Drink lots and prosper

It’s not often that a science center dedication finds me sitting cross-legged on the floor in the very front, a drunk and swooning fan girl with my rapt attention focused on the speaker. Then again, it’s also not often that a Starfleet Commander graces Darby Gymnasium.

I found out that Walter Koenig ’58 (Chekov) would be part of the Noyce dedication about a week before it happened, then ran around ecstatically telling everyone I knew: “Walter Koenig! You know, Star Trek? Nuclear Wessels! On Friday!” Then someone gently reminded me of the last thing that I had been ecstatically excited about: “Oktoberfest! Amana Colonies! German Beer! On Friday!”

Upon waking up, I found myself faced with one of the most difficult decisions I have ever had to make. How could I pick between a party with free German beer and the fulfillment of my life-long Trekkie status? I asked the Captain (my roommate, Anna), who recommended Star Trek. But the German beer called to me and my only-just-recovering-from-study-abroad-in-Berlin psyche. Who else could I ask who would really understand?

Suddenly, I knew. The man who would truly understand my difficulty. The Ambassador Sarek to my Captain Spock, the Admiral Kirk to my Dr. David Marcus, the Worf to my Alexander, the Number One Dad to my special 12-year-old version of Picard in the episode “Rascals”! On Wednesday afternoon, I called my German-speaking, beer- appreciating, Captain Picard action figure-owning, Chemistry professor father in his office. With no preamble, I posed my dilemma.

“Dad, what’s more important: Walter Koenig or Oktoberfest?”

“Both?” Though he had not taken into consideration the physical limitations (my lack of a transporter being one of the most pressing problems), he was right! Combining the spirit of Oktoberfest with the nerdiness of Star Trek! Hell, I do that every week with the Star Trek Drinking Game.

Created sometime second year by the Captain, our friend Brock (Lieutenant Commander LaForge) and myself, the Star Trek Drinking Game is an integral part of a Friday afternoon. The basic rules are simple: drink for awkward sexual tension (two drinks for awkward sexual tension from beyond the grave) or when someone who knows the rules better says to.

I don’t remember what episode we watched that afternoon, but there were enough speeches about humanity from Picard or badass Riker moments that we quite happily wended our way to the Dining Hall afterwards. We took our box dinners straight to Darby Gym and eventually found ourselves right next to the speakers, less than twenty feet from Koenig’s chair. I have no idea what happened when Koenig wasn’t speaking.

When the program was over, it was our chance to finally meet him, a man of the stars and the stage. We ran to the door through which he had disappeared and learned that he had already left. Disappointed but not deterred, we deduced that following the line of distinguished alums would lead us to his next stop, where we sat on a bench outside the Dining Hall feeling out of place and anxious. We spotted him coming through the crowd and ran up to him. But now there was a new problem. What do you say? Luckily, the captain solved that one.

“Hi.” Giggle. “We’re really big fans.” Quantum of Solace brings action but forgets the plot

Bond () shields Camille (Olga Kurylenko) and fires at a fuel cell as flames engulf Medrano's suite at Perla De Las Dunas. The dominant theme of Quantum of Solace is revenge, and the idea makes sense. The 22nd James Bond film picks up not long after the elegant and crisp Casino Royale leaves off, with Bond (Daniel Craig) losing his first great love, Vesper Lynd, at the hands of the mysterious Quantum organization.

Casino Royale was a smart and effective reinvention of the Bond franchise, and so hopes were high that Quantum of Solace would take another step in the right direction. Sadly, Quantum is the idea of a great movie, not the execution of one. There’s something missing at its heart: we’re left waiting for catharsis or closure that never comes.

After slamming viewers into the story with several chase scenes (by car and on foot) that are both unnecessary and shakily presented (director Marc Forster excelled with the poignant Monster’s Ball, but seems less sure of himself in an action film), Bond comes into contact with Camille (the beautiful Olga Kurylenko), and the two team up to pursue the villains on the typical Bond movie jaunt around the world. Bond is multitasking: tracking down those in Quantum responsible for Vesper’s death while also keeping tabs on the villainous Mathieu Amalric (the unconvincing Dominic Greene).

Amalric wants to buy up desert land in Bolivia so he can overthrow the government and manufacture a drought so that he can become the country’s sole water supplier. Camille is out for revenge too: her family met their ends at the hands of a corrupt South American military dictator who is also in cahoots with Amalric. Understand? No? Too bad—it’s time for another chase scene, this time by plane!

