ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
Page 14
February 13, 2013
TSeersucker Directing Race Historically Full of Surprise he
BY JOHN BONAZZO
KEVIN ZEBROSKI Modern pants are very weird. Historically, pants have always risen to meet the waist, or, more precisely the navel. This made sense, as the widening parts of the torso, the hips and lower chest were separated geometrically by a horizontal waistband. The recent trend toward lowrising trousers is an oddity when we consider the natural form of a human being. These pants, now situated on the widest part of the lower torso, are held in their position by a combination of willpower and occasional butttugging. For the purpose of understanding the tailoring difference between modern pants and their forebears, it is key to have at least two terms in your vocabulary. “Rise” is the measurement from the crotch to the top fly button, and this measurement’s length determines how high the pants rise up the waist. In the case of low-rise jeans for men, the rise measurement is commonly around eight inches, while the classics were closer to 12 or 14 inches. If you wish to measure your waist rise, it would be prudent to do so in privacy, as draping a measuring tape from your crotch to your belly button is frowned upon in the public sphere. The other — albeit circumstantially less important — term is “inseam.” The inseam is the measurement from the bottom of your rise measurement (your crotch area) to the “hem,” or the part where your pants stop existing. The inseam in low-rise and traditional pants should be roughly the same, and the length of one’s pants is a matter of personal preference and safety. Okay, so why are full-rise pants better? Well, low-rise pants are something of a fad, not a modern innovation that will be around for centuries. The reason for this is because they defy a primary aspect of design philosophy. Lowrise jeans practically spawned the concept of plumber’s crack because of their inclination toward spelunking down one’s backside. They also are not as flattering as we think they are. The strange billowing effect created by tucking a shirt into one’s hips is unique to low-rise pants. With regular pants, the firmer and heavier fabric of the pants makes the waist appear thinner and flatters the shoulders and chest with its contrast. Seriously, just look at bullfighters with their ultra-high-waisted pants. They may be narcissistic animal torturers, but they have great costumes. Just do not emulate their color choices. Be a subtle and benevolent bullfighter. The Seersucker provides a wealth of knowledge on sartorial fundamentals, contemporary male fashion and the mastery of personal style.
COPY EDITOR
Steven Spielberg is an unlucky man at the Oscars. The blockbuster filmmaker has won two Best Director trophies, for Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan, but only one film, Schindler’s, took home Best Picture gold (Ryan lost to Shakespeare in Love). This year is another year of mixed blessings for Spielberg — he is the frontrunner for Best Director for Lincoln, but Argo is favored for Best Picture despite no Best Director nomination. After this year, Spielberg could have the dubious distinction of winning three Best Director trophies but only one for Best Picture. That disconnect provides one of this year’s twists in a category that has skewed many different ways since the Oscars began. This year’s group of nominated directors is more eclectic than most. Predicted nominees Spielberg, Ang Lee (Life of Pi) and David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook) made the list, but so did two surprise nominees, indie directors Michael Haneke (Amour) and Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild). Even stranger than the people nominated are those left off: A-list filmmakers Tom Hooper, Quentin Tarantino and Kathryn Bigelow. The most talked-about snub was that of Ben Affleck, the director of Argo (although he could still win a Best Picture trophy as the film’s producer). Many reasons for Affleck’s omission were tossed around. Some
COURTESY OF MOVIEPOSTERDB.COM
thought problems with the Academy’s new electronic voting system were to blame. Others thought that some Academy members made more esoteric choices, thinking their peers would vote for Affleck and cancel other choices out; this obviously did not happen. From a historical perspective, some thought that the Academy had tired of awarding actors-turned-directors (such as Mel Gibson for Braveheart). Whatever the reasons, Oscar history has shown that Affleck does not have to worry that much: Best Picture and Best Director recipients split more than one would assume. Though it is rare for a film to win Best Picture without a Best Director nomination, exceptions have occurred. The most recent was at the 1989 Academy Awards, when Oliver Stone won Best Director for Born on the Fourth of July, but Driving Miss Daisy, whose director, Bruce Beresford, was snubbed, won the big prize. Given the gap of over
