Promotional poster courtesy of Disney's Studio Ghibli

For a film so humble in its ambitions, it touches on some surprisingly resonant ideas about the transience of life. The story (directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi with a screenplay written by Ghibli guru Hayao Miyazaki) begins with Arrietty (Bridgit Mendler) training with her father to be an independent “borrower,” someone who loots sundries from the house in which he or she is hiding. Arietty is soon spotted by a sickly human boy named Shawn. Shawn wants to make a friend and help out Arrietty’s family before his heart surgery; Arrietty wants to evade detection and make her parents proud by being self-sufficient. As the film unfolds, Arietty must face the possibility of having to leave her home and lose a dying friend.

In the human world, a gnomish housekeeper named Hara (Carol Burnett) senses something curious going on. To prove she’s not going crazy, she tries to capture the trio of tiny borrowers. Hara is the closest thing to a villain in the film, but she’s far from malicious—just a little unhinged. Burnett’s shrill antics are quite funny. Arnett and Poehler do a good job as well, playing lovable stereotypes (the former a quiet, square-jawed workman and the latter a frantic housewife).

But most impressive is the tiny world around Arrietty, which lends itself to the inclusion of delightful subtleties: a pin doubles as a sword, nails are used as steps, a postcard becomes a mural. The animation throughout is impeccable and the sound editing equally sharp, so that the textures and details in and around the house come alive. In fact, most Studio Ghibli films are compelling because of their beautiful details—be it Totoro’s rainy bus stop, or Kiki’s seaside bakery, or a secret bathhouse entrance in Spirited Away, or breakfast in a moving castle. Meticulous and expansive worlds, rather than narrow and heavy conflicts, take the spotlight.

This is especially true in The Secret World of Arrietty. In one early scene, for example, Arrietty’s father warns her of two distant rats scurrying in the walls of the manor. We might expect Arrietty to save her family later on by combating these rodents with her pin-sword, but instead we never see the critters again. This seems like a violation of the “rule of Chekhov’s gun” (filmmakers won’t show a loaded pistol without eventually using it), but the rats are not meant to be villains; they are simply details that help color Arrietty’s intricate environment.

All too often, children’s movies conform to an adult’s idea of what they should be, centering on grandiose, moralistic narratives. By weaving a world together through small details, Arrietty kindles the innocence and awe of childhood in a more truthful way. The film doesn’t just look good; its space and mood evoke a mixture of longing, anxiety, and wonder we’ve all felt at the edge of the unknown. Because of all these elements, Arrietty’s secret world is a joy to explore.

The Milk Carton Kids: 2011′s Best Kept Secret by The Quad

Reel Straight SXSW: ‘Better This World’ Review by Monica Castillo

‘Melancholia’ Review: It’s The End of The World As We Know It, And Kirsten Dunst Feels Fine by Sara Arnold

The title of the event and the advice column by panelist Meredith Goldstein. | Promotional photo courtesy boston.com

This Tuesday evening, just a week after Valentine’s Day, a predominantly female group of BU students gathered in Photonics 206 to listen as a panel of experts fielded their questions on all things love and lust. “Love Letters” was BU’s first ever Q & A session on healthy romantic relationships, hosted by Student Health Services.

The “Love Letters” panelists included Meredith Goldstein, a Boston.com journalist who writes an advice column by the same name as the event. In addition to Goldstein, BU School of Social Work’s Dr. Mark Gianino and social worker Lisa L. Moore contributed to the discussion. Attendees were asked to submit anonymous questions upon entry. BU Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation coordinator Elizabeth Brennan moderated the discussion.

Some of the questions were a touch comical; for example, the evening began with a question about how to confront your boyfriend about his bad breath. For the most part, however, the advice doled out resonated with the college crowd. The questions centered on the difficulties of dating during what Goldstein called a “transient, temporary” period of your life.

The panelists unanimously agreed that the “are we exclusive?” talk should happen at that period of a relationship when seeing each other in a few days is a given and you’ve fallen into a regular pattern of dates. They also agreed that there’s no easy or comfortable way to have this conversation, even when it seems inevitable. The panelists all shared the sentiment that many of the strongest relationships evolve from friendships, although the transition to being sexually intimate with a friend can be jarring initially.  The topic of long distance relationships was also discussed; this is another issue particularly attuned to the struggles of college kids. Goldstein put it bluntly, “If you really want to make it work, you’re going to have to spend a lot of money you don’t have.” She elaborated that truly caring for the person means you won’t mind the lighter wallet.