The idea of two grieving people seeking revenge together is a nice thought begging to be better explored. The writers throw Camille a few lines of dialogue to explore this issue, something along the lines of, “I want to know what revenge feels like,” and later to Bond, “I wish I could free you from your prison.” But before we can get behind the attractive duo, something else has exploded and they’re walking through the desert. It’s a big miss that with two fine actors portraying two intriguing characters with compelling back stories, we don’t care about them as much as we could.

Yet somehow, the principal actors all acquit themselves. We know what Daniel Craig is capable of as James Bond from Casino Royale, and so we can give him a pass inQuantum . Casino Royale allowed Craig to show quite a bit of range—cunning spy, dangerously physical assassin, passionate lover, wayward agent, and grieving soul (to name a few). But inQuantum , Craig is required to play everything so close to the chest that it becomes difficult to identify with him.

We know logically that Bond is suffering and that his actions are motivated by loss, but the film gives him no opportunity to show his grief or to let his emotions go. He does gain some momentum in his scenes with Judi Dench’s M, who is as much of a boss as a parental figure. But Dench somehow speaks more than Craig does. It’s a personality bypass, and it’s a testament to his acting that we still root for him. It’s also very indicative of the problems of Quantum: not enough heart, clarity, or insight, just a lot of unrealized potential.

Oscar picks from an obsessed Oscar fan

As an actor, I basically live for the Academy Awards, and while Slumdog might be a lock for Best Picture, there are still a number of close races out there:

Best Actor: The race comes down to two superb actors who are neck-and-neck for the prize: Sean Penn for his passionate, transformative, and fully invested turn as gay San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk, and Mickey Rourke for his stripped down, soul bearing turn as the washed up Randy “The Ram” Robinson. While Rourke’s character has a little more sting, my vote goes to Sean Penn for an earnest and uplifting performance.

Best Actress: We have another two-way race here (with Anne Hathaway’s revealing turn in Rachel Getting Married as a long shot) between what I think are the two greatest actresses of our time: Meryl Streep (who holds the record for the most nominations of any actor—15!) and Kate Winslet (who, at age 33, holds the record for the youngest actor ever to have been nominated six times). Winslet, still without an Oscar, deserves it: her performance as an SS guard is simultaneously engaging and repellant, but ultimately heartbreaking and brilliant. But Streep (who has won twice, but sadly not since 1982) and her clever performance as a hardened nun shouldn’t be counted out.

Best Supporting Actor: Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know that will win for a chilling and intelligent portrayal of the Joker in The Dark Knight.

Best Supporting Actress: Arrgh! This is the category that is going to break my heart. Viola Davis should win in this category. Her performance in Doubt as Mrs. Muller, a mother whose son might have been abused by a priest, is wrenching. Davis gets only one extended scene in the movie (around 10 or 11 minutes long), but she still manages to delivers a master class in acting, single-handedly defining the soul of this flawed film by showing us a woman who is conflicted, protective, but sadly helpless to truly protect the child she loves from dangers at school and home. While she should win, I think that Penelope Cruz will pick up the Oscar for her comic and controlled performance in Vicky Cristina Barcelona.

And finally… The Reader should, in my opinion, win Best Picture. It’s a film that unsettles you and stays with you. I’d also hand out Best Director to The Reader’s Stephen Daldry for his wonderful control of tone. None of that matters, though, because the feel good Slumdog Millionaire is going to come out on top, and its director, Danny Boyle, will claim Best Director honors.

Profs show off favorite flicks in new series

With “Better Know Your Professors,” SGA Films and Theresa Geller, English, have combined to present an opportunity to see a less academically intense side of revered professors outside the classroom. The three-week series, featuring Erik Simpson, English, Victoria Brown, History, and Geller, is Geller’s latest idea to inspire more intelligent discussion of film among both faculty and students. The bigger problem, though, might be getting Grinnell students to take advantage of that opportunity and show up.

“As a rule, Wednesday night attendance is pretty low,” SGA Films Director Jeff Sinick ’09 said, referencing past events. Attendance followed lackluster form for Wednesday night’s opener, where Simpson discussed Trading Places, the 1983 role- reversal comedy starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd. What was initially designed as an interview between Simpson and Courtney Sheehan ’10 became more of a small group discussion with free-flowing conversation.

