The Word: May 2013

The Word May 2013

THIS ISSUE: The Office Finale

Star Trek

Iron Man 3

Pistol Annies

Xbox One Reveal

Great Gatsby

Angelina Jolie’s Brave Decision

And Much More …

1

Table of Contents ‘The Office’ Wraps Up Series with Surprise, Poignant Episode (Julian Spivey) …. 2 10 Greatest ‘The Office’ Episodes (Philip Price) …. 3 Everybody Wants to Be Jim and Pam (Julian Spivey) …. 8 Bill Hader’s Last Goodbye (Julian Spivey) …. 9 Movie Review: ‘Iron Man 3’ (Philip Price) …. 10 Movie Review: ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ (Philip Price) …. 13 Movie Review: ‘The Hangover Part III’ (Philip Price) … 15 Movie Review: ‘The Great Gatsby’ (Philip Price) …. 18 Classic Movie Review: ‘The Passion of Joan of Arc’ (Dan Stewart) … 20 Every Woman’s Medical Choice: Angelina Jolie’s Brave decision (Aprille Hanson) … 22 Album Review: ‘Annie Up’ by Pistol Annies (Aprille Hanson) … 23 Album Review: ‘Indicud’ by Kid Cudi (Kellan Miller) … 25 Song Reviews (Aprille Hanson & Julian Spivey) … 26 Xbox One – From a Gamer’s Perspective (Chris Rhodes) … 29 ‘Grapes of Wrath’ – Not ‘Gatsby’ – Is True Great American Novel (Julian Spivey) … 31

Edited by Julian Spivey Additional Editing by Aprille Hanson & Wendy Spivey

Note: All of these pieces were previously published on thewordwebzine.webs.com

1

Television ‘The Office’ Wraps Up Series with Surprise, Poignant Episode

By Julian Spivey

“The Office” – one of television’s most beloved sitcoms of all time – aired its series finale on May 17 and proved to be a memorable and perfect sendoff to our favorite office workers at the Dunder Mifflin paper company.

The question on everybody’s mind leading up the finale was whether or not Steve Carell’s Michael Scott, the former Dunder Mifflin boss who left the show after the seventh season, would return for the finale. Much to the joy of ‘Office’ fans everywhere Carell did return for a surprising cameo in the finale as Dwight’s (Rainn Wilson) best man, a shock to Dwight who chose Jim (John Krasinski) as his best man. It was Jim’s one last great prank he had up his sleeves for Dwight. Carell’s Scott unsurprisingly didn’t stay around for too much of the finale, but did offer up the episode’s most memorable line, with appropriate tears in his eyes: “It’s like all my kids grew up and married each other.

It’s every parent’s dream."

The finale took place a full year after the most recent episode with the show focusing on a Q&A session put forth by the documentary crew for the doc’s DVD release and Dwight and Angela’s (Angela Kinsey) wedding. The biggest shock about the finale, really even more so than Carell’s return (which was kind of spoiled by TVLine.com last week) was just how many Dunder Mifflin employees didn’t actually still work at the paper company one year later – Kevin (Brian Baumgartner) and Toby (Paul Lieberstein) have been fired by Dwight, Kevin for his constant incompetency and Toby pretty much just for being Toby (poor guy – I felt sorry for him the entire nine season run, I really did); Darryl (Craig Robinson) is working for Athlead (now renamed Athleap), as we knew he was going too; Creed (Creed Bratton) is on the run from the law for various reasons (but not as the Scranton Strangler as numerous fans, including me, wrongly predicted); and Nellie (Catherine Tate – who was criminally underused all season) has moved to Poland.

Some of these changes were off-putting at first, but were mostly wrapped up neatly throughout the episode. The only real off-putting segment of the finale was the Q&A session that felt somewhat out of place and partially awkward (especially Erin, played by Ellie Kemper, reuniting with her birthparents).

2|Page

The series finale really began to hit its stride during Dwight and Angela’s wedding and thankfully didn’t let up for the remainder of the episode. The scene where Jim tells Dwight that he can’t be his best man, after all, is among the most beautiful of the entire series run as the camera pans to Michael Scott genuinely smiling at Dwight, proud of his friend and former mentee. The quick scene where Michael and Dwight dance to Bruce Springsteen’s “Rosalita (Come Out Tonight)” at the reception is a close second as far as memorable moments go.

The finale was, of course, fitting on the Jim and Pam (Jenna Fischer) front as the greatest fairytale television romance wraps up with Pam unsurprisingly realizing that she can have Jim and he can have his dreams all at the same time. She decides to put their house up for sale and move the family to Austin, Texas, so Jim can be a part of Athleap. The scene where Pam steps behind the reception desk one last time to take a call and lets the caller know that Jim Halpert no longer works for Dunder Mifflin is particularly touching. The final scene where Jim and Pam tell Dwight about their plans to move is also one of the great tearjerkers from the finale and a beautifully moving bit of acting by Wilson.

The series wraps up with a great and touching segment where the paper company employees all explain what Dunder Mifflin meant to them – everything that was great about this series from its beautiful heart to laugh-out-loud hilarity was featured in this last scene.

“The Office” has completed a great run of nine seasons and 200 episodes, but the show will live on in reruns. The memories given to us by this incredible cast of actors will seemingly live forever in our hearts.

10 Greatest Episodes of ‘The Office’

By Philip Price

There was a time between the second and fourth seasons when it was really hip to watch “The Office.”

However, during the fifth and six seasons, in spite of continuing some of the popular storylines, the fan following started to wane. Still, when it was announced Steve Carell would be leaving after season seven, there was renewed reason to watch again, and a real anxiety existed among fans who wondered how the show’s writers would deal with losing the anchor that had held it together all the years. It was even uncertain if the show, once considered nothing more than an unnecessary Americanized version of the short-lived UK version created by Ricky Gervais, would live on after the exit of Michael Scott. Though season eight was a bit of a rough patch, the final season has proved a formidable final chapter in the saga of the middle class working stiffs who punch the clocks from 9-to-5. Michael Scott will go down as one of the great TV characters of all time and this series, despite its ups and downs, will always be remembered for what it gave us, and not what it occasionally lacked. I, for one, always enjoyed Carell's work, but never watched a single episode of “The Office” until 3|Page

a friend recommended it just before season five began its original run. My brother and I watched the first four seasons in less than two weeks, and I have been completely taken with it ever since. It will be hard to say goodbye to this series. To make it a little easier, I've looked back and made up a list of my top 10 favorite ‘Office’ episodes which include some of my favorite moments from the series.

10. “Basketball” (Season 1, Ep. 5) Season one has a ton of great moments, especially as we get to know the characters and despite the first few episodes being near carbon copies of its UK predecessors. With “Basketball,” we got our first taste of what the U.S. version of the show would actually turn out to be, given the chance. This credit usually goes to the second episode, “Diversity Day,” which is in itself a classic of sorts, but “Basketball” is one of those underappreciated gems. Where “Diversity Day” had Michael Scott performing a Chris Rock bit and forcing his workers to get super-racist, in “Basketball” he puts these thoughts into pure action as he automatically chooses Stanley as a starter in the Office Workers vs. The Warehouse Guys due to his ethnicity. He, then, dishes out other racial slurs when choosing the rest of his line-up.

Michael Scott: Yeah, just try not to be too gay on the court! I mean that in the 'bad-at-sports' way. I think that goes without saying.

9. “Stress Relief” (Season 5, Ep. 14/15) Both parts of "Stress Relief" originally aired together immediately following the broadcast of Super Bowl XLIII and if the writers and producers were trying to attract new fans this would be the cold open to do it. It is one of the most elaborate and hysterical openings in the entire series. Dwight sets up a fire to make a point of how no one pays attention to his power point presentations. Carell is golden in this twopart episode, and gave way to one of Michael Scott classic moments as he takes over the safety officer position from Dwight that leads to one great scenario after another. Whether it’s CPR lessons, yoga, meditation and naturally an employee roast, which naturally becomes a Michael-bashing session that then leads to one of Michael's best tangents where he in turn grills everyone in the office.

Michael Scott: Jim, you're six eleven and you weigh ninety pounds, Gumby has a better body than you.

Boom roasted. Dwight, you're a kiss-ass. Boom roasted. Pam, you failed art school, boom roasted.

Meredith, you've slept with so many guys you're starting to look like one. Boom roasted. Kevin, I can't decide between a fat joke or a dumb joke. Boom roasted. Creed your teeth called your breath stinks.

Boom roasted. Angela, where's Angela. Whoa there you are I didn't see you behind that grain of rice!

Boom. Roasted! Stanley! You crush your wife during sex and your heart sucks. Boom roasted. Oscar, you're gay! Andy, Cornell called, they think you suck! And you're gayer than Oscar. Boom roasted!

8. “Fun Run” (Season 4, Ep. 1/2) Following up one of the greater season finales of the whole series, although not my favorite of the previous season, as Michael is now trying to enjoy domestic bliss with Jan, as Jim has returned from New York and has separated from Karen (Rashida Jones). Though both Pam and Jim declare they aren't together, it is apparently obvious. Even Kevin can tell something is going on. This was also a two part episode and is a prime example of “The Office” at the peak of its popularity and power. The opening moments show where Michael hits Meredith with his car and has to report to Ryan, who is no longer an 4|Page

intern, but now working at corporate. This is also the episode where Dwight is asked to look after Angela's cats, and ends up killing Sprinkles who's been sick. This will forever change the course of their relationship, that is, until lately. To do away with the bad vibes of him hitting Meredith, Michael decides to sponsor a 5k run for rabies awareness, nipple tape and all.

Creed Bratton: I've been involved in a number of cults, both as a leader and a follower. You have more fun as a follower. But you make more money as a leader.

7. “The Convention” (Season 3, Ep. 2) Speaking of the previous season’s favorite episode it would have to go to an early winner as “The Convention” holds one of my favorite scenes in the entire series while also showing the tragic side of Michael Scott. Though the season had already started off strong with the “Gay Witch Hunt” episode where Michael outed Oscar to everyone. The convention though sees Michael and Dwight venturing to a supply convention in Philly where they reunite with Jim and try to impress his new boss by throwing a party in their room. Naturally, everyone sees through Michael's paper thin idea, and no one bothers to show up to his party. Jim can see this coming from a mile away and turns up to confirm to Michael that he wasn't the reason he left Scranton, but instead it was because of Pam. The episode turns out to be a real bonding moment for Michael and Jim that continues through until Michael’s very last episode. Plus, we all know Jim comes to realize that there ain't no party like a Scranton party.