During their introductions, the panelists said a bit about why this sort of open dialogue about healthy relationships is important for college students. Goldstein said that when she began writing her “Love Letters” column, she was surprised at how many of the people writing in were college students as young as eighteen years old. She said that people tend to dismiss young love as being immature and unimportant, but that this statement couldn’t be further from the truth. Romantic relationships formed during college are important and help students mature and grow as individuals. Goldstein’s first novel, “The Singles,” will be in stores this spring and is in fact based off of the writer’s experiences with two college boyfriends.

The event was put on by Student Health Services as part of its program for healthy relationship themed events and discussions during the month of February. Student Health Services offers a host of resources on relationships and sexual health, along with resources in other areas.

Parents’ Week: Money Matters for College Students by The Quad

Dial M for Murder Delivers Laughs, Thrills, and Deadly Telephones by Lauren Hockenson

The Head and the Heart at Royale Boston: A Photo Essay by Tara Jayakar

The Contenders: Bérénice Bejo – The Artist, Jessica Chastain – The Help, Melissa McCarthy ­– Bridesmaids, Janet McTeer – Albert Nobbs, Octavia Spencer – The Help

Poster courtesy of Wikimedia user Dhialokaaaa.

The Front Runner: Jessica Chastain had a very successful year, bringing in huge amounts of positive feedback from her roles in The Debt, The Tree of Life, Take Shelter and of course, The Help. Many feel that she should have been nominated for her role in Take Shelter, but her performance as the ditzy but kind-hearted Celia Foote in The Help was a delight to watch. Chastain punctuated the drama with feel good moments that helped prevent the film from being too melodramatic. Her other great roles this year just prove how much acting talent she has, so there is really no reason why Chastain won’t have a good shot at winning the prize. The biggest competition to Chastain is perhaps her co-star, Octavia Spencer. Those who have seen the film will agree that she was a scene stealer (I’m referring especially to the chocolate pie scene) and it’s nice to see the Academy giving attention to a comedic role. It will be interesting to see which of these two will win, but either actress is a most definitely worthy of the prize.

Worth Mentioning: As the quirky up-and-coming talkie sensation Peppy Miller in The Artist, Bérénice Bejo shares the “rising-star” appeal of her on-screen character. It’s not easy starring in a silent film these days, and Bejo gave a laudatory performance that was both expressive and emotive. Given all the attention The Artist has gotten, it’s not surprising that Bejo is swept up in the Oscar fever surrounding the film. Not only has she got that working for her, her performance is silently exquisite and a great breakout role for her. Even if she won’t be winning the prize, she’s certainly going to be an actress to watch in the coming years. Janet McTeer’s performance has also gotten positive reviews and many said she outshone Glenn Close in Albert Nobbs. It was a brave performance, and McTeer managed to convincingly play the gender-bending role, capturing all of the nuances of a woman who lives her life as a man. The film hasn’t been getting a whole lot of attention, however, and this might work against her on Oscar night.

Chastain has been having a great year, and is most definitely a frontrunner in the Oscar race. | Photo Courtesy of Nehrams2020 via Wikimedia Commons

Probably Won’t Win: As I’ve mentioned previously, comedic roles do not get a lot of attention at the Academy Awards, which makes Melissa McCarthy’s nomination a pleasant surprise. Her performance as the raunchy Megan in Bridesmaids is both fearless and memorable. Her role has gotten several nods from other awards circles, but she has not actually won any of the prizes she has been nominated for (she was passed over for a BAFTA, Critic’s Choice, and Screen Actor’s Guild awards). If this is the case, McCarthy will probably not win the Oscar either, but since nothing is set in stone, anything could happen.

Snubs Galore: As with the other acting categories, there are several snubs in the Best Supporting Actress list including Vanessa Redgrave in Coriolanus, Carey Mulligan in Shame, and Shailene Woodley in The Descendants. Jessica Chastain’s performance in Take Shelter should also be added to the list because while her role in The Help was good, many feel that her performance in Take Shelter was more worthy of the nomination.

Nomination Speculation: Best Supporting Actor by Ruth Chan

Nomination Speculation: Best Actress by Ruth Chan

Nomination Speculation: Best Actor by Ruth Chan

Crunching old newspaper underfoot, he drops himself onto a beaten loveseat as the television flickers before him. He watches the current show, oddly bemused by the musical numbers and the boy who wears too many bow-ties.

When the program concludes, he asks the television set one question.

“Why so serious?” said the Joker.

Story Overview

It was an average episode in the land of Glee. Rachel and Finn were talking about their wedding plans, New Directions was all atwitter about Regionals, Sebastian was blackmailing Finn with photoshopped por—

SUDDENLY A TWIST COMES CRASHING THROUGH THE PLOT.

