V o l u m e I I I , N u m b e r X X I V C e l e b r a t i n g t h e P r e C i o u s h u m a n t a P e s t r y a P r i l 3 , 2 0 0 9

There’s a moment towards the end of “Philadelphia, Here I Come!” in which Adam Patterson ’11, playing the human embodi-ment of protagonist Gar’s subcon-scious (referred to as his private self), advised his public counter-part, played by Patrick Donworth ‘12 to roll his mental video cam-era. It’s a nifty metaphor, for we’ve all experienced that sensation of trying to preserve a memory that we will replay in our minds over and over again. Likewise, we can view Irish dramatist Brian Friel’s play as a rare opportunity to watch a screening of that internal home movie through which we experience not only remembered actions and words from one char-acter’s point of view, but also his personal thoughts and feelings.

Yet just as an old copy of a VHS tape inevitably comes with its dis-tortions and imperfections, BET’s production of the play, direct-ed by Cassie Seinuk ‘09 showed some blemishes. Nevertheless, the power of the material itself was conveyed with enough sincerity

and earnestness that it wasn’t too difficult to see through the rough patches.

The play details the final eve-ning and morning before Gar, a conflicted yet hopeful young man from a small Irish village

sets forth for the promised land of…Philadelphia. The sym-bolic significance of the “New World” and its bold, surging vitality in contrast to the “Old World” of drudgery and tradition makes Gar’s move all the more

meaningful. Gar lives with his estranged father, played by Ernest Leon Paulin ’09 and housekeeper Madge, played by Vicki Schairer ‘09. In the last remaining hours before his departure we learn of Gar’s struggles through a series of

Before the voyage to America, a journey inwardsflashbacks and through the inter-actions of his public and private selves.

One of the most clever, artful uses of staging came in the first moments of the play when we were introduced to Gar’s private self. Patterson appeared with a lampshade over his head in Gar’s bedroom, and as the shade was suddenly raised up into the fly-space, it was as if Gar’s mind had finally come uncorked.

Sadly, at certain points I couldn’t help but wish that shade had never been lifted. Patterson’s performance emphasized the taunting, nagging aspects of the protagonist’s subconscious with great physical gusto. If the pub-lic Gar was constrained and stiff, the private Gar was wildly demonstrative in his movements, alternately flailing his arms and whimpering in the fetal position on the ground. Yet by playing this oppositeness up to the extreme, Patterson neglected to convey the nuances of Gar’s dilemmas. For example, in recalling an emotion-ally powerful memory involving Gar’s relationship with his father,

BY MAXWELL PRICEEditor

Pinter, by definition, is a man’s playwright. His works offer many creative, well-rounded opportu-nities for male actors to work in his world—to develop worthwhile characters, so to speak. However, as Olivia Mell ’09 stated in the program, “the female is dimin-ished, not evolved, and she fights a constant battle against submis-sion within her domestic uni-verse.” Her senior project, Woman in the Background: Scenes by Harold Pinter, is misleading in its title. Each of the three women Mell portrayed managed to push herself out from the background and the overwhelming masculin-ity which dominated the scenes. This, in itself, is a testament not only to Olivia’s skill as an actor, but also to the depth that there is to be found in these oft over-looked roles.

Starting off the one hour show was a scene from "The Betrayal," which was produced here in the fall of 2006. Mell plays Emma, a married woman having an affair with her husband Robert’s (Joshua Mervis ’08) best friend, Jerry. As a side note, Pinter is only properly done using British dia-lects, and for the most part, this was a success with the four actors. I am generally of the opinion that if you can’t do a dialect correctly,

don’t do it at all, but I found little fault with the overall vocal work done by the cast. Particularly impressive was Mell’s ability to sustain her dialect throughout the entirety of the evening. Her first incarnation as Emma is one of quiet fear; the guilty wife who can’t bear to keep her silence any longer. Mervis dominated the text of the scene and set her up for great physical reactions which expressed Emma’s guilty conscience better than any more lines would have. The dynamic between Mervis and Mell was an extremely comfortable start to the evening between two seasoned actors.

Between the first two scenes, Olivia performed an onstage cos-tume change/dance which she collaboratively choreographed with the director, Justin Becker ’09. Stepping out of her first outfit, a floaty floral dress, she revealed a black top and skirt, shifting out of Emma’s world into that of Sarah. As she swung the material around the stage, finally throwing it at Mervis’ feet, the quiet, meek first character was flung off as well, leaving the audi-ence ready to meet the next one.

