Advance Screening Review: "A Nightmare On Elm Street"

[Screening Date: April 28 / Release Date: April 30]

Say what you will about scary movies, but the good ones always find a way to get under your skin and stay there. What I’ve enjoyed about the “Nightmare On Elm Street” franchise above most others is the primal level on which its terror takes place. The things that haunt our dreams are supposed to be fake and harmless -- especially once we’ve woken up -- but the “Nightmare” movies (the better installments, anyway) challenge that perception of safety.

In all honesty, this is one of those horror films that didn’t *need* to be remade… or rebooted or re-imagined or whatever they’re calling it these days. The original 1984 film completely holds up on its own merits without becoming dated by any of the endless sequels that have followed (though 1994’s “New Nightmare,” which took place in the real world and featured Freddy going after the cast and crew, was quite clever on a meta level). However, since it seems to be inevitable in creativity-starved Hollywood, at least this entry avoids all the mistakes made by last year’s atrocious attempt at reviving “Friday The 13th.”

This time around, the tone is well-set right off the bat. An evocative opening credits sequence superimposes a standard font over scrawled versions of the same words while fuzzy images related to the plot and themes fade in and out of focus. As if that weren’t enough, an effectively creepy instrumental score interpolates the original film’s theme music without directly ripping it off. From there, I’m pretty sure you have a good idea of what happens next!

Samuel Bayer, an accomplished director of commercials and music videos known for such iconic clips as Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and Blind Melon’s “No Rain,” makes his feature film debut. Interestingly enough, his background serves the look and style of the movie rather well. As the characters desperately try to stay awake, his placement of quick cuts (sometimes literally, haha) between dreams and reality make you experience the effects of sleep deprivation right along with them.

On a refreshing note, while special effects have come a long way since 1984, very little has changed in the way this story is told visually. None of the thankfully sparse computer-generated elements feel overdone, and the simple film trick that overlaps the dreams and the waking world is a nice touch that still facilitates the surreal nature of these scenes. Even the recent advents of technology, namely cell phones and laptops, offer minimal plot intrusion.

Now, on to why I’m sure you’re really reading: the fright factor! Though it’s hard to miss the basic A-to-B outline of the plot, there were some genuinely good scares achieved by lulling the audience into a false sense of security after a few close calls. In fact, the movie emerges nicely from early shadows and sound effects to its first full views of Freddy, which makes his presence that much more sinister. Speaking of sinister, the death scenes were shot relatively tactfully, with only as much blood as needed to get across the point… and certainly far less gory than many recent horror films.

Underneath all the bad dreams, the young actors having them are likable enough by day and convincingly terrified enough by night to miss once they’re gone (or close enough to it for a lucky few). Needless to say, the real star of course is Freddy, played in this version by Jackie Earle Haley. With all due respect to the Robert Englund incarnation in all his campy, bad-punning glory, this interpretation of the character is appropriately more menacing and all the better for it. The work put into Haley’s makeup and voice to be more authentic and indicative of a burn victim adds to the unnerving atmosphere, particularly in close-ups. Englund’s Freddy makes me roll my eyes and laugh; Haley’s Freddy makes me afraid that he WILL come after me in my dreams!

My only major complaint with the film is that no serious liberties are taken; it’s almost *too* faithful of a remake. The governing idea behind remakes (other than ideal financial gain for those involved) is artistic: to bring something new to the material or flesh out what was already there while retaining the spirit of its source. This particular “Nightmare On Elm Street” manages to do both and neither at the same time. Some scenes exactly replicate what happened in the original film; some scenes are noticeably absent. Other scenes contribute unique, fleeting visual or performance flourishes; other scenes read further between the lines than one may deem absolutely necessary, especially with regard to Freddy’s past. The one lesson that most horror movies will never learn is that sometimes, NOT knowing is scarier than anything a script could tell us.

In the end, we’re left with the possibility of yet another sequel, as someone at the scene of the final battle mentions in passing that “there’s no sign of [Freddy’s] body.” The collective gasp and giggle that swept through the audience proves that there’s room for more, even after Freddy pops up one last time. Overall, fans of the original film and subsequent franchise won’t find any real shocks or surprises, but newer audiences meeting Freddy and friends for the first time just might. Which begs the question: are you better off just watching the original? Since both movies offer the same innovative (at one time) concept, it all depends on your mood as a viewer. How do you like your Freddy? I’ll take the one that actually makes “Nightmare” a scary movie. {B-}

Guster "Springs Back" To Vail

I don’t know if this is true for everyone, but for me, seeing a favorite band in concert for the first time can be nerve-wracking. What if they don’t play a song you really like? Or worse, what if they don’t sound as good live as they do on their albums? Thankfully, this wasn’t true of my experience with Guster, a band from the Boston area with a mellow musical style so eclectic yet so uniquely them that I can’t do them justice even trying to describe it!

I’ve loved this band since I first heard them during my high school days, but for various reasons, I’ve missed their appearances in Colorado over the years. Finally, when I found out they would be playing a free show in Vail for the resort’s closing-day “Spring Back” celebration, I knew I had to go. After all, they were touring in support of the 10th anniversary of “Lost And Gone Forever,” the first Guster album that I heard and owned -- and the one that won me over as a fan.

It was beautiful weather up in the mountains for an outdoor concert. The stage was set up right in the middle of Vail Village, so once I got past the dizziness and slight headache from the altitude, I was ready to rock!

The band played for a little over an hour, and the set list included selections from each of the five albums in Guster’s discography. They even made brief mentions of working on a new album, which got some of the biggest applause of the whole show because it’s been four long years since their last one! Between songs, they engaged in some good-natured ribbing of the crowd, most of whom were either dressed down for the nice early-spring skiing weather or dressed up in various costumes that I can only assume were donned specifically for the end-of-season festivities. Either way, both the band and the audience were in great spirits, and it showed in the music. There’s nothing quite like the sight and sound of several hundred strangers all joined together by their shared enjoyment of the same songs.

Speaking of songs, I did expect a few more to be played from “Lost And Gone Forever” given the occasion of the tour. But of the four we were treated to -- “Barrel Of A Gun,” “Center Of Attention,” “Fa Fa (Never Be The Same Again),” and “Happier” -- they were all fitting, upbeat choices for the nature of the venue. A local violin player was brought on stage to help perform the string section of the song “Satellite” from the album “Ganging Up On The Sun.” Other favorites like “Amsterdam” and “Careful,” both from the album “Keep It Together,” had me singing along like a fool. But what did I care? At least I wasn’t in costume, haha!

Guster ended their show with an unexpected rendition of Phil Collins’ “In The Air Tonight,” which was played instrumentally at first until the crowd, along with myself, caught on and half-laughed, half-cheered. Then the band brought forward their percussionist, the only member who played without a microphone -- something I didn't notice until that moment. Like the rest of the band, he’s a very talented musician; unlike the rest of the band, he’s not really a good singer, but that didn’t stop him! I don’t know if this is some kind of concert tradition among the band members, but it was a fun, human moment that defined the essence of live music. Once he returned to his percussive comfort zone and the rest of the band joined in, they quickly turned the silly into the sublime by rocking that song so hard I almost forgot that I don’t really care for Phil Collins!

