OPINION

Album Review: Actress – Ghettoville

Actress: Ghettoville

Similar Artists: Zomby, Lee Gamble, Lukid

Genre: XY2PQXX9

Label: Ninja Tune

It is now Tuesday, January 21st, 2013, the time is 4:25 PM, approximately 10 and 3/4 days since my initial voyage through Actress’ newest labyrinthine maze. While it’s no surprise that Ghettoville — Darren Cunningham’s 4th and apparently final album under the Actress moniker — is a strange and often confounding listen (considering the artist pretty much singlehandedly ushered in a new era of abstract techno) I admit that I underestimated the extent of his powers, and now, it seems I have befallen to them.

After incessantly listening to these 16 tracks repeatedly for 20+ hours, this marks the spot where I will begin my ~~third~~ fourth attempt to write this review. At this point in time, I am unsure if I will ever succeed in accurately conveying the themes of this cerebral minefield, and if this entrapping well I find myself in now continues to grow darker, I fear I will never be resolved of my duties as a music critic. Despite the increasing toll this experience has had on my well being, I must continue to stand by my duties, as mine is a profession relied on by many to provide satisfaction. However, if by some chain of events I am lead to deem my mission as being impossible, I hereby claim to hand over my prided music-reviewing degree and cast myself into exile. Thankfully, that day where I give up will never come, as I have taken an oath to continue to dissect this bold and insurmountable work until I can see it with eyes unclouded.

To prove my seriousness, I shall allow no other album — no matter how highly anticipated and readily available — to meet my ears until I have conquered this one. No dark crevice or subtle texture housed between the walls of this release shall pass by me without being factored into the towering equation. No lesser track shall be left out of the larger picture to allow for a quicker analysis, and most importantly, I shall blame myself and only myself for believing a track could be any less than absolute perfection.

There is no denying the brilliance of Darren Cunningham — I have moved past all thoughts of those kinds at this point in my journey, as I now know those thoughts are only a representation of the inherent mediocrity within myself. The only thing I must use now is patience, for it is the sole device necessary in unfolding the true meaning of this masterwork. Or maybe, just maybe, I will never be able to understand the whole of Ghettoville. Maybe the answer is that I’m just not smart enough to. This conclusion is something that in the long run I am not against saying, as a brain can only handle so much brilliance without overloading and crashing within itself. Sometimes, when I get caught up in thinking about it, I even fear the truth may be that I’ve never actually understood and properly enjoyed a single Actress track to date.

This self pity doesn’t even matter anymore though. It doesn’t matter whether I will or will not ever grasp the underlying themes of this record, as this infatuation of mine is about something bigger than proving myself to the music world. I could care less about how many more hours I will undoubtedly spend waiting for a grand realization or epiphany to form in my mind, because there is simply nothing about my existence that bears any more of an importance anymore. I am addicted, yes, a slave even, though not from any discernible enjoyment that I get from the act of continuously listening, but from the unrelenting curiosity that haunts my mind during the moments when I’m not. There is a feeling of some true underlying importance buried within this record, and one I refuse to dismiss as a production trick. This is a feeling that has been harvesting within Actress’ catalogue ever since he debuted with Hazyville in 2008, but now the feeling has become unavoidable and cemented within the productions. There’s nothing else to do now but wait and listen, and I gladly will until I find out exactly what it is that makes this music so spellbinding, for when that epiphany finally does arrive, I’ll know I’d have spent my life well.

Track Listing:

1.) Forgiven*

2.) Street Corp

3.) Corner*

4.) Rims

5.) Contagious*

6.) Birdcage*

7.) Our

8.) Time*

9.) Towers

10.) Gaze*

11.) Skyline

12.) Image

13.) Don’t

14.) Rap*

15.) Frontline

16.) Rule*

Album Highlight – *

#Richkids of Beverly Hills is #Painfultowatch

by Michael Tyminski

#Richkids of Beverly Hills: Sundays at 10 Eastern on E!

Over the last six or so weeks, between the holiday gap and a smorgasbord of new scripted series, I managed to get a nice break from the reality genre. Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. With only a handful of scripted series left to debut before the Olympics create a second mini-break in the middle of the season (including the very hyped Rake later this week), it’s time to look back over to cable, where inexpensive reality shows typically rule the roost. Tonight, it’s E!’s turn to bring us to the relative warmth of Southern California with it’s newest series: #Richkids of Beverly Hills.

#Richkids of Beverly Hills (from herein being referred to as #Richkids) follows five twenty-somethings, all of whom are the children of multimillionaires or billionaires. There’s Johnny, the aspiring musician, interior designer Roxy, grounded real estate magnate Brendan, party animal Dorothy, and Morgan, a follower of the most noble of pursuits (that would be internet writing for those of you keeping track at home). Together, the five shop, party, and try to achieve their wildest dreams in the California sun.

#Richkids of Beverly Hills is the emptiest show I have ever had to watch. It is vapid, self-important, completely inarticulate, and plays to every bad stereotype imaginable, whether it’s obnoxious legacy kids, ditzy blondes, or the entire millenial generation (get used to language I’ve only heard in those Sprint commercials with James Earl Jones and Malcolm McDowell, because it’s omnipresent throughout the hour). Many of the key problems come from the shallowness of our principal cast: we’re led to believe the show focuses on five main rich kids, but the show seems to revolve around the two least interesting of the five: the shopping and party obsessed duo of Dorothy and Morgan.