The second scene was from Pinter’s play, “The Lover,” in which Sarah and her husband Richard (Samson Kohanski ’08) share a vibrant fantasy life where he plays

her lover, “Max,” and she plays the whore. From the moment Olivia re-entered the space, it was obvious that this was her favorite scene. There were several things about part two which made it the standout of the evening: the first ten minutes of this scene was a silent etude of seduction between Sarah and “Max,” involv-ing a heightening of the sexual tension with drumbeats and fur-tive glances exchanged by both parties. The lack of dialogue only added to the feeling of voyeurism for the audience, punctuated by the well placed gasps and breath-ing of both actors.

Eventually, we were shown a montage of roleplay, which cul-minated in Mell crawling under-neath a table with Kohanski, lead-ing to a cry of, “Oh, Max!” and the two then appearing on oppo-site sides from beneath the table-cloth. It is interesting textually to note that Sarah never referred to her husband as Richard; he was Max to her during their entire afternoon tryst. It is during the multiple seductions we truly got to see Kohanski’s strengths as an actor. He sustained three voices in British dialect, each one matching a fantasy character. He also had the strongest and most consis-tent accent out of the three male actors in the show. Every different voice accompanied original pos-

tures, gestures, and motives for the shifting roleplays. However, the amusing sexual escapades took a sharp, painful turn when Richard finally expressed his dis-

satisfaction with their games and demanded to stop them for good.

The chemistry between Mell and Kohanski was wonderful and

“You’re Just a Bloody Woman!”Female subservience examined in an evening of Pinter

BY ARIELLE KAPLANStaff

See JOURNEY INWARDS, p.. 11

See REDISCOVERING WOMEN, p. 10

PINTER’S WOMEN: Emma (Olivia Mell ‘09, right) faces her husband (Josh Mervis ‘08 after having an affair with his best friend in a scene from Pinter’s “The Betrayal.”

FINAL GOODBYES: Public Gar (Patrick Donworth ‘12, right) struggles to communicate with his father (Ernest Leon Paulin ‘09, center) one the eve of his departure, while the embodiment of his private self (Adam Patterson ‘11, left) runs wild.

PHOTO courtesy of Jordan Warsoff

PHOTO courtesy of Amira Mintz-Morgenthau/The

April 3, 2009 Diverse City 9

VOICES

The first time I met Benazir Bhutto is a wonderful memory that I can never forget. She was the first ever woman prime minis-ter of a Muslim country. And what a lovely New England autumn day it was. I fondly remember how she looked at the blue sky and the red-orange leaves and said "this is my version of heaven on earth." While that day will always be incredibly special to me, what she symbolized is even more important: hope, courage, and determina-tion. Benazir was a great source of inspira-tion. Like so many others I was devastated to see her go. What a terrible loss! I still cannot bear to think of that tragic day in December when she was assassinated.

Benazir is gone but her message to never lose hope will live on. She never gave up her struggle for democracy in Pakistan. Her book, “Daughter of Destiny,” is a pow-erful reminder of the significance of the need for democracy. This principle truly is the most beautiful and wonderful thing about America. The best example of this is when Benazir says, “America, it was in America that I had experienced democracy for the first time, and where I had spent four of the happiest years of my life.”

In her book, Benazir often pointed out examples when people from different parties came together to fight for democ-racy. Given the current state of affairs in Pakistan, now more than ever this is a time for unity, not division. It is a time to move forwards, not backwards. All party differ-ences and political affiliations need to be forgotten. Things are very difficult and times are not good. It is very important

to set aside the differences at all levels of society and government and move on as one, before it is too late. Most importantly this is not a time for blame or fights. In the words of Gandhi, “an eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.”

Now more than ever, Pakistan needs to work with the world, and the world needs to work with Pakistan. India and Pakistan need to work together. There is too much in common and too much is at stake here. Their destinies are tied together. They can-not afford not to be friends. Understand that there are extremists on all sides who do not want them to be friends. They do not belong to any religion. And they should not be allowed to destroy the peace and prosperity of the region. People have struggled and suffered far too long.