Michael Scott: I love inside jokes. Love to be a part of one someday.

6. “The Dundies” (Season 2, Ep. 1) “The Office” really came into its own in the second season after the short, trial period of its first six episodes. There are plenty of great ones that you could pull from in the second season. “The Injury,” where Michael burns his foot on his George Foreman grill or the first incarnation of the “Christmas Party,” but as it is inevitable that this season finale will place much higher on the list it is only appropriate that the season premiere and first occurrence of the Dundies make an appearance here as well. This gave us our glimpse at how far Michael really goes to give himself the spotlight while making it look as if he's appreciating others. “The Pam” also features the first look at the rift in Pam and Roy's relationship and that first spark of hope between Jim and Pam as she lays a drunken kiss on him. Besides story development though, it is simply great to see the beginning of this grand office tradition.

Pam Beesly: You know what they say about a car wreck, where it's so awful you can't look away? The Dundies are like a car wreck that you want to look away from but you have to stare at it because your boss is making you.

5. “Niagara” (Season 6, Ep. 4/5) After what felt like a lifetime of waiting we'd finally reached the season and event episode where Jim and Pam would tie the knot. The show would take a clear turn after this episode as it could no longer play up the Jim chasing Pam, or the mystery of when and where it would actually happen. But the episode was everything any ‘Office’ fan could have hoped for. While the cold open might have been one of the weirdest ever, it was also great to see the excitement of the event from the rest of the office and especially Michael, who again makes it all about him. Complications ensue when their co-workers are 5|Page

asked not to mention Pam's pregnancy at the wedding and Andy tears his scrotum while Michael never took the time to make reservations, but ends up bunking with Pam's mom instead. This leads to some great moments down the line in future episodes, but nothing tops the inclusion of everyone at the office in the wedding and how well the writers executed this wedding we all wanted to feel a part of.

Jim Halpert: I bought the boat tickets the day I saw that YouTube video. I knew we'd need a backup plan.

The boat was actually plan C. The church was plan B. And plan A was marrying her a long, long time ago.

Pretty much the day I met her.

4. “Goodbye, Michael” (Season 7, Ep. 22) Continuing the trend of major event episodes, this was one for the books and boy was it a doozy. The very last episode of “The Office” where Michael Scott appears was handled with extreme care and was crafted to perfection as it gave us everything we'd come to love and loathe about Michael Scott while redeeming him all at the same time. Michael lies to his staff and tells him he is leaving the next day when he is actually heading to the airport that afternoon. He can't seem to hold it together, but when he only needs to hear Holly's voice to confirm that what he's doing is right or when he gives Pam a final hug as she caught up to him at the airport to that final, un-mic'd "That's what she said." It all felt so perfect and poignant. There was no way that Michael's absence would not be felt on the show and this episode and the ones leading up to it made that all the more clear.

Michael Scott: Got almost everybody. So... Holly's my family now. She's my family. The babies that I make with her, will be my children. The people that you work with, are just... when you get down to it... your very best friends. They say, on your deathbed, you never wish you spent more time at the office. But I will. Gotta be a lot better than a deathbed. I actually don't understand deathbeds. I mean, who would buy that?

3. “Dinner Party” (Season 4, Ep. 9) While this isn't necessarily an event episode it is one of those episodes that dared to wander from the office and reveal a little more about Michael Scott and his personal life, this being in the midst of Michael's infatuation with Jan and their domestic bliss together. When Michael tricks Pam, Jim, Angela and Andy over to their casa for a "dinner party" it becomes increasingly clear that the relationship between Michael and Jan is one of strange circumstances and of oddly dark humor that is brought up consistently through the episode. Whether that be in the little touches of Michael's condo and his limited room to the small innuendos of their strange life together: the constant calling each other "babe," the sliding glass door story, the decoration of the condo, the way Jan gets irritated when Michael makes a joke and the way she dances to her former assistant’s song about that, "one night" and of course the video camera set up in the bedroom. All the attention to the details is hilarious, yet slightly disturbing. It is a perfect example of the quirky humor that the show could deliver in any given episode.

Andy Bernard: Tuna! Sup, Tuna. Gonna have some tuna for dinner? [to Pam] I bet you're sick of Tuna, right? Probably have Tuna every night.

6|Page

2. “Garage Sale” (Season 7, Ep. 19) While the final episode Michael Scott ever appeared in was heartbreakingly perfect, it was an episode just a few prior that really gave viewers the peace to know that if Michael was going to leave, at least, in the world of the show it would be for the reason of Holly Flax. After seeing Michael go through so many ups and downs in his love life throughout the course of the show, it was pretty well understood that Holly was something special when she showed up to serve as Toby's replacement in season four. Three seasons of back and forth all led to the moment where, after diverting Michael from his more lavish and dangerous proposal ideas, he leads Holly through a hall lined with the entire cast holding candles and into the office where they first met that is also filled with candles and he gets down on one knee to pop the question in Yoda voice. Perfect. The sprinklers go off in reaction to all the candles and Michael and Holly kiss as the water rains down upon them. More perfect. All the while Dwight is bartering his way through the company garage sale in the warehouse that comes to a cold stop when Jim pulls off one of his classic pranks.

Michael Scott: I want this to be an event that everyone talks about always and forever.

1. “Casino Night” (Season 2, Ep. 22) The finale of season two is likely the best example of everything that is great about “The Office.” As written by Carell, the episode sees Michael in the middle of a love triangle, heavy flirting between prerelationship Jim and Pam, and a demonstration of how well the show balances its comedy and emotional weight and not to mention a classic Michael hates Toby line. The entire cast gets a moment to shine throughout the casino night event. The awkwardness between Jan and Michael's realtor (played

by Carell's real-life wife, Nancy) provides ample opportunity to display Michael Scott at his best as well as showing how much Kevin's character changed from the early years up through until the finale (Yea, Scrantonicity!) When we finally reach the conclusion we come to the moment every fan had been waiting for since the series’ second episode and though it didn't initially pay off with instant gratification it was a moment that would live in office infamy. The show will be missed, if not for its humor, but for the way it welcomed us on a journey of people just like us and engaged us for years. It is one of my favorite shows of all time, and I only hope future generations discover the greatness of it in syndication for years to come.

Jim Halpert: I was just... I'm in love with you.

7|Page

Everybody Wants to Be Jim and Pam ...

By Julian Spivey

Jim and Pam. Like a modern day Romeo and Juliet, but without the death. They don’t even need last names anymore and you can’t have one without the other. Quite possibly the greatest couple in television’s wonderful history they make us all jealous and long to be like them.

Some would argue that the heart of “The Office” lied within Steve Carell’s utterly awesome Michael Scott, the Scranton branch Regional Manager at the Dunder Mifflin, Inc. paper company, but the heart of “The Office” is Jim and Pam. Jim Halpert (John Krasinski) and Pam Beesly (Jenna Fischer) quickly became the cutest and best relationship on television almost immediately as “The Office” hit the airwaves in the spring of 2005, Photo courtesy of NBC even before they were technically in a relationship. The best relationships, and seemingly almost every television relationship, starts with that almost disgustingly cute will-they-or-won’t-they phase. Jim and Pam had the best will-they-or-won’t-they moments of any TV couple in memory with the across the office glances and the inside jokes, all true to real life relationships.

Jim and Pam were simply meant to be together from day one – Jim knew that too, as he sweetly put in the season six episode “Niagara” where the two are married: “I bought the boat tickets the day I saw that YouTube video. I knew we'd need a backup plan. The boat was actually plan C. The church was plan B. And plan A was marrying her a long, long time ago. Pretty much the day I met her.”

Jim and Pam are the ultimate Hollywood fairytale, which is why seemingly everybody who fell in love with this series fell in love with this couple. Everybody wants to live the fairytale. This aspect of the relationship between the two is why they’re probably the cutest TV couple of all time, but not the most realistic; for my money I’d give that honor to Eric and Tami Taylor (Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton) from the acclaimed NBC drama “Friday Night Lights” – but then again that was a drama and “The Office” is a comedy (hence keeping things light).

Despite the fairytale romance of the relationship the writers of “The Office” did decide to throw some real-life problems at the couple in this final season with Jim focusing more on a new job offer than his relationship with Pam – leading the couple to fights and hardships, which fans hadn’t been accustomed to seeing. This, honestly, kind of produced mixed reactions – it’s nice to see the relationship undergo and overcome troubles, but dammit this is Jim and Pam and this stuff isn’t supposed to happen to Jim and Pam. However, some of the down times the two faced this season led to one of their most memorable moments at the end of “Paper Airplane” when Jim is leaving for his new job in Philadelphia after a big fight (by their standards, at least) when Pam runs out to the taxi Jim is about to leave in and 8|Page

the two have their little romantic cliché (but absolutely lovable) moment of “I still love you and always will.”

One wonders how Jim and Pam will ride off into the sunset in tonight’s series finale, after Pam realized in the most recent episode just how much Jim’s new position meant to him I’m sure she’ll relent and the two will move to Philly, but one thing is certain their beautiful romance over nine years on television will live on forever.

Jim and Pam – a love story for the ages. Who knew a quirky sitcom about office workers selling paper could be so damn beautiful?

Bill Hader’s Last Goodbye

By Julian Spivey

Saturday night’s (May 18) episode of “Saturday Night Live” is honestly going to be one of the most emotional episodes of the nearly 40-year late night sketch comedy show for me.

Why? Because one of my all-time favorite ‘SNL’ cast members, Bill Hader, is saying farewell to Studio 8H. Remember how fans reacted and felt during the final Photo courtesy of NBC episode of last season when Kristen Wiig made her ‘SNL’ farewell? Well, that’s going to be how I’m feeling tomorrow night at midnight when Hader takes the stage for his final goodnights. In fact, it’ll be even worse, because not only is Hader leaving, but so too are ‘SNL’ veterans (and two more of my favorites) Fred Armisen and Jason Sudeikis.

Sure, I’ve seen other favorite cast members leave the show – some with much fanfare and others with little to none – like Will Ferrell, Tracy Morgan, Jimmy Fallon, Tina Fey, Darrell Hammond, Will Forte and others, but none of them hit me like I know the departure of Hader will.