Simpson focused in part on how Trading Places succeeds because of its traditional structure. “It’s a fantastic movie about what it takes to be successful in a comedy,” he said. “One, know how to be funny, and two, have the right sexual desires.” The main characters get it right while the bad guys “laugh at the wrong things and show no sexual desires.”

The racial angle in the swap between Murphy and Aykroyd adds another layer to the film—well, for most characters. “If you want to look at how characters negotiate race, watch everyone but Eddie Murphy,” Simpson said, citing Murphy’s ability to get away with anything, the use of the Billie Holliday song “Strange Fruit” and the racial overtones of shipping a group of gorillas back to Africa.

But the conversation’s focus went beyond Trading Places talk (one need not have seen the movie to enjoy the discussion). By the end, the group had covered The Wire, Deadwood, realism in film, commentary tracks (notably in This Is Spinal Tap), annotated novels, and graphic novels.

The film series will continue for two more weeks, with Brown presenting the 1987 flick Adventures In Babysitting next Wednesday and Geller showing the Chinese film Ashes of Time Redux the week after. The discussion begins at 6:30 p.m. in Forum South Lounge, with the movie playing at 7 p.m. and a second showing without the professor at 9 p.m.

While Geller’s selection is a bit more obscure, professors were given no guidelines when picking their favorites.

“[The film] doesn’t represent you as an academic, it represents you as a person,” Geller said.

Brown hopes to have some fun discussing Adventures in Babysitting, one of the many classic coming-of-age teen romps to emerge from the 80’s. “I was being a little silly and a little perverse, but then I had a couple of faculty come up to me and say it was a really important movie to them, too,” she said.

“It takes the role of the babysitter and makes her competent and clever,” Brown said. “It’s a pseudo-mother who’s very brave and very creative in getting children out of the mess they’re in.” But can she free Grinnellians from the burdens of Wednesday night work and festivities?

Fucked Up: Gardner Meets Its Match

If past live performances are any indication, tonight’s concert by hardcore punk band Fucked Up might cause things to get, well, fucked up. In an appearance on MTV Live (Canada), playing in the men’s bathroom, the band tore through ceiling tiles with microphone stands and eventually triggered a stampede of moshing fans. At last spring’s South by Southwest festival in Austin the band incited a near-riot when they played on top of a bridge.

Thankfully, the band’s music matches their antics. Since they began releasing full albums in 2006, they have slowly gained a following among the indie community. Last year’s Chemistry of Common Life showed up on many year-end lists—for good reason. Fucked Up manages to remain true to their hardcore roots while expanding beyond the simple three-cord structure. The opening track “Sons of Life” starts with a flute, but gets pushed out by raging guitar riffs and lead singer Damian “Pink Eyes” Abraham’s gruff voice. Even when their sound sticks closer to their roots, they change the formula again by layering guitars on top of one another.

But live performances truly define the band. Abraham alone puts on an amazing show—the 300 hundred pound frontman can start a mosh pit like no other, and his nickname, “Pink Eyes,” was earned because of the blood running down his face due to self-inflicted injuries during shows.

The energy of the rest of the band—while not quite as strong Abraham’s—turns shows into a frenetic night of destruction. So even if you don’t worship at the altar of Henry Rollins or frequent the hardcore scene, stop by Gardener tonight to check out one of the best and most anarchic shows of the year.

Roxanne: Big Noses, Big Laughs

Perhaps the most memorable scene of Roxanne occurs when Fire Department Chief C.D. Bales (Steve Martin) finds himself being ridiculed at a bar by some Joe Schmo with nothing better to do than take shots at our lovable protagonist. He calls Bales “Big Nose,” something you’ll notice Bales possesses fairly quickly. But instead of going to the stereotypical, excessive bar fight, the scene becomes a celebration of cleverness. Bales asks the man to throw a dart at the dart board, and whatever number he hits will be the number of insults Bales will rattle off that the guy could have used. The man scores 20, and Bales rifles off a slew of insults—“it must be wonderful to wake up and smell the coffee in Brazil!”—which set the tone of the film and show Bales as something of an endearing town outcast.

Aside from reminding us of Steve Martin’s remarkable talent (he had stopped doing stand-up by this point), the bar scene also exposes a critical theme of Roxanne: the triumph of wit over muscle and smarts over looks. This is the basis for the plot, a romantic comedy chronicling the stalled love life of Roxanne (). She wants an intelligent, sensitive man (i.e. Bales) but can’t help being attracted by handsome, dumb types like Chris (Rick Rossovich), a new firefighter working under Bales.