“Our object should be peace within, and peace without. We want to live peacefully and maintain cordial, friendly relations with our immediate neighbors and with the world at large.” These wise words were spoken long ago by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, and they should not be forgotten, especially now. The most important goal is peace within, without which nothing will ever be possible. For as long as the people remain divided, they only will be hurting themselves and going in circles. One cannot expect total agree-ment in everything, which makes it essen-tial that we learn to disagree peacefully.Violence and anger never have and never will solve any problems.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.” How true. And how tragic that a nation of 160 mil-

A dream for peace within Pakistan

I grew up with cartoons. As a kid, I was so fond of moving pictures on my TV screen that I would snub any entertainment with real people in it. My current ethical founda-tion is based on whatever morals TV net-works could pack into individual half-hour episodes throughout my childhood, save a few commercials in between. I am a devout fan of old-school nineties Nickelodeon, and am firmly set in my belief that ‘toons from back in the day—shows like “Hey Arnold,” “Doug,” “Rugrats,” and the like—are of a much higher caliber than the drivel they stream for kids nowadays.

But television cartoons aside, there is much more to be said about today’s animation produced for the big screen. Over the past decade or so since Pixar released “Toy Story” (1995), the first animated film using only computer-generated technology, there have been many attempts to reach the initial suc-cess of this feature. Accordingly, Pixar and DreamWorks (the leading companies in computer animation) have produced several computer-only animated flicks appealing to G-rated audiences.

After seeing enough of these adorable fea-tures, however, I started to notice a pattern that was rather unsettling for a cartoon-enthusiast like myself, giving me a sickening feeling of déjà-toon. Basically, after sitting through about the twelfth talking animal movie, those snarky one-liners they all seem to have stop being funny and start being painfully predictable. The humor is geared towards the parents of young audience mem-bers but is constricted to G-rated boundaries. Thus, none of the jokes are ever actually funny for either demographic. It also seems to me that screenwriters of this genre follow

a very concrete formulaic method to reel in box office bucks while sacrificing quality cinema.

The formula is simple: some cute ani-mal characters with eccentric personalities, voiced by A- or B-list celebs, enduring some sort of zany plot twist while leaving enough room for mild drama, comedy, conflict, and romance; all coming full-circle to a satis-fying happy ending with bouncy music over rolling cred-its, in the span of a delightfully succinct 90-minute time slot. Joy. Applause. Smiling kids. Yawwwn.

The reason that “Toy Story” was so successful was because it displayed ground-breaking animation technology alongside an enticing plotline that was simple and original for the genre. Simple, cute, and not done before (Not in this medium, anyway. We all know bedtime stories involving talk-ing toys, albeit none that are quite as peppy as Tom Hanks). Talking animal movies are anything but original at this point. “Shrek,” another tremendously popular cartoon flick, had the talking animal factor but was also very unique (I for one had never seen a friendly ogre before then. And one voiced by Mike Meyers? Instant success!).

But there’s another factor why my beloved cartoon cinema has gone awry. I can sum this up with a single word—nay, a single name—

My reflections on animationBY SAMANTHA SHOKIN

Columnist

BY MYRA CHAUDHARYStaff

lion people, a vast majority of whom are moderate, peace -loving people, lets such a small minority destroy their country! Pakistan has always been one of the most progressive Muslim countries in the world. It is essential to keep it that way. No com-promises should be made with the people who are determined to destroy this coun-try. People who are destroying schools are destroying the hope and possibilities for the future, and that should not be permit-ted.

What is the silent majority doing? Where have they gone? This silence must end now. Oh, peace loving people, wake up, wake up, please wake up. Don’t be silent any longer

and don’t sit on the sidelines! Come out of your sleep. Do something but don’t throw stones and do not yell at each other. Write and speak peacefully.

Someone once told me that hope is more powerful than love. Without hope, every-thing would be hopeless. The opposite of hope is despair and impossibility. It would be foolish to lose hope and live in a world of impossibility. We should create a world where children can continue to have hope and dream for a better future. Together we can change the world. Let’s start now.

Write on a forum of hope: aforumofhope.blogspot.com

PHOTO courtesy of internet source

that encompasses all of my girlhood hopes, dreams, and musical preferences. I’m talking about the head honcho in G-rated entertain-ment, at least throughout my childhood. I’m talking about Walt Disney Pictures, of course.

