Category: Uncategorized

Mamma Mia 2: Here We Go Again will be coming to theaters this summer.  The new movie is set to have the entire cast from the first movie return.  Mamma Mia 2 is set to be a prequal that follows a young Donna (Meryl Streep) as she is pregnant with her daughter Sophie (Amanda Seyfried).  This movie looks like it will bring back some of the classic songs from the first movie and hopefully a few different Abba songs to go with it.

Mamma Mia is such a unique musical when you think about the structure.  The songs blend seemlessly together with the plot.  It makes one think how was this movie made?  Was the plot created around the song?  Were all of the songs from the same album?  Did the writers just choose Abba’s greatest hits to add in the movie or did they choose any Abba song that fit in with the plot that was created?

Mamma Mia was created from Abba’s greatest hits.  This means that the plot was written around the songs, because the songs used were already very popular.  The songs that were used in the musical were not from a specific album, instead they were taken from all of Abba’s old albums.  The majority of the songs in the musical were Abba’s greatest hits.  This could have helped the musical to gain popularity because a majority of the audience already knew the words to the songs.

Mamma Mia was originally a musical that came out in 1999.  The writer of Mamma Mia, Catherine Johnson, thought of the idea of a musical from the song “The Winner Takes It All” in 1983.  The musical wasn’t expected to be a success, but it is still running today all over the world.  Mamma Mia has helped Abba stay popular well past when they finished creating music.  Even now, children as young as ten know the words to Mamma Mia and many other songs by Abba.

It is very rare that we see paintings make a big wave in social media the way that other art like films and music get recognized.  Works by painters won’t ensue much online chatter, retweets or Instagram posts when he or she first unveils them. However, this past week, we saw this happen with Barack Obama’s official portrait.  The former president had personally chosen New York based painter, Kehinde Wiley, for his portrait.  Wiley is known for his grand paintings featuring African-American men and women, combining modernly dressed figures juxtaposed by surroundings inspired by the Rococo Period (from the late eighteenth century) such as floral patterns.  This striking juxtaposition of new and old mixed with the masterfulness in which he creates his figures create rich and beautiful pieces that have rightfully made him a well-known modern artist.  Having been a fan of Wiley’s work ever since I saw his a few of his pieces at the Detroit Institute of Art, and subsequently learning more about him in my studies, I was excited to hear the name of an artist I recognized when the painter of the newest portrait was announced.  When the painting was revealed, I was not surprised at all that I loved it.  While Wiley may not have gone as extreme and extravagant on this piece as he has on others, this portrait was still extremely striking.  I especially love that Obama is sitting in a rather serious position that commands attention and respect, yet he is surrounded by flowers and leaves.  I feel it shows a humanness that is truly beautiful.  After this painting was released, I was curious what the presidential portraits of the past looked like.  As I looked back through them, I mostly saw a sea of muddy colors. Many of the pieces looked nearly identical—the president staring off into the distance making some grand pose. While many of these works were beautifully crafted, there is no denying that they are repetitive and a bit boring compared to the newest dynamic edition.  If Obama’s goal was to be the piece that catches your eye first, he has definitely succeeded. Although some may think it lacks the traditions that the portraits of the past have had, it seems that may be a good thing. These portraits should mirror the style of their time to provide the viewer with the most accurate experience if they look at it years down the line.  Overall, as an art student, it was really inspiring to see an old art form such as painting make such a big wave with so many people today.