Normally, this shallowness has been played off for comedy in the past, whether being sent off on adventures (The Surreal Life) or fish out of water situation (The Simple Life), but #Richkids doubles down on this audacity by not really providing much in the way of action, instead settling for tepid drama (our premiere focuses entirely on a spat between Johnny and Dorothy over a BLOOD DRIVE). Even worse are Morgan’s attempts at manufacturing drama, which seem to either go nowhere (an attempt at making Brendan pay for some pretty decent life advice backfires horrendously), or are incredibly petty (mostly built around being obnoxious to anyone placed in a role of authority in a manner basically the same as that of a petulant teen).

So without any real plot or even likable characters, is it possible that the show could work as one large lifestyle piece showing off where the obscenely rich go out to play? Sadly, that is also a negative, as the show tends to focus on the mundane, whether it is small sangria gatherings, wasting screen time on Dorothy and Morgan taking selfies, or watching people agonize over donating blood. Even when the show does go to exclusive places, such as a high-end party or down rodeo drive, we glean little from it, as the show places the entirety of it’s focus on the self-centered cast.

The Final Verdict: Vain, vapid, and worst of all boring, #Richkids of Beverly Hills fails horrendously by trying to create a cult of personality around people whom are neither charismatic nor interesting. The end result is a show that doesn’t have a logical audience: The people who would watch Simple Life to laugh at Paris and Nicole won’t glean humor, and the people who would Jersey Shore to watch the cast raise hell will bored to tears by the tepidness of the show’s drama. Skip this one at all costs, there’s a decent size chunk of me that’s wishing I did.

Manhattan Digest’s 2014 Oscar Chat

by Dane Benko

Manhattan Digest film reviewers Peter Foy and Dane Benko discuss the major categories of this year’s Oscar nominations.

Oscar, Manhattan, Manhattan Digest — “Should we talk about Animated Feature?” “YES! I love cartoons!”

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

PF: Well, the Best Animated Feature Film category has always interested me, as some of my picks for best film of the year were actually the winners in that category

DB: And this year has surprising selections.

PF: Yeah, no Pixar!

DB: And The Croods, for some reason. Frankly three of them only have a chance, Miyazaki’s The Wind Rises, Frozen, and Ernest & Celestine.

PF: Yeah, and I regret to say I had not heard of Ernest & Celestine till the announcement.

DB: Right, me either… I don’t think it’s going to win, but the nomination itself is a huge honor for it.

PF: Still, it seems to be that Miyazaki is an almost sure-bet.

DB: Yeah, Frozen has perhaps a chance because of the surprising amount of audience fondness of it, but frankly Miyazaki is too big of a name, regardless of the fact he’s won before (for Spirited Away).

PF: Yeah, it’s just the film is being hyped as his “farewell masterpiece,” so that alone should edge it towards the Academy’s favor. I wanted to see Frozen, but somehow it eluded me amidst the bustle of Oscar Season.

DB: Yeah, my Facebook feed is alive with talk about how awesome the songs are, and I was surprisingly engaged by the trailer, but this is the only time I’ve looked at the Animated section and felt at a loss as to where my year of movie watching went, precisely. And why the Croods?

PF: Yeah, that does seem an odd choice. Especially as Monsters University did receive decent critical recognition for a sequel, while it seemed like both audiences and critics were lukewarm towards The Croods. Hey, maybe they were persuaded to nominate it just to have a dark horse in there.

DB: In the end, last year’s Oscar win for Pixar seemed a little shoed in, so all in all I’m glad to see different options this year (even though I’m a die-hard Pixar fanboy), but I don’t think Despicable Me 2 or The Croods really replace that slot. Ernest & Celestine would be the most interesting win, but it’s already reaped a major award just by being featured. Frozen could be a surprise hit but only because audiences were surprisingly keen on it. But this year goes to Miyazaki

PF: I would agree, and I’m also totally for it. I feel that Miyazaki really has earned his coveted title as being perhaps the most celebrated animator of our generation, and has really made the medium an art form

Not only has he used animation to tell fantasy stories that appeal to all ages, but does them with a sense for wonderment and joy that most directors (including live-action ones) couldn’t even hope to capture.

I would call him the Walt Disney of Japan, but in all honesty I think he’s even greater than that.

DB: I still am not 100% sure he’s finished in the world of animation, the last few movies he’s made grumblings about being his last, but since he seems to want this one to underline his ouevre, I respect that.

PF: Yeah, I don’t know if this will really be his last film. He had said that about Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away also. But giving his age, and the acclaim and anticipation that this film is already receiving, then I feel it only builds to it’s stature for us to envision this as being his last work. Kind of like with Jay-z’s The Black Album! Same standard!

DB: But why The Croods?

Best Actress in a Supporting Roll — Showdown: Lawrence or Nyong’o?

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:

DB: Scrolling up, how do you feel about the Supporting Actress nominees? I always have a difficult time with the actors segments., but it’s the actors that bring in the viewers, as the Oscars is really a celebrity showcase.