In my humble opinion, Guster passed the live show test with flying colors. The quality of their singing and musicianship proves their mettle beyond relying on studio magic, and they clearly know how to work a crowd. As an added bonus, they even proved they can still be just as awesome with other people’s music. If (hopefully when) they come back through Colorado on tour for the new album, I’ll definitely be there! =)

Advance Screening Review: "Letters To Juliet"

[Screening Date: April 15 / Release Date: May 14]

Ah, movie trailers. Remember the good old days when they showed you just enough to whet your appetite and drum up word-of-mouth excitement around the film in question? Then, when you finally sat down to watch the movie itself, you had an idea of what to expect but still managed to be surprised by the finished product?

Well… those days are gone, and “Letters To Juliet” is little more than the latest film to fall victim to what I like to call “trailer-itis”: the compulsive, nonsensical need of studios to so thoroughly spell out their movies that the viewing public can’t even question what they’re about, but somehow still make them appear interesting enough to shell out 10 bucks to see.

In this unfortunate textbook example, everything you need to know about the film that should have been highlights and surprises is literally telegraphed from start to finish, *including* most of the ending! I wish I hadn’t seen the trailer prior to watching the movie, because I might have been more forgiving of its predictability had there been slightly more substance than what the preview teased (ahem, ruined) for us.

“Juliet” follows fact-checker-waiting-to-be-writer Sophie (Amanda Seyfried, charming as always) on a pre-honeymoon to Italy with her distracted fiancé (Gael Garcia Bernal, woefully miscast). He’s opening a restaurant back home, so while researching the various culinary inspirations around him, she’s left to take in the sights by herself.

Sophie discovers a site in Verona, the setting of Shakespeare’s “Romeo & Juliet,” where people leave letters asking Juliet for love advice at the wall where Romeo climbed to her balcony. To maintain this tradition, a group of women respond to the letters, and after meeting them, Sophie decides this is her chance to shine. Upon finding an old, unanswered letter hidden in the bricks, Sophie is touched by the plea and writes back.

At this point, what started out as a great (if cutesy) premise becomes increasingly weaker as the story plays out. Veteran actress Vanessa Redgrave shows up as Claire, the author of the old letter who’s inspired by Sophie’s letter to search for her lost love, with her snarky grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan) in tow. Claire and Sophie share the same optimism about love; Charlie is the token cynic (who, of course, prefers “realist”).

As you might expect, Sophie and Charlie take an immediate dislike to each other, so naturally the film explores the role of romance in our lives through contrasting these two characters’ outlooks. In the first of several missteps, they never make us feel like there’s as much at stake in their blossoming relationship as there is in Claire’s attempts to restore hers. To me, these are characters who “fall in love” not because they’ve made a tangible connection and grown closer by overcoming shared obstacles, but because they conveniently “have to” for the movie to “work.” Thankfully, Seyfried and Egan have enough chemistry for us to endure most of their back-and-forth banter, because heaven knows it’s been done before -- and better.

By the end of the movie, “before and better” had become the mantra I was embracing from a critical perspective. From an emotional perspective, however, there was still a little room left for investment in the film. During Claire’s unabashedly romantic quest, “Letters To Juliet” does succeed in making some bold statements about life and love, but never quite finds the right tone in which to do so. In the confines of its PG-rated box, the film tries too hard to show off a jaded mind when it actually works best using its pure, syrupy heart.

That said, the movie isn’t a complete waste. It’s an absolute joy to see Redgrave, still at the top of her game, so effortlessly manage to inject dignity, grace, and believability into the otherwise bland and by-the-numbers proceedings. It’s largely thanks to her that the film ends up with some witty dialogue and genuinely sweet moments that keep it from drifting too unrepentantly far toward cliché -- or worse, boredom. Also steering us clear of boredom is the stunning cinematography. The film was so beautifully shot on location that the Italian board of tourism should be thanking the filmmakers for the jump in travel they’re bound to see.

Unfortunately, there’s just as much to loathe here as there is to love, which leaves the movie squarely in the middle of the road. Had they put the same amount of work into making “Letters To Juliet” feel as good as it looks, it wouldn’t succumb to the same contrivances it so desperately tries to avoid. {C+}

Seriously? Books Still Get Challenged?

When information about anything and everything is available online and right at one’s fingertips, who honestly has the time to complain about the content of books -- some of which have been on shelves for years if not decades? Apparently, a lot more people than you might think!

As part of National Library Week, the American Library Association released its annual report of the Top 10 Most Challenged Books in school and public libraries for 2009. The ALA defines a challenge as a formal, written complaint from parents and/or educators that is filed with a library to request the removal of a book. Last year, they recorded 460 challenges, and a total of 81 books were removed as the result of those challenges. This works out to only 17.6% of the books being removed, but they further estimate that for every reported challenge, at least four to five complaints are made but not formalized. It’s a lot of numbers and math for a post about books, but my point is simple: I know censorship when I see it!

While I haven’t read all of the books called into question by the list, I feel compelled to file a challenge of my own… against the fact that this kind of report even exists! Several of the list’s entries demonstrate remarkable narrow-mindedness regarding the themes that literature is supposed to address to be effective as an art form. Without those themes, how can we expect the author to accurately address the human condition and tell stories that transcend the struggles that we as people face?

Stephen Chbosky’s “The Perks Of Being A Wallflower,” which came in at number 3 on the list, was frequently cited for its depiction of “sexual content, language, drugs, suicide, [and] religious viewpoint.” Frankly, this entry came as a surprise. While it’s one of my favorite books, it’s certainly not as widely known as some of the modern classics that comprise the list. Though the novel alternates between the hilarious and the heartbreaking, I won’t sugarcoat it: the subject matter is heavy for any reader, especially its target audience of teenagers. But it’s also one of the most honest, authentic portraits that I’ve ever read about the hardships of adolescence and the struggle to discover one’s true self in a world that no longer places a premium on identity. Certain elements of the plot might have the ability to shock less discerning readers, but more importantly, they also have the ability to warn and inspire readers to strive for better things in life.

When it comes to Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird,” which makes an appearance at number 4 for its use of “racism [and] language,” I have very little to say beyond, “Are you freaking kidding me?!” This is easily one of the most significant novels in history, and it only features racism and language to realistically describe and decry the prevailing prejudices of the day. The main characters are memorable for a reason -- they are good people learning how to take a stand for others and facing adversity for admirably clinging to what’s right. As such, the messages they convey are timeless. The fact that people still oppose this book proves to me that not only have they missed its point, but that they also have a few things yet to learn from it.

Guilty-pleasure reading has just as much right to exist as higher-brow selections, but the presence of Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” series at number 5 on the list made perfect sense and baffled me at the same time. Having admittedly read these books and enjoyed them on a superficial level, I say perfect sense to indicate my agreement that in terms of good writing or even great literature, they don’t really hold up as fine examples of the craft. They’re infinitely more suited for personal leisure reading. If these books are indeed going to be challenged in libraries, they should adopt this more scholarly approach to justify opposing their popularity. Instead, the “Twilight” series has been criticized for being “sexually explicit” as well as advocating a “religious viewpoint.”