Amidst the usual pomp and circumstance, it’s revealed that David Karofsky, in direct correlation to the bullying seen in last week’s episode, tried to commit suicide after rumors spread and he was rejected by his mother.

Karofsky’s condition stops everyone, teachers and students alike, in their tracks and causes everyone to reevaluate what in life they’re most looking forward to. Sebastian vows to quit tormenting New Directions, Sue contemplates the effects of her actions, and Kurt tries to make amends with Karofsky after ignoring his phone calls. Somehow, peanut butter is also involved.

Regularly scheduled programming resumes.

Using Karofsky’s suicide attempt as a signal, Finn and Rachel decide to get married after they win Regionals. And they do win, much to the delight of both Finn and Rachel’s parents.

Never one to forget its supporting characters, Glee also gives Quinn a storyline as she makes yet another bid to join the Cheerios. Sue denies at first, but, thanks to wonders of pregnancy hormones, later decides to accept her plea. With Yale and Cheerios in her future, Quinn makes strides forward on to her bright future.

Then, on the way to the wedding, she and her car get t-boned by a pickup truck.

Happy seven week hiatus everyone!

At first, I was worried about her adorable outfits being replaced by the Cheerios uniform. Now I have slightly bigger concerns. | Promotional photo courtesy of Fox TV

Characters

Karofsky – Although the storyline felt sudden and forced, it was done justice in the short time frame in which it was handled. Having seen the pain of those who’ve been bullied and lacking the support system that Kurt has had, it makes sense that Karofsky would turn to what would be his only way out. Also, the dream sequence induced by Kurt’s trip to the hospital was beautiful, precious, and everything that’s right with the world.

Kurt – Kurt ignoring Karofsky’s phone calls makes perfect sense given his past with his ex-bully. He probably wanted to be supportive, but was too afraid and possibly creeped out to handle this sudden bout of emotional drama. It also makes sense that he would go to Karofsky and do what he could to repair the damage.

Sebastian – Holy whiplash, Batman. He went from vicious, snake-tongued bully to repentant ally in no time flat. The sudden change of heart, however, is welcomed because his story was running dry.

Quinn – Her calling Karofsky a coward for his decision, although a common response, felt out of place for Quinn. If her lowest lows were as dark as the show has lead the audience to believe, she would understand the thoughts of suicide. Her sudden car crash at the end of the episode also felt like some perverted message of “she deserved it” from the Glee writers.

Songs

“Cough Syrup” by Young the Giant: Vocally, the song was quite impressive. The context made sense, and the choking, somber tone of it all made the backdrop all the more sickening and sad. Blaine’s visual performance, however, was too jarringly over-the-top in comparison to the heavy material being shown. It looked forced and artificial, and it lacked the subtlety it needed.

“Stand” by Lenny Kravitz: Last year, the Warbler performances were a spectacle to look forward to thanks to killer performances and the inclusion of Kurt and Blaine. Warbler performances haven’t met their Warbler-y standards and there is little reason to care about Sebastian. In short, this song was boring, flat, and did not warrant its screen time.

“Glad You Came” by The Wanted: See the above comments + better vocals + entertaining choreography. It stuck to basics, which worked since the song’s basics are pretty fun already.

“Fly/I Believe I Can Fly” by Nicki Minaj ft. Rihanna/R. Kelly: Glee specializes in very clever and mash-ups, and this song is no exception. Blaine’s rapping was surprisingly well delivered, and the vocals provided by Artie and Rachel were impressive. Santana’s lines, although scant, were decent but not as good as Blaine’s. It’s also impressive that the Glee writers were able to work Nicki Minaj into a show.

“What Doesn’t Kill You (Stronger)” by Kelly Clarkson: The Troubletones are…back? Although it was great seeing Brittany and Santana get more vocal limelight, it was weird to imagine that all of those female back-up dancers were just waiting around to perform in one song. Regardless, it was a decent performance. The vocals worked; I just wish that they had done something special with the song.

“Here’s to Us” by Halestorm: Despite the fact that Rachel has had a million and a half solos on this show, this song managed to stand out. It lacked the trademark “single-tear-rolling-down-face,” it was uplifting, and it spun a country vibe that Rachel hasn’t sung before. Easily New Directions’ best performance.

One-Liners

“I’m not going to negotiate with terrorists.” – Rachel Berry

“I want Lord Tubbington to quit his ecstasy addiction.” – Brittany S. Pierce

“I just want a song.” – Tina “Who’s That?” Cohen-Chang

“Can I be a sports agent?” – David Karofsky, in what was the sweetest line of the episode.