PF: Yes, very much so. I’m happy with the Supporting Actress nominations for the most part. I’m glad that they nominated Sally Hawkins, as I felt she gave a really strong and careful performance in Blue Jasmine, and I felt that some people didn’t acknowledge it due to Cate Blanchett’s lead.

DB: Sally Hawkins and June Squibb are the interesting ones. I… don’t see Jennifer Lawrence winning again. I love Jennifer Lawrence. She’s awesome. And she won last year. And I think the Academy thinks the same way I think about that.

PF: Yeah, Jennifer Lawrence was great though… and if the Academy wants to make history they may let her win as if she did win the best supporting role again this year, she would be the youngest actress to do so

DB: If the Academy Awards wants to make history (more on this when we discuss Best Picture), they’ll pick Lupita Nyong’o, which I wouldn’t be surprised to see. She did an amazing job in 12 Years a Slave, and 12 Years a Slave is pretty much a showcase of Oscar-quality talent. She may even be my pick.

PF: Yes, that’s true. She gave a very gripping performance, and her performances in the film’s most harrowing scenes were simply astonishing. She might be my pick as well, as any actress would need to go to intense places to deliver in a movie like that. I can’t comment on Julia Roberts as I haven’t seen August: Osage County

DB: I haven’t either. Fact is I’d be surprised if it wins many, or any, awards. I actually have the suspicion that the movie itself is different from the trailer, as the trailer seemed to highlight the reprehensible character Meryl Streep plays.

PF: Yeah, it’s not uncommon for trailers to be misleading these days.

DB: The movie clearly operates on that basis of ensemble performance. This is one reason why it would be sort of interesting to have an ensemble cast section for Oscars. But people’s reactions to it seem to be along the lines of, “I’m jealous of the dead character.”

PF: Ha, well if one film legitimizes the necessity for an inclusion of that category then it’s American Hustle, a film I think we will be discussing quite a bit of…

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:

DB: I sort of want to head this one off by saying, I like Jonah Hill and all, and I loved This is the End, but his performance in The Wolf of Wall Street seemed more like he was acting out a sketch about being in a Martin Scorsese movie, than him actually acting in a movie directed by Scorsese. I’d even, in this list, eagerly give him the award for This is the End, because he played off himself perfectly, really subverting his own celebrity. I think Barkhad Abdi and Jared Leto seem like good contenders to add diversity to the list, but this really seems to be a showdown between Cooper and Fassbender.

PF: Yeah, I don’t think Jonah Hill has a chance. Barkhad Abdi is a fantastic actor though, and was just as strong a screen presence in Captain Phillips as Tom Hanks. Jared Leto might also get my honor for “best comeback performance” of the year, but yeah, it looks like it’s a showdown between Cooper and Fassbender, and I think the Academy is likely to tip in Fassbender’s favor.

Best Actor in a Leading Role — “Who’d win in a fight between PT Anderson and Thomas Pynchon?” “Okay let’s focus man.”

BEST ACTOR IN A LEAD ROLE:

PF: I actually was having a conversation with someone that Tom Hanks was snubbed a leading actor nomination the other day.

DB: Oh? I don’t know, hasn’t Tom Hanks sort of proven his Academy chops?

PF: Yeah, and in actuality I don’t think his performance was quite as remarkable as the other 5 gents that the Academy nominated this year. Although the climax to Captain Philips shows that there’s still plenty of range for the veteran actor

DB: The Best Actor category seems like one of the most competitive. It’s not surprising that many good roles were lost in the shuffle. I honestly have about as good a chance predicting this one as a Magic 8 Ball.

PF: Yeah, I know that feeling. I can tell you I’m rooting for Matthew McConaughey though. In fact I wanted to see him nominated for Killer Joe last year

DB: Yeah, I can see that. The Academy has this really bad habit of awarding talent the year after the movie they deserved to win for. It seems a lot of people feel Leonardo DiCaprio is overdue for an Oscar. I throw my support behind Chiwetel Ejiofor.

PF: Yeah, as 12 Years a Slave really is a star making performance for him. Getting back to snubs… I still think they could of fit Joaquin Phoenix in there…

DB: Oh man…

PF: …as I felt he deserved to win last year for his incredibly unique and volcanic performance in The Master.

DB: It was ridiculous. I didn’t even see Phoenix the person in Her. I certainly saw Phoenix in The Master, and still thought he was powerful. Oh and by the way, as a terrible Pynchon fan, I can’t wait to see him in Inherent Vice. He’ll rock Doc Sportello. But believe me, we’ll get to discussing Her in a bit!

PF: Ha! I can’t wait to see Inherent Vice!

DB: Maybe that’s why Phoenix wasn’t put up for this year. Next year is being prepped for a long anticipated Pynchon adaptation Oscar streak.

PF: If he wins next year, then I’ll be completely ecstatic about it! Back to the best acting nominees though…What do you think about Christian Bale getting another nod? I feel he might have another good chance to win, just cause it’s a role so different from what he’s played before, and he once again perfects it

DB: My opinion on Bale is best described by the scene in Rescue Dawn where he eats maggots with a …. maggot-eating grin: Dude chews scenery in a way I adore, but I wouldn’t give him an award. I feel like I’m more on a rollercoaster than watching a performance. I’d almost feel like giving him the golden man for American Hustle would be more boring than his performance deserves. But I’m not one of the voters, so what do I know?