Here’s where the baffling kicks in. While the books do in fact find its teenage characters grappling with their perfectly natural emerging desires, nothing remotely quote-unquote sexual happens until “Breaking Dawn,” the fourth and final book. What does end up happening is hardly explicit; it’s merely implied and even takes place in the context of marriage. The way Meyer writes it, Edward Cullen might as well be the new poster child for abstinence! And despite the fact that “religious viewpoint” is a terribly vague category, what about the viewpoint is so offensive? That there is no specific mention of any religion, or that the series’ supernatural elements defy certain religious teachings? Either way, if such a report has to exist, I would prefer it to be more detailed and not just lump various works into the same categories of contention when they’re clearly trying to accomplish different things.

Overall, I can understand people wanting to know what children and other impressionable individuals might be reading at home, but there’s no excuse for it in libraries and classrooms. Compiling lists that degrade the inherent value of books and trying to control their access in public settings is counterproductive to the invaluable educational services provided by those locations. Even worse, it threatens the place of literature as one of the remaining bastions of truly free expression in society.

Farewell, "Betty": The Beauty Of Being "Ugly"

It’s sad but true: “Ugly Betty” has ended. While I admit that I was late in joining the series’ loyal legions of fans, I’m equally comfortable admitting that I’m disappointed to see it go so soon.

On a creative level, I’m pleased to report that ABC did somewhat make up for their unfortunately misguided cancellation decision by giving the show enough time to write its final stretch of episodes with a proper conclusion in mind (unlike many axed shows that are forced to end mid-stream or worse: in a cliffhanger). Each of the characters and their interwoven storylines were sent off in an earned and believable way without succumbing to morbid sentimentality. In short, everybody got their version of a “happy ending,” but it felt genuine and realistic.

Even though it only aired for four years, I believe the show consistently accomplished what it set out to do, which brings me to the real reason why I’m writing this post. On the more significant thematic level, “Ugly Betty” has always been about empowerment and self-actualization. From its beginning to its end, the show retained its core messages about the nature of identity and the many forms it takes.

When it comes to personal identity, the importance of staying true to one’s self was always a major point in the series. By placing its heroine -- an average, every-girl -- in the demanding and often superficial world of a fashion magazine, the setting perfectly mirrored the persistent conflict of truth versus illusion in modern society. Betty herself exemplified that even under these most pressuring of circumstances, qualities like self-confidence, optimism, resourcefulness, and not compromising one’s values always triumphed over the schemes going on around her.

Those values were largely owed to her strong family support system, and her unapologetic embrace of her cultural identity as a Mexican-American was refreshing. How nice it was to see a show that didn’t resort to cheap shots at her heritage for laughs! The quality of the dialogue always found a way to turn around any derogatory comments and cleverly address the hypocrisy and ignorance.

Perhaps most impressive was the show’s mainstream approach to “alternative” sexual identities and inclusive treatment of its LGBT characters. Misperceptions about gay culture were always corrected by out-and-proud assistant Marc, and the gradual coming-out process of Betty’s teenage nephew Justin was handled with sensitivity and acceptance. In fact, “Ugly Betty” is possibly the only network series in recent (or any) memory to have featured a transsexual as a regularly-appearing character. Fearlessly portrayed by Rebecca Romijn (which gave me a new respect for her as an actress and not just a pretty face), Alexis was given as much screen time as other main characters to embark on her own journey toward understanding, all the while providing insights that undoubtedly made viewers think about a life experience that’s rarely explored on television today.

Making its audience think is the highest compliment I can give a TV show, and “Ugly Betty” delivered on a weekly basis. I especially appreciated how the ending of the series found each of the characters starting new chapters in their lives and taking comfort in the positive roles that change can play. There is talk, of course, of making a “Betty” movie, and show stars America Ferrera (Betty) and Ana Ortiz (Betty’s sister Hilda) have said they’d be on board. Whether this final episode or the hypothetical film act as “the” end, I’m fine with either outcome. Until there’s something more to report on that front, I’ll be on the lookout for another great series that seamlessly blends dramedy and satire with such valuable messages.

What I'm Watching: "Glee"

I’m not ashamed to admit that I welcomed “Glee” into the pop culture zeitgeist along with what seems like everyone else in America. What I admire about the show is how it plays with its own formula by toeing the line between clever musical comedy and campy teen melodrama. After four months off the air, I was more than ready for its return. What I got from this week’s episode was a mixed bag that’s still better than most shows but not up to typical “Glee” standards.

Only weeks, if not days, have passed in the story’s timeline from when we last saw the gang celebrating their win at sectionals. The episode’s central theme of rediscovering selves and meeting new people was marked by songs with “Hello” in their titles. I’m not sure if this was planned as the concept for their first episode back or if it just worked out that way, but it came off as a little too heavy-handed and on-the-nose.

I’m fully aware that characters and relationships need to be in flux in order to tell stories, but aspects of this particular episode felt forced and I dare say disappointing. Despite all the build-up in the first half of the season to get them to this point, I found the yo-yoing feelings of Rachel and Finn as well as Will and Emma to be strangely flat and one-note (pun intended on both counts). Rather than taking a little more time to believably explore those feelings, the writers seem to have brought them together and torn them apart in the space of a single episode simply for the sake of stirring the pot. In doing so, they also neglected some of the other glee club members who surely have more lasting and interesting stories to tell.

Thankfully, the consistently witty writing makes up for the occasional soapy histrionics elsewhere. Sue Sylvester is still a blast and a perfect foil for the “gleeks,” while her cheerleader minions manage withering condescension and superficial one-liners with equal aplomb. Brittany’s “Did you know dolphins are just gay sharks?” is quite possibly my new favorite example of priceless non-sequitur. In addition, the introduction of two supporting characters, the male lead and the director from rival glee club Vocal Adrenaline, shows promise as far as their role in the story and their intentions for the characters. While they appear on the surface to be just another device in the pot-stirring mechanism, at least their presence and chemistry felt more authentic than the lifeless, Stockholm Syndrome-esque contrivances wallowed through by the aforementioned couples. Even Will’s spurned wife Terri, who suffered early in the series from being too broad and vapid, brought a more grounded and sinister edge to her short, delightfully catty confrontation with Emma. Attention *is* being paid by the powers-that-be, but not always in the most-needed areas.

This being “Glee” and all, something has to be said about the music, which honestly wasn’t as impressive this time around. The song choices were mostly too obvious; I felt like I knew what the characters were going to sing before they did. I can think of several below-the-radar songs featuring “Hello” that would have packed a more legitimate musical and emotional punch. Worst of all, the staging and enthusiasm of the performances were wavering, which makes people less inclined to invest in the premise of the show if they’re not as engaged as those who are creatively responsible.

Zeitgeist or not, “Glee” should avoid the trap of getting too comfortable too soon. The viewing public can be fickle, and fame doesn’t always guarantee longevity. The show can only coast lazily on its popularity for so long before they jeopardize the quality that got them there in the first place. Here’s hoping that next week’s Madonna-themed episode restores the series to its full, former glory and its rightful place near the top of my weekly viewing list.