Ferrell is my all-time favorite ‘SNL’ cast member – as he is to many others – but, I had just begun to watch live episodes of ‘SNL’ in his final season of 2001-2002, so his departure, while one of the greatest episodes I’ve seen to this day, was not as emotional to me as it would have been had I followed his career at ‘SNL’ from the beginning.

I’ve followed Hader’s career from the moment he joined the cast in the 2005-2006 season. Since then he’s gone from new guy on the block to the cast’s most valuable player and when he leaves that great stage for the final time Saturday night he will leave with a body of work on the show that I believe can truly rival all of the many legend’s who’ve also graced it.

9|Page

The great thing about Hader is that like Ferrell, Dana Carvey, Phil Hartman, Hammond and Dan Aykroyd before him he was the everyman cast member. He could carry a sketch, steal a sketch or just plain play the supporting guy in a sketch. He could and seemingly would gratefully do it all. He’s been a true team player who turned himself into a star when he never seemed to really care to be one. He just let his completely original characters, spot-on impressions and sound effect like voices carry him through eight terrific seasons and the fans rewarded him for it with immense laughter and, as this piece is a testament to, much love and admiration.

Whether it was impersonating Al Pacino, James Carville, Julian Assange, Vincent Price, Clint Eastwood, Rick Perry, Keith Morrison or, my particular favorite, Alan Alda or performing the wacky intricacies of characters like Herb Welch, Vinny Vedecci and the bit he’ll forever most be known and loved for, Stefon, Bill Hader has left me in tears from laughter too numerous times to count. He may well have me shedding a tear or two one final time on Saturday night – almost certainly from laughter, but quite possibly also from the sheer thought of “Saturday Night Live” without Bill Hader.

Movies Iron Man 3

By Philip Price

When “Iron Man 3” opens and Eiffel 65's hit "Blue" from 1999 begins to play, we see the Marvel and Paramount logos flash up on the screen. From that moment it was clear we were in for a little something different this time around. I haven't read many comic books and out of the ones I have, none of them have ever been an “Iron Man” comic, but at the end of the day it feels like that if there was a film that was able to get as close to the spirit of its source material (or even the artistic medium originally used for that matter) that it might be this one. Granted, I have nothing to base that on, but it is simply a gut instinct in that the tone of this film is very light in its banter, very quick in its wit, and also more personal at the same time than I ever expected it to be, especially considering the obvious point that it's a massive summer blockbuster. While “Iron Man 3” doesn't exactly live up to the expectations I was holding for it, it instead reroutes them and delivers a story that was more on the opposite side of the standard super hero flick spectrum while still containing enough explosions and fight scenes to appease those that go to these kinds of movies expecting nothing more than that. Director Shane Black took over for Jon Favreau (who still shows up to play Happy Hogan), and took on writing duties as well. He has delivered a very Shane Black-esque script with plenty of self-referential dialogue and a large scale action set piece every 20 minutes or so. I enjoyed the film immensely and found Robert Downey, Jr. as good as ever as Tony Stark. But, despite all the flash and 10 | P a g e

bang, it still felt like there was something missing, or maybe that's just because Captain America, Thor, and The Hulk didn't bother to show up.

What that point alludes to though is the fact that “The Avengers” did happen, and the film does acknowledge that, which is great and I appreciate. The aftermath of what that experience has done to Tony plays a big role in the development of his character here, which is probably the aspect I was most excited about concerning this movie. Still, no matter if this plays as more of a sequel to “The Avengers,” or not, it doesn't really matter because we should all simply look at the Marvel films now as one continuous series of movies. The dilemma that this poses for Marvel and all of the movies it produces from now on though is how can they compete with themselves? Does watching the adventures of one of these heroes compare to watching the "Super Friends," as they are so lovingly referred, battle aliens and bad guys? Well, if any of them could prove this possible, it would be Tony Stark and his Iron Man suit. This time around as much as Tony is still dealing with the new threat of The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) and a rival scientist played with campy glee by Guy Pearce, he is also doing battle with himself and a kind of post traumatic stress syndrome from having traveled into space at the end of “The Avengers” fully expecting to sacrifice himself. He is unable to sleep. Though his relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow, who I've never found to be that appealing but works well with Downey), seems to be on the up and up as does his productivity as he's testing out new armor and new suits that respond on his command and adhere to his body when needed. It is a cool trick and very useful as he displays throughout the entire two hour and fifteen minute run-time. The major complaint I have about the film though is a lack of coherence in plot points. There are seemingly so many strands of storylines going on here, it is hard not only to keep track, but to keep point on why certain things are happening or why certain characters are doing those things.

The best example of this may be the disregard for Rebecca Hall's character, a botanist named Maya Hansen. She appears on screen within the first couple of minutes of the film and is made to stand as some kind of vengeful character after Tony treats her as he does every woman he met prior to becoming Iron Man. The catch is that this one has a brain and ambition. The problem with this is that her characters motivations and character traits are never clearly defined. It's clear she wants to do whatever it takes to make her professional dreams become a reality and for her research and ideas to be given the attention and opportunity she feels they deserve. But beyond this, how does she become entangled in the whole mess of a situation with fellow scientist Aldrich Killian (Pearce) and the bin Laden like terrorist that The Mandarin is made out to be? The sad fact is that we don't ever really get to know whose side she would rather be on or what her true motivation might be. The same could be said for Pearce's Killian as he plays the baddie who wants to take over the world in typical fashion. His weapon of choice is a tech-based super soldier serum that he has invented himself and has deemed "Extremis."

This can regenerate limbs but it also has a nasty side effect that if you don't do the right amount of things could cause you to explode. What those things are we are never sure for the rules of this serum are never clearly defined nor are Killian's intentions. Does he want to be the next Tony Stark, but without the new conscience? That seems like we're retreading material as Sam Rockwell had those same intentions in “Iron Man 2” and enlisted the help of Mickey Rourke's Whiplash, right? Does Killian do the same here with Kinglsey's Mandarin? Technically, yeah, but with a slight role reversal. I don't mind the odd and somewhat cartoonish nature of Killian's weapon or what he intends to do with it. I simply wish those intentions were made more clear and more of a threat rather than simply serving as a device to have Tony Stark and Iron Man defeat something in the third act of the film, but then again this is a summer blockbuster and some level of incompetent storytelling is expected.

11 | P a g e

If there was one thing I remember hearing about that was so refreshing about “The Avengers” was that it didn't simply relegate the female characters to standard damsels in distress. That somewhat continues here as, despite my personal distaste for Paltrow, she proves herself more than worthy as Tony's better half. She gets a few moments to shine if not becoming that damsel in distress a few times as well. Still, the fact of the matter is that Hall's Maya was an underdeveloped aspect of the script, a script that simply doesn't have enough space to properly flesh out all of what it wants. I say that as I really expected to see more of Don Cheadle's James Rhodes and his new alter ego, The Iron Patriot, here in hopes he would leave a big enough impression that they couldn't cheat him out of the action in “The Avengers 2.” But, honestly he is played as such a second fiddle character here and defines such a line as to where he fits into Tony's world. I will completely understand if we never see him again, which is a pity, because Cheadle really digs this role and that comes through on screen. Still, with all of that slightly hindering my experience there is a redeeming quality to the film and that comes in the form of the main story arc. This also returns to the idea that the biggest nemesis Iron Man has here is himself and his anxiety. Black strips Stark of his gadgets, his tools, his riches, and sends him into the barren landscape of a small Tennessee town where he must play detective to put the pieces together and figure out what The Mandarin is up to. Here, he befriends a young boy (Ty Simpkins) and at that point the film takes on a new kind of life, rejuvenating the tired beats of where the audience might have expected the film to go.

It is a refreshing twist that leads to a surprise revelation (especially considering the ace marketing of Marvel) that may have some fan boys yelling blasphemy, but I rather enjoyed. It is that perfect example of subverted expectation while in the end capping everything off with the expected, but stunning actioninfused finale (also, the Air Force One set piece is worth the price of admission alone).

What is even more revelatory about the film though is the way it seems to understand that Tony Stark and his solo “Iron Man” stories have run their course. The ending brings a sense of peace and the throughline of the main plot concerning itself more with Tony Stark the man, rather than the guy who is placed on a pedestal as a super hero or as a part of the Avengers, is what makes the film feel, on its most basic level, as personal as it ends up being. We feel we get to know the real Tony Stark as we did in that first film when he was searching for his place in the world and who he really was. This time around he knows who he is, he knows what he is supposed to do, but all of that has been called into question after realizing he isn't the most talented guy on the block, let alone the only super hero. Tony Stark will return in the sequel to last year’s billion dollar success, but after that I don't believe we will see Downey, Jr. or anyone else don the iron shell again, that is until they inevitably re-boot all of this in 10 years or so.

Despite their being only a few similarities between Stark and Bruce Wayne I looked at “Iron Man 3” as what “The Dark Knight Rises” might have been had it not taken place eight years after the events of “The Dark Knight.” It would have been about a man trying to rebuild after a life altering event and the way that is handled here in terms of our titular character’s story is with a slick elegance and perfect balance of humor and torment. Even if the side characters and their stories are given the short end of the stick, I'll take that for the intimate character study we are given as the main course. It is an entertaining thrill ride. It is fun and distracting, and tells a nice story without necessarily pushing the universe further and that is all fine and good, but it is somewhat of a pity it never becomes anything that is necessarily memorable.

12 | P a g e

Star Trek Into Darkness

By Philip Price

When I walked into 2009's “Star Trek” I'd never seen anything prior that had anything to do with the beloved television series and the several movies it spawned. I grew up a child of the ‘90s and was first introduced to “Star Wars” and simply stuck with it, as by that point, ‘Trek’ had grown into the Patrick Stewart/‘Next Generation’ series that was by all accounts, beyond me. Still, walking into J.J. Abrams rebooted take on the ‘Trek’ franchise with no idea what to expect, no preconceived notions of the characters or any idea what the story might revolve around I was pleasantly surprised to learn how accessible it was and how much I enjoyed it. I didn't know if the original series had ever taken the time to tell the origins of the crew that made up the Enterprise but I assumed if they had it was not to the depth the film did.