PF: Bruce Dern is another likely contender. Either for an Oscar, or a lifetime achievement award. As you said all five of the nominees gave career highlights this year, but, who knows, maybe the average age of academy voters will dictate them voting for the oldest nominee in the bunch.

Best Actress in a Lead Role — “I could get into, like, Amy Adams is the only Millennial in the group or something, but they also are a broad demographic of ages.” “Yeah they’re quite diverse for rich white people.”

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE:

DB: Let’s start talking about Best Actress! No in all seriousness, this is one of the better line-ups of actresses in my memory, being that women are finally not always secondary characters in their own stories anymore.

PF: Yes, very much, although I feel that Brie Larsson was snubbed for her performance in Short Term 12

DB: Oh really? I… I don’t know what that is.

PF: It’s just it was a little-seen independent film with an arthouse veneer. So yeah, it’s not exactly the type of movie that would attract Oscar voters. I felt she just gave such a complex and hard-edged performance for that film.

DB: Well, you certainly caught me off-guard. I was gonna mention that Melissa McCarthy should have been nominated for The Heat. I am absolutely serious, she’s the Lou Costello of our generation.

PF: Yeah I didn’t see The Heat, but I thought she should have been nominated for Bridesmaids.

DB: But since Sandra Bullock got nominated instead for Gravity, that’s about the only segue I had to this otherwise eclectic mix of characters. Like Best Actor, I don’t even know where to start here.

PF: I feel Cate Blanchett might be the most likely contender

DB: Yeah Blue Jasmine was something else. I never thought Blanchett would top her performance in Coffee and Cigarettes. And of course there she only had a segment. Now she had to hold up a movie.

PF: Yeah, she gets serious props from me as she was able to balance the humor of her character against the distraught nature of her as well. What an ending too? It was rather disturbing I found.

DB: Actually now that you use that word, pretty much all the actresses this year had disturbing roles.

Bullock’s was the most lighthearted, and it was about the grief of losing a child! Or maybe Meryl Streep’s because we were supposed to laugh at her character?

PF: Yeah, that’s true. Although there aren’t many years when an actress gets nominated cause of how “happy” their performance was. Well for me Brie Larsson’s performance outshone the rest.

DB: Right. So we’re agreed. Brie Larsson should have won, and, uh… we have no clue who will win. But we can agree that all of these actresses do a fine job at making you feel sad.

PF: Yep! Exactly!

BEST PICTURE:

PF: Moving onto best picture now!

DB: Well alright then. To cut to the chase, I can’t help but feel this comes down to 12 Years a Slave versus Her. The rest of the movies are great.

PF: Really, I don’t think Her has much of a chance of winning. To be honest I wouldn’t have been surprised had it not even been nominated

DB: It’s been pretty much universally embraced by critics and audiences alike. And as a separate, specific feature, it’s good up and down and through and through. Good design, good performance, good acting, good editing, and a story that seems to be hitting close to an area big on people’s minds.

Plus Megan Ellison is about as celebrity as producers get.

PF: Yeah, but it’s not exactly an Oscar-type of movie. While it is a film about contemporary relationships, it’s also a high-concept sci-fi film that also seems aimed at indie-rock fans.

I think the two most likely picks for best picture are American Hustle and 12 Years a Slave. The former just comes off to me as this year’s Argo

DB: Yeah but that might be why it loses…

PF: Yeah, I thought about that as well, but it also seems hard for The Academy to resist it.

DB: 12 Years a Slave seems like a good pick because in a weird way we’re overdue for the sober social consciousness film. It also fits the Academy’s MO.

PF: Yeah, although I do notice that the Academy does still tend to like film’s that have a little bit of levity to them. Which 12 Years a Slave certainly does not have

DB: Well in theory, the purpose of these awards are to argue for artfulness of film. 12 Years a Slave is an important film whether you enjoyed it or not. So that sort of sets it to demand people’s, including Academy voters’, attentions.

PF: Yeah, and if we’re talking about craft, then the film is a shoe-in for best picture. I absolutely feel that 12 Years a Slave will win for best director. Steve McQueen really has established himself as such a visionary with only just three films.

DB: I feel like Gravity is misplaced in these two departments. Strictly speaking Cuaron is worthy of being considered for Best Director and the movie is astounding, but it is a technical showcase that should sweep whatever technical awards its up for. But it’s kind of the odd-man-out of the rest of the titles in the Best Picture category.

PF: Yeah, well they have one of those every year (i.e. Inception)

DB: I feel like American Hustle and The Wolf of Wall Street will cannibalize each-others votes as historical looks at decadence and power. 12 Years a Slave has the biggest chops and Her has the feverish word-of-mouth. Which makes them create an interesting sort of unintentional narrative about whether the award will go to the mistakes of our past, or the hopes of our future.

PF: I don’t think Wolf of Wall Street has much a chance of winning. But that’s fine, you can tell Scorsese didn’t make it to win an award

DB: I don’t think Scorsese made The Departed to win an award.

