Author: Sally Murphy

Categories
Reviews Stories In Focus

Film Review: Krampus

On an unassuming night sometime late August I settled into my cinema seat ready to watch the previews for whatever mediocre movie I had found when I was struck with a tiny drop of film magic: Krampus. The preview promised some laughs, scares, Christmas glitter and grisly deaths. It also promised something I have been secretly dying to see for years- the revival of the Christmas horror genre.

krampusFinally after months of waiting, my sister, myself and a rag-tag gang of Houghtonites piled into the car and beheld the wonder. And Krampus pretty well held up to expectations, though I have a few notes.

The general story is solid. In a very “National Lampoon” way an extended family crams together in one extremely nice suburban home to celebrate the holidays. Between a gentle german-speaking grandmother (Krista Stadler), a rough and tumble country crew (Allison Tolman, David Koechner), a persnickety angry dowager aunt (Conchata Ferrell) and the trying-to-hold-it-together matriarch (Toni Collette) and patriarch (Adam Scott) we have comedy gold. I was pleased to see that besides the proven comedy heavy-hitters of Ferrell, Koechner, Collette and Scott they were joined by the stoic genius of Tolman.

After some shenanigans and stress building the story’s protagonist, the young boy Max (Emjay Anthony), is fed up with his family’s constant bickering and tension and as a result revokes his belief is Santa Claus and instead accidentally summons the pagan god Krampus to wreak havoc on his home and community. What follows is complete terror as Krampus and his horde of demonic toy-creatures and elves descend on the snow-laden home.

While the story is indeed strong, it does lack some details. By this I mean we could really use a bit more on the history of this Krampus (who is, after all, an actual pagan Christmas god). There is a beautiful scene where Omi (the grandmother) tells her understanding of the entity and, while the story is interesting, we still could stand to understand the truly terrifying origins of the beast. Additionally the ending is somewhat weak. It is clear the writers hit a wall and ended up using a somewhat old horror trope to round things off. Without spoiling it I will say it’s not the worst…but it’s not the best.

However Krampus’s true strength certainly lies in the amazing mind of director Michael Dougherty. Dougherty has written for the horror genre for a while (among others Urban Legends: Bloody Mary) but only made his directing debut in 2007 with the instant Halloween classic Trick r’ Treat. His strengths in both Trick r’ Treat and Krampus are clear and lie in two places: creating 3-dimensional characters that you actually care about and providing the audience with some of the coolest creepy creatures you have ever seen. He is imaginative and unique and the results are beyond fabulous.

From killer gingerbread men to a monstrous snake-like jack-in-the-box that devours its victims whole, Dougherty gives the viewer part-organic, part-mechanic monsters, straight from the bowels of hell. Even Krampus is the perfect beautiful blend of terrifying and amazing that makes you squirm and never want to look away- a twisted dead-skinned, hoofed St. Nick with hollow eyes and a broken jaw sagging open to reveal his long serpentine tongue. All these creatures attack the family the audience has somehow been endeared to in just the 45 minutes they have spent watching. These two strengths alone turn a film with a few plot holes into a pretty solid horror flick and one I would certainly recommend to anyone who likes a good scare.

I think it is safe to safe that Michael Dougherty has officially set his mark on the horror world, I can’t wait to see what he presents us with next. In the meantime grab a candy cane and some popcorn and head to the theaters for some Frank Sinatra Christmas tunes and terrifying man-eating monsters. How festive, how cozy.

Categories
Opinions

Being Queer at Houghton: Sally Murphy ’11

When I was a kid I was known for a few things- crazy hairstyles , my buck teeth I shot water through, and the fact that I never had a crush on any boys at school. Famously at every sleep over- my friends and I giddy with sugar and the freedoms of a late night- we would play truth or dare, never have I ever and eventually settle solidly on the topic of the cutest boys in school. In earlier days I was asked and I smirked and shrugged- even the most popular didn’t interest me. Eventually they stopped even trying, Sally simply didn’t like any boys.

What I didn’t know at the time was that Sally just didn’t like boys…at all. And quite frankly, Sally still doesn’t.