Due to this it would be extremely exciting for fans of the original series to be able to see some of their favorite characters in the younger stages of their lives and for those that were new to the world it would serve as a fitting introduction to everyone. Between that film and the now second installment in Abrams’ series, “Star Trek Into Darkness,” I still have yet to dig into anything more that exists in the “Star Trek” canon. In many ways it simply feels like too daunting a task to try and catch up on nearly 50 years of material while on the other hand I wanted to be able to experience these films made in my day and age as fresh experiences with no notion of what should happen and why, but instead a willingness to see where these new adventures take us and maybe catch up on the backstory sometime down the road where it will be just as fascinating for me to see where these characters eventually go as it was for long time fans to see where they came from. So, this is not a review from a guy who caught all of the references or understood all of the inside jokes that likely took place, but instead I offer the point of view of someone who very much enjoyed the 2009 film and was eagerly awaiting (and hoping) the sequel would follow the series' main proclamation of going boldly where no man has gone before.

While that hope may not have been completely fulfilled by Abrams’ follow-up he still seems to have accomplished, or at the very least, have the ideals to try and push the boundaries of this series in new directions while running the risk of offending some of the more devoted fans. It is necessary to change and evolve, though, and I think it is a gutsy move to not necessarily follow the steps the majority expects you to take, but rather to take what has been laid out before and mess with the mythology in a way that might ultimately add more weight to other entries in the series while still delivering a very entertaining and well thought out sequel that matches, if not exceeds, the experience of the first film. I completely expected the film to be simply set-up as Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) along with the rest of their crew going on the next space adventure as the first film had set them all up so well in their positions and ready to explore. Instead, the film begins with a nice set-piece that while not as emotionally heavy as the first film sets up an interesting conflict between our two leads that results in Kirk being demoted to Commander and Spock being transferred to another ship. That is, of course, until a mysterious man under the name John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) begins acting out seemingly 13 | P a g e

random acts of terrorism for reasons that we are led to believe put him along the lines of Javier Bardem's Silva from “Skyfall,” but once Kirk and his crew are given permission to chase down Harrison after he escapes to Kronos, the home of the Klingon's, who apparently have an imminent war with the humans brewing. It is at the point that the Enterprise comes upon Kronos that the plot becomes more convoluted, but not necessarily mangled. I was able to follow the events with ease as the script expertly sets up how one thing leads to the next while placing each member of the crew where they need to be and utilizing their set of skills to further the story, the only issue with it is that it doesn't necessarily all hold up once you've exited the theater and start discussing the film.

While I'm not one to get hung up on inconsistencies with how things necessarily happen to have certain plot points become possible (the aforementioned “Skyfall” and even “The Dark Knight” are full of plot holes that could be questioned) as it simply gets in the way of enjoying the overall effect the film has on you. Especially when the characters are appealing as they are here and the dialogue and banter between them all is so witty and genuinely funny. Abrams and his team of writers (Alex Kurtzman, Robert Orci and Damon Lindelof) again do a fine job of managing the ensemble cast as each of them get at least one moment to shine if not being slightly shortchanged overall. The greatest offense to this is Zoe Saldana's Uhura as she plays into the leads a bit more than the others seeing as she is in a relationship with Spock and while the movie sets up a lover’s spat between the two of them this is all but absent during the last half of the film, as is Uhura. Still, even as I think back on it they were able to have Saldana, along with Karl Urban as Bones (serving somewhat as comic relief), Anton Yelchin as Checkov, John Cho as Sulu and especially Simon Pegg as Scotty in predicaments where they are allowed to contribute to the conflict at large while never making it feel as if they are being pandered to because everyone deserves a little attention. The film has a breakneck speed of a pace that has the two hours flying by and while jumping from one large set piece to the next doesn't always necessarily translate to a story with equal spectacle Abrams has such a gift for setting up the action sequences in a way that add weight to them while having at the center the characters we come to know so well that we care all the more about the after affect it deals them. In that regard, Pine and Quinto are the heart of the film and deliver performances that stand as much more confident and assured than their first time around.

What I found to be most engaging about the film was that not only does it have compelling characters and an adventurous story that is all beautifully shot with plenty of lens flares (get over it!) and has another stellar soundtrack from long-time Abrams collaborator Michael Giacchino, but it also offers an interesting commentary on real world issues and genuine human complexities as I'm told the original “Star Trek” series always did. From the beginning there is the issue of Kirk disobeying the "prime directive" and not thinking logically as he exposes a primitive culture to his starship in order to save Spock, while Spock argues with the actions that saved his life because he is only able to think in terms of logic. This throughline of wrestling with moral and ethical decisions and what actions to take is reiterated several times in the film by having Cumberbatch's villain become a somewhat mirror image of our main protagonist. There is even a gray area in the middle of the film where we as an audience are made to question the alliance of Cumberbatch's character and whether or not he is in the wrong or if his story, as he tells it, is completely true which portrays Starfleet's Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) as an envious, power hungry man who will take advantage of whomever to get to where he wants to be.

There are evils in both sides and the story asks us to make the decisions as much as it does our main characters and while the conversations between Spock and Kirk are always ripe and precisely delivered by the actors playing them we don't always agree with them and more than usual this allows for us to 14 | P a g e

become engaged with the decisions that are ultimately made and explains why these films that could have just as easily created enormous backlash have been engaged by the public so successfully. The characters have always been well liked and when placed in situations that are relevant to the current audience cloaked in futuristic garb and spaceships it is all the more fun to watch and all the more interesting to experience. “Star Trek Into Darkness” may have a few faults here and there and may not hold up as well as it should, but it is a fun, dazzling, suspenseful and enjoyable film that also wants to be about something. I don't know about you, but I'll take that as a win.

The Hangover Part III

By Philip Price

If you know me than you know I have a soft spot for comedy. I love it and I pretty well like everyone involved in the mainstream comedy game in Hollywood. I root for the underdogs the critics like to bash and I've felt I've especially had to stand up for “The Hangover” films since many, fans included, were disappointed in the carbon copy follow-up the second film turned out to be.

I was, like most, a huge fan of the first film. I found it refreshingly funny and daring. It didn't care what anyone thought, it just wanted to be funny and that is what comedy is supposed to be. There should be no fear when putting what you think is funny on screen and that element I think is what saves the third and final part of this men-behaving-badly series.

Director Todd Phillips and writing partner Craig Mazin listened to the audience reaction to ‘Part II’ and appeased the crowds by saying, “OK, we’ll do something different for the third one.” Naturally, this was a smart move but as the first reactions have come in it seems people are upset that there is no trace of an actual hangover anywhere in the film. Instead of following the antics of these guys on a chase through a random city that has them putting together the pieces of the night before, it has them exploring the truth about Alan's psyche and wanting to help him move on with his life. In some aspects it is a film completely devoted to character development and getting Zach Galifianakis’ lovable goofball to a place where we as an audience feel content to leave him. The rest of the time it is almost a dramatic manhunt movie that has “The Wolfpack” tracking down Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong).

“The Hangover Part III” is certainly not what you would expect from the trilogy and compared to the others it is definitely the least funny, but that doesn’t make it a bad movie. In some ways it made it more of a legitimate film.

Even if you were put off by the laziness in the script of the second film, you at least had to admit it was funny. On repeat viewings, I actually like the second film more than the first as there is actually more at 15 | P a g e

stake and real danger present as opposed to the simple shenanigans of the first. Still, it was apparent even from the first trailer that besides the plot construction and change of pace, there would be something different about this third film.

And Phillips made it clear from the opening song choice that this was going to be a much darker film than the previous ones and even dare to get a little more strange, if not as outlandish as ‘Part II.’ Opening with a beautifully shot prison break by Mr. Chow from a high security Thai prison set to a moody score and specific lighting it seemed Phillips might really be on to something special here. The film then returns to our protagonists to give us a quick catch up: Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms) are living out their married lives and continue to be friends while Doug (the always brief Justin Bartha) and the rest of his in-laws are dealing with Alan refusing to take his meds and becoming increasingly demented to the point he buys a giraffe and accidentally decapitates it on the drive home.

It’s a great little gag, but it sets the stage for the death of Alan’s father which prompts Alan’s mom to stage an intervention that brings each member of The Wolfpack to Alan's side for support.

It is on their way to the rehab facility that they are run off the road and kidnapped by Marshall (John Goodman adding a nice bit of class to the joint while being somewhat underused), a man who has lost $21 million in gold bars to Chow and holds The Wolfpack as the only guys he can link him to. He holds Doug hostage (a great little inside joke that no one seems to view as a joke) and gives Phil, Stu and Alan the task of bringing him Chow within three days or he will kill their friend.

The thing about this set of movies and what will make this third one especially endearing for fans is the relationship between the three leads. The thing we took away most from the first film was the bond that was formed on that fateful night in Vegas and that these guys truly became a wolfpack of some sort, even if that companionship was still fractured throughout the second film. In the third film this fact is completely accepted, even by Stu who was always the most resistant. If you like the characters, if you simply enjoy hanging out with these guys and watching them get into a little trouble and go on adventures than you will certainly appreciate this opportunity to visit them again. However, that isn’t to say you won’t be slightly let down by the direction or tone of the film.

Though I really do appreciate what this film is trying to do – it was brave enough not to include the titular after effect and explore the facets of the can of worms that night four years ago opened up. This through line of storytelling is what, for me, makes this a satisfactory conclusion to the series. The way it does all come back around to make a complete story and along the way giving us a real opportunity to get to know at least Alan in more ways than just skimming the surface.

One of my favorite scenes in ‘Part II’ was when the gang visited the monastery and we took a quick trip into Alan’s mind that showed he and his friends as children while Stu’s soon to be brother-in-law remained his same 16 year-old self. It hinted at what was really going on inside Alan’s mind. ‘Part III’ is really all about the scene-stealing character and his journey from oddly absurd innocence to his own type of maturity. While this is entertaining and strangely fascinating throughout the film, it also cuts into Cooper and Helms’ time to really explore any more of who their characters have become. Cooper’s Phil has always been kind of the leader while being a bit of a tool, but his charm was that he so loved the thought of getting into trouble with Alan, that he genuinely loved laughing with and at Alan. That spirit seems all but gone from him here. Stu, on the other hand, seems slightly more confident as a married man, but it’s only a matter of time before he slips back into his regular schtick and then there is nothing more. The chemistry is still there, but with the focus mainly on Alan here, Phil and Stu just don’t have that much to contribute.