Overall Score

I wanted to adore this episode. It covered grave matters such as teen suicide, texting while driving, and the deliciousness of peanut butter. It lacked its common moronic storylines and delivered gorgeous character moments.

The plotting, however, felt choppy and forced. The Karofsky storyline genuinely should have had more build up, and the Quinn crash practically defines “jumping the shark.” The songs were mediocre as a whole, and some scenes, including Schuester wanting to kill himself over a test, were just bizarre.

I appreciate their attempt towards gravitas this episode, but a lot got bogged down due to some poor filming decisions.

“On My Way:” B-

The Gleecap: “The First Time” by Jon Erik Christianson

The Gleecap: “Heart” by Jon Erik Christianson

The Gleecap: “Extraordinary Merry Christmas” by Jon Erik Christianson

This post will be updated as more details become available.

A BU hockey player was arraigned today on two counts of rape.

BU Hockey - October 2010 | Photo courtesy of flickr user Teka England

Sunday morning, defensemen Max Nicastro (MET ’13) was arrested on charges of sexual assault. Nicastro was arrested at 6:30 on Sunday morning on the Charles River Campus. As of Monday, he was being held at Police District 14 in Brighton on $25,000 bail, and faces charges of sexual assault. The Boston University Police Department and Suffolk County district attorney’s office are investigating the charges, and Nicastro has been suspended from the team.

This afternoon, Nicastro was arraigned at Brighton District Court. In a press release, Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel Conley said that Nicastro was released on $10,000 cash bail, and has been ordered to have no contact with the victim. Nicastro will return to court on March 26, and he has entered an automatic not guilty plea.

In an earlier interview with the Boston Globe, Nicastro’s attorney, Hugh Curran, said that the athlete planned on remaining at BU and take additional courses over the summer. But as of 5:00 this afternoon, it was confirmed that Nicastro was no longer enrolled at BU.

While his trial day has yet to arrive, the response has been a media frenzy. Major publications such as ESPN and The Huffington Post have all reported the incident. The Boston Herald praised coach Jack Parker’s swift action. Jezebel alluded that he could have done more. The student reaction has been similarly diverse.  It has been just over two months since the Corey Travino incident, and a week since the hockey teams of the Beanpot pinned on white ribbons as part of a campaign to prevent violence against women.

According to University spokesman Colin Riley, more details will be available as the case develops, but the alleged victim is a female Boston University student, and protecting her privacy is a high priority.

DA Conley urged any victims of sexual assault to contact the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center.

Happy Belated International Women’s Day, BU Today! by Veronica Glab

Danger Girl: Revolver #2 (Advance Review)

Written by Andy Hartnell; art by Chris Madden. | Cover courtesy of IDW Publishing

This comic, starring Indiana Jones-like ladies Abbey Chase and Sydney Savage, is all business. And by business, I mean lady business.

As pages turn, it becomes strikingly clear that the intended audience for the book, at least visually, is comprised of people who enjoy looking at lady parts. The ladies are wet, the ladies are dry, and the ladies are occasionally bent in positions that don’t look real.

That being said, the overall campy story, although not groundbreaking in literary quality, is pretty fun. The protagonists are written with care, and the dialogue between the characters is special enough to distinguish it from other comics who objectify their ladies. An eye-roll or two will be produced from reading the book (especially for fans of soap opera endings), but it feels almost intentional.

The art, when not focusing its lenses solely on cleavage, is of decent quality. Although there are few differences between the facial features of the female protagonists, there are many differences in their expressions. The accessible, humorous art style coupled with strong coloring also adds to the comic’s light-hearted feeling.

If you can get past the barrage of booty and lack of much depth (which is no easy feat), there is a fun experience to be had in Danger Girl: Revolver #2. It just takes patience.

Review: 7/10

Wonder Woman #6

Written by Brian Azzarello; art by Tony Akins. | Cover courtesy of DC Comics

In a whiplash-worthy 180 degree turn from the last review, Wonder Woman #6 demonstrates many heroic accomplishments, including how to have a female character fight a tentacled monster without being exploitative.

Despite a somewhat jumpy overall storyline, this comic has proved that Brian Azzarello’s writing, especially his dialogue, is Wonder Woman’s fiercest ally. Not only does he give every single character a distinct voice, but he also manages to pull of some fancy wordplay and puns in the interactions between Greek gods. And generally speaking, Greek gods are not known to be punny.

Tony Akins, the artist temporarily replacing Cliff Chiang, impresses more in this issue than in the last. His artistic knack lies in drawing other-humanly creatures such as Poseidon and Cerberus, but his portrayal of humans has improved. In short, Wonder Woman looks a lot less like Katy Perry this month.