What I'm Watching: "The Tudors"

Showtime’s “The Tudors” began its fourth and final season this week. The series, which chronicles the reign of Henry VIII and the comings and goings of his six wives, has become one of the few (if only) successful attempts at historical fiction in the recent televised era.

I emphasize “fiction” because, while the show does depict the political and sexual games played by royalty and their agents, much of the factual plot has been obviously condensed and consolidated for dramatic effect. That effect, however, is nothing but positive. The series is quite entertaining; its costumes, set design, and scenery make for sumptuous production values. And the acting, led by Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Henry, is always fascinating to watch, especially as Meyers has begun to show chilling glimpses of the instability that will lead to Henry’s downfall.

The first two seasons of “The Tudors” were stellar, largely characterized by the role of Anne Boleyn in Henry’s life and how she was used and ultimately betrayed by those she trusted as a pawn in their ulterior motives. An uneven third season tried to do too much too quickly, but it did successfully build to the bloody clashes that heralded the Protestant reformation in England. So what will this fourth and final season bring? It may be too soon to tell.

Early scenes of the premiere episode acknowledge that a heat wave and accompanying drought are sweeping the land, with no sign of rain to bring relief. These conditions appear to symbolize… something, but the writers can’t seem to decide what it is. Thematically speaking, stifling heat and waiting for rain usually indicate that something is unexpectedly stalled or in limbo with the characters. Yet in the story, time is marching on and change is sweeping through the kingdom where rain isn’t.

Henry’s newest wife and queen, Catherine Howard, embodies the passionate and carefree spirit that he desires, and he is entranced. While the other queens had their issues but always remained pure and true to themselves, Catherine seems far too easily swayed by the material advantages of the royal lifestyle. There are brief flashes of redemption in the fact that she feels so uncomfortable with the new level of public scrutiny, but something still feels off. I can’t tell yet if it’s the actress or the character that is so grating to me, but it’s clear I’ll need a few more episodes to decide either way.

Meanwhile, a member of Henry’s court appears to have eyes for Catherine. Unable to take what he wants, he violently asserts his libido elsewhere before bribing and eventually killing the young maid’s husband. At the same time, a childhood friend appears to know secrets about Catherine’s past, and Catherine is forced to bring her to court as a lady-in-waiting in exchange for her silence. I’m crossing my fingers that if these are among the factors that contribute to Catherine falling out of favor with Henry, then I hope they’re at least played out in a more original way.

I’m a little more intrigued by what’s happening with Mary, Henry’s eldest daughter from his first wife. She has displayed such dignity about the deception and debauchery that goes on around her, yet she openly distrusts Catherine and even shows disdain toward her. In all fairness, Catherine isn’t much older than Mary and that has to be an awkward situation, but either way, I’m looking forward to seeing Mary speak up for herself more. This empowerment may become difficult, as a possible arranged marriage is looming for her to the duke of France. Henry is weighing the pros and cons of the marriage as political leverage against strained French relations, so I can’t wait to see how she takes and hopefully defies the news.

Also of note are the ongoing threads of past storylines, particularly with regard to the Seymour family. Jane Seymour was Henry’s third wife, who died after giving birth to Prince Edward. Her main lady-in-waiting is still at court, and she seems loyal to Jane even while serving Catherine. Also at large in the royal court are Jane’s brother and his wife, both of whom appear to have agendas of their own, but how long will they be able to outlast the changing times?

After Henry declares to his advisors and the public that Catherine is to be treated with respect as the new queen, he goes one step further and grants Catherine the land and personal property that was left behind by the deceased Jane. If this was done based on some legal precedent, that’s one thing; if Henry did this out of spite, I eagerly await how he handles the day when it comes back to bite him. In the final scene, with all eyes metaphorically on Henry and one pair of eyes literally on Catherine, it finally (and a little too conveniently) rains. If the writers were holding back the rain until people were required to take Catherine seriously, then as far as I’m concerned, I’m happy to remain in a drought until further notice.

Needless to say, the season is off to a slow but promising start. Enough stories have been established to sustain at least the first few episodes, but the real test will be in how those stories and their characters are handled. Plus, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel: we already know there’s only one more wife to go. Sometimes, when you know an outcome but not the journey, getting there can be half the fun. Let’s hope “The Tudors” makes that journey worth the trip!

It's National Library Week! Read Something :)

Annually sponsored by the American Library Association, National Library Week (April 11-17) celebrates public and school libraries, not to mention the librarians who make it all possible.

This year’s theme is “Communities Thrive @ Your Library,” and in case you haven’t set foot in a library recently, this statement couldn’t be more true. Libraries aren’t just for books anymore! Many branches now feature access to computer programs and internet browsing as well as free classes and events for children and adults. These offerings keep communities in touch with what’s going on in the world and continue to instill the importance of libraries in younger generations of readers.

Even if you don’t fancy yourself a reader, many branches will let you check out DVDs and CDs. Those are your tax dollars at work! And if you still need convincing, just ask author Neil Gaiman, this year’s honorary chair for the event. In my humble opinion, Gaiman is responsible for some of the most original literature in the last two decades, so it’s pretty likely that there’s no better barometer for the valuable resources provided by libraries around the country.

So what can you do to celebrate National Library Week? It’s up to you… but why not pay a visit to your nearest branch? Whether you decide to check out an item or just wander past the shelves, take a few moments to remember how much libraries and librarians have done for you over the years, especially during school. As for me, I’m trying to pick out what I want to read next. My list isn’t getting any shorter! =)

Local Band Spotlight: Bone Orchard Revival

Finally! A band that more than lives up to its incredibly evocative name!

I had the privilege of seeing Bone Orchard Revival play their first Denver show last Friday night at Larimer Lounge. Describing themselves as “music for the wearied soul,” BOR plays Americana-style roots music that feels distinctly modern and fresh despite the lived-in quality of their sound. Maybe it’s the searing vocals or the unpredictable instrumentation (they even brought out an accordion at one point), but either way, these are my kind of blues!

A “wearied soul” no more, I was uplifted and even restored by their short but powerful concert experience. From the raging fire that fueled the up-tempo numbers to the exquisite slow burn of the aching ballads, every song moved body with its music and mind with its lyrics. In fact, I’ve been listening to their album, “Hush Money Hymnals,” almost non-stop since the show, and I keep waiting for my stereo to implode from awesome-overload. Though there have been changes in the band’s line-up between the album’s release in 2008 and this particular show, they still achieve in both incarnations the same level of rustic passion that keeps me riveted listen after listen.

Bone Orchard Revival’s next scheduled concert is Wednesday, April 28 at The Meadowlark. If that show is anything like this one was, you won’t want to miss it!

Advance Screening Review: "Kick-Ass"

[Screening Date: April 7 / Release Date: April 16]

Don’t be fooled by the blue sky and wispy clouds through which the opening credits fly. As we learn pretty quickly, this is one superhero movie that’s not for kids -- even though it’s about them -- and the film is stronger because of it.

Sure to be one of the most successful, if not controversial, movies of the spring, “Kick-Ass” doesn’t pull any punches (or kicks, haha). It belongs to and subverts the superhero genre at the same time, with the potent blend of action and comedy serving the story and characters rather than plodding from one fight scene to the next. This is especially helpful for those in the audience (like myself) who aren’t familiar with the comic book series upon which the movie is based.