Ah, yes, those illustrious Disney movies. Sure, they were all predictable (no Disney

movie could ever pos-sibly have an unhap-py ending, even if it involved tweaking the original fairy tales a bit). But in all their predictability they still managed to produce amazing soundtracks that appealed to all age groups. Disney music had created a genre in and of itself, so much so that a couple of Broadway musicals have been spawned as a result.

But besides the catchy tunes every Disney movie exhib-ited throughout the nineties (what I con-sider to be the Golden Age of Disney movies)

they all had one other important factor: stun-ning animation. Perhaps computer-tweaked, but initially all of my favorite girlhood films were hand-drawn. Something about good old-fashioned animation makes it so much more pleasing to the eye, and more natural looking. Or maybe that’s just me.

There is something else about Disney mov-ies, though, that also seems a bit formulaic. Mainly, those pretty princesses. You know, most of those Disney flicks had them. They’d all create an elaborate musical around a clas-

sic fairy tale plot line, making sure to conjure up a gorgeous female protagonist or sup-porting damsel in distress. This was all very appealing to me at the tender age of seven, for much the same reason that Barbies and American Girls dolls were.

Disney understands this appeal, which is why they created a whole “Disney Princess Collection” based on these diverse beauties. Dolls, clothes, and stickers have been created in their names, and marketed to innocent little girls like I once was. But when I say diverse, I do a double take, and notice that those politically incorrect fools up at Disney had forgotten to represent a major ethnicity among its Princesses. That is to say, there is no black Disney Princess!

But have no fear, Disney Princess enthu-siasts. We won’t be let down. As a matter of fact, Disney is working on this problem right now. The newest (traditionally ani-mated!) Disney feature will have an African-American female protagonist. "The Princess and the Frog," set to be released in December 2009, is a fairy tale about on a young girl named Princess Tiana who lives in New Orleans' French Quarter during the Jazz Age. So we can rest easy at night knowing that now every ethnic group has been repre-sented…or has it? They don’t have a Hispanic princess, do they? Better get working on that, Disney.

So wherein lies the future of my beloved cartoons? The world of American anima-tion, like every other form of entertainment, is constantly being innovated and changed. Nevertheless, I will be on the lookout for promising animated features, though I won’t have the patience to sit through another talking animal movie for a long time. And if American cartoon movies continue to be disappointing, there’s always anime, right? Yup, now that’s entertainment.

PHOTO courtesy of internet source

10 Diverse City

CHORUSApril 3, 2009

Jean-Jacques Rousseau once noted that even if the ancient Athenians were wrong to put Socrates to death, at least it meant that they took his ideas seriously. This is the eternal dilemma I carry with me when-ever I’m in the presence of the members of Students for a Democratic Society. It’s not just that they are shades more radical than their counterparts in Democracy for America, more outspoken, not clean-shav-en. More to the point, SDS members take ideas seriously – very seriously. How can a thoroughly bourgeois individual such as myself walk into their midst and remain unscathed?

It was precisely this thought that raced through my Dayquil-addled mind as I stepped into the back room of the radio station Wednesday night. Their hit talk show, “Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out”, had just wrapped up to be replaced by a sports chat program, but the atmosphere was still charged and energetic, coming off of a heated discussion of the revived squatting movement on the Eastern seaboard.

Carrie Mills, who goes by the radio handle of “Carrie Nation”, strikes a pow-erful figure. Her flowing blond locks and delicate features come from a heritage that marks her as a Daughter of the American Revolution; tonight, however, and pretty much every night, she elides the trappings of a conservative Connecticut upbringing to radicalize the Brandeis campus. At the moment, she cradles in her arms black and pink spray paint and a large plastic drop cloth, an indication that – as the youth like to say – something big was about to go down.

I pointed at the implements of instruc-tion and jabbered through a mental fog of phenylephrine and dextromethorphan: “What are those for?”

Ms. Mills glowered at me. “Pigasus is running for Student Union President, and I’m his general manager. There’ll be a press conference on Rabb steps tomorrow at high noon – ask questions then.”

Clearly, I would just have to wait and see.The next day, with significantly less

mucus and a song in my heart, I proceeded down the Rabb steps after a rousing lec-ture on the anarcho-syndicalist movement. What greeted me was a sight to behold: a huge banner, reading “Vote Pig!” featuring a strikingly realistic flying pig. The press conference was more of a political rally

on the cheap. Ms. Mills, clad in a flowing green tunic she previously sported at a Black Panther memorial event, yelled slo-gans down the Rabb steps.

