DWWILDLIFE
Arizona Daily Wildcat
B section
WL
wednesday, october ,
ild
Justyn Dillingham Arts Editor 520•621•3106 arts@wildcat.arizona.edu
ife
Photo courtesy of cinemaisdope.com
‘Wild Things’ a giddy, dreamy modern classic
Dylan’s Xmas less than merry page b INSIDE ‘Invention’ flags, fails to amuse page b Saving art from the scrap heap page b dailywildcat.com/wildlife
Sendak fans won’t be let down by new film
By Ali Freedman ARIZONA DAILY WILDCAT Turning a classic book into a movie is often bad news. Generally the issue is that there is so much in a book you simply cannot cram it all into a movie. For Maurice Sendak’s classic “Where the Wild Things Are,” however, it seemed the book would prove much too short
to be turned into movie magic. Boy, was that idea wrong. “Where the Wild Things Are” stuns. There is no denying that this classic story will very soon be considered a movie classic as well. Visually stunning and beautifully written, the film will melt any true wild thing’s heart — it is
The time is ‘Now’
WILD THINGS, page B6
CULTURE SHOCK
My TV problem — and yours
I
“playground for young actors.” “I wasn’t involved in much of the company pre-development, save for … some pretty awesome late-night discussions, but I quickly became obsessed with the idea of helping out. Matt made me assistant director, and we suddenly found ourselves kneedeep in putting on a play,”Adams said. Bowdren’s first show was Anthony Minghella’s “Cigarettes and Chocolate,” which the Now produced last September in association with the
thought I liked television. I watched it constantly as a kid, and followed a handful of shows fairly loyally as a teenager. I rolled my eyes when I heard lectures about how we all watched too much TV. Then I started to feel like the rest of the world did watch a little too much TV. Worse, we were taking it way too seriously. It started back in 1999, when “The SoJustyn pranos” deDillingham buted. There had been arts editor critically acclaimed shows before, but I can’t think of any that elicited quite the insane level of praise. Some people compared the hit HBO series to “The Godfather,” and other people thought it was even better than “The Godfather.” David Remnick called it “the richest achievement in the history of television” — no small praise coming from the editor of The New Yorker. It eventually racked up more Emmys than any cable show in history. Polls called it the greatest show ever. Somehow, the more encomiums for the series I ran across, the more irritated I felt. Couldn’t I just watch the damned show, without feeling like I had to take notes? Could anything really be that good? And even if it were that good, did everyone have to constantly remind us that it was? Here’s what Geoffrey O’Brien had to say in 2007, writing for the New York Review of Books: “The mere sight of (Tony Soprano) padding yet again in white bathrobe toward the refrigerator evoked a disheveled Wotan worthy of a show whose capacity to extend and savor its transitions could seem Wagnerian.” Oh, really? The ensuing decade brought an avalanche of shows that you just had to see. “Arrested Development.”“The Wire.”“Mad Men.” “Deadwood.” All of them discussed in the hushed, awestruck tones people usually reserve for Picasso exhibits — or, at the very least, really expensive food. (It didn’t hurt that most of them were on cable channels most of us don’t get.) “Lost,” the ABC series about a band of castaways on a desert island, has probably sparked more academic discussion than “Robinson Crusoe.” International academic conferences assembled to discuss the subtle narrative effects of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” Most discussed of all, perhaps, has been “24,” a popular Fox thriller that basically stretches the familiar “ticking time bomb” scenario across season after season after season. When Americans came face to face with their own government’s capacity for sadism and torture, the series provided a useful reference point. I’ll never forget the bizarre spectacle, during a 2008 debate, of one Republican candidate after another sternly telling us that,
THEATRE, page B6
CULTURE, page B2
Colin Darland/Arizona Daily Wildcat
Acting senior John Shartzer, right, and family studies and human development senior Lauren Orlowski rehearse lines for their upcoming production of Neil Labute’s ‘Some Girl(s).’ Shartzer and Orlowski will perform the play with other UA students Nov. 5-22 at the Rogue Theatre, located at 300 W. University Blvd.
Student-run theater group brings relatable character drama to community By Anna Swenson ARIZONA DAILY WILDCAT
W
hat are you usually doing between 10 p.m. and midnight on weekends? While the most ambitious of us might be studying, it’s probably a fair bet that there’s not much entrepreneurship, literary analysis or concentrated theatrical production going on for most of us. But for the founders of the Now Theatre, late nights are when they’re working hardest. The theater company that was
founded by and is run completely by students, stages contemporary works performed by and for young adults. “Everything from our ticket prices to our late hours is designed for people under 25 who want to help us dissect art,”said artistic director and theatre arts senior Nic Adams.“Our shows can be momentous, revelatory, funny and poignant … but they’re not going to get any better without an astute audience of hungry and critical participants.” As managing director John Shartzer, a theater arts senior, says, the company was created out of a desire for more
freedom on the stage. “At larger theaters, they have salaries to pay,” as well as a more concrete bottom line, he explained.“We don’t have that. We can say something with a little more depth.” Adams said the Now Theatre is the brainchild of Matt Bowdren, a 2008 UA graduate who founded the company just over a year ago. Bowdren “wanted to create a company that was very ensemble-minded, and committed to putting young artists in charge,”Adams said. Shartzer described the company as a