Set in a world that’s not very far removed from our own (they even make a joke about “Lost” ending), “Kick-Ass” tells the story of idealistic teen Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a comic book fan who doesn’t understand why superheroes don’t exist in real-life where they’re just as needed, if not more so. After witnessing crime being ignored around his neighborhood and falling victim to violence himself, he decides to take up the cause despite his obvious lack of superpowers.

Dave’s vigilante justice soon draws the ire of a local mob boss, whose son (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is one of Dave's classmates. Meanwhile, unbeknownst to Dave, other “superheroes” -- a father-daughter team (Nicolas Cage and Chloe Grace Moretz) -- are already at work in the city. Once their paths cross, it becomes clear that larger plots are unfolding and they may actually be the only ones who can save the day.

Naturally, no coming-of-age story would be complete without instances of juvenile humor and adolescent angst, but there are some surprising moments of deeper philosophical resonance that set this movie apart from others of its ilk. At one point early in the film, after Dave has intervened to save a young man from an unfairly-matched gang fight, one of the thugs asks Dave what his problem is. His response, like the rest of “Kick-Ass,” shows a remarkably confident level of awareness and maturity: “Three assholes laying into one guy while everyone else watches, and you’re asking what’s wrong with me?” Everyone else watching, of course, refers to the growing crowd around them cheering, taking pictures, and filming Dave’s victory, which isn’t why he’s fighting. This frustration is admirable, and given the paparazzi-like state of today’s culture, his retort is almost anthemic.

Another anthem worth taking up is the refreshing amount of youth empowerment that the film advocates. Modern childhood is tragically threatened by horrific situations like neglectful parents and abuse from trusted authority figures, but this movie defies such threats in its own way. Sometimes, it’s with a wink and a smile during genuinely funny and touching family moments. Other times, it’s with an explosion or a well-placed expletive during some truly stunning action sequences. Either way, it works!

The film does occasionally stray toward being a little *too* violent, but one can likely attribute that to its source material. Otherwise, the overall look and style of the film is colorful and well-edited, almost like a graphic novel come to life (which does actually happen during one critical scene of backstory). The soundtrack boasts an exemplary use and variety of music, both in song selection and the instrumental score.

Even the acting, which is typically hit-or-miss in similar films, hits all the right notes. Johnson, a relative newcomer, more than ably carries the movie and impressively conveys the conflict between Dave’s good nature and being overwhelmed by his own intentions. Cage actually finds a great character for his quirky but endearing screen presence, and Moretz pulls off the feat of making an 11-year-old tough girl, who swears like a sailor and kills her way through rooms of bad guys without breaking a sweat, seem exhilarating and plausible rather than cute and gimmicky.

Perhaps most interesting is how Mintz-Plasse, best known for his breakout role as McLovin’ in “Superbad,” manages to work in the medium of adolescent comedy without playing the same character over and over (yes, I’m looking at you, Michael Cera). Mintz-Plasse retains shades of the awkward teenagers he’s played, but ends up showing more range when it comes to depicting his torn loyalty among pleasing his villainous father, protecting his heroic friends, or choosing his own path.

By the end, it becomes all too clear that “Kick-Ass” is intended as a first chapter, an origin story to set up at least one more film if not a franchise. I don’t normally say this, but if this “comic book movie” is a sign of things to come, it’s one sequel that I wouldn’t mind seeing. {B+}

CWA: "Your BA Is Just BS"

For my last session, I braved really confusing signage and a practically hidden room two floors below street level, but ultimately, it was a fitting coda to an excellent day of information overload.

“BA” discussed how the state of higher education is in flux as economic hardships and lack of jobs are causing students, faculty, and administrators to wonder how much return can be expected from an investment in college. The session didn’t really present any new information per se, since I’m fully aware of what it’s like to be a college graduate who’s not working in his specific degree field. However, it did offer some different ways of looking at the issue and nice perspectives on emerging programs that have the potential to impact educational models nationwide.

Did you know that Steve Jobs never graduated from college? Just goes to show that depending on your goals in life, a degree may or may not be required. Then again, you might want to make sure your pursuits are “relevant,” because your degree may or may not be offered! Bad news: several major state universities have been cutting cherished programs like philosophy and classical studies. Good news: there are unique, customized programs that are attempting to fill that void.

The Plan II program offered by the University of Texas at Austin was described by members of the panel as an “educational Swiss army knife” that comprises a “Renaissance education for the 21st century.” This interdisciplinary degree combines the school’s basic liberal arts requirements in the standard subjects with a specialized curriculum that encompasses courses from a variety of fields. The main idea behind Plan II is to present students with academic flexibility and more options to be hired. Rather than focus on just professional or vocational training, the program grants students the opportunity to take classes that, while perhaps opposite of their majors, still hold enough interest to receive credits for exploring. As the saying goes, they believe in “education for a life, not just for a living.”

Even more noteworthy is Thomas College in Maine, a private institution that features the only guaranteed job placement program in the country. If a student doesn’t get a job in their degree field within six months of graduating, they can go back and take more classes free of charge -- or they can have Thomas pay for their federal student loans -- for up to a year or until they get a job, whichever comes first. At the same time, if a student is employed within six months but the job isn’t in their degree field, they can go back and take an unlimited number of undergrad classes for up to two years. That’s the kind of confidence and dedication every school should have in preparing its students for the “real world”!

Then again, there are some who would argue (and a few on the panel did) that college is just as much about unlearning what you’ve been programmed to learn and accept based on someone else’s concept of the “real world.” Everything from the limitations imposed by a letter-grade system to the idea that education asks the wrong questions to the wild notion that it’s not necessarily a linear path from one’s degree to one’s job or career path. While I alternate between agreeing and disagreeing with each of those sentiments, I can’t help but see the merit in appreciating both sides of the equation.

Not everyone’s academic experience is going to be the same, even within the same major or degree program. Nor do we want these experiences to be the same if we expect to transform students into well-rounded citizens that contribute to different sectors of society. Meanwhile, for those who do choose to pursue higher education and a related career, it’s not unreasonable to expect that everyone who holds a degree has received some amount of quality, skills-based education that qualifies them to enter the workforce in the manner that they see fit.

It remains to be seen how these starkly contrasting views can be juxtaposed or reconciled. Even the panelists weren’t exactly sure how to best appeal to both sides. I guess it’s just another sign of the relativism that pervades our times. They did, however, offer some concluding bits of wisdom, while some are more cliché than others, that do warrant some thought whether you’re in or out of school.

Train yourself to do as much as you can with as little as you get. Chances are pretty good that you’ll never have the right amount of people or resources for what you're working on.

Learn about people! Most of us are “beta models that are still working out the bugs,” but it’s important to know how to interact with different personalities and when to utilize those contacts.

Be ready to kick your own ass before someone else does. Which leads right into the next one…

Be comfortable with doing stupid things for the sake of learning. As long as you own up to any fault you may have but take away something positive from the experience, how can they hold it against you?

College is/was NOT the best four years of your life! Life keeps getting better every day if we strive to continue learning and growing.