Roxanne makes it no secret to certain connected members in the small town of Sun Valley that she wants to date Chris. Except Chris has the problem of not being able to talk to women at all. Literally, he has to run away and vomit if something slightly positive happens. Chris’s “lack of game” leads to the Chief writing letters as if he were Chris, since he only wants Roxanne to be happy, even if it’s not with him. Consequently, Roxanne falls in love with a hybrid of the two: Chris’s body and the Chief’s mind. With great one-liners and a strong, if somewhat rare lead performance by Martin, comedy ensues.

The movie also works for nostalgia, as actors like Fred Willard, Kevin Nealon and Damon Wayans all excel in their bit parts. But Martin remains the star, carrying a great romantic comedy with deeper issues than might catch the eye… or even the nose. The Philadelphia Story: A Classic Hollywood Romance

Once upon a time in Hollywood, romantic comedies were crafted with such wit and charm that they won Academy Awards. In The Philadelphia Story, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart and Katherine Hepburn elevate a solid screenplay about second chances and the discovery of love to wonderfully charming heights.

It’s no coincidence that during the span of their careers, the three leads racked up 19 Oscar nods and five wins between them—they are three of the greatest actors of all time.

The movie is anchored by Hepburn’s deliciously haughty turn as Tracey Lord, a rich socialite who will soon marry her second husband, the blandly forgettable George Kittredge (John Howard). Hepburn, who earned one of her 12 Academy Award nominations for this film, is a fiercely intelligent and strong actress. It’s a pleasure to see her bring that quality into her portrayal of the misunderstood Tracey. Tracey is described by many of the people in her life as “a queen”, “a statue”, or as “cool and fine”. Really, she’s just an individual who shields her softer, romantic side beneath a fiercely aggressive exterior. She’s been burned before—and who can’t relate to that? (Granted, most of us haven’t been burned by the likes of Cary Grant.) Grant, playing his usual cool and collected leading man, brings in subtle shades of wry wit and an even fainter hint of a wounded heart to humanize his character, millionaire and former alcoholic C.K. Dexter Howard. It’s obvious that he still loves Tracey when he shows up to her family’s house for her wedding.

Grant doesn’t show up to Hepburn’s wedding alone, though. He brings the self-effacing Stewart in tow, as the sardonic reporter Macaulay Connor. Stewart won the Oscar for Best Actor for his role, and it’s classic Stewart: puppy-dog adorable, warm, and clever.

The film asks us how two people can reconnect after a difficult break up, and it answers the question in a simple but honest way. There’s real pain and bitterness in this story, but the delightful part is there is also real wit and charm. The film falters towards the end, growing slightly cliché and lagging, but the actors fire at all cylinders and propel the film to a satisfying, though expected, conclusion.

Twilight: Vampires! Love! Robert Pattinson!

Kristen Steward and Robert Pattinson star in , the adaptation of Stephanie Meyer's bestselling book about romance, lust and some absurdly good-looking vampires. Remember all those Valentine’s days in high school? You hoped for weeks that some cutie would slip you a box of conversation hearts and a smile, but at twilight of the 14th each year, you found yourself sitting next to your mom, sharing a carton of Chinese food and watching a warm, fuzzy love story.

We’re in college now, folks, and with maturity, warm and fuzzy must give way to the dark and broody. Say what you will of its anti-feminist undertones and trite teenage melodrama, any movie that can inspire a room full of teenage girls and college ladies and gentlemen to laugh, sigh, and cry (or at least mist) is worth a view. A tweeny masterpiece of pop culture, Twilight is everything you could want in a Valentine’s Day viewing – pining, heroism, frustration and the triumph of love over common sense.

When withdrawn Bella Swan () moves in with her police captain father in the rainforests of Forks, Washington, she believes she is fated to live out her high school days lonely and misunderstood.

But when a life-threatening car crash throws Bella into the superhuman arms of pale beauty (Robert Pattinson), life in Forks becomes more than dodging proms. Edward and Bella become more involved, drawn together by some inexplicable force (which we could chalk up to puberty under normal circumstances), and Bella uncovers the secret known to each man, woman and child not in complete social isolation for the past two years: she has fallen in love with a vampire.

For Twilight bookworms, the romantic relationship in the film is a bit shallow, but for the everyday lover of vampire romance, it fits the genre. Whichever group you belong to, you can forgive a somewhat humdrum portrayal of author Stephanie Meyer’s intriguing plotline. After all, the movie’s simplicity leaves much more brain space for daydreaming of white picket fences and sparkling bat babies.

