you zone out (which would be difficult to do in this film) you will miss a lot very quickly. The performance's of Tom Hanks and Phillip Seymore Hoffman are top notch, they both really immerse themselves in thier characters. In response to the trailers and previews for Charlie Wilson's war, many questioned the filmmakers for producing a movie that essentially glorifyies the middle east at this time, with our country in its current state. However, actually watching the movie clears up those questions. This film isn't about the Cold war, or the Congressman. It is about what happened after all of that. And even though there are only about 5 mins worth of "post war" time on screen, it is apparent that this is the whole point of the film. It is a very powerful message, and we should all hope that history fails to repeat itself.