Education is an opportunity, not an obligation. Whether it's in school or in the workplace, treat those who are seriously passionate about succeeding with respect!

I wish I had reflected some of these concepts better during my own college experience, but I see their implications and applications in my life and my job. In the end, I don’t really think that my B.A. is B.S. If nothing else, it has enabled me to know myself and know what I’m capable of in a variety of subjects and settings. After all, as G.I. Joe said, “Knowing’s half the battle!”

CWA: "Progressives Getting Their Groove Back"

Thankfully, getting to my next session of the day proved to be no trouble whatsoever, as this one was located right next door to the previous one!

“Progressives” featured four (you guessed it!) progressive panelists from different fields discussing their ideas for how the progressive movement in America can more effectively mobilize and help give this country the government it needs and deserves. I personally consider myself fairly liberal, even pretty progressive on some matters, so this session was less about learning “how to be” and more about discovering “how to do.”

Chip Berlet opened the panel and made sure everyone was in the correct room by offering his definition of progressive: “fundamental, radical change to the system through lawful and appropriate means.” He suggested that one way this change could be achieved is through clarification of the term “dissident,” which automatically has a negative connotation in many people’s minds. When you get right down to it, a dissident basically refers to a person who doesn’t agree with or conform to prevailing values -- which is essentially anyone who’s ever had an opinion contrary to the government, which I’m guessing is a lot of us!

That doesn’t automatically make people outlaws, yet current rhetoric seems to suggest that any kind of dissidence is harmful and/or dangerous. I agree with Berlet’s assertion that dissidents who are non-violent and non-criminal need to make their presence known to start informing those false assumptions. “We need to push Obama, but don’t target him as an enemy,” Berlet said, before reminding us that social movements, not individuals, are what make political parties pay attention and act accordingly.

John Hockenberry turned his attention to the media and networking aspects of the progressive movement. While he commended such media personalities as Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann for directing attention to progressive causes, he actually finds their range too narrow to be as effective as they could be. (I think this probably has more to do with network bureaucracy than them as politically active and influential individuals, but I digress…) He also believes that the progressive movement needs to seek more solidarity and less segmenting, as relying on demographics inadvertently undermines the cause. The movement can’t be defined by people’s friends, connections, or political legacies, but instead by challenging the flawed institutions themselves as a united front.

Lorelei Kelly, a national security expert, disagreed with Hockenberry. By acknowledging the value of relationships and infrastructure, she finds that working within the system is the best way to get around it, as it has allowed her to witness firsthand what helps and what hinders the progressive movement. She observed that conservatives tend to be better-funded and equipped because they focus on the practical resources rather than the ideal, a common mistake among progressives who stand up for what we “should” have. According to Kelly, closing that gap between practical and ideal should be a shared priority in the movement. She closed by invoking the “myth of omniscience” under which people tend to operate, which states that the availability of information about something makes it true and applicable, and thus justifiable, for any purpose that’s intended. Just because something is transparent doesn’t mean it’s accountable, and the goal becomes finding ways to make both true for all who are involved and concerned.

Jim Hightower picked up where Berlet left off, plainly stating that making the government the enemy shuts us out too since we’re supposed to be part of the process. He believes that the true nature of the political spectrum is not left and right, but rather top and bottom, and everyone still plays an equal role from wherever they are in life. “Remember: this country started in taverns,” Hightower said, pointing out that the importance of sharing our lives and ideas is something that everyone has in common, regardless of party affiliation. He further advised that we need to live the dream, because thanks to leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., the movement has already been created. It’s up to us to better connect and relate to it!

The Q&A portion of this particular session got a little heated at times, because it seemed that people were deliberately trying to provoke or contradict the panel. Which is fine, freedom of speech and all… but it took away from what the speakers were really trying to say! In the end, though, each speaker got across at least one more point of illumination.

Just like his earlier clarification of dissidents, Berlet came to the defense of socialist principles, which have gotten a bad reputation because of exploitation by totalitarian regimes. Critics of socialism have misappropriated its meaning, which he feels is unfair to the system's beliefs and at odds with history in countries that have reaped its benefits.

Kelly credits the “global communication revolution” for many successes during the Obama campaign, but wishes his “world-class participatory campaign” would be more reflected as a “world-class participatory government.” She advocates a new public engagement strategy with better state venues for open forums with constituents, especially in Colorado, which has become an “attractive” state for progressives.

Hightower first mentioned, and the panel later echoed, that a corporation is not a person, and it should not be granted the same rights as individual people. At the same time, he firmly believes that wealth or lack thereof shouldn’t buy or determine the amount of government influence held by any one person or group.

Hockenberry favors a shorter electoral process, which would make the system less exclusive to candidates as well as voters and would also restrict wasteful advertisement badgering. On the subject of voters, he reminded us that everyone has an element of personal responsibility in the political process. We assert ourselves “up the chain” not only with our votes, but also with our spending habits and participation in community events and activities. All of these things send a message; we have to make sure it’s the right one for what we want to accomplish!

The panel ended with a question about the role of religion in the progressive movement, which the panel agreed are not mutually exclusive concepts. Religion has held a powerful cultural and historical influence over progressives and kept them in touch with their roots and the core beliefs of what’s being pursued. As it turns out, a new faction of evangelicals have begun to embrace environmentalism, a cause dismissed in some circles as “hippies hugging trees,” even though we all need the planet to be sustainable in spite of our spiritual differences. If you ask me, one’s faith should never stand in the way of honest discourse if significant common interests are at stake.

All of these panelists have good intentions and great ideas. I say let’s make these things happen! Where do I sign up? =)

CWA: "Social Innovation: Millennials Engage"

I arrived at my second session of the day a mere two minutes late, thanks to going against the lunch-break grain on an already busy campus, and the only seat I could find was on the floor near the back. As such, I missed the introduction of the panelists and couldn’t even see who was talking when during their presentations. Though I was ultimately able to grab a vacated seat near the end of the session, I figured the important thing was the content of the notes I had been taking, not so much who said them. That said, I’ll just present some of the major talking points from this panel accompanied by my own musings.

“Social Innovation” focused on the millennial generation: baby boomers’ children who were born after 1980 (which I was, hence my interest in the session, haha). This generation is largely defined by their different embrace of technology, both in uses and comfort. One of the speakers rattled off some statistics that I found interesting. I’m not sure where they’re from, but they sounded good, so let’s discuss…

37% of millennials are unemployed: This isn’t an entirely surprising revelation, especially given the current economic climate in our country. However, one might consider another classification: those who are UNDERemployed. That is, those who hold jobs that are only part-time and/or don’t pay enough to sustain a reasonable cost of living. Such situations can motivate the same kind of restlessness that compels this generation to seek options and answers in these new forms of social engagement.

40% have a tattoo and/or a piercing somewhere other than their ears: Of course they do! Self-expression has always been a defining feature of any generation, and this just happens to be the form it takes these days; the bodily equivalent of a new fashion trend or hairstyle. Why it still shocks so many people remains a mystery to me! Tattoos and piercings are often grouped together as “body art,” and for good reason. There’s almost always a great story behind why they got it, and whether it’s ink work or jewelry, many of them are quite detailed and beautiful in their own ways. Then again, not all that long ago, women wearing pants was an alleged outrage, so who knows? Haha!