As the hunky lead, Pattinson is more than mouthwatering. An obvious study in the fine art of toiling emotion, Pattinson leaves every viewer wanting more in his portrayal of the beleaguered bloodsucker. Meanwhile, his female opposite, Stewart, wants for, well, emotion of any kind. Apart from the two leads, Edward’s vampiric family is a delight, demonstrating that casting based solely upon looks doesn’t always go awry.

As with the lovers’ relationship, the movie as a whole moves a bit quickly and condenses more story than necessary for the overall plot progression. While we could have done without the various vampire-related deaths (which were completely plot- unrelated), we can understand the sense of danger movie-makers were attempting to portray.

Twilight is a delightful treat for anyone looking to slip away from the greasy Chinese food to fill up on angst-ridden teen love. But be forewarned: it may leave you hungry for more.

The best art ever?

Every artist wants people who view their work to feel connected to it in some way. There’s no denying it, really. Whether this connection is negative or positive is irrelevant.

But what do people like to see in art—specifically in painting? What constitutes good painting to the average person? What does it mean when artists begin to cater to these needs, and how do artists figure out what people want from art? The answer? Polls.

Fifteen years ago, Russian artists Vitaly Komar and Alex Melamid embarked on “The People’s Choice Project” to discover what people want to see when they look at art through polls mirroring those in politics. Komar and Melamid then produced a series of paintings for 14 different nations.

The paintings are, frankly, timelessly boring. Think I’m being snobby? Check them out for yourself: http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html.

The website features paintings from countries all around the world. With a simple click of the mouse, you can look at the “most wanted” paintings … and the “least wanted” paintings from each country polled. The questions range from how much money people believe should be spent on art to what genres they like to see.

All of the most wanted paintings are realistically rendered landscapes, except for Holland, whose painting is smaller, featuring an abstract blending of colors with no discriminate shapes. Amongst the landscapes, most of the ideal paintings have a tree on the left side, a big skyline and some sort of wildlife and a human figure.

In a summary of the survey, Americans preferred “traditional styles over more modern designs; they also express a strong preference for paintings that depict landscapes or similar outdoor scenes”. More specifically, Americans opted for a lake scene, with billowing clouds in the background, deer at the edge of the water, children in the right foreground and (hilariously) George Washington in the mid-right section of the painting. Apparently historical figures were deemed a major component of “good” or “wanted” art.

So where is the value in this Komar and Melamid’s exercise? Why do they do what they do what we want them to do? Nothing is sacred in this postmodern world of ours and they as artists, perhaps ironically, would be the first to admit it.

In an interview with The Nation, Alex Melamid said, “Artists now—I cannot speak for all, but I have talked to many artists who feel this way—we have lost even our belief that we are the minority which knows. We believed 10 years ago, 20 years ago, that we knew the secret. Now we have lost this belief. We are a minority with no power and no belief, no faith. I feel myself, as an artist and as a citizen, just totally obsolete. I don’t know why I am here, what I am doing …”

If art has lost its meaning … and the art that is “most wanted” features deer, children and dead presidents … what are we to do? Is the only thing left to become a slave to the polls? Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Komar and Melamid’s work is the fact that the audience has become complicit in creating the art.

If the audience (or poll takers) controls the artist, then how can we define the new function of the artist? In creating these paintings, the artists stultify both what art culture has become and the culture that informs the aesthetic sensibilities of the audience. Mind-blowing and original, Komar and Melamid’s ideas deserve our consideration and respect.

Wright’s long road from the page to the stage Co-directors Jaysen Wright '09 and Caitlin Davies '09 oversaw auditions for the mainstage production entitled 'Ties that Bind'. Written as a result of Wright's MAP, the play focuses on issues of sexuality, shame and disease in the gay community between 1968 and the present. - Lawrence Sumulong At around 6 p.m. on a Tuesday night at the Wall in Bucksbaum Greg Hudson ‘09 reads his lines during the auditions for Jaysen Wright’s ’09 three-part play suiteTies that Bind (Hudson eventually got the part). His character is talking about gays in America, and the monologue, already prickling with tension, begins to pick up steam. “San Francisco is a refugee camp for homosexuals,” Hudson says. “We have formed a ghetto out of self-protection. It is a ghetto rather than a free territory because it is theirs.”