16 | P a g e

Are there other directions they could have gone in ‘Part III’? Sure. There are different directions I would have preferred they take especially since the character of Chow became an even more integral part of the trilogy as it went along rather than writing him out completely. Sure, he was a nice little side character in the first film and he garnered a few of the biggest laughs but as nice as Ken Jeong seems to be in real life a little bit of Mr. Chow goes a long way. I don’t know who put it in Phillips’ mind that the general audience was completely in love with Chow but he certainly thought we wanted more and has given us the character in a form here where he could legitimately be counted as one of the leads. They wouldn’t have a story to tell or trouble to get wrapped up in if it wasn't for the character which is not the way I would have chose for this all to play out. It was nice to see the nods to the first film pop up throughout whether it be Black Doug (Mike Epps), the return to Vegas, Heather Graham as Jade popping in with baby Carlos (the real baby from the first one, Grant Holmquist) and even the walks through Caeser’s Palace brought back some fond memories, but at the same time it only reminded me of the greatness the first one achieved. Vegas seemed a fitting place to end the story, but I wish Doug would have become more involved finally and that Phil would have suffered some type of damage other than the physical that might damage his supreme self worth he sees in himself.

There still didn’t have to necessarily be a wedding or a bachelor party (though Melissa McCarthy’s cameo and what it amounts to certainly creates a desire to see more), but they could have simply explored the relationships between these guys without something dire even happening. Bring it back down to something simple and elicit the laughs from the core relationships that we are all there for anyway. That would have really been turning the audience’s expectations on their heads and might have proved more successful than this one has been with critics so far. The ultimate lesson that I hope is taken away no matter what the eventual legacy of ‘The Hangover Trilogy’ turns out to be is that the first one will always be a classic, a true comedy that started something huge and gave us quotable line after quotable line with one of the most hilariously dumb characters in cinema history.

Whether the two follow-ups diminish that legacy or are looked at in a better light after time will be interesting to see play out. Still, I can’t help but feel that despite its shortcomings I will come around to “The Hangover Part III” much as I did the second one and appreciate Todd Phillips for bringing to the film the comedic voice of this narcissistic, mean-spirited generation.

17 | P a g e

The Great Gatsby

By Philip Price

Like almost every American who has been through high school, I read “The Great Gatsby.”

And, like most high school students, I didn't appreciate the novel the first time around.

Although the more accurate description, is that I didn't comprehend all of what it was trying to say. I still have yet to revisit the novel. But as I sat down to experience the latest film adaptation of the novel by the often flamboyant and always stylish director Baz Luhrmann, the parts of the story that I vaguely recalled seemed to escape me completely. I was then able to totally embrace the extravagant world Luhrmann and his team created for the audience. I was able to dig into and become better acquainted with the specific time period, the social climate, and the characters. This knowledge was a necessary framework in order to understand and relate to the characters before becoming entranced with their melodramatic lives. It is to be understood that through the glitz and the glamour of the “Roaring Twenties,” F. Scott Fitzgerald's great American novel was wrapped in commentary for the societal issues of the changing culture during that time. Though it would be easy to dismiss the film as a case of style over substance, I was completely on board from the very beginning as the caliber of the cast was able to elevate what might have been an otherwise overlooked aspect of the production. The depth each actor brings to his or her character in this film emphasizes the themes Fitzgerald touched upon, and they are only embellished by Luhrmann's preference to have everything as big and excessive as possible. It is a film that entices the audience into the world of fantasy in which it exists. Audience attention is captivated by the film’s consistent style and by the cast which brings their A-game. These traits created a combination which captured the essence of everything I expected and wanted from this film.

Attempting to adapt Fitzgerald's novel to the big screen was a gutsy move. Former efforts, most notably the Jack Clayton/Robert Redford version, had failed to capture the essence of the novel and proved the work to be a tough project to crack. The plot would lead you to wonder why, as it is a rather straightforward story. Our narrator comes in the form of Nick Carraway, portrayed by Tobey Maguire, who is a young writer. He has put his passion behind him, and moved to New York to become a broker.

His goal is to make some actual money that might buy him a part in the lavish lifestyle he sees happening all around him in the summer of 1922. Nick gets himself a small cottage next to a castle of a mansion, supposedly owned by a mysterious owner known only to many as Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio).

Just across the bay lives Nick’s cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan), and her wealthy husband Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) who comes from old money and has a flair for messing around with other women on the side. If you've read the novel, you know all of this is simply an extravagant set-up to slowly peel back the layers of who Gatsby is, how he came to command such a fortune, and why he is inherently eager to be friends with our narrator. The movie sets up the aura that surrounds the mythical status of Gatsby in a fantastical manner. From the way in which we are introduced to the title character, to the way his parties and guests are portrayed, the movie becomes one large caravan of bewildered people simply looking to have a good time. One sees no sense of accountability for the circus of alcohol and confetti. It is a wonderful party to which each member of the audience has been invited. But, as the story 18 | P a g e

progresses, we are witnesses to the after party moments. Having created an air of such mystique, we find it all the more engaging to see the intimate moments unfolding throughout the remainder of the narrative.

Whether the excitement of the first half, or the more personal second half, what ultimately keeps us invested in the film are the performances from the high caliber cast. I've never been overly fond of Maguire, though I've hardly seen him in anything more than Sam Raimi's “Spider-Man� trilogy. I've simply never found him an appealing screen presence, but I didn't mind him here at all. I was worried about his guiding us through the story, but his Nick Carraway is nowhere near the timid, bland man that I imagined Maguire might make him. Instead, he lends the role the right amount of intelligence and easygoing nature that makes him the perfect middle man. While the other major characters of Tom and Daisy Buchanan are more divisive in terms of likability, which comes strictly from the way they were written in Fitzgerald's novel, the thing about their film incarnations is that despite the negative aspects of their characteristics I enjoyed the performance of Edgerton more than I did Mulligan's. Edgerton obviously portrays the more despicable character. As Tom, the white supremacist millionaire, Edgerton has the right build and brings the right sense of arrogance and charm to the role, which explains why Daisy has a certain weakness for the man despite his many flaws. Unfortunately, this has always been the downfall of Daisy, and even though Mulligan is a suitable actress to take on the role, she is still unable to bring justifications for the degree of Gatsby’s admiration. Mulligan plays the role with a classy air of effervescence, but in the end the overall appeal is more self-absorbed than bubbling over with personality. Mulligan does her best to play up the main conflict of the script that relies on her decision, but we only come to despise her for the shallow way she deserts Gatsby, especially when played by an actor such as DiCaprio. While all of these characters heavily contribute to the journey on which the story takes us, no one defines it or seems to understand it as DiCaprio does. He sees the hollowness and disconnect Gatsby has with the real world, and by bringing that to the surface DiCaprio helps the audience sense the true tragedy of it all.

DiCaprio is on a hot streak. But really, when has he not been? And so, the hot streak continues, and is even epitomized by the performance of the main character he interprets. The public persona he has goes hand in hand with that of Gatsby's: a mysterious man of wealth who keeps his personal life out of the public eye, only to appear in high class projects which he almost always elevates by simply committing his name to them. DiCaprio gives his Gatsby the charisma necessary to pull off the extravagant facade he has put on while making us believe all the stories that have come to define who people think he is, what he's accomplished, but never questioning his lack of presence at his own gatherings. Where we don't come to care much for Tom and Daisy as they are simply rich folks creating their own drama to fill the emptiness of their lives, we attach ourselves to Gatsby because we know he desires something more, something meaningful, and it is in those earnest first scenes where Gatsby and Daisy are reunited for the first time in five years we see the depth DiCaprio brings to his character. He is completely in love with her, obsessed you could say, but never do we find him creepy or off-putting.

Instead, he is sensitive and debonair. The film smartly holds off the introduction of Gatsby, which helps build the mystery around him, while building our anticipation of seeing a marquee name with such credibility portray one of the most famous literary characters of all time. The pay off, for me, was a completely satisfactory experience, aided by the impressive production design, the costumes, the special effects and the soundtrack which matched so well with the style of the time period and the current. The soundtrack contained slick tones that made the movie a pulsating tale about the dark side 19 | P a g e

of the American dream, and emphasized the effects of being recklessly excessive. It may be bad news for the people in the story, but this film is an impressive and thrilling interpretation to watch on the big screen, old sport.

Classic Movie: "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (1928)

by Dan Stewart

In general, I find myself responding more to audio than not, which makes it difficult for me to watch silent movies due to the greater inability to fully grasp the emotion behind the film. However, in Carl Th. Dreyer's 1928 silent film "The Passion of Joan of Arc" I had no such inhibitions to my enjoyment and the lack of aural dialogue proved to enhance the entire experience.

The film had a total budget of 7 million francs, or 17 million in today's US dollars (Fun fact: "The Passion of Joan of Arc" was a critical success and a complete financial flop). The original cut of this movie was lost in a fire (ironic considering the subject matter), and the second cut (re-cobbled together through outtakes and alternate camera shots) failed to live up to the original's standards. Dreyer mourned that his magnum opus would never see the light of day in its original, unaltered state again. And it didn't, at least until a complete copy was found in a janitor's closet in a Danish mental institution in the early 1980s. This is the version released to the public, with beautiful and haunting soundtrack provided by composer Richard Einhorn in 1994.

The movie condenses the trial records of Joan d'Arc, of which there were 29 or so, into a single interrogation, complete with torture and her eventual execution at the stake. The titular saint is played

by Renee Falconetti, in her second and final role in the industry, and that's the extent of the cast.

Certainly there are many people in various roles, be it inquisitor, bishop or soldier, but they all play the part of tormentor. In comparison Falconetti deserves the highest of praises. It's said that her performance is one of the best in cinematic history, and I find myself forced into agreement. Through Dreyer's legendarily harsh directing methods, Falconetti is the epitome of subtlety; her face does not show emotions as much as wear them. Every twitch of her lips, every motion of her eyes mean something. This is why the silence in audio is so demanded: it forces the viewer to notice every shift in Falconetti's demeanor, for the hidden meanings behind every action to become tantalizingly obvious.