PF: Yeah, but he did make The Aviator to win one. I personally think he wouldn’t have done that movie had he won an Oscar at that point, and I do feel it’s one of his weakest films because of that

DB: I wouldn’t want to answer for him. My feeling is that Scorsese is a case in point that the Academy tends to award a filmmaker about a year or two after the point when people feel the filmmaker deserves it most. Which is why Leonardo DiCaprio is either getting an award this year or next.

PF: A very solid accusation. In fact bearing that in mind, then maybe Leo will indeed win this year as the he has said he’s going on hiatus from acting, so the academy may want to award him now before he takes off for a bit.

DB: I trust his hiatus about as much as I trust Soderbergh’s various retirements. Film people seem to be like that one guy on message forums that’s always announcing his departure from the community. The ones that make the loudest announcements are typically the ones that can’t quit. Heck, Phoenix’s hiatus was a performance in and of itself. Anyway, perhaps I am being too confident in Her. I just strongly feel it is the title that SHOULD win, though 12 Years a Slave is the title to beat.

PF: Yeah, well I didn’t mention it earlier, but I would of liked to see my favorite film of the year nominated (Before Midnight). Her and 12 Years a Slave are my favorites of the batch nominated and Her is what I feel should win, but 12 Years a Slave seems the more probable outcome.

MINOR AWARDS AND ERRATA:

PF: What do you think about how Inside Llewyn Davis didn’t receive any major nominations?

DB: Don’t feel it should have. Loved the movie, isn’t as caustic and daring as A Serious Man and the Coens already settled their score with No Country for Old Men. It still got cinematography award nomination, and it looks friggin’ beautiful. I actually really hope it wins that category.

PF: Yeah, I liked how the film looked like the cover of a folk album. Really evoked The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan’s, but it wasn’t surprising to see it wasn’t nominated for best picture. But, I don’t think the Coens really care either way.

DB: It’s also up for sound mixing but that should go to Gravity. Full dynamic atmospheric subjective sound. Llewyn Davis’ audio award should be for Music. But those categories have to be original song or original score.

PF: Well, it will be interesting to see which movies win in the screenplay categories, as once again, this year saw so many great scripts. Although I’m not exactly sure why Before Midnight is up for best adapted screenplay…

DB: Yeah I was wondering that as well. I guess “Adapted from the characters by Linklater.”

PF: Yeah, probably just an excuse to put the film in that category, but hey, you hardly see sequels nominated for Oscars also.

DB: It would be kind of funny if the Adapted Screenplay went to 12 Years a Slave and the Original Screenplay went to Her. “We’ve adapted to the past, and now we’re originating the future!”

PF: Yeah I was thinking that myself. It could very well happen too, as Her demonstrated that Spike Jonze is a talented screenplay writer, in addition to being a fantastic director, and as you said, The Academy seems due to acknowledge a somber film about America’s darkest past.

Theater Review: “Mercy Killers”

by Ryan Leeds

As residents of the “land of the free and home of the brave”, we are indoctrinated from an early age that the American dream is obtainable with just a bit of hard work and determination. For most, it is achievable. By proverbially “rolling up our sleeves” and “putting a little elbow grease into it”, we can reap the benefits of our labor by acquiring basic necessities and even enjoying luxuries as a self-reward. Alternatively, there remains a majority of people who have played by these rules–muddling through the every day grind with mettle and handling adversity with fortitude—and yet they still manage to come up short. Joe is in that majority.

Michael’s Milligan’s blistering one man drama, Mercy Killers, explores the frustrations and inequalities of a failed healthcare system through the eyes of this average “Joe”. This hour-long, literal examination is effectively staged in a black box, bare bones theater, where our protagonist is defending himself in an interrogation room for a “crime” that blurs the lines of convention.

Milligan, who both wrote and performs the show, paints a comprehensive and challenging portrait of a wounded man exhausted by a circle of despair and grief. His arsenal of rationale is depleted. Milligan’s everyman language resonates and pierces and although we can relate to elements of his plight, we hope never to fully confront its’ level of severity.

After reaching for our coats and trudging through the somber audience, my guest and I engaged in a conversation about Milligan’s exceptional work. Questions were posed and even more left unanswered about the lengths at which our leading player could have gone to have prevented his outcome . Each of us had differing opinions, but we created a dialogue about this crucial crisis. In our ever-present day of political discourse, finger-pointing, and profitable racket over healthcare, Milligan manages to strip down the arguments by humanizing them to a frustrating, but immensely profound degree.

Mercy Killers, now playing off-Broadway now through February 2^nd at the Stella Adler Studio Theater, 31 W. 27^th street between Broadway and 6^th ave. Playing Feb. 5^th through Feb. 16^th in the NYC Metropolitan Area. For more information and tickets, http://www.theworkingtheater.org/

Project M 3.0 Review- Manhattan Digest

by Tim Morris

Copyright Nintendo Source: Max Level — Copyright Nintendo
Source: Max Level

Project M for marvelous.

If you’re a fan of the Super Smash Bros. series like me, you love the fast-paced, edge-of-your-seat action that has been gripping gamers for the last fifteen years now. No series has combined a smooth fighting game experience with skilled platforming as well as Nintendo has with Super Smash Bros. However, if you share my thoughts on the most recent release, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, you know that it doesn’t live up to the standard set by the first two releases. Enter Project M, a game that seeks to capture the greatness of the past. With the ‘M’ standing for Melee, the second game in the series that was released for the Gamecube in 2001, the creators of this homebrew game want their work to highlight what made Super Smash Bros. Melee one of the greatest titles of all-time.