I am lucky honestly. I am lucky that I grew up going to a school that didn’t put  too much stock in one’s dating or sex life. People did or did not date, there were even a few openly gay kids smattered through my middle and high schools and while I am sure they did not have it 100% easy time of it, most of us never really second guessed it. I didn’t think too much about what made me different because I didn’t have to. At home my parents made it clear that issues of sexuality were not issues. I went to church, but I didn’t feel comfortable there for a myriad  of reasons. It might not have been a safe space, but again- I was not necessarily looking for that.

It wasn’t until college that I began to learn the nuances of being rejected.

It should be noted that I am, in fact, a local kid. I was born in Warsaw, NY and carried home to a house on rt. 19. I moved once in my childhood, when I was 7, to a quiet home next to the president’s house. I loved growing up in a college town. I loved the picnics on the quad every year to welcome back faculty and staff. I loved talking about my parent’s professions with confidence and pride, I loved listening from the railing at home while my parents discussed lofty topics far past my bedtime and I loved seeing the students come in and out of our home and my life leaving behind them a sea of unobtainable fashion and wit. But growing up in Houghton and attending the school are very different. One doesn’t get a full understanding of what it means to be in a Christian place until one must sign a paper to abide by their rules.

I remember reading the community covenant for the first time when I was 17. I don’t remember signing it- but I am sure I did. I think I pretended I didn’t to save myself the shame of feeling that I had somehow broken it.

Because, after all, it was just around that time- entering college- that I knew I was different. And I suspected I was queer.

I won’t go into gritty details of my coming out or the nuances of what I have learned along the way, but I will say it was hard. It was a lot of dark conversations, a lot of reading the Bible  and googling articles about sin and a lot of self-abusing. But one of the things that made it the hardest was the conversation about “practicing homosexuality” or “homosexual behavior.” This made no sense to me. Besides the obvious problem that homosexuality was not a choice, I was ironically constantly being told that I was not committing a sin because I was not acting on it. I was not “practicing it.”

Here is the thing though- I was still gay. I never dated in college, I certainly never had sex and I barely dipped the romantic pot but I was still gay. We talk a lot about homosexuality but little about the romantic or emotional that is intertwined in that. I wondered if I talked to a girl I liked innocently after chapel if that counted. If I fell in love- was that a sin? What about walking next to someone? Doing homework together? Where was this line between me just being me and me being the sinful predator the church had made me out to be? It’s a question that continues to bother me. It’s a question that remains imbedded in the community covenant to this day.  

I am lucky. I had a great college experience. My sexuality has never been the most important part of my being and so though I bear a few scars on my arms I have not had the trial so many of us in the LGBTQ community have had coming out. I have been loved by my family and friends and I enjoyed my time in high school and even college. I love Houghton. I loved growing up there, I loved attending school there, I even loved working there after college. Really- I really  do- just ask me, I will gush for hours.

But recently I was asked if I would return if a position became available. And the answer is, quite frankly, that I could never do that. Not only have I spent the past few years more honestly exploring who I am and understanding how wrong the community covenant is, but I am dating someone and it is  clear that Houghton does not want me.

In my time at Houghton I followed the community covenant really well. I never did drugs, I attended way more chapels than needed, I never attempted witchcraft (although one time I snuck off campus to read some Harry Potter- JK, I would never) and I only cracked a beer one time on campus after the death of a friend. And yet, I broke it- every day, every hour, every minute. And that’s hard, because I love Houghton, and there is not anything I can do about that.

I am lucky- I get to walk away from this with a little sadness and a little more hope. But I do want to say- that’s not often the case. This issue has hurt people. Houghton has hurt people. And so long as the covenant is the way it is- that will continue to be true. It’s a step in the right direction at least.

Who knows, maybe one day a job will open up and I will be able to apply.

But in the meantime, I will stay where I am- happy, accepted, loved, a Christian trying their hardest, a human doing what they can, wearing crazy hairstyles and wishing she could still shoot water through her teeth.

Categories
Stories In Focus

Glamour and Humility Reign at the Oscars

Acceptance speeches highlight political issues amidst the sparkle of Hollywood.

Every year as the cold of winter settles into my creaking bones and no sign of sun rises on the horizon there is one night that manages to lift my spirits and give me a reason to cheer, argue, wonder about and remind me why I fell in love with film in the first place- The Oscars.