From a historical standpoint, the film was made in a pseudo-remembrance of World War I and the destruction in France, yet is nearly entirely without national pride. With the exclusion of being written in French, and the obvious off-hand mentions of France and the English, Joan isn't played as some fantastical being of France. If anything, she's everything but a national hero; instead, she's a perfectly 20 | P a g e

normal illiterate girl under extreme duress whom we watch suffer in the most strangely beautiful way possible. Yet at the same time, there is no real chance to truly identify with Joan. With her wide, brimming-with-emotion eyes, her soul remains behind a solid wall, from both the audience and those around her. If anything, she is amazingly reminiscent of Dorothy Lange's Great Depression photos of migrant workers: blank and stoic expressions keeping a whirlwind of emotion in check, so very human in their suffering, yet wholly inhuman in their firm conviction to continue onward.

This trend permeates the entire film. Dialogue is used sparingly, with several instances of silent talking with no corresponding intertitles. Even the times in which the cards are used, there's a queer inability for Joan to answer the questions asked to her, largely out of an attempt to avoid the trick questions used to trap her into convicting herself. The responses are simultaneously clever and entirely maddening, again keeping the audience at bay, never allowing them into the fullness of her experiences.

Furthermore, the film techniques continually keep the viewer off-kilter. There are no real establishing shots. Very few shots show continuing action, and tend to throw each other into off-center and awkward perspectives. It's confusing in the manner that reflects Joan's state of mind. Perhaps it's also meant to suggest the inability to fully relate to a single person's personal journey to the very ends of their religious convictions?

There's also no attempt to push forward high-brow concepts through the wider appeals of lower-brow methods (like in other films starring martyr characters such as "The Passion of the Christ"). That is, the torture scenes are hard to watch (particularly a bleeding scene in which an assistant really did get their vein cut; that spurting blood is not fake), but is without excessive elaboration. As such, it becomes entirely disquieting in its simplicity.

However, despite the continual abuse Joan endures, it does not mean that her captors, as nameless and blending together as they might be, are entirely cruel, sadistic beings. There are quite a few scenes that show the humanity and compassion within. The best example is the scene in which Joan recants her previous confession and those about weep for the death she has condemned herself to. It isn't that they aren't living people, but simply believing in a higher order of things, one in which her death is a necessary evil.

Worst still, the film suggests the same moral, that her death was needed in order for a good future to happen, despite ending with images of the French rebels with renewed conviction being slaughtered by the English and Joan burning at the stake, her form blurred by smoke and flames.

All in all, "The Passion of Joan of Arc" is not an easy film to watch in any way, but it is strangely rewarding. It is both simple in plot, complex in design and entirely full of human emotion.

"The Passion of Joan of Arc" can be watched for free with English subtitles at: http://vimeo.com/25035903

21 | P a g e

Every Woman’s Medical Choice: Angelina Jolie’s Brave decision

By Aprille Hanson

Angelina Jolie made one of the bravest decisions any Hollywood actress could ever make. In a New York Times editorial published May 14 titled “My Medical Choice,” Jolie revealed she underwent a preventative double mastectomy and reconstructive surgery after finding out her chances of developing breast cancer were 87 percent, 50 percent for developing ovarian cancer. Her mother died from the vicious disease at 56, after battling it for almost a decade.

Jolie wrote: “Cancer is still a word that strikes fear into people’s hearts, producing a deep sense of powerlessness.”

My family felt that powerlessness in August 2012.

Five months after my mother passed away from Lupus disease, my grandmother (her mother) was diagnosed with breast cancer. I’ll never forget that phone call. Nana – who is like a second mother to me – called after getting confirmation from the doctor.

“I have breast cancer.”

It was as if my world, my entire family’s world, that had already been hanging by a thread collapsed. In an instant, we as a family joined the millions of others out there who all thought they would never be touched by the disease.

We researched. We asked questions. We cried. We tried to stay strong.

She underwent a lumpectomy, which was extremely painful for her – I can only imagine the pain Jolie endured. Nana completed radiation and is so far doing well on the chemotherapy pills.

Our family’s story is one of too many out there. For women who are torn about what to do to avoid the disease now have Jolie to look up to.

If a high profile actress who works in an industry that often times puts one’s beauty above everything else can leave that all behind to protect her health, why can’t I? Jolie put her children, her husband, her entire circle of family and friends, her life before her career.

How many actresses or actors do that today? With divorce, drug abuse, sexual exploitation running rampant in the entertainment industry, it’s almost a miracle that someone stood above the rest as an example for all of us to follow.

Jolie explains the procedures she went through in detail, which will be such a useful tool for many women. When you get the horrific news, you search everywhere for information and it can almost seem like being lost in a sea of hopelessness. The best information and advice Nana received was talking to others who have been through it. People who don’t know who to turn to or don’t have anyone can now turn to Jolie.

22 | P a g e

“I wanted to write this to tell other women that the decision to have a mastectomy was not easy. But it is one I am very happy that I made,” Jolie wrote, adding that her chances have dropped from 87 percent to only five percent. “I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer.”

While the testing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that Jolie underwent to find out her chances can run about $3,000 in the United States, it could be life-saving.

Jolie is no stranger to humanitarian work and while she is known as an actress, her legacy will be what she’s done to better this world. And now, one of those betterments is becoming an advocate for woman with breast cancer or who want to take their destiny in their own hands.

I hope I am strong enough to be proactive about cancer. Lucky for me and every woman out there, we have Jolie to look up to.

As she put it: “Life comes with many challenges. The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can take on and take control of.”

Albums ‘Annie Up’ by Pistol Annies

By Aprille Hanson

Since country music legend George Jones died on April 26, many have quoted the lyrics to his song about the genre’s greats who have passed: “Whose gonna fill their shoes?”

No one really has the answer, but I know of three sassy, bootstomping women who are trying their best to do just that.

It would have been simple for the Pistol Annies – made up of the award-winning country singer Miranda Lambert, Ashley Monroe and Angaleena Presley – to merely become an OK band, a pet project for Lambert to do on the side.

But the strong vocals of “Holler Annie” (Presley), “Hippie Annie” (Monroe) and “Lone Star Annie” (Lambert), make each of them not only stars in their own right, but together the best, truest country band on the market today.

Their 12-track sophomore album “Annie Up,” is a collection of songs that would fit right into Loretta Lynn’s era, while bringing in themes and styles that still ring true for this generation of country lovers –

23 | P a g e

Jesus, dysfunctional families, marriage troubles, sin, drinking and softer tracks like love and “being loved by a workin’ man.”

The entire album taps into a country market that most groups/singers aren’t getting to – the true, Southern folks where life may be surrounded by beer and pick-ups, but real-world issues are often taking center stage.

Similar to their debut album, the women each get to shine on certain tracks, while blending pure harmonies together in others. Their first single, “Hush Hush” is probably one of the weakest songs on the album, but none of the songs are truly weak. It chronicles a family dinner around Christmas after their brother gets out of rehab, a father is talking up political “propaganda” while a mother is sneaking vodka – oh dysfunctional family dinners, just best to keep dirty little secrets “hush hush,” as the girls sing. It’s a good song in general, particularly for radio audiences despite it probably not getting much airtime.

“I Feel a Sin Comin’ On,” is an anthem for God-fearing women that make mistakes – in the form of hunky men – even though they know it’s wrong. The ominous tone, coupled with Lambert’s thick twang, makes it a sinful delight.

The album hits the right amount of sass on “Unhappily Married,” the upbeat “Damn Thing” and “Girls Like Us.” A song that really needed to be recorded is “Don’t Talk About Him, Tina.” It’s not fast-paced, but has enough get-up in it to make the lyrics fun, talking about convincing their friend “Tina” that the best thing her cowboy ever did was “leave her.” It’s a unique song about women sticking together to pick up their friend’s broken heart. It’s amazing that no other female country singers have released a track like this.

“Loved By a Workin’ Man,” is a tribute to the workin’ man and how there’s nothing better than being loved by one. No, he may not “do the dishes” but “he’ll sweep you off your feet.” It might get some feminists out there all in a tizzy, but no matter – the song is sweet, raw and real and true working men will love the Annies for it.

While “Being Pretty Ain’t Pretty,” seems like it could be a fun, lighthearted song, it’s anything but that.

‘Pretty’ is slower, sad ode to what women feel like they have to do to be considered pretty in today’s society and it’s really not pretty. As the chorus goes: “Being pretty ain't pretty, it takes all day long / You spend all your money just to wipe it all off / You spray on your perfume, you spray on your tan / Get up in the morning, do it over again / Being pretty ain't pretty at all.”

The last sign of the song trails off with “Being pretty ain't pretty...” which is really a perfect way to end the song.

What really shines are the album’s slower tunes, like “Blues, You’re a Buzz Kill,” “Dear Sobriety” (both led by the sweet, high vocals of Monroe), “I Hope You’re the End of My Story” and perhaps one of the best divorce tunes ever recorded, “Trading One Heartbreak for Another,” purely because it’s unique.

Divorce, break-ups, heartaches, etc., are common themes in country songs, but ‘Heartbreak’ touches on the pain of a divorce on a child. The woman in the song is free from a broken love, but how can she be truly free of pain when her “baby is crying for his daddy.”

24 | P a g e

Presley takes the lead mic, singing at the chorus: “I’m trading one heartbreak for another / One kind of pain for a different kind of pain and I wonder / If this is gonna hurt even more / I’m finally alive but it’s killing who I’m living for.”

It’s beautiful, tragic, real; everything a country song should be.

The Pistol Annies have done more than just form a kickass trio – they’ve helped quench a thirst for classic country in a genre that’s choking for true talent. No, they might not be filling the shoes of the greats just yet, but they will. In the meantime, they’re busy breaking in their own star-studded boots along the way.

‘Indicud’ by Kid Cudi

By Kellan Miller

Thousands of years ago, anonymous Greek philosophers (probably named Hippopotamuscrates and Galifinakludies) invented a line of thinking that has withstood the test of time: art imitates life. But even though they made a lot of lengthy, complicated plays, consequentially causing poor English majors like myself mental havoc when attempting to write 10-page essays hours before the due date (no Galifiankludies), those ancient Greeks were on to something with their original theory, because magic occurs when art imitates life.