“You Can’t Possibly Go Wrong With A Pig!” she thundered. “Vote Pigasus for President!” Her impressive vocals and the odd acoustics of the Rabb steps helped propagate the message; witnesses claimed they could hear her from halfway across campus.

Other SDS members and hangers-on chimed in, resembling in tone and style a Mississippi camp revival for latter-day hippies. “All Politicians are Pigs Anyway – Might As Well Vote for a Real One!” yelled Guy Rossman, a towering speci-men of Minnesota manhood. “Pigasus Will Make Brandeis Kosher!” shouted Amanda Hoffman, a thin slip of a girl decked in an eternally cool Johnny Cash t-shirt. Their exhortations clearly had an effect on some; when the crowd walking to their 12:10 classes was polled, an exuberant Vu Truong screamed back “PIGASUS!”

Others, however, were not so enthusi-astic. One junior, who wished to remain anonymous, feared that it was precisely these sorts of tactics that made people apathetic, something which could lead to the election of the next Ronald Reagan. However, she added that the revival of the Yippie’s 1968 Presidential candidate was “cute”, prompting her to giggle slightly and remove the pencil ensnared in the tightly-wound bun of her strawberry hair.

Mariel Gruszko, a slightly calmer SDS member, explained that the campaign for Pigasus was run with two goals in mind: to point out the absurdity of Student Union elections, which only waste resourc-es and induce hyperventilation in over-serious candidates, and to highlight the lack of choice available to students. Maia Stamieszkin, another SDS member with an unpronounceable last name, chimed in that she got behind Pigasus because he represented her values. When I put it to them that Pigasus was ineligible for the position – not being enrolled as a Brandeis student, not to mention that his campaign banner was not made of approved Student Union materials – Ms. Gruszko shrugged this off. Ms. Stamieszkin darkly declared that “it’s not possible that he won’t win”, and returned to yelling at passerby.

The Pigasus campaign clearly repre-sents a new direction for Brandeis politics. Mr. Rossman indicates that a large vote for Pigasus could signal a move towards leaderless democracy on campus. When pressed for future details, he could only tell students to “Stay tuned”.

At 12:20, with the lunchtime stomach rumbles setting in, most of the campaign-ers began gathering their things. Ms. Mills turned one last time to face the campus, warmed by the overhead sun but still struggling to leave the last vestiges of win-ter behind. “It’s Time For A Dictator on the Brandeis Campus!” she announced, and turned away, fist clenched in solidarity.

BY JONATHAN SUSSMANStaff

It’s like punk rock, only it’s a pig

the second half of the scene quickly dete-riorated into what was like watching a heart-wrenching breakup. Samson’s quiet desperation as the tired husband who just wants to be with his wife in reality, and Olivia’s frantic pleading as her dreams are destroyed in one conversation was so raw and emotional, it became uncomfortable to watch—as if we weren’t supposed to be there. When he slammed the door behind him as she ran to it, calling out his name, I felt pangs of sympathy, sadness, and a cer-tain camaraderie with the broken woman we saw before us.

In the second transition, a different sort of woman was onstage. It was as if the Pinter-esque female had broken out of the text and was expressing the anger and pas-sion that can be felt within the scenes but could never be fully expressed. This time, the objects thrown at the man’s feet were evening gloves and pearls, presumably signifying the drama and fantasy which were now gone. Mell ended this interlude by destroying roses on the table, throwing petals over her shoulders.

The third scene, this one from “The Homecoming,” began with Lenny (Robert St. Laurence ’11), a small-time pimp, pac-ing around the stage in a fit of sleep-lessness. In another silent beginning, he picked up a clock and cradled it in his arms while meandering downstage. Through his movements and expression, he cre-ated a dangerous character from his first appearance. He gave a cruel smile, seem-ingly to the audience, when Mell entered from behind the seats. In this incarnation, she played Ruth, Lenny’s sister-in-law, who had just returned to England with her husband after living in America for six years. As this character, she had the fewest lines but created the most in control and dominant woman out of the three.