Overall, it is a thoroughly entertaining issue that relies more on humor and characterization and less on brute action, although that does exist as well.

Review: 8.5/10

Snarked #5

Writing and Art by Roger Langridge | Cover courtesy of BOOM! Studios

As a part of BOOM! Studios’ kaBOOM! kids’ line of comic books, Snarked #5 is a peculiar story (featuring characters from Alice in Wonderland) that seeks to bemuse readers of all ages.

The comic book’s biggest problem is neatly and symbolically wrapped up in the problems of one character: Wilburforce J. Walrus. This aristocratic Arctic mammal, although incredibly charming, has a very dense vocabulary. His speech bubbles take up half of the panel, and his language nearly warrants the assistance of a dictionary. And this commentary is coming from a college student who’s writing about a children’s comic.

The book suffers from the same problem as a whole. The clever artwork, zany characterization, and hysterical wordplay is often buried deep in the tar pits that are the story’s written narrative.

With that said, the comic does have strong points. The storybook/comic strip hybrid art style makes for a visual gift. The weird characters, especially Cheshire Cat, and some occasional rhyming create numerous uplifting, enjoyable moments. It’s unfortunate that the comic’s strongest points are bogged down so hard by tendency to tell and not show.

Review: 6/10

The ComiQuad: Review of AMC’s Comic Book Men by Jon Erik Christianson

The ComiQuad: Valen the Animal Detective Review by Jon Erik Christianson

The ComiQuad: Coffee Man and BatSteed Review by Jon Erik Christianson

The Contenders: Kenneth Branagh – My Week with Marilyn, Jonah Hill – Moneyball, Nick Nolte – Warrior, Christopher Plummer – Beginners, Max Von Sydow – Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Poster courtesy of Wikimedia user Dhialokaaaa.

The Front Runner: I’d say this one was an easy one to choose: Christopher Plummer in Beginners is a lock-in for this award. As a 70-year-old man who comes out of the closet after his wife’s death (and just before his own death), it was an incredibly fascinating role that Plummer took on board and played beautifully. Beginners was a charming indie film that was bolstered by Plummer’s performance, and he exhibited such youthful enthusiasm and earnest emotion that viewers genuinely mourned his death in the film. Plummer managed to balance both his character’s wisdom and wonder and perfectly conveyed the sense of rebirth that was needed for the character. The role has everything the Academy loves and I think it’s safe to say that Plummer has this award in the bag. What’s more, he’s already gotten the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor and received overwhelming praise for his role.

Worth Mentioning: Playing Sir Laurence Olivier in My Week with Marilyn, Kenneth Branagh was able to pull off a colorful real-life character while managing to hold his own against Michelle Williams’ Marilyn Monroe. Despite the lackluster script, critics have cited Branagh’s performance as lively, crisp and passionate. The Academy loves period pieces, especially ones involving real life people, and he has gotten nominations from the BAFTA, The Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild, so he has generated solid Oscar buzz.

Plummer is a shoo-in for winning the award. | Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia User Nehrams2020

Also worth mentioning is Nick Nolte’s role as a neglectful alcoholic father who tries to reconcile with his son by training him to box in Warrior (or this year’s version of The Fighter). Nolte gives an emotionally honest performance amidst all of the action and fighting, making him a gem to watch. Not only that, but he’s also garnered significant positive feedback for his role, and a Screen Actor’s Guild nomination for Best Supporting Actor.

Probably Won’t Win: That leaves Jonah Hill and Max Von Sydow. Hill, the funnyman behind such teen comedies as Superbad and Get Him to the Greek, was an unexpected choice for a nomination, but he managed to blow everyone away by showing audiences that he could, in fact, act. Hill was actually quite solid as Brad Pitt’s sidekick in Moneyball. In all likelihood though, Hill will most likely not be going home with the prize but this could be the start of an interesting turn in his career. Von Sydow was the most surprising nomination out of the list in his role as a mute man in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close. The film in general was underwhelming, and there was very little, if any, attention was brought to his performance. Von Sydow has not gotten any other big nominations from other awards either, so his chances of winning are rocky. Having said that, critics have enjoyed his subtle and emotionally fueled performance in the film.

Snubs Galore: With all Oscar nominations comes Oscar snubs. It looks like Drive has been having a very bad Oscar run and was completely overlooked by the Oscars. Not only has Ryan Gosling been snubbed in the Best Actor category; his co-star Albert Brooks was similarly passed over by the Academy.