Something that I’ve noticed over years of procrastination and long sessions of studying, is that I can’t sit down to work without a solid backing track. The music varies, but my requirements do not. For productivity’s sake, the piece can’t be too attention grabbing. Instead, it should easily fade into the background, willing to be ignored for hours on end. But I am a contradictory human being, so I also want my music to be inspiring at other moments. I want it to rise up and give me the motivation to finish one more reading, one more math problem. Finally, I need music to flow continuously. The music should wind a parallel path to my thoughts. It should be in the midst of its own story while I am in the midst of mine. Services, like Spotify or YouTube, have the bad habit of leading you to unexpected destinations and unknown artists. Perhaps this is palatable, even valuable, if one was out and about in an exploratory mood. It is a musical adventure that I would be willing to embark when I am walking from class to class, with nothing else on my mind other than the lyrics of a song. The music in our ears matches the actions of our bodies, the thoughts in our mind. It helps define our feelings at a certain moment of time through other people’s words. But when I am studying, I feel trapped by other people’s words, other people’s ideas. I do not need another world intruding. It is a delicate relationship that I do not have nearly the energy to maintain. Someone with more care would, perhaps, put together complementary playlists, maybe painstakingly find songs that blend in theme and tone. But I am stuck between caring and uncaring, so I do nothing. Instead, I listen to endless compilations of classical music, loop movie scores, and replay albums. I have even in my most desperate moment listened to Spotify’s ‘Your Favorite Coffeehouse’ , a list manufactured mellow, that made me feel as if I were drowning in pillows. As an amateur music listener, I drift toward the generic and emotional. I am grabbed by obvious arrangements and even more generic lyrics. Sometimes, though, you just need a loyal friend chattering in the background. Someone to stay by your side through the tired midnights. It is a comforting presence, one that I can’t work without.

(Tv.com)

Sorry, but someone had to say it.

If you mention Friends, there’s a solid chance that a chorus of voices will excitedly shout that they too love Friends. The cultural powerhouse of the late 90’s still remains extremely popular, and I’m not quite sure why seemingly everyone is obsessed with it. Of course, everyone is entitled to his/her/their own opinion and it’s totally fine if you like it, but for me, Friends will never win me over. Here’s why:

1. It’s simply not funny (anymore) – was it ever?
2. It’s problematic – the gay jokes, the fat Monica jokes, the predatory misogyny, the toxic relationships, the casual brushing-off of Phoebe’s traumatic past…this could go on.
3. There’s no diversity – all the main characters are white and heterosexual. Yes, Friends first aired in 1994, but it’s an unlikely representation of New York City and people living in it.
4. The characters are all unlikeable – Ross is probably the worst one of all; he whines about his love life constantly, is a terrible father, and is, not to mention, boring. It seems as though none of the characters really have any redeeming qualities that outshine their individual faults.

Perhaps keep this in mind if you ever think about starting Friends…

It can be easy to think of dancers simply as performers. To most of the general public, the stage is the home of a dancer; it’s the space in which audiences see dancers the most. And it’s such a specific space, one that has been painstakingly groomed and placed to evoke certain feelings, tell certain stories, and convey certain ideas. Dancers are trained to inhabit that space in the most fearless, most beautiful way possible. The image projected to the public is one that has been airbrushed and edited, in a sense.

Society views different subjects and activities in different categories: humanities, STEM, sports, the arts, etc. Our culture likes to separate and categorize in order to define and rationalize all of the different ways we communicate, act, and live. Yet, many things live at the intersection of these categorizations. Dance, for example, is not just a practice in performance, but also a study of artistry, intelligence, and athleticism. To say this, of course, brings up an age old question: are dancers athletes? Can art and athleticism truly be combined?

I believe the difference between art and athleticism isn’t the work that they do. In fact, dancers and athletes do a lot of the same work, physically and mentally. Our bodies are pushed to their extremes: jumping higher, being physically active for longer, turning more, running faster. We spend hours and days and months and years fine tuning our muscles, stretching and strengthening and turning them into precision instruments. We push ourselves mentally to believe that we can do things we’ve never done before, to believe that there is more in us after we feel extreme fatigue, to believe our bodies are capable of so much more than we know currently. The purpose of this work, however, is different: the goal of an athlete is to be the best they can be so their team can succeed and win in the game, match, or competition. The purpose of dancers’ work is to perform onstage, to transcend the fatigue and exhaustion to create something of beauty.