When I first heard Kid Cudi, I didn’t know what to think. Perhaps this had to do with the fact that I was at Burning Man ’08, and in the general spirit of things, I didn’t have a clear thought in my head the entire week. I’m under the impression however that the confusion stemmed more from my past notions of what constituted hip-hop than my lack of sobriety at the time. Growing up during the shiny suit/bling-bling era, it was shocking to hear music so graspable and personally relevant. The rappers I listened to, posing difficult questions like “Beamer, Benz or Bentley” were exacerbated when I realized that my own triangular dilemma instead revolved around a nightly Ramen Noodle crisis: Beef, Shrimp or Chicken flavored?

In mid-2012, Cudi tweeted: “My new album is entitled Indicud, it will be my version of The Chronic 2001, some songs i’ll produce, others i’ll feat &/or play songwriter.”

While most rappers fail in their quest to produce their own songs, “Indicud” is a persuasive indication that Cudi has skills in the beat-making department. The instrumentation on the album is truly complimentary to his style, and no other song better reflects this than the first official single off the album, “Just What I Am.” Featuring fellow Cleveland native/long-time member of Cudi’s clique, King Chip, the song is 100 percent party anthem material (yet, somehow, inexplicably absent from Top 40 radio), while still containing the confessional aura that is Cudi’s custom: “Had to ball for therapy/My shrink don’t think that helps at all/Whatever, that man ain’t wearing these leather pants/I diagnose my damn self/These damn pills ain’t working fam.”

25 | P a g e

But in spite of his apparent struggles, Cudi appears a man more content with his life this time around, as “Indicud” bares little resemblance to his previous solo effort in terms of mental anxiety. On “Immortal,” an energetic Cudi narrates his journey toward serenity and higher self-esteem, sampling MGMT’s “Congratulations” for a penetrating beat overflowing with electricity. Songs like “King Wizard” and “Mad Solar” exhibit an artist extremely comfortable in his lane, comfortable with his idiosyncrasies and comfortably numb to his haters.

“New York City Rage Fest” is an instrumental that is more in the vein of the late-great J. Dilla’s “Donuts” than the styling of the Doctor. And while there is nothing similar to the infamous “Pause 4 Porno,” preceding many of the album cuts are famous film quotes from some of Cudi’s favorite movies; a sampling-style most identifiable with The Wu Tang Clan. One of the highlights of the album is the guitarheavy, “Unfuckwittable.” Playing more like Slash than the novice guitarist we heard on “WZRD,” Cudi wastes no time in establishing himself as the next producer juggernaut in the making. It’s difficult to describe the instant appeal of the song in words, but the biggest homage I can pay it is that it is impossible for one to hear it without feeling simply unfuckwittable.

And while there are no hooks by Future, or beat-the-pussy-up-like-_____ raps from Lil Wayne, “Indicud” is laced with more than a few noteworthy appearances. Arguably, the most surprising is that of RZA. I say arguable, because although Too $hort holds down a pretty awesome yet unexpected guest spot on Cudi’s extremely catchy summer romp, “Girls,” in the history of time I cannot recall ever hearing RZA flow freely on a song he didn’t produce, co-produce or simply act as a featured artist. But always the one to break trends, “Beez” features the sole voice of legendary-producer/terrible-rapper RZA. While the song is better than expected given the calamitous odds stacked against it, other “Indicud” visits are more deserving of praise, such as “Brothers,” featuring A$AP Rocky and King Chip, and “Red Eye,” featuring the L.A. based indie rock group Haim.

Yet, in possibly the biggest letdown of the century, the long-hyped “Solo Dolo Pt. 2″ featuring Kendrick Lamar, is by far the shittiest song on the entire record. Aside from the opening 10 seconds, the song bears little resemblance to the original classic in terms of quality or sound.

Overlooking the savage treachery of “Solo Dolo Pt. 2,” and a few slightly mediocre tracks (“Burn Baby Burn”, “Cold Blooded”) “Indicud” is a monster of a record, and a perfect complimentary piece to the albums that have proceeded it. It’s clear that Cudi has evolved, and with his recent bittersweet departure from the G.O.O.D. Music camp, one would expect that only the sky, or rather the moon, is the limit for the levels at which future projects will reach.

Songs ‘Done’ by The Band Perry’

By Aprille Hanson

The Band Perry is clearly one of the most versatile bands in country music right now. From the tragic ballad “If I Die Young” to the bouncy “You Lie” to the dark and twisted “Better Dig Two,” the sibling trio

26 | P a g e

continually proves they can sing anything and make it a hit. Well, at least anything but their awful first single, “Hip to My Heart” … we’ll just forget about that one.

Their latest “Done,” has a kick like something Miranda Lambert would perform and for the beat, it has a pop-country vibe similar to Taylor Swift … but nowhere near as corny as we are never ever ever ever ever EVER, did you hear me, EVER, getting back together. It goes something like that.

Kimberly Perry gives the perfect amount of punch to a song full of them – it’s about a girl who is “done” being torn down by her boyfriend. As the chorus goes, in part: “You're one page I'd like to burn / Bottle up the ashes, smash the urn / I'm through with you, la di da / I don't wanna be your just for fun / Don't wanna be under your thumb / All I wanna be is done.”

During a radio interview, Perry mentioned how she grew up listening to Michael Jackson and influenced by the random sounds he threw into his songs, she tried to incorporate it in this hit. The best one is at the end, where she basically does a grunt/sigh of exasperation. Lyrically, the song is gold, with the best line: “You play with dynamite, don't be surprised when I blow up in your face.”

‘Boys ‘Round Here’ by Blake Shelton

By Aprille Hanson

Let me start this off with a disclaimer: I love Blake Shelton. He’s one of the greatest male voices in the genre right now. He’s hilarious on “The Voice,” definitely my favorite judge. His wife Miranda Lambert is my favorite female country singer and her band the Pistol Annie’s is just kickass – pretty much what country is all about.

I hate Shelton’s latest single, “Boys ‘Round Here.” Hate is a strong word, but it might in this case be an understatement. With past hits like “Austin,” “Ol’ Red” and even more recent ones like, “Home,” it’s just a shame to see Shelton stoop to lame country/hip-hop/crap, whatever you want to label it and also roping in the Pistol Annies to this piece of garbage.

Basically, it sounds like a redneck on crack wrote the song. With the weird record scratch “red red red red red red redneck” line combined with others like “Ain't a damn one know how to do the dougie / (You don't do the dougie?) No, not in Kentucky / But these girls 'round here yep, they still love me / Yea, the girls 'round here, they all deserve a whistle / Shakin' that sugar, sweet as Dixie crystal.”

Plus, the unnecessary jab at The Beatles: “Well the boys ‘round here don’t listen to The Beatles” – I’m sorry, but I’ve lived in the South for most of my life and most people listen to The Beatles.

But the worst is really the chorus’ last line: “Chew tobacco, chew tobacco, chew tobacco, spit.”

Gross. The whole song is gross. The only redemption I guess is the back-up vocals from the Pistol Annies and that’s only because they have amazing harmonies.

Shelton is better than this. It’s easily the worst song of his career and it’s a shame he’s released it when he’s arguably the most popular because if it fairs well on the charts and with fans, he’ll probably keep releasing tracks like this. I want mullet Shelton back.

27 | P a g e

‘Wagon Wheel’ by Darius Rucker

By Julian Spivey

Despite what a lot of people seem to believe a good song is almost always going to be a good song no matter who records it. This, of course, can be wrong depending on how an artist has musically altered the song or based on how they sing it, but it’s usually going to be accurate.

“Wagon Wheel,” a song originally sketched and abandoned by Bob Dylan before being finished and rescued from obscurity by the folksy, bluegrassy, Americana-esque Old Crow Medicine Show in 2004, almost instantly became one of the greatest country music recordings of all-time. The song put O.C.M.S. on the map and has developed an almost cultish being in the country family tree.

Darius Rucker, the former frontman of Hootie & the Blowfish turned country music hitmaker, being a fan of the song, as anybody with good musical taste would, decided to cut it for his newest album “True Believers.” The result is currently the number one country song in the nation, but has been met with split results from fans. Many of those who like Rucker’s version of the song probably never heard the “original” and many who loved the O.C.M.S. version have met Rucker’s take with disdain and act as if he’s taken something as holy as the Bible or U.S. Constitution and spat all over it.

Those who identify “Wagon Wheel” as a Darius Rucker song desperately and immediately need to acquaint themselves with the Medicine Show’s version. Those who act as if Rucker has tarnished an incredible song’s reputation and are vilifying him for doing so desperately and immediately need to reacquaint themselves with the first sentence of this review.

Which version is better?

I prefer Old Crow Medicine Show’s take. Like many, I typically will prefer either the original version or the version I heard first (those who hear Rucker’s take first and then hear the O.C.M.S. version will likely always prefer Rucker’s). In my opinion, O.C.M.S. did the song the way it should be done; and I don’t mean this as a knock to Rucker, because when you cover a song you almost have to change it up and make it your own, which he’s done to success.

Maybe it’s because of the way O.C.M.S. performs the song, but it feels like it should be done by an oldtimey string band. It feels like a song that has to have twang, has to have the cry of the fiddle, the pluck of the bango. It needs the grit that Ketch Secor sings it with. It’s a song that should feel old, older than it is. It should sound traditional and lived in. Old Crow Medicine Show’s version nails it perfectly. A song doesn’t become an instant classic unless the musicians have done just that.

O.C.M.S.’s version is old school, true or classic country. Rucker’s version is modern country. It’s poppier, less twangy, less stringy (though still features the all important fiddle, especially at the end) – made to suit a larger audience, one that’s more in tune with Keith Urban than folksy, bluegrassy Americana.

Rucker has one of the top tier voices in all of country music or really any genre of music for that matter and naturally he brings it to his version of “Wagon Wheel,” maybe almost to the track’s detriment.

Rucker is really too crystal clear and crisp, too suave and smooth for such a song. Had Rucker’s version 28 | P a g e

been the first one I had heard I would’ve been thrilled with the song, hailing it as one of the genre’s best songs of the year – which it almost certainly is and will remain come the year’s end. Many may disagree, but the best thing about “Wagon Wheel” is its incredibly strong lyrics and those haven’t changed any from O.C.M.S.’s version to Rucker’s. This is a prime reason why Rucker’s version should never be considered poor or trashed. It’s just that Old Crow Medicine Show’s musicianship is better or fits the song better and Secor’s vocal, for my money, is more appropriate.