Removing the tripping that plagues Brawl and reinstating small combat mechanics to their Melee counterparts, Project M greatly succeeds at delivering frantic and fun skirmishes that keep me playing for hours. The roster now stands at 41 characters, which includes every playable character from the Super Smash Bros. series. While the creators have stated that the most recent 3.02 release is not a “final” or “gold” version, they’ve certainly outdone themselves by having a fleshed-out roster. Add in the massive number of usable items, 42 stages, online play, tournament mode, and customization options, and you have a lot to do here.

While the game is epic in both scope and execution, there are some minor, almost nitpicky flaws that I’d like to address. First up is the balancing. Now, Nintendo has never been known to care very much about characters being broken in these games (looking at you, Pikachu from the N64 version and Meta Knight in Brawl), and the creators of Project M have done a nice job rebalancing things, certain characters leave a bit to be desired. Some could use buffs, others nerfs (or debuffs), but since the intent is there to continue balancing I can’t fault them too much. Next, some of the faster characters simply feel too slippery. I’m sure this is by design, but picking up items and managing to avoid suicides can prove to be extremely difficult at times. Finally, the AI. This isn’t as easy of a fix as other areas, but in the original release of Melee, setting CPU opponents on the max difficulty was a definite test of skill that forced you to adapt on the fly. In Project M, even at the highest setting the AI seems to have a penchant for offing itself, whether by simple jumping off the side or by deliberately attacking explosives.

If you’re looking for a game to play with others and already have a copy of Super Smash Bros. Brawl (that, along with an SD card are required to play), look no further than Project M. It faithfully replicates the frenetic gameplay of Melee while adding a few wrinkles of its own in order to remain fresh. Even after the new entries in the series hit shelves later this year, I still see myself firing up this game for long sessions with my brothers and friends.

Final Grade: A

Platform: Wii + SD Card with game downloaded to it + Gecko OS
Genre: Fighting
Players: 1-4 simultaneous
Price: Free (if you already have Brawl)

For more information regarding Project M, including downloads and instructions, click here.

WRITER’S NOTE: I do not endorse or promote any hardware or longterm software modifications to copyrighted equipment and content. Project M is a game that can be played without hacking or modifying anything having to do with the Nintendo Wii or Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

Alinea Questions Child-Diners and with Reason

by Blair Kaplan

Manhattan, Manhattan Digest, Alinea — Credit to: Alinea

Last Saturday night, diners at Alinea, an upscale restaurant in Chicago were both upset and outraged, after a couple decided to bring their eight-month old child to the three star dining establishment.

Both sides began weighing in as to whether or not it was inappropriate to allow babies into the restaurant, at which a meal can cost upwards of $200 prior to tax and tip. The restaurant’s Chef Grant Achatz took to Twitter to express his uncertainty and concern.

“Tbl brings 8mo.Old. It cries. Diners mad. Tell ppl no kids? Subject diners 2crying? Ppl take infants 2 plays? Concerts? Hate saying no, but …”

It was also noted that the baby was on the mother’s lap as the couple dined.

The food community overwhelmingly agreed that there is no place for a baby at Alinea or other fine dining restaurants.

However, part of the issue came from the fact that Alinea issues non-refundable tickets for its dining experience to customers, often months in advance of their reservation. According to WMAQ-Channel 5 news, the couple allegedly had a baby-sitter cancel at the last minute but decided to go on with their dining plans anyway.

While I totally agree that there really is no place for babies or young children at such expensive restaurants, I do feel that it is important that children learn how to behave in different settings. While Alinea is not the place for an eight-month old, young children should certainly be brought to more child-friendly establishments a la Red Robin or Applebees.

The only way that a child will learn how to behave in a restaurant is by being in a restaurant. However, regardless of the culinary experience, parents have a responsibility to ensure the peaceful dining experience of those around them. If a child is crying to no avail, it is a parent’s responsibility to remove the child from the restaurant until the child can calm down.

A large part of the dining experience is the ambience – after all, if people only cared about the food they would get takeout. So it’s important that diners with children remember this before choosing when and where it is appropriate to take a child of a certain age. It’s important to note that this is in no way the child’s fault. Children are on certain schedules and deserve consistency. So as disappointing as it may be to miss out on that reservation you’ve been waiting three months for, sometimes it may just be best for everyone involved.

Theater Review: “Hamlet” and “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”

by Ryan Leeds

“Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue.” This request, spoken by Hamlet (to a group of players) in Act 3, Scene 2 of William Shakespeare’s tragedy, is a plea for clarity and authenticity. After all, the acting troupe is about to perform a play in front of Hamlet’s step-father, Claudius, and his mother, Gertrude. So why is there such urgency in the appeal? Hamlet hopes that the play will shatter the consciousness of Claudius, who has murdered Hamlet’s father in order to gain control of the throne. This appeal continues, as he elaborates on how actors should deliver lines. I would suspect that Ian Belknap gave his highly competent cast similar advice during the rehearsals for The Acting Company’s touring production of Hamlet, now enjoying a brief residency through February 1^st at The Pearl Theatre.