Yes- I understand the Academy is corrupt, I understand that what is decided that night is not the most objective determination of what the best things happening in the industry are, and I understand you have to take it with a grain of salt- but when you see the glamour, the discussion, the bright lights and big performances- you can’t help but be swept away in it all.

4764440136_3f75b62db4_bThis year Oscars were hosted by none other than Neil Patrick Harris. Harris kept this year’s style light and quippy with a few pointed jabs here and there that ultimately won over audiences both at the event and at home. However the witty host also made the first challenging comment of the night saying in his opening speech, “Tonight we honor today’s best and whitest- I mean brightest.” The joke opened what was to be a theme that night- using the Academy Awards as an opportunity to question the status quo.

Historically the awards have been just that- a night set aside to rain accolades and pat backs. The winners would give quick thank-you speeches and the night was, although glamorous, quite brief. Over the years there have been exceptions- speeches that surprised us or moved us. Who could forget Halle Berry’s acceptance speech when she was the first black woman to win an Oscar for Best Actress? But in recent years the Oscars have become increasingly more political, more profound and more thought-provoking. Speeches have begun to stand for something and this year is the best example to date.

This year we saw two exceptionally well-deserved Oscars go to performances portraying lives wrought with severe illness- Julianne Moore playing a professor fading from early onset Alzheimer’s (Still Alice-heartbreaking, beautiful, powerful) and Eddie Redmayne as none other than Stephen Hawking as he deteriorates from ALS (The Theory of Everything– classic, methodical, elegant). Both winners dedicated their awards to those suffering with the illnesses and Moore spoke eloquently on the red carpet speaking to the misconceptions of Alzheimer’s in general.

But Moore was not the only woman to give an interesting interview on the red carpet. Much attention was given to the launch of the campaign “AskHerMore” which encouraged interviewers to ask the actresses on the red carpet more than just about her outfit. Fittingly this was followed later in the night by Best Supporting Actress Patricia Arquette’s acceptance speech in which she called for equal pay and treatment of women in the workplace. The speech, though somewhat controversial, caused an outcry of support- even bringing the one and only Meryl Streep to her feet in excitement.

Arquette won her award for the innovative film Boyhood by Richard Linklater which follows the lives of a single mother and her two children for twelve years, the same amount of time he used to film it. As the viewer watches the film unfold he or she are also watching the actors grow along with it. The film is new and interesting and beautifully made. It also ultimately calls into question issues of abuse and women’s rights and is therefore so fitting to be a voice for Arquette’s call to arms.

Not-so-subtle Arquette was followed by a similarly long-standing issue of social justice which still needs some work- the civil rights movement. The film Selma, though not a front-runner, is a beautiful look at Dr. Martin Luther King’s march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965. This year the film took home the award from best original song which left barely a dry eye in the house. Upon accepting their speech writers John Legend and Common used the opportunity to discuss current discrimination in the US saying, “We know that the Voting Rights Act that they fought for 50 years ago is being compromised right now in this country today. We know that right now, the struggle for freedom and justice is real. We live in the most incarcerated country in the world. There are more black men under correctional control today than were under slavery in 1850. We are with you, we see you, we love you and march on.”

And lastly, this year’s best picture and best director awards were given to the incredible film, Birdman and even it was sure to make sure it made a political point. Birdman is a dark comedy which follows the dying career of an ex-superhero film star. We see him struggling to hold himself together with a last-ditch effort at re-boosting his career through a self-directed Broadway play. The film is surreal and beautiful and shot as one continuous tracking shot almost to the very end. Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, and the whole cast deliver performances that are edgy, surprising, and heart-wrenching. Director Alejandro González Iñárritu keeps each scene singular with innovative crossing narratives and beautiful ways of playing with time. The film is truly a masterpiece and the director a treasure. As he moved to accept his second Oscar of the night he closed with a brief silence, a look of humility and said he dedicated his award to “My fellow Mexicans. The ones who live in Mexico, I pray that we can find and build a government that we deserve and for the ones who live in America I hope you are treated with the same dignity and respect as those who came before them and helped build this country.”