Rucker’s “Wagon Wheel” is a good song. Old Crow Medicine Show’s “Wagon Wheel” is timeless.

Gaming Xbox One – From a Gamer’s Perspective

By Chris Rhodes

Long gone are the days where gaming is the only thing a videogame console was designed to do. We now expect our gaming machines to be able to play music, movies and stream Internet content as if we were on our personal computer. We’ve advanced to the point where in some cases, motion or voice controls can be used to navigate through a console’s applications or even offer new gameplay experiences. With that said, I ask that you keep the following question in mind when reading up on the latest console generation: How much is too much when thinking about a videogame console?

After weeks of speculation, the latest console from Microsoft was officially revealed yesterday with the name, Xbox One. The origin behind the name comes from Microsoft’s stance on an all-in-one entertainment source; one place for music, movies, sports, internet, games and more. It sounds great on paper, that is, until you realize that most people already own several devices that do all that. Quoting a friend at work, “In this day and age, when every device can already do everything, nothing really seems special anymore.” That’s exactly how it felt while sitting through Microsoft’s Xbox Reveal conference and for a majority of the time, it seemed that Microsoft had forgotten the reason the Xbox brand is as popular as it is today – the gamer.

As a gamer foremost, I sat through the first 30 minutes or so of the hour-long conference and couldn’t help but shrug off every new ‘feature’ that was thrown at us. Everything from turning on the console with your voice by shouting “Xbox On,” to being able to change the size and point of focus of a video playing by just using hand gestures. We saw the inclusion of real time sports statistics for those who enjoy fantasy sports, and being able to multitask by watching a video and doing an Internet search on the same screen. While multitasking is generally new to consoles, its effect wore off quickly as I started 29 | P a g e

to imagine the number of times I might actually use it. Still, half of the conference was over and there had yet to be anything mentioned about games that will play on the Xbox One. They were holding on tight to their all-in-one entertainment mantra, as the word “game” was simply tossed around here and there.

With about a third of the conference left we were finally shown some game footage, although it was from what I would consider safe-bet games. That being, game series with an established fan base and usually pushed out often enough to be derivative. After viewing several game forums once the conference had ended, the general consensus from gamers was discontent even with the high profile games being shown. There are two reasons for this. One is that these selected games are generally expected. There is really no surprise or sense of awe when a new “Call of Duty” is teased (I apologize if I offended any “Call of Duty” fans). The other is the marketing tactic of bullshots and CG/gameplay interspersed trailers. Many times in gaming, what’s shown in trailers is not truly reflective of the final product, even if the creator claims footage is not CG (aka pre-rendered animation). We’ve seen too often a promised set of visuals only to be letdown with the final product. Skepticism will decrease your excitement quickly. I know that E3 (Electronic Entertainment Expo) is merely a few weeks away, but I have no more excitement now than I did before the Xbox One unveiling as no new or innovating gameplay was shown. This was quite different from the Playstation 4 reveal a few months ago where gamers at least got the taste of several live demos. However, as I hinted at earlier, I don’t believe Microsoft intended to excite me greatly as a gamer. Their target audiences are people looking for an allin-one entertainment source, which happens to also play games. People who would like to dabble in technology that they may have not previously experienced on the PC or other similar devices.

Not to completely side against the Xbox One, there are indeed many positive aspects to the console. The system will feature a pack-in version of the new Kinect. This is honestly a huge deal because for the most part, accessories that are not launched with a gaming console usually do not do as well in regards to sales or implementation in games. It also boasts 8GB of RAM although it is unclear if this is dedicated RAM or RAM shared by both the system and the GPU, as is the case with the Playstation 4. The console has an 8-Core CPU, a 500GB HDD for storage, a Blu-ray drive, USB 3.0 ports, HDMI in/out ports and an 802.11n wireless adapter. While the graphics power available isn’t fully realized yet, the Xbox One already has leagues more hardware potential than its predecessor, the Xbox 360. Once turned on, the system will have a familiar, yet redesigned user interface that allows for full Kinect voice and motion support. Like the Playstation 4, the Xbox One also allows you to record video gameplay and offers cloud support for storage and power. For those unfamiliar with the cloud, it’s essentially a buzz word for online storage through another service to save documents and other files. It can also refer to many remote computers helping to solve large tasks behind the scenes. Lastly, what many people might find useful is the ability to have Skype on demand through your television using the Kinect’s camera and microphone. There is a lot of potential there for aesthetic and gameplay innovation, but until more is shown, it’s reasonable to be skeptical. However, if the all-in-one entertainment value, cross-device connection and usability, and Kinect powered software appeal to you, then the Xbox One just might be something to keep your eye on. That is, assuming they avoid the Playstation 3’s mistake of having the initial price just a tad too high.

It’s not all fun and games though, as Microsoft, and most likely Sony, are moving towards a system that doesn’t favor the average game consumer. The first is the fact there is no backwards compatibility since the Xbox One changed architecture type. This means the Xbox One will not play any retail or digital Xbox 360 games, so you shouldn’t get rid of your 360 if you plan on upgrading later this year. In fact, the only console this generation with this feature is the Wii U. There are also reports that Microsoft is 30 | P a g e

implementing a required registration on games. That means a game is tied to a single Xbox One / Xbox Live Account. If that same game disk is then used on a different Xbox/Account, that user will have to pay an activation fee to install it and play. Since many people give away, sell or buy used games, this could potentially hurt not only the consumers, but stores that sell used games as well. The reasoning for this is because a publisher doesn’t receive any money on a used game sale. It’s also based on the fallacy that a used game sale is really a lost full-price, retail sale. Similar to the effects studied from game piracy, this is not always the case and the steps taken to prevent it usually only hurt the consumer. If true, it will be curious to watch and see how it affects game sales and revenue gained. NOTE: As of writing this article Microsoft’s Phil Harrison has clarified a little on the used game situation: But what if you want to bring a game disc to a friend’s house and play there? You’ll have to pay a fee— and not just some sort of activation fee, but the actual price of that game—in order to use a game’s code on a friend’s account. Think of it like a new game, Harrison said.

“The bits that are on that disc, you can give it to your friend and they can install it on an Xbox One,” he said. “They would then have to purchase the right to play that game through Xbox Live.”

Harrison did go on to say that Microsoft will offer a way to sell used games online, so it indeed seems like they’re trying to capitalize on used game sales.

With all that said, I don’t think the Xbox One is a bad system. In fact, it will probably sell amazingly just as the Xbox 360 did. However, as technology advances and devices start sharing similar features, it’s the ones that are both innovating and fun that rise to the top. Xbox One has quite a few unique features, but I’m betting the novelty of these will likely wear off quickly. What you’re left with afterwards is a media center you most likely already have on your PC, and games that appear on other consoles as well.

In fact, when it comes down to it, games should be first and foremost on a game console, and exclusive games are what make a game console shine. Microsoft claims to have a handful of exclusives ready to show, and hopefully they can deliver on that at E3 this June. However, right now, a majority of vocal gamers online don’t seem to have a lot of faith.

You can expect the release of the Xbox One later this year.

Books ‘Grapes of Wrath’ – Not ‘Gatsby’ – Is True Great American Novel

By Julian Spivey

“Whenever they's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Whenever they's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there ... I'll be in the way guys yell when they're mad an'-I'll be in the way kids laugh when they're hungry an' they know supper's ready. An' when our folks eat the stuff they raise an' live in the houses they build-why, I'll be there."

It’s so simple and grammatically incorrect, but those classic words from John 31 | P a g e

Steinbeck’s American literary classic “The Grapes of Wrath” might be the most beautiful thing that a typewriter ever did put to paper.

Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath” is American in every sense of the word. It’s about the struggle and strife of hardworking, back breaking Okie sharecroppers searching for a new life in California during the Dust Bowl Depression of the 1930s.

I read Steinbeck’s masterpiece during my junior year of high school and it immediately rose to the top of my all time literary favorites, which include Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451,” Mark Twain’s “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and W.P. Kinsella’s “Shoeless Joe.” I was introduced to ‘Grapes of Wrath’ the same year I was introduced to “The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald and it was ‘Grapes’ that stuck out in my mind (I know … they both should have).

Numerous critics and readers alike consider ‘Gatsby’ to be the “Great American Novel,” but the highfalutin’ society characters of Fitzgerald’s novel don’t showcase that true American spirit that the commoner Joad family does in ‘Grapes.’ In fact, characters in ‘Gatsby’ often showcase the worst of the American spirit.

Steinbeck throws everything at the Joads, but despite the tragedies and hardships they face they keep trudging along through life. Grandpa Joad dies and they go on. Tom, the protagonist and leader of the family, breaks parole by leaving Oklahoma and later becomes a fugitive by killing Jim Casy’s killer, but he goes on in a blaze of glorious words that will always remain my favorite literary speech. Rose of Sharon’s baby is stillborn, but she goes on. Just as we as a people always go on.

“The Grapes of Wrath” ends just as sorrowful as it began with the Joads just trying to survive, but Steinbeck didn’t write fairytales, nor should he have.

Between the tragic circumstances of Steinbeck’s storyline and the Southern dialect that Steinbeck used for his dialogue are two reasons why numerous students in my junior English class hated this classic.

Honestly those are the two things that likely made ‘Grapes’ so endearing to me. After all, why would a Depression-era story be anything but depressing and would you expect Okies to speak Shakespearian?

“The Grapes of Wrath” is the essential American literary classic, in my opinion, and whenever somewhere someone reads the novel and enjoys it as much as I did I know that the spirit of Steinbeck and Tom Joad will be there.

32 | P a g e

Interested in Writing About Entertainment?

The Word is not for profit so we can’t pay anybody for their writing, but if you just want to write, love to write and want to be published we’d love to have you write for The Word. It’s a great place to start for those who just want to write and be published.

We publish reviews, articles and lists about movies, TV, music, books and video games. If interested, you can either write about one specific category or write about multiple categories.

We prefer for the writers interested in writing to choose their own topics to write on, which means you can pretty much write about whatever you want. After a while and we get to know your style we might ask you to write about a certain topic, but that in no way means you’re obligated. There also is no word count for reviews/articles, so you don’t have to worry about strict guidelines.

If anybody is interested in writing for the site or learning more about writing for the site, just message us at braves_snl@yahoo.com

33 | P a g e