52% consider “parenthood” their most important goal in life, while 30% consider “marriage” their most important goal: This makes a lot of sense to me, as the traditional family norms in America are strikingly different than just one generation ago. A lot of people probably want to experience family life and impart their wisdom to equip children for the future, but they don’t necessarily enjoy the confines of a label or institution to define their relationships. I actually see the over-20-percent difference as an encouraging sign that people are thinking about the big picture and how they factor into that, as opposed to just chasing after a status of sorts for themselves.

25% are not religious: This one struck me as sort of odd. Or perhaps too vague. Simple math would then tell us that 75% *are* religious, which is fairly broad considering the wide variety of denominations. Not only that, but those 25% who don’t identify themselves as religious may hold certain spiritual views of their own but don’t necessarily adhere to any one organized belief system. That’s the trouble with spirituality in America today: it’s become too much of a label game and an unjust claim to superiority. Not to mention a source of stress for many true believers who actually live out the teachings to which they ascribe, while having to deal with the bad name given to them by extremists who are twisting words and distorting truth for their own gain. Something that surely no deity would want done in their name! I rest my case, and I’ve safely stowed the soapbox in the overhead compartment for the rest of this post =)

Moving forward, the speakers indicated that the “transformational technology” of Facebook and other digital inventions -- combined with millennials’ general propensity for social networking -- has actually made the world smaller with the amount of information that can be shared. The panel discussed how these factors hold implications for foreign policy and international relations, as the perceived “stubborn clinging” to physical borders, personal boundaries, and language barriers will continue to frustrate the millennial generation if steps are not taken.

For example, in Iran as well as parts of Africa and Asia, nearly one-quarter of their respective populations are under the age of 30. This mentality enabled young people in Iran who opposed the corrupt elections to organize their protests via Facebook and Twitter, helping rally like-minded individuals to their cause. In addition, during the recent devastation in Haiti, text messaging programs were created to facilitate relief donations, and GPS technology was able to locate stranded survivors and bring them to safety. And even video games aren’t just for leisure anymore; they’re being more widely developed and utilized as teaching tools across multiple fields.

In perhaps the most prominent acknowledgment of this cultural shift, the U.S. State Department has created a Social Technology position to better understand these trends and apply them for optimum, widespread results. The panelists agreed that all of these breakthroughs make it fashionable to be considered a “geek” or a “nerd,” if that means knowing how to use these technologies and recognizing the vital role they play in our collective future.

As far as what drives this generation to embrace technology so freely, several characteristics were suggested. In many ways, the millennials demonstrate a desire to collaborate, an optimism for local and business leadership as well as “big government,” and a general sense of empowerment to be responsible for creating change. They are also more assertive about introducing the fluidity of culture into the rigidity of institutions, and integrating their personal and professional values to create non-fragmented lifestyles.

Even the antiquity of gender roles has been tangibly challenged, as the doors opened by these tools have shifted the paradigm in which women only pursue social leadership and men only pursue business leadership. The blending and even blurring of these fields through the use of technology has allowed the roles to be reversed, or even joined, and become more rounded and productive members of the workforce.

It has been estimated that 1 in 3 college graduates will create start-up efforts, either in the small-business or non-profit sectors, to address the needs that they see in their cities and communities, as well as put their respective degrees to practical use in times of job scarcity. In another example, some of these start-ups have made their presence known in areas whose needs may not be adequately addressed by local government. Groups have stepped up to combat “food deserts” in densely populated, lower-income areas where traditional markets have failed and food can only be purchased at liquor stores.

The speakers concluded by stating that the best ways to foster these positive aspects of the millennial mindset are to explore more diverse and supportive programs on university campuses, and to create more mentoring opportunities that are mutually beneficial by learning both the traditional business models and the evolving networking systems.

Near the end of the session, during the Q&A portion, one of the speakers explained that we can “never completely uproot from physical interaction.” While technology is entirely capable of eliciting empathy and compassion through the good works that it achieves, I absolutely agree that we should never remove the personal element from our goals. It’s ultimately impossible to do so, since those ideas are always formed in a single human brain. Thanks to millennial innovation, we can reach meaningful solutions sooner. After all, two (dozen, hundred…it’s up to you!) heads are better than one =)

CWA: "Cringe Humor: From Shakespeare To Family Guy"

As promised, the following posts describe my experiences during Tuesday’s events at the Conference On World Affairs. And away we go!

“Cringe Humor,” my first session of the day, examined the role of comedy in today’s turbulent social times where political correctness can be an oppressive influence. Ironically enough, the first few moments of the session were incredibly awkward, as each panelist looked at one another and non-verbally argued with their eyes to figure out who would start the individual presentations. Finally, director Tom Shadyac (“The Nutty Professor,” “Patch Adams,” “Bruce Almighty”) broke the ice by asking, “Would anyone like to open with a fart?” The laughter that filled the room got the ball rolling and it didn’t stop.

Julia Sweeney, best known from “Saturday Night Live,” opened the discussion by acknowledging “Pat” and other uncomfortable characters and skits. While she still finds plenty of cringe humor funny, she no longer feels drawn to create that kind of material. Sweeney later confessed that she wouldn’t mind seeing more “gross-out” humor for older adults, since a lot of what passes for comedy skews toward younger demographics. She believes that the shared trials of aging would bring this type of comedy with a different level of meaning to a new audience.

Robert George, associate editorial page editor for the New York Post, used his background in stand-up comedy to discuss the role of race and politics in who decides what is and isn’t funny. He believes that pushing the envelope is an important responsibility, because “humor is a release” that we as people need. George even noted that humor -- cringe or otherwise -- has the potential to reduce the racism and sexism we still see around the world even today. By infusing comedy with a genuine message, we can appeal to the universal aspects of life that everyone finds funny on some level and ultimately bring people closer together through laughter.

Tina Packer, considered to be among the nation’s leading experts on theater arts, lent an academic perspective. She traced cringe humor all the way back to Greco-Roman theater, where props were commonly used in obscene ways to get a reaction from the audience. She also observed that the works of Shakespeare often feature bawdy sexual references and dark humor about violence that could make some nervous if they really paid attention to his use of language. The factors present in Shakespeare’s day, largely characterized by social unrest, famine, and plagues, were practically begging for comic relief and deeper reflection, something he did in turns with his comedies and tragedies.

Shadyac surprised me with his more philosophical approach to comedy. “I believe laughter is holy,” he stated, before discussing how the term “cringe humor” can be self-defeating. He cited the definition of cringe as “drawing back with submission or fear,” something that one doesn’t typically associate with laughter. In Shadyac’s view, to cringe at something makes us forget to be free, simple, and even child-like in how we see the world, and the reaction of just laughing about things is built into us as humans on a subconscious level.

As the Q&A portion started, the audience went right for the hard-hitting implications of what the panelists had just discussed. The first question asked was, “How far is too far, or is there a too far?” All of the panelists were in agreement about a formula among those who work with humor: tragedy plus time equals comedy, and the more time that passes, the funnier something can be. As evidenced by catastrophic events like 9/11, every person has a different standard of how much time is appropriate. The challenge then becomes reading one’s audience and gauging whether or not they’re ready.