It seems fitting that such a night full of glamour and opulence should end on such a note of humility. Film has always been about other worlds- other ways of seeing. But it is refreshing to see it challenged as art should be. For that reason this year’s Oscars should be one to be remembered- not only for the fine films and deserved awards, for Lady Gaga’s awesome performance and John Travolta’s second hilarious bumble- but also for the ideas that were challenged and hope that films and those making them can aid in changing our world for the better.

Categories
Opinions

Hatchets, Fire, and Other Fun Parenting Techniques

Over the last few weeks a few of my friends on “The Facebook” have posted an article from The Atlantic entitled “The Overprotected Kid” by Hanna Rosin.

The article centers on “playgrounds” in North Wales, UK that are essentially a junk heap of objects that children can play in. The idea is that if children are able to tackle seemingly dangerous scenarios (building forts, lighting fires, etc.) they will better understand the mechanics of such things and gain confidence. The article’s tagline states, “A preoccupation with safety has stripped childhood of independence, risk taking, and discovery—without making it safer. A new kind of playground points to a better solution.”

childredUnsurprisingly the article has gained some attention and thus I see it posted by varying groups of my Facebook friends. Being at an age (25) where I have friends both still in college and reaching well into adulthood I have an opportunity to see decades of opinions. And, consequently, I see and hear a lot on the topic of “parenting techniques.”

And parenting techniques, quite frankly, baffle me. The easy argument would be: I am not a parent. But more than that the topic seeps into a greater world view that I just don’t understand.

Having a “parenting technique” seems to be something new since I was a child. A quick guess would be that this has to do with technology. In the same way that teenage girls take 100 selfies to get just the right one, mothers and fathers are saving those sunlit living room photos for the next blog post on whatever Christian or Hipster website they blog through. And every other parent is reading it and seeing their inferiority. So they, and consequently all of us, overanalyze everything.

And it drives me crazy.

I just don’t believe that my parents (or generations before them) had a “technique” in raising us. OF COURSE they had rights and wrongs. There was a reason my parents did not homeschool us, that we attended cultural events regularly, that we were not allowed to watch TV every day or allowed to talk back. But I think my parents saw that as something they dealt with as it came- knowing they wanted to instill good moral values and respectful children. What I see now is a crazed attempt to plan a perfect child who grows into a depression-and-anxiety-free adult.

So back to the article. A playground where children can play with stuff and light fires with minimal supervision.

Sure, fine. Except I don’t understand why it is necessary for so many of the folks who posted this article.

The article focuses on a middle-class populated area. There really isn’t space for kids to “spread their wings.” Instead the crappy alternative is a pile of junk. Scraps and trash litter the floor, rotting couches strewn in the photos. This might be the sad alternative to those kids but my friends posting it are from rural West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and even here.

So I find myself baffled and frustrated. Frustrated because I think if we stopped overanalyzing things and let things happen we would end up with kids who love the outdoors and express empathy for fellow human beings. Baffled because I can’t imagine a parent who thinks putting their children in a caged area with controlled fire is a better courage builder than exploring the woods or making a friend from a different social, economic, or racial background.

There are things to worry about. OF COURSE THERE ARE. Kidnapping is terrifying and so is hitting your head. But as the article points out- that stuff has not stopped since we began over-analyzing and implementing these “parenting techniques.”

It makes me so grateful for my childhood and how I was raised. My parents both worked, we all went to public school in a poor area. We were bound to do stupid things and get knocked around a bit. I had well-educated interesting GOOD parents and a stable home. But not everyone around me did and so I inherited some of those bruises too which I count only as good.

When he was 8 my parents bought my brother a hatchet-yes A HATCHET. He and his friends would go into the woods by themselves to hack away at old logs. My sister, being our extrovert, would join with masses of bored teenagers in the evenings looking for things to do.

We were expected to call if we were going to miss dinner and to do well in school. We were expected to sit quietly in church and concerts. My parents were stringent but we were allowed to explore our world as best we could.

And perhaps more importantly than the freedom given us in our own backyard was the freedom given us with our friends. Occasionally our parents would question the quality of a person of interest but generally they respected our judgment.