St. Laurence’s usage of vocal pitch and dialect were surprising but bold, which was refreshing to see. However, as a fellow audience member mentioned later, the somewhat transient dialect didn’t work out as well as Mervis and Kohanski’s did, though this can be attributed to having the least amount of dialect training. That aside, his downright creepy portrayal of Lenny was dead on and enough to make you wish he wasn’t focusing that smile on the seemingly naïve Ruth. The best part of their interactions, aside from the twist ending, was their timing on the lines and the way her silences and reactions played off of his macabre storytelling.

It was at the climax of this scene when Mell created her strongest character of the evening. Turning the tables on Lenny, Ruth gained the upper hand in what he believed to be a seduction of her and fur-ther throws him by seeming to verbally seduce him and leave.

By the close of the scene, he is scratch-ing his head and stammering, “What was that supposed to be? Some kind of pro-posal?” at her retreating figure. This final characterization of a woman showed us what a female could be, even within the constraints of a Pinter play. Olivia’s trans-formation in this scene took both us and Lenny by surprise and ended the show on a high note for the woman who was previ-ously merely a talking prop.

Not too bad for the expression of women in a very masculine world of the play. Overall, Woman in the Background: Scenes by Harold Pinter, was a success and an enjoyable theatrical work.

PINTER (from p. 8)

Redisovering women in Pinter

CULTURE X 2009: RISE UPSaturday, April 4th:

Doors at 6pm, show at 7pmLevin Ballroom

A Message from the Coordinators:

All remaining tickets have been given out for Culture X. There is no official waiting list. However, on the day of the show, we will have a separate line for those who do not have tickets.

Depending on the number of people who show up and the capacity limit, we will take people from the waiting line on a first come, first serve basis.

We apologize for any inconvenience and appreciate your cooperation!

Culture X 2009 Coordinators

Intercultural Center CalendarMHC's Second Annual

Mixed MonologuesMonday, April 6: 10:00pm

Chum's Coffeehouse

Schedule of performances:10 p.m.: Monologues and poetry

11 p.m.: Mochila11:30 p.m.: Code Rad

The Mixed Heritage Club is pleased to announce its second annual performance of the Mixed Monologues!

Join us for a night of poetry, prose, and music as students of mixed and non-mixed backgrounds alike come together to share their points of view and experiences of mixed race.And be sure to stay after the poetry and monologues for our special guests, Mochila and Code Rad!

Triskelion presents:FIERCE! - The Drag Show

Tuesday, April 7: 8:00pmShapiro Theater

The green grass is showing (most days), the snow is gone (almost), and spring break is within reach... this means it is once again time for Brandeis University's Spring Drag Show. Come see kings, queens, and all sorts of Brandeis Royalty perform with some added surprises!

This year's show will feature performances by new and past performers and groups such as Company B, Starving Artists, Michael Castellanos, Crowd Control, B.O.M.S. Slam Poetry Team, as well as special GUEST performer, slam poet Sean Patrick Conlon who will be performing some of his original performance pieces. His performance is sponsored by Triskelion and the Brandeis Open Mic Series.

PHOTO courtesy of internet source

END-NOTEApril 3, 2009 Diverse City 11

ADVERTISEMENT

-ShowtimeS-

embaSSy Cinema16 Pine Street Waltham, MA

Telephone: (781) 891-0911

April 3 – April 9 only

Title Rating Friday Sat - SunMon - Thurs

THE CLASS PG-13

(1:10)(4:00) 6:50 9:30

(1:10) 4:00 6:50 9:30

(2:10)(4:50) 7:40

ADVENTURELAND PG-13

(1:30)(4:30)7:209:40

(1:30)4:307:209:40

(2:30)(5:00)8:10

THE READER R(4:10)7:009:35

4:107:009:35

(5:10) 7:50

SUNSHINE CLEANING

R

(1:40)(4:40)7:309:45

(1:40)4:407:309:45

(2:40)(5:10)8:20

GOMORRAH R

(1:00)(3:50)6:409:25

(1:00)3:506:409:25

(2:00)(4:50)7:35

KNOWING PG-13

(1:20)(4:20)7:109:40

(1:20)4:207:109:40

(2:20)(5:00)8:00

WATCHMEN R (1:00) (1:00) (2:00)

COMING SOON SUGAR on 4/10STATE of PLAY on 4/17

Give a Hoot!

Shoot some Hoops...