Another question was asked about shows like “South Park” and “Family Guy” that claim they are justified in making fun of people and issues so long as they make fun of everyone and everything else. George thinks that “Family Guy” is more politically correct than they’re willing to let on, because the format of the show relies on non-sequitur asides and quick-cuts to other topics. This style often distracts from their point and inadvertently ends up covering their tracks. Meanwhile, he finds “South Park” more pointed and successful because they engage in smarter satire built around singular messages.

The longest debate, which involved the power of words, was something that I heard ad nauseum in college as a communication major. However, the fresh insights and examples here kept me engaged in the topic. Sweeney insisted, “There are no bad words,” only words to which we apply bad meanings and intentions, since words are inherently nothing but letters and sounds. Both George and Packer agreed, adding that the history of words must also be taken into consideration when using them.

Shadyac was the only one who disagreed, arguing that words do have power by citing an experiment conducted by a Japanese scientist to study how water droplets formed ice crystals when frozen with different types of words on paper. According to the scientist’s results, the positive words produced more fully-formed and elaborate crystal designs than the negative words. What an interesting way to visualize how we affect the world around us!

The other panelists remained skeptical, particularly when it came to instances of hypocrisy in acknowledging that power. Sweeney told a fitting story about working on a skit for “Saturday Night Live” involving a flirtatious priest during confession. The network’s standards and practices department told them a line in the script about how much the priest enjoyed Oreos had to be rewritten because he liked to “lick out” the cream center, and they didn’t feel it was proper for a priest to say that. When Sweeney asked for suggestions, the network actually told them it was permissible to say “eat out” the cream center, which just goes to show that no one is ever truly aware of the power of the words that they find “appropriate.”

Near the end of the session, Shadyac remarked, “The only sin of art is dullness,” and I’m tempted to agree with him. The only way something as good as comedy could ever truly be bad is if it failed to provoke some kind of reaction in its audience. And if it takes a few dirty jokes to keep an audience around long enough to make them think about what you’re *really* trying to say, then so be it! I admire all of the panelists for their candor, and I sincerely hope that people walked away from this session willing to lighten up a bit. I know I did!

Conference On World Affairs Is In Full Swing

The University of Colorado at Boulder kicked off its 62nd annual Conference On World Affairs this morning. The conference hosts campus and community events that bring noted panelists from just about any field imaginable to discuss the myriad of issues that currently affect our society.

Nearly 200 panel sessions are available, ranging from the impact of global politics and social causes to the evolving roles of science and the arts in people’s lives. The conference, which is free and open to the public, will be held every day this week. Discussion panels are spread across morning, afternoon, and evening timeslots, with the last of them taking place on Friday afternoon. The full event schedule can be found here.

I’m planning to attend four sessions tomorrow, so you can expect my full report and reactions on Wednesday! =)

It's OK To Be "Cheap" In Denver

Brace yourselves! This is a special occasion; something that I don’t do on just any day. I’m about to give away one of my prized trade secrets about how to get the most bang for your buck in Denver. Well… I’m not exactly the first to give it away, since the Westword beat me to the punch in their recent “Best Of Denver” issue. But now that it’s out there, it’s only fair to pay the site in question a little more attention.

Mile High On The Cheap has been given the illustrious distinction of “Best Website For Bargain Hunters.” I had originally found out about the site last summer from a co-worker, and it quickly became my go-to resource for all sorts of great deals around town. We’re talking coupons (many of which are free items or buy-one-get-one) for restaurants and retailers, and even exclusive discounts for local events, concerts, and theater performances.

Best of all, the site itself is free and updated every day, including the option to sign up for a daily e-mail with links to all of the featured offers. Check out Mile High On The Cheap for yourselves and bargain-hunt with the best of them!

What I'm Listening To: "Not Myself Tonight"

Welcome back, Christina Aguilera! It’s been a year-and-a-half since her last single and almost four years since her last full studio album, but it’s clear she’s spent the downtime perfecting the latest incarnation of her unique style and incredible voice.

Picking up where her most recent single “Keeps Gettin' Better” left off, the similar electro-pop infusion that's present in her new song “Not Myself Tonight” is drastically different than the Christina we’re used to. And that’s a good thing! Her experimentation with this new sound is a great way to challenge herself vocally without overpowering the quality of the music itself, a challenge which she more than successfully rises to meet.

It’s also an interesting step in Christina’s musical evolution. First was the generic-teen-pop-with-a-good-voice that marked her self-titled debut album. Then came the diverse and startlingly mature “Stripped” (still her best so far), followed by the strong concept but high-and-low execution of her retro-homage “Back to Basics.” Needless to say, I can’t wait to hear how the rest of the new album, “Bionic,” shapes up and compares when it’s released on June 8.

In the meantime, hopefully we can pass the next two months quickly with repeated listens of “Not Myself Tonight.” I know I will be! =)

No Fooling: April Fools' Day Is Old!

Have you ever stopped to wonder what actually started April Fools’ Day? I mean, yes, we all like to goof around sometimes -- but an organized celebration where an entire day is devoted to pulling pranks on each other? Only the French could be so clever. And as it turns out, they might have been!

While there is still no definitive chronology, the earliest and most popular theory dates back to 1564, when King Charles IX changed the French calendar. Their New Year had previously coincided with the celebration of Easter, in late March or early April, due to its theological significance and the symbolism of new life. In an effort to standardize with the rest of Europe, the king decreed January 1 as the start of the new year.

Naturally, since this was the 16th century, news didn’t travel quite as fast as it does these days. Those who hadn’t heard about the change, or preferred the old system and refused to change, had practical jokes played on them. The rest, as they say, is history!

Just think: you may have pulled off *the* best prank this year, but chances are pretty good that someone in the last 400-plus years has already done it… maybe even better =P

Greetings And Salutations!

Welcome to my brand-new, first-ever, New-Year’s-resolution-fulfilling, (hopefully) one-of-a-kind blog experience! That’s right, experience… so please take a moment to prepare yourselves. After all, this is the one place where you won’t mind getting “Robbed”… that is, getting a glimpse inside my head.

Starting today, on what will ideally be a daily basis, I’ll be subjecting all of you wonderful readers to various content that does one or more of what I affectionately refer to as the 4 E’s: educate, enlighten, enrich, and entertain.

What kinds of content can do all that, you may ask? News. Politics. Causes and organizations. City and community events. Arts and entertainment reviews. Recreational activities. Trivia and random facts. Ways to save money around town. And, of course, the occasional post where I ramble about the goings-on in my own life.

So I’ll do my best to provide unique, interesting tidbits and opinions about all of the above topics and more, in the hopes that someone will someday thank me by saying, “I think I read that on a blog once…” For example: Did you know that the word “blog” is short for “web log”? I had no idea until I sat down to get this ball rolling, and if you didn’t know already, you do now! See how that works? ;)

That said, I hope you’re all ready to embark on this digital adventure with me and get something meaningful out of this (one more time!) experience. If you’re not, you probably stopped reading by now, haha. Either way, let the blogging begin! =)