I learned as much in the broken-down trailers and smoke-filled homes of my friends as I have anywhere. I learned of my privilege. I learned to help out in scary situations and how to cope. I learned that kids with reduced lunches had them for a reason. I learned that fathers that were scary went hand-in-hand with mothers that were frightened and much of my classmate’s life would be spent trying to gingerly navigate that. I learned that poverty and hungry and fear and neglect and abuse were all rolled into a crazy cycle.

I am surprised that these kinds of risks are not mentioned in this article since I see them wrapped into the same kind of over-protection it’s talking about. And I see it wrapped in the same kinds of “parenting techniques.”

I know these things are risky. There is really horrible stuff that can happen. But freedom to explore, befriend and fumble creates fiber, embeds humanity and opens eyes. Just like we need exposure to antibodies to create immunities we need experience to grabble with life.

Often people say “when you have kids you will understand.” And maybe that’s part of the problem, this belief that our kid somehow has a chance to be THE BEST EVER. I just hope if that day ever comes I can take a breath, hand over a bag of gluten-free vegan kale chips, and tell my kid to come back before it gets dark. Oh – and no fire, just no.

Categories
Stories In Focus

High Stakes on High-Seas: Captain Phillips Review

Out of all the films nominated for best picture this year I will admit I was least excited about Captain Phillips. Though based on a true story, I could not imagine it anything more than another “go America!” “Win!” “Kill” shoot-’em-up fest on the high seas.

I could not have been more wrong.

Besides winning me over and finding a place in my top three for this years’ Oscars, the film earned respect from the Academy and claimed fame for its storytelling, acting, and filming.

The movie follows the true story of the US-flagged cargo ship MV Maersk Alabama which, in 2009, was hijacked by Somali pirates. Captain Richard Phillips, played by Tom Hanks, finds himself facing an almost impossible situation as he tries to keep the peace, stay alive, and employ as much diplomacy as possible.

The plot is uncomplicated. The ship is at sea, the pirates are spotted, and they soon invade the vessel. Since the ship is a cargo ship they have little weaponry, thus soon the Somali pirates take control and hold the ship hostage.

Courtesy of http://www.geekbinge.com/
Courtesy of http://www.geekbinge.com/

What makes the film not only good but great, however, is the nuanced storytelling. Director Paul Greengrass chose to have the movie filmed fairly raw, and the footage runs along with the hurried crewmen and shakes when disaster strikes. The colors are dulled and tinted with cool tones that makes it seem metallic and lonely. There are often close-ups of faces and objects, drawing the viewer onto the ship which will soon turn prison. The viewer knows that what is on this ship is all that there is, no greater world surrounds them. The viewer then understands that every emotion from fear to hope is encapsulated in this small space. By the time the hostage situation is underway the feeling of claustrophobia is so strong that the viewer cannot help but hang on tight to each moment. As a result, the second half of the film is both thrilling and terrifying.

Much of the success of the pure terror one eventually feels can be attributed to the stellar acting of the cast. From each Somali pirate to each American crewman, the acting is spot-on and extremely interesting. Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips) plays his character with a stark authenticity that encompasses all of the insecurities that even such a strong leader would feel. The viewer sees a smart, seasoned, and well-prepared captain, yet it is clear that what he feels is genuine fear. He is not a superhero; humanity has failings and there is no telling whether this will end well. Tom Hanks brilliantly balances the line between unwavering control and lingering fear, all with a Boston accent. In a year full of amazing performances, Hanks’ is surely the almost overlooked 6th candidate for best actor.

The only person who could match Tom Hanks (and even surpass him in this case) was found in the most unlikely of places. Plucked from his job as a chauffeur, Barkhad Abdirahman plays Muse, the acting leader of the Somali pirates. Abdirahman’s stunning first and only acting performance carries all of the desperation and confusion of a man caught in his situation. Muse (Abdirahman) creates the crux of the film’s strongest aspect–the leveling of humanity. We see a man bent to depravity, trapped in a world where he must choose between absolute poverty or rise to the promise of wealth and satisfaction. He is not merely an enemy or a villain, rather he is a fellow human, striving for the same things we all desire. The most powerful testimony to this is when he is told he will see the elders of his village and the viewer sees a softness wash over him, but just for a moment. After all, those elders hold his respect, his admiration and his love. And we are reminded constantly that he and his fellow pirate embodies all of those things.