Nomination Speculation: Best Actor by Ruth Chan

Nomination Speculation: Best Supporting Actress by Ruth Chan

Nomination Speculation: Best Actress by Ruth Chan

The debate on social issues–birth control, gay marriage, abortion, etc. has been framed by the media and politicians as a battle between good and evil. The right is especially guilty of this. Rick Santorum (whom I will criticize throughout this post because he is the most visible of anyone discussing these issues) is well known for his inflammatory remarks. Santorum recently linked the moral failings on Wall Street that led to the financial crisis to the “immorality” of the gay marriage debate. This type of rhetoric, however genuine the beliefs of its speakers, only serves to polarize the public and distract voters from the real issues.

You wouldn’t know it from the way people like Rick Santorum talk, but the most crucial issues facing our nation are not social, but economic: bringing unemployment down to an acceptable rate, ensuring that social programs are sustainable for future generations, and coping with increased economic pressure from rising nations. These are the issues that will define our generation.

This guy is not helping anything. | Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia Commons.

If the public and our elected officials continue to focus on who should or should not have to provide birth control, we will not be able to decide how to deal with the changing world around us. While Congressmen waste time condemning fake Abortionplexes, the issues of how to revive a shrinking middle class and engage an ever more interconnected global economy go unaddressed.

That’s not to say social issues aren’t important. To be fair, there is an economic component that Rick Santorum has made a point to address along the campaign trail as the economy remains the number one issue on voters’ minds. The former Pennsylvania Senator notes, “you want to look at the poverty rate among families that have two — that have a husband and wife working in them? It’s 5 percent today. A family that’s headed by one person? It’s 30 percent today.” And, as conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat pointed out in his Sunday column, “both Democrats and Republicans generally agree that the country would be better off with fewer pregnant teenagers, fewer unwanted children, fewer absent fathers, fewer out-of-wedlock births.”

Social conservatives deserve praise for feeling the need to address these problems and bringing them into the public sphere. My criticism of the left on social issues is that they haven’t truly accepted that these are real problems and write off critiques of modern society by the right as out-of-touch, religious zealotry.

It is fairly well agreed upon that children born into a stable, two-parent home enjoy certain advantages over those who are not. And if legal and widespread access to abortion and birth control negatively affects that chance by creating incentives to act irresponsibly, that’s a discussion that should be had. But, this framing of social issues–as some sort of battle between angels and demons, and of gays and pro-choice advocates as minions of Satan–poses an impediment to ever having a reasonable discussion of the economic and societal impact of social issues themselves.

From a purely practical, non-political standpoint, do social conservatives really believe that limiting access to birth control will lead to less “immoral” sex? Would banning abortions stop women from getting them? Conservative views on these issues, however well intentioned they might be, do not mesh well with modern reality. As college students, it is hardly a stretch to argue that our culture has developed some unhealthy attitudes towards sex. But conservatives’ prescriptions to these issues take a black-and-white approach and seek to bring us backwards instead of adapting to changes deeply embedded in our culture.

Although many leaders may be sincere in their conservative beliefs on social issues, they have undoubtedly become a wedge for political gain. The establishment of religious voters in the Republican base, aided by the rise of the Moral Majority during the Reagan administration, ensured that social issues would stay politicized. Since then, people have been duped into voting against their economic interests for fear of militant secularists–or, on the other side, religious fundamentalists imposing their will on society.

With the economy gaining ground the past few months and President Obama’s re-election prospects improving, it should be no surprise to anyone that social issues have entered the media cycle again. If the GOP can no longer convince voters that the President’s economic policy was a failure, then they’ll simply try to scare the electorate into voting Republican by telling them that the President is “crushing” faith in America. I don’t expect these issues to go away, but I hope our leaders and citizens seek to address them with perspective and in a reasonable manner.

Let’s look at the incident at hand. On October 15, 2011, during a match between Liverpool and arch-rival Manchester United, the 25-year-old Suarez reported racially abused French defender Patrice Evra multiple times during the span of the match, by calling him a “negro”, which in Uruguay is considered a term of endearment. Either way, the incident was reported to the league’s governing body, the Football Association, and a month later, Suarez was suspended for eight matches due to a charge of  “abusive and/or insulting words and/or behaviour contrary to FA rules.”

Now, this could have been the end of it. But when the two teams met again on Feburary 11, during the customary handshake, Suarez blatantly avoided shaking hands with Evra, even after being grabbed by the defender. Days after the incident, Suarez apologized, after being forced to by an unnamed team sponsor. However, this episode is the pinnacle of controversy in the star striker’s career.

One of the game's most polarizing figures. | Photo courtesy of Badudoy via Wiki Commons.