Join the Hoot!thehoot.net

eic@thehoot.net

One of the most recognizable female lead singers in the past few years, at least in alt-rock circles, has been Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, whose ferocious bite and live show to match have provided much of the band’s propulsive force since the release of “Fever to Tell,” their debut album.

That same presence was somewhat lacking in their sophomore slump album “Show Your Bones” but has thankfully returned in their latest, “It’s Blitz!” It’s simply unfortunate that the band gets somewhat caught up in the need to progress, and though it’s an enjoyable album, it’s less forward momentum than lateral.

Karen O is somewhat more

Yeah, it’s a decent third album

BY DANIELLE GEWURZEditor

restrained here, and there’s not the same reckless abandon that say, “Date With The Night” showed. Nonetheless, she does an impressive job of shaping her tone to the band’s new sonic palette.

That new palette? It’s a lot more electronic; fans will be somewhat sur-prised by the inclusion of synths. Though it’s different, the composi-tions retain similar features. It’s cer-tainly not the Yeah Yeah Yeahs going dance pop, with a few exceptions. There is, however, the sort of electro sensibility that backs “Soft Shock” which uses synths to a soothing effect. It’s a bit jarring at first, but there’s a gorgeous tension between the smooth backing and Karen’s voice, which, even when tamed into delicate “oohs,” stands apart.

There are a few quiet moments, of

which the stripped-down “Skeletons” is possibly the best. Karen O still can’t best “Maps” for sheer emotional power, but there’s almost a standard-esque element to her delivery that makes it quite an affecting piece. Her reserved take on, “Love, don't go/Love, don't cry/Skeleton me” pro-gresses gorgeously, imbuing the sim-plest lyrics with far more meaning than they’d ever have on the page.

“Dull Life” is modern rock by num-bers, with the instrumentation sound-ing just like any other post-2000 rock band. Furthermore, the track follows a “Fever to Tell” blueprint: lyrics, yelping chorus, followed by instrumental break-down and then the return of Karen O’s voice to finish it off.

There’s some actual dancing to be done, too, especially to songs like “Dragon Queen.” The underlying beats do make the album quite catchy; it’s an enjoyable listen for that reason alone.

The album artwork is instantly iconic; Karen O’s manicured hand crushing an egg with the yolk flying out. It’s an expression of controlled blasts, much like the album, and appropriately is a much more focused image than the one used for “Fever to Tell.”

It’s clear that there’s far more art-istry and consideration given to these songs, which sound far more con-strained and composed, than the more dashed-off feel of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs’ earlier work. There’s a definite difference in this album The same ideas present in the past two LPs are much more refined here. However, there aren’t a lot of new ideas. This is a refinement and an evolution, but not a radical shift.

Patterson practically spat his lines in disgust (his default interpretation) rather than revealing any warmth or human compassion beneath.

Nevertheless, in having to play off that raging zaniness, Donworth found a satisfying, understated interpretation of public Gar. Torn between his own desires and the need to save face, he often resembled a J. Alfred Prufrock in the making. Although Patterson’s performance made so much of Gar’s internal anguish explicit, Donworth always chal-lenged himself and the audience by discovering different ways to relate to his “other half.” The director’s use of blocking and space brilliantly explored this phenomenon. The two-tiered set depicting a spare, typical middle class home with beautiful wooden walls and a stylized painted dreamscape above Gar’s bed aided in this depiction.

The supporting cast members that took Donworth’s refined approach to the characters had most success. Paulin, as Gar’s father, prevailed in the impossible task of making a tight-lipped, conservative, out of touch old man seem relatable to a college crowd. Likewise, Schairer’s Madge possessed just enough of that feisty, matronly quality to make her relationship with Gar seem genuinely affecting. On the other hand, Herbie Rosen’s ’12 cross-dressing performance as Aunt Lizzy seemed like a cheap trick for a laugh that grew tiresome after a while. Like Patterson, Rosen’s inability to channel his wild energy successfully made the character more irritating than comic.

Overall, Philadelphia, Here I Come! is a show about being young and confused, striving for something greater in the future while attempting to escape the past. It’s not surprising, therefore, that most of the actors seemed to relate to the material on a personal level. Ultimately, that spirit made the performance exciting and moving despite a few groan-worthy performances. Even as Gar’s mental tape cracked and hissed, I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen.

Self-discovery before the journey begins

JOURNEY INWARDS (from p. 8)

PHOTO courtesy internet source