To address the genius of William Shakespeare is analogous to pointing out the color of the sky. Throngs of scholars, educators, historians, and fans have spent years dissecting and debating the penultimate playwright since he burst onto the literary landscape of 16^th century England. Although his works are performed often, it is a rare occurrence when they are done at the level of vibrancy displayed here. As I sat watching and listening, I was reminded of Shakespeare’s eloquent insight on the human condition. Centuries have passed and yet we are the same mortal creatures who suffer grief, loss, rage, guilt, heartache, jealousy, revenge, rage, and possibly madness. It is a blessing that such weighty emotional material is receiving such a comprehensible and engaging treatment.

John Skelley’s interpretation of the troubled Danish Prince is personalized and accomplished. His delivery of the language, especially in the pivotal and often quoted monologues, breathes fresh life to the text, as though you were listening to the woes of a contemporary friend. Andy Nogasky’s yammering, but wise Polonius (Chief Counsel to the throne) proves affable and charming and Jacquline Correa creates an exquisitely regal Gertrude- aside from her silver glittered, chunky high- heels. On RuPaul’s Drag Race, they would give other “queens” reason to exalt her majesty. But In Elizabethan era Denmark? Methinks not. Candice Donnelly’s costumes, for the most part, lack aristocratic propriety. Neil Patel’s scenic design offers understated simplicity. All of the action occurs in a neutral, abbey-like setting but still suggests royalty and nobility.

Two normally “forgotten” characters in Shakespeare’s masterpiece are claiming the spotlight with linguistic aplomb. Not necessarily in this production of Hamlet, but in The Acting Company’s production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, which in playing in repertory with Hamlet at the Pearl Theater.

Tom Stoppard’s 1966 comic tragedy is a wholly original view from the minds of two minor players from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Rosencrantz (Grant Fletcher Prewitt) and Guildenstern (Ian Gould) are two schoolmates of the troubled prince who take instruction from Claudius and Gertrude to spy on him and discern whether of not their friend is truly mad. In Stoppard’s piece, the two question their mission, each other, themselves, and nearly the meaning of every word that each of them speak. Along the way, they pantomime characters from Hamlet and the play is interspersed with actual scenes from it. Life’s meaning, monotony, and existence is pondered amidst double entendres, verbal jousting, and wry British humor.

To be honest, it is not one of my favorite plays. Having studied it in college and being familiar with college productions, I found that it crossed into levels of pretension. Under director John Rando’s hand, Stoppard’s critically regarded piece is pensive, lively, and very funny. Prewitt and Gould handle the complex wordplay with flair and their onstage chemistry is a joy to watch. The remaining company supports the two as they double as a flamboyant acting troupe and actual characters from Hamlet.

The Acting Company should stand up and take a bow, for they are continuing the tradition of bringing classic theater to a broad audience. Their mission of arts education to under-served communities is inspiring and vital. Founded in 1972 by John Houseman, they have received numerous awards, including a TONY for Excellence in Theater. New Yorkers seeking high-quality, classic theater should rush to the Pearl Theater while the company is still in town through February 1^st. Certain performances are already sold out, so get thee to the box office soon.

Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, presented by The Acting Company at the Pearl Theater Company, 555 W. 42^nd street between 10^th and 11^th avenue. Tickets available at the box office, online at www.pearltheatre.org or by phone: 212.563.9261. Performances vary.

Ashlee Simpson, Ciara and Hilary Duff | Celebrity Gossip

by Elise Pentz

Ashlee Simpson, Ciara and Hilary Duff, read all of the Celebrity Gossip with Chatty Talk with Elise!

WEDDING BELLS ARE IN THE AIR!! Ashlee Simpson & her slightly younger beau. Evan Ross (YES! Diana’s Ross’ son!) are engaged! The couple’s love is still young, they have only been dating since June 2013, ya’ll.. So let’s hold our breathe & hope they keep their spark alive! Congrats you two lovebirds!!!

On with more good news! After months of speculation, Ciara has confirmed that she is pregnant! While this will be her first child, this will be the fourth for her fiance, Future.

Hilary Diff & Mike Comrie have separated after just 3 short years of marriage. Are you as shocked as I am?? They seemed so happy & in love.. Here’s hoping they can work it out!

Lone Survivor – Like An Inverse “300” | Movie Reviews

by Dane Benko

Read the Lone Survivor and other Movie Reviews at Manhattan Digest!

For a while, attempts by filmmakers to make movies set in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars were hindered by attempts to recreate the form and narrative of Vietnam movies, in style if not outright theme. Add the fact that audiences initially didn’t want to see in cinemas what they were getting from 24 hour news channels, early Afghan/Iraq war films were met with about as much success as John Wayne’s poorly received attempt to turn Vietnam into a World War II movie in The Green Berets. With a new arena came new rules, new soldiers, and new stories, and it wasn’t really until The Hurt Locker focused on the arena itself that the unique soldiers and stories began to engage audience and critic discussion. Now that the new rules were established and a little time for the public to come to grips with the wars, subsequent works such as the miniseries Generation Kill and Kathryn Bigelow’s follow up Zero Dark Thirty could follow actual soldiers and agents involved.