As a youngster, he was suspended as a teenager in Uruguay after being caught drinking and partying. When he came to Europe, he showed brilliance as well as aggression. While playing in the Netherlands, Suarez was consistently a top goal-scorer, but he also would incur many yellow cards and suspensions. Need an illustration? In 2010, he bit an opponent on the shoulder during a game, leading to a fine and a seven game suspension, which was cancelled out by his 22.8-million-pound move to Liverpool F.C., where he has yet to escape problems.

Aside from his racial abuse case, Suarez has also flipped the bird to opposing fans during his time playing on the British Isle. While Suarez has apologized for these incidents, not many believe him. Pundits have asked for him to sit down with Evra and ask for forgiveness face-to-face. Some think that Liverpool should cut their ties, as this has shamed the club.  Others, mostly his teammates, manager, and countrymen, have said it should have passed by now.

However, we shouldn’t let it go, for a multitude of reasons. First, Suarez got off easy with just a fine and a suspension. There is another case involving fellow controversial footballer John Terry, but Terry’s case is going to the courts and has led to Terry being stripped of the England national side captaincy. Suarez’s case shouldn’t be blown off, either. More importantly, this should be a lesson for all players that this behavior is disrespectful and has no place in the beautiful game. It’s not just limited to soccer; racism and prejudice have no place in this world. We are all created equally and to tear one another down for skin color or background is ghastly behavior, which sets everybody back.

Now, I don’t think that Suarez is a racist, but this is still a shameful incident that shows how much he still has to grow. At the same time, he still has a lot to do to earn back the respect he had gained. He needs to stay quiet, apologize to Evra, and get it together. He has some great years ahead of him and he needs to learn from this to become a better man.

 What do you think of this incident? Should it have blown over by now?

BU Soccer Team Beats Providence Friars 1-0 by Chris Walker

Isaac Julien, "Red Chamber Room (Ten Thousand Waves)," 2010. Endora Ultra photographs, diptych, 70.9 x 90.6 in. each. | Photo courtesy of the artist and Victoria Miro Gallery, London.

The regular movie-going experience usually constitutes sitting in front of a screen, patiently (or not) watching and accepting exactly what the filmmaker wants you to see; and usually that’s just fine for the average movie-goer. But I’m sure everyone who has a love for cinema has wondered what it would be like to be able to see beyond the one screen. Well, what if there were nine?  Director Isaac Julien has attempted to answer this question with his immersive nine-screen masterpiece, Ten Thousand Waves.

Currently on display at the Institute of Contemporary Art, the hour-long movie weaves together three stories set in ancient and present-day China, blending Chinese legend with actual events to tell a tale of a foreign, complex race of people whose stories, despite all cultural difference, strike a chord within viewers of all races. Its captivating visuals, which balance urban landscape with lush forests, fast-paced cityscapes with glimpses of rural life, are accompanied by an eclectic soundtrack which mirrors the movie’s theme of juxtaposition. Overall, it makes for a breathtaking experience.

What really makes it special, though, are the nine screens on which it is projected. Set up around a room, with two screens in the center, there is no order to the projection of the video. The image might dance randomly from one screen to another across the room, or progressively light them all up so as to capture the motion of a tram as it makes its way down the street.  The point of it is to have the viewer walk around as if it were a piece of art, rather than sit in one place and watch it as if it were a conventional movie. In fact, there isn’t a spot in the room from where all screens can be viewed. People usually end up sprawled on the floor so as to fully take advantage of the panoramic effect it offers.

This conceptual film-making confection is evocative both in its presentation and content, though without one, the other would feel incomplete. There is always considerable debate as to what type of film can be considered a work of art, and I think this one has managed to transcend that distinction. It is on display until the 4^th of March at the ICA and I highly recommend it to anyone who is in any way bored with the ordinary and ready to experience something new.

More details about the installation can be viewed on the ICA’s website.

‘The Clock’: An Ode to Time and Cinema by The Quad

Don’t Miss Stan VanDerBeek at MIT by Caitlin Clancy

Titus Andronicus’s Amy Klein Making Permanent Waves for Women by Allison Francis

Switch it up: Alternate study areas

That’s right. Although it may be tempting to go to your favorite carrel on the 3rd floor of Mugar, or to that same couch at the top of StuVi2, don’t stick to the same spot every time you need to study for an exam. Research has proven that switching study locations helps to improve retention of the material as well as the recall of it later on. Psychology of Learning Professor Fabio Idrobo has advice that is right on point with the research that has been done: “changing the environment” is key to associating a certain place with something specific learned. Next time there’s a big exam, try going to several places each day, like Mugar, Espresso Royale, the top of Shelton, or even staying at your dorm or apartment.

Don't let the library become your home. | Photo courtesy of Flickr Commons user Paul Lowry.