“I really liked that snarky, sort of cynical tone,” Wright says. Along with fellow director Caitlin Davies ’09, Wright has been watching hopeful actors and actresses at the Wall for two hours already, and he and Davies face another two hours there tomorrow. But this audition process represents only a tiny part of the massive endeavor Wright began nearly a year ago that culminates with the premiere, shown as part of an April 23-26 show featuring works from both dance and theatre.

But concrete, measurable steps in the evolution of Wright’s project somehow don’t add up to all the things it is, has been, and will be—a part of one of only four main-stage theatre productions that happen every year (a first for a student playwright), an attempt to make sense of a movement and a disease, a remarkable example of collaboration, and perhaps most impressively, a piece of intensely personal art.

Each play in Ties that Bind cycles, returns, looks back, and looks to the future in three plays, each between 10 and 15 minutes. They focus on such diverse subjects as the politics of homosexuality in society (“Voices in Time”), the effects of HIV on friends and family (“Summer Quartet”), and why gay men would stay together if one of them is HIV positive (Looking Back). It alternates between atmospheric and realistic, joyous and tragic, chaotic and structured.

The concept behind the plays emerged last spring, when Elizabeth Bonjean, former professor of Theatre, led Wright in guided readings of important plays around the issues of homosexuality. Through the project, Wright began to get a sense of his personal style of writing from plays like Tony Kushner’s Angels in America, Larry Kramer’s A Normal Heart, and Matt Crowley’s Boys in the Band, translating his appreciation for these works into something tangible. “I wanted to write in a way to essentialize the stories I was reading,” said Wright.

His first efforts toward production began last semester with the help of Lesley Delmenico, Theatre, who helped him to get over his initial fear of writing anything, and then over the fear of what he had already written. “I worked with Lesley because she’s such a nurturing presence,” said Wright. “The challenge for me was just to keep writing…. I knew as I wrote the first play, which would become ‘Summer Quartet,’ that it was horrible.”

“Horrible’s a tough word, but I would say in comparison to what we have now, it’s an appropriate one,” said Davies.

Davies and Wright have a unique working relationship, with Davies’ “strong sense of stage composition” anchoring Wright’s admission that he is “definitely not a big picture person”. The fact that Wright will be acting in two of the plays, “Voices in Time” and “Looking Back,” also made Davies’ presence required.

However, the emotional closeness that Wright feels to the play and the compressed timeframe of the entire project necessitated his co-directing role, rather than just leaving the entire production to Davies. “It’s Jaysen’s baby, and just asking me to direct it would have been unfair to him,” said Davies. “I’d only seen the script two weeks ago.”

This process carries over into the script even now, as Wright constantly tweaks the play to match the sounds he wants to hear onstage. “If the language doesn’t sound right in my mouth, out their mouths, we change it,” said Wright. He wants actors to “tell [him] where you think your monologues peak, and we’ll reintegrate what you think.”

Cast members have already found in the limited time they’ve spent with Wright and Davies that their viewpoints on the play’s direction have been respected. “Jaysen’s letting us take the characters where we want them to go,” said Kelly Ryan ’09, who plays a conservative religious scholar in “Voices in Time.” “It’s a really fun character for me to play, because I’m from a place where people are actually like that … and Jaysen wants that character to be as sympathetic as possible, he doesn’t want her to be totally vitriolic.”

But the cast has limited time for changes. Since half of the cast (including Wright) are currently preparing for the third main-stage production, Galileo, they only plan to meet once a week to work on the play until Galileo finishes in March. Afterwards the production will proceed at high speed until the end.

In April, the play will be performed in Flanagan Theatre directly before or after the spring dance show in Roberts Theatre. Davies and Wright plan to use all of the resources available to a main-stage show (sound, lighting, etc.) for the play, though they anticipate needing limited sets.

What they have seemed to want so far is a unique project not just for Grinnell, but for any theatre, anywhere. “I like how free of judgment the entire process has been so far,” says Rev Darragh ’12. “We’ve been talking about respect and transcending stigma, transcending viewpoints, and I’m working with only older actors, and there’s always, or there seems to be in many cases, discrimination against younger actors, and I haven’t felt that at all yet.”

The auditions, which yielded only first-year and seniors performers, allow the patterns of the play and the process to emerge: to grow, but to remain grounded in the emotional power of theatre. It sums up four years for the seniors, and shows the younger generation how to push boundaries. It’s difficult, worrying about authenticity and cliché and love and sex. Its contradictions come out in the last line of the play, which Wright, characteristically, both loves and hates, but nonetheless delivered with his usual panache during a recent read-through.