Peter Berg comes in to challenge Bigelow’s near monopoly on tales from the new arena with Lone Survivor, the true story of a failed mission against Taliban leader Ahmad Shahd by four members of Navy SEAL Team 10 in the mountains of Afghanistan. It is not Peter Berg’s first look into the area, as he previously directed The Kingdom, which flopped. Having since continued with the meager Hancock and notorious flop Battleship, he returns to the topic of the wars in the Middle East with a tighter budget and narrower focus, which ends up serving him well. So well, in fact, that Lone Survivor is turning out to be a surprise hit, having taken in nearly as much in its first weekend as The Kingdom did in its entire run, with almost half the budget.

The movie starts with a low resolution montage of Navy SEAL training rendered like an abject perversion of a military recruitment video, where minds and bodies are stretched and strained instructors and drill sergeants demands that the soldiers will themselves beyond their limits. The point of this introduction seems almost subverted by the glossier second beginning of the movie, a bookend element where Marcus Luttrell returns by helicopter broken and battered and near death. An elegiac voice over about camaraderie and brotherhood begins, and then the movie switches into a third beginning and the story actually starts.

Mark Wahlberg plays Marcus Luttrell, the lone survivor and memoirist of the ill-fated Team 10 group. He’s accompanied by Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, and Ben Foster on a mission to kill Ahmad Shah, a Taliban combatant responsible for the deaths of dozens of American soldiers and the brutal execution of villagers he suspects of aiding Americans. Shah (Yousuf Asami) is laying low in a village in the mountains of Afghanistan, and it’s up to Team 10 to track him down.

First approach goes well, including visual identification of Shah. It’s everything else possible that goes wrong, in some mad mix of Murphy’s Law in the mountains. Rather than hiding with a few militants, Shah is discovered surrounded by some 200 armed men. Comms delay confirmation of their recon and eventually cut off altogether. And then a shepherding family accidentally steps across the team’s hiding place, and the entire mission is compromised.

This scene turns out to be one of the highlights of the movie. Luttrell and his men capture the family and debate whether they should compromise the mission and let them go, or kill them despite their innocence in order to keep everything under control. Their dilemma is inflated by a wary observation: if they kill the family, their faces will be plastered all over CNN as war criminals. If they let the family go, their decapitated heads will be all over Al Jazeera. This strange and semi-paranoid observation of media awareness in an otherwise clichéd morality tale. The soldiers can’t just act as warriors but also representatives.

They let the family go and know their fate is doomed. From there it only gets worse. The Taliban takes the offensive and the team goes on a desperate defensive retreat where every bit of damage they take decreases their chances of survival exponentially.

And they take a lot of damage.

Afghanistan is represented by the high desert and mountain ranges of New Mexico, using locations Berg initially seems to take unnecessarily lengthy interest in until the action explodes and it turns out the geography itself adds its own whips and cracks at the beleaguered combatants’ increasingly shredded bodies. The mountains come to be more than just a setting but an antagonist, throwing obstacles in the form of scraggly cliffs, sightline disrupting trees, and even some extra frag to aide the Taliban’s RPGs. Even the local flora and fauna seem to be against them.

Early establishing shots of high contrast and dried out rock faces are juxtaposed with quick shutter imposed jagged movement and harsh light to create a particularly biting quality to the violence. The confounding situations the soldiers seem to end up in are made even more chaotic by editing that jump cuts and even occasionally breaks the line of action (jumps to the other side of a soldier) over focus snaps and time-ramps. However, the qualities of these editing effects are held together by an impressionistic sound design.

The sound design, in fact, is one of Lone Survivor’s best aspects, recreating surges of adrenaline and moments of chaos, disorder, and confusion. Audio is helped along by an interesting score by Explosions in the Sky, a mostly fitting choice as the marching band tum-tutting quality of the drums works for the militaristic aspect while the reverbed trills and thrums of post-rock guitar bring in the anxiety.

For the most part the movie manages to make the combat so harsh that it doesn’t look entertaining or fun. Luttrell’s book, however, is a homage to the sacrifices of his brothers in combat under duress of an extreme and hard to imagine circumstance, and Berg pays tribute to it with the bookended plot voice over that seems to contrast mightily with his otherwise sharp-edged movie. Thus, at various points the movie suffers a creep of sentimentality, especially as Explosions in the Sky covers David Bowie’s “Heroes” as a dirge. However, the strange opening montage manages to tie the two seemingly conflictual representations together: Luttrell and his men managed to get as far as they did due to extraordinary levels of willfulness and physical strength.

It’s interesting to note that at various points the soldiers call each other Spartans. Lone Survivor is like an inverse 300, where a small group of raiders end up besieged in a foreign land in gritty realism and surprising humanism instead of defending their own land in a cartoonish CG fantasia.

Putting the Versatile Back in Versatile-Bottom

by David Baxter

I’m sure that many of my readers have gotten to that point in a Grindr/Scruff conversation where it turns out that both of you are versatile bottoms and the conversation grinds to a halt. Yet, both of you/us have the term “versatile” in the label, so you’d think that someone would be able to step up to the plate and take charge.

OPINION

Project M for marvelous.

Footer