20 years, popular belief is that it is time for another exception to the rule. Nabbing Best Picture without a nod for the director may be rare, but a more frequent phenomenon that could also be repeated this year is when Best Picture and Best Director go to two different films. This has happened 18 times in the Academy’s 84-year history. Most recently, Ang Lee won Best Director for Brokeback Mountain at the 2005 Oscars, but Crash, whose director, Paul Haggis, was nominated but did not win, brought home Best Picture. For a classic example, flash back to 1972: The Godfather won Best Picture, but Bob Fosse took Best Director for Cabaret (Francis Ford Coppola would finally get the Best Director prize for The Godfather Part II). The films that have won both Best Picture and Best Director vary widely in size and scope. Over the last 20 years, directors like Anthony Minghella and Peter Jackson have received the award for sweeping dramas like The English Patient and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. However, especially in the last few years, the Academy has skewed toward smaller films. Look at the past two winners: Tom Hooper for the royal drama The King’s Speech and Michel Hazanavicius for the black-and-white The Artist. Affleck’s underdog status has helped him. According to awards tracking site GoldDerby.com, Affleck’s base rallied behind him in his time of need. Since the Oscar nominations, he has won Best Director at
the Golden Globes, Critics Choice and Directors Guild Awards. The film has taken the top prize at these awards, as well as from the Producers and Screen Actors Guilds. People are rooting for his smaller movie to triumph over the mighty Lincoln. This mirrors other unassuming films that started slow and ended up winning the gold over blockbusters. Human dramas like Million Dollar Baby and Slumdog Millionaire (and their respective directors, Clint Eastwood and Danny Boyle) won over extravaganzas like The Aviator and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button that had less popular appeal. History could very well repeat itself this year, even without individual commendation for Affleck. Being the legend that he is, though, Spielberg still has some support. At the Directors Guild Awards, as each of the nominees was recognized individually for their work before the winner was announced, “Mr. Spielberg received a standing ovation,” according to The New York Times, but Affleck did not. This further snub, though small, suggests that even though the award was given to the younger director, everyone in the room appreciates Spielberg’s senior status. The respect could help Lincoln snatch the big prize. Argo’s surge has helped its chances, but the Oscars have taught us that anything is possible. Nobody will know for sure how many trophies Spielberg and Affleck will each bring home until the envelopes are opened on Feb. 24.
Dining Out: Island Burger and Shakes By CASEY RYAN CONTRIBUTING WRITER
Careful, or you might miss it! Between 51st and 52nd St. on Ninth Avenue, squeezed in between the myriad of other restaurants in Hell’s Kitchen, is Island Burgers and Shakes. This restaurant was founded in 1996 by co-workers Will Brown and Mark Calvino, who were fed up with mediocre burgers. 15 years later, this successful joint is still going strong. In fact, they are opening up new locations all around Manhattan in the coming year. This little venue does not look like much more than a pick-up window from the street, but somehow, once you get inside, there is plenty of seating. I went with a party of seven, and we were able to sit down right away. Upon entering, I instantly picked up a retro ’50s burger shack vibe; however, there are plenty of subtle, modern touches that keep the décor from becoming too tacky or too ironic. As the name implies, this restaurant has amazing, melt-in-your mouth burgers. These burgers are not just typical burgers; there are over 60 different burgers, with combinations of many unique toppings to choose from. From avocado to chili, there is something guaranteed to intrigue even the most experienced palate. Having just eaten chili the night before, I was not particularly looking for a burger. Instead, I opted for the El Camino ($13.00) with churascos (grilled chicken) It. Was.
CASEY RYAN/ THE RAM
Need some fries with that shake? Add a burger for an all-American meal on 9th Ave between 51st and 55nd.
Amazing. The chicken was grilled perfectly, and it was complemented by jack cheese, bacon and ranch dressing on top, all tucked between two pieces of sourdough bread. Although the presentation was not focused on aesthetics, it fit in with the traditional American theme. Besides, the sandwich was packed with so much chicken that the moment I took a bite it all fell apart anyway. Although my El Camino was good, the real show stoppers of the meal were the sides. The fries ($4.75) were perfectly crisp with just enough seasoning on them, and not a single one was soggy or undercooked. The guacamole and salsa ($9.25) were both extremely fresh, but be warned, the guacamole definitely has a little kick. Bonus: The servers brought us extra chips
whenever we ran out. By far, my favorite thing I ordered was the black and white shake ($5.75). This shake was the richest and airiest milkshake I have ever had. After just a few sips, I almost ordered a second. Unfortunately, I made a rookie mistake and ordered it as soon as I sat down. It was so rich that I was full before any of the other dishes arrived, so when placing your order plan strategically. I was also surprised to see how attentive the service was. We were a big group on a Saturday night in Manhattan, and the servers still checked in with us multiple times: No one’s water was ever below the half way mark. Island Burger and Shakes is a great find, especially if you are bored of the traditional burger chain. The only downside was the
pricing. Even though the food was great, when I think burgers I do not think about spending $13, plus the cost of french fries. On the other hand, the service was so great I personally did not mind paying a little more. So next time you are in the area, check out this little treasure and enjoy a tasty and tasteful dive into a modern day burger joint. Overall Location Food Quality Atmosphere Hospitality Price $$$ (Out of 4
’s)
Interested in writing restaurant and food reviews? Email: fordhamramculture@gmail. com