“What are the ties that bind?” Animation adds mesmerizing visuals to Faulconer show

Picture yourself standing in a miniature barn, its walls and ceiling composed not of wood, but of chaotic and colorful paintings. Now imagine watching these paintings spring to life as they unfurl before you from individual brush strokes, existing only a few seconds before they are scribbled over and replaced just as quickly. This may sound like the stuff of dreams or hallucinogen-fueled delirium, but it is in fact quite real; this piece, titled Motion Barn, is only one of the many works featured in Faulconer Gallery’s new Animated Painting exhibition, which officially opens today.

Originally organized by the San Diego Museum of Art, the exhibit features the works of 13 artists from across the globe, all of which utilize the cutting edge medium of digital animation. Countless projectors and DVD players construct a world of surreal beauty from motion and sound, luring the spectator from one space to the next.

“There are some very interesting threads that connect the pieces even though the approaches are very different,” said Tilly Woodward, Curator of Academic and Public Outreach. Though the works embody many different artistic traditions and approaches, from digitized hand-drawn works to affected live video, the cohesiveness of the exhibition as a whole is striking.

“People are reflecting on their own traditional cultures, and they are using traditional approaches to drawing and painting, but they are also using very new technologies in terms of animation to transform and communicate those ideas,” said Woodward. “I hope it will make people think about drawing and painting processes and how as we have new technology, we see them in new ways.” “Everybody understands visuals, and I think there is something in here that everyone can relate to, regardless of their artistic background” said Dan Strong, Associate Director of the Gallery. The universality of the visual medium is inextricably linked to today’s culture, and the installation certainly invites contemplation of the role of mass culture in the artistic process.

A vast range of programs accompanies the exhibit. Tonight’s opening reception features artist Serge Onnen, followed by a concert by “emo-tronic” band Tender Meat. Throughout the exhibit’s run, talks given by artist Kota Ezawa, Shanghai- based curator Victoria Lu, Grinnell art professor Tiffany Johnson Bidler, and Betti-Sue Hertz, curator of the original exhibition in San Diego. The Cultural Film Committee will support the exhibition through the Animation Film Festival in April. Each of the six films selected by Professor Terri Geller will be followed by discussions led by members of her Film Analysis class.

Opportunities will also be afforded for local artists to contribute; the college will sponsor open screenings as well and an open mike night, along with a table to which animators may add DVDs containing their own works. “I like the idea of the gallery as a place for the exchange of ideas; there is a whole range of people who are doing remarkable work as well” said Woodward.

Both Woodward and Strong hope that the installation’s unique qualities will inspire visitors to expand their areas of interest in the arts.

“We’re a teaching gallery, and when we can expose our students to something new, we are accomplishing our goal” said Strong. “Emo-tronic?” Tender Meat tries to pull off their own genre

This Friday, Faulconer Gallery will be home to two different digital medium; digital art, and video game rock. The band Tender Meat, self-described as “emotronic” will be opening for the art show.

Concerts Committee member and former intern of Faulconer gallery, Chris Farstad, speared the initiative to have Tender Meat come open for the digital art show. “I saw them play at the Soap Factory in Minneapolis,” said Farstad. ”They’re good guys and have a really cool band.”

Farstad would describe their sound as the soundtrack to a “futuristic racing videogame”. At previous shows, Tender Meat has relied on audience participation to play up this concept. “They had videogame controllers with out arcade games, you can plug it into a projector,” said Farstad. “So they would give the controller to somebody in the audience and project the videogame while they are playing, so it’s like they’re playing the soundtrack to the game.”

However, Tender Meat is playing a simpler show at Grinnell, due to technical difficulties, and the fact that they are opening for the Digital Art show at Faulconer. “It’s not so much about the band, we wanted to make the opening as interesting as possible,” said Farstad. “I think [the opening] should be more a celebration than an event, and I don’t think the band will the show.”

Farstad hopes that as a result of Tender Meat opening for the Digital Art show, that more openings in the future will be interesting and different. “I think it could be a flagship, a turning point,” said Farstad. “It’ll appeal to a wide audience. It’s not indie rock or hip-hop, it’s a new kind of music that’s really accessible, something really central.” The show will begin at Faulconer Gallery on Friday, Feb 6 at (insert time here).