Bye-Bye Facebook: Improve time management

Not to beat a dead horse, but it’s quite obvious: Facebook and studying do not mix — not even taking a quick “break” and going on Facebook for fifteen minutes to write a status about how much you hate studying. It’s the ultimate form of procrastination; nobody can deny it. Plain and simple, just do whatever it takes to not log on while studying; it’ll pay off in the end.

Quality over quantity: Switch subjects

Instead of trying to cram 300 pages of your biology or economics textbook all at once, try dividing up the work you have. Set aside a certain amount to do at a given time, and don’t be afraid to study different concepts of the same subject to change it up. It’ll give your mind a break and probably reduce your Red Bull consumption at the same time.

Although some of these methods may seem obvious to college students, sticking to them is the hard part. Some other simple things to remember are to dress comfortably, to bring a snack to re-fuel your body and mind, and to set realistic goals of what you want to accomplish.

Lastly, from a learning psychology perspective, Professor Idrobo stresses that “the best level of comprehension is when you have the material and make use of it. You have the information and understand its meaning, and you try to reformulate it and say it in different ways. In terms of memory, you process the material at a much deeper level in terms of what it means.” With all these tips in mind, hit the books…but don’t let them hit you too hard back.

“MADE” Meets BU by Ingrid Adamow

Rick Perry Facing Immigration Backlash in Iowa by Ross Ballantyne

Step Away From the Sweatpants: A Guide to Comfortable Fashion While You Study by Sharon Weissburg

This is a pub. You can tell because it has the word "Arms" in its name. | Photo by Joel Kahn.

For those of you unaware of international alcohol policies, the legal drinking age in the UK is 18. That means that we youngsters going abroad to London have access to any bars and pubs we want. We can order a pint with dinner, a cider after class, or even a shot of Jaeger for breakfast—it’s totally legal!

However, due to some poor planning, I may or may not have turned 21 just after arriving in London, which tends to suck all of the fun out of drinking legally at all hours of the day.

Luckily, London has its own means of solving this minor inconvenience: cool bars and pubs! Since my good friend Deb has already recommended the terrific Camden Eye, I will take a look at some of the other notable bars and pubs around the city.

Now, you may ask, “What is the difference between a ‘bar’ and a ‘pub’?” and I will first tell you that asking questions to a computer screen is pretty strange. I will then go on to answer your query:

A pub is a “public house.” It is a place where people go to socialize (usually right after work), with an environment that facilitates conversation, with quieter music playing through the speakers, and usually closes by midnight. Bars, on the other hand, are usually dark, loud, and packed with people…sometimes dancing people.

The Lexington, in the college neighborhood of Islington, is a prime example of a pub—it has homemade food, bright lighting, and a weekly music pub quiz (in which certain American students like to participate). However, the Lexington also hosts concerts in its upstairs room several times a week. The other quirky thing about the Lexington is that it’s American-themed: American beer, American whiskey, hunting lodge aesthetic.  It’s always nice to see how us Americans are depicted in other cultures.

Also on the pub side of things (with a similar hunting lodge aesthetic) is The Defector’s Weld in Shepherd’s Bush. Though the drinks are pricey here, they have a happy hour deal on weekdays, which is great for grabbing a drink before heading to a show at the O2 Shepherd’s Bush, a hefty concert venue that hosts some terrific acts just down the street.

For some late night fun, there’s the classy/trendy Book Club in the hip Shoreditch area. The Book Club definitely falls into the “bar” category, with their snack-centric food menu, loud music, and delightful mixed drinks. The decor is clean, and the walls are ornamented with children’s drawings of animals. There’s also a ping pong table, and on Thursday nights an event called “TweetBox” in which attendees tweet their song requests to the DJ. It usually devolves into late ’90s/early 2000′s R&B, so it’s totally awesome.

For the adventurous crowd, I will offer two suggestions, though I IN NO WAY endorse these establishments. They are full of debauchery and to be honest, kind of terrifying. Some people like things like that.

First, there’s The Macbeth, a pseudo-goth/punk bar in Hoxton. It’s open till all hours of the night, and frequently hosts loud rock shows and theme nights. They recently held a “Frat Party” themed party. It’s just like being back at BU! WARNING: You may get a chunk of ripped-up stuffed animal hurled at your head.

Finally, and for this I deeply apologize, is The Eagle in Kennington (not to be confused with the BU neighborhood of Kensington). The Eagle caters to a very…specific clientele. It is honestly intimidating. However, they have a Sunday night dance party that is disco-inspired (with a Village People movie playing on the walls) that is quite fun. Also, if you’re lucky enough, an indie music superstar might give you and your friends a round of drinks.