This film is not so much about war as it is about humanity- the evils, the hopes, the good, and the bad found in so many parts of it. It is scary, tense, heartbreaking and beautifully filmed. And the story it tells is an important reality.

 

Categories
Stories In Focus

Cinephiles Rejoice, The Oscars are Here

There is a magical day near the beginning of February when all of America comes together to sit in front of the TV and eat chicken wings and bean dip until their guts burst. It is a day for greasy fingers, team sweatshirts, and high adrenaline. Most families gear up for this; they throw parties, check stats, and dedicate a Pinterest board to cakes shaped like footballs. But for some reason this was never a “thing” in my family. While the rest of the country hummed to the tune of (hopefully) witty commercials we largely took this as a day to run numbers, read reviews, watch the main completion, and prepare for our main event: The Academy Awards.

Courtesy of facebook.com
Courtesy of facebook.com

Ah, the Academy Awards. The event that fuels the two dreary months after Christmas. It is just an awards show, of course. It is flawed and any real critic will roll their eyes at you if your only citation as to why a film is great is “it won an Oscar.” But behind all the bureaucracy, the politics, and the movie money machine, the Oscars remain the only place where real Hollywood glamour still exists.

The Academy Awards made their debut in 1929 at a closed, invitation-only event costing those present $5 a head. Their intention was simple: to recognize and award those in the film industry who were exceptional at their craft. It began with directors, writers, producers, and the cast and as its popularity grew so did the award list. By the time it was aired on television in 1953 the Academy Awards had achieved the pinnacle status for any person in the American film industry to achieve. To win an Academy Award was beyond words. As Audrey Hepburn stated in her win for Roman Holiday that first televised year, “I am just so… terribly happy.”

Now, at the 86th Academy Awards, despite cynicism and an over-abundance of hipster film buffs, the Oscars are still the crowning night for American film. There will be no half naked Miley Cyrus, there will be no Madonna in white spandex (there will be a fabulous Ellen DeGeneres with all her wit and blue eyes rockin’ the MC however). No, instead there will tuxes and gowns as far as the eye can see. And America will get to wallow in some beautiful people that are honestly really just damn good at what they do.

This year the star of Hollywood is undeniably Cate Blanchet and heavens is it her time for a leading lady Oscar. The Australian actress was robbed in 1998 by Gwyneth Paltrow, and although she has one truly earned Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for playing the legend Katherine Hepburn in The Aviator, she should rightly have a few more alongside it (she played BOB DYLAN in I’m Not There for pete’s sake!). Her (fingers crossed!) award this year would be for her lead in Woody Allen’s somewhat mediocre film Blue Jasmine for her stunning performance of a woman on the edge of a post-marital mental breakdown.

The 86th Academy Awards,  hosted by Ellen DeGeneres, will air on Sunday March 2nd, live on ABC.

 

Categories
Stories In Focus

Movie Review: “Carrie”

Though Gravity is topping the charts for new releases at the moment it is decidedly the season for a good horror flick. For that reason I took off my space helmet and headed past its theater to the room at the end of the hall to see the newly imagined Carrie.

Courtesy of http://www.horrorstab.com/
Courtesy of http://www.horrorstab.com/

Carrie, based off the novel by Stephen King, follows the story of young teenage Carrie White who lives with her mother in smalltown USA. Her mother, a rather unstable and abusive religious zealot, has homeschooled Carrie much of her growing up until the state forced her to put Carrie into public school. Here we find Carrie – an outcast and a loner, wandering the halls of her unfriendly educational institution. After a brutal taunting by her fellow gym-mates, she finds herself the center of controversy. One of her bullies, Chris, is to be banned from prom while the others remain on probation. However, because of a growing guilt complex, one attacker, Sue Snell, arranges what she hopes will be an appropriate apology towards Carrie: she has her boyfriend Tommy ask Carrie to the prom. Excited and nervous Carrie eventually agrees (against her mother’s wishes) and her kind date shows her a magical night. This culminates when the two are crowned king and queen of the dance. But just as the crown hits her head, a bucket of pig blood, set in place by the expelled tormentor, pours from the ceiling, drenching her hair and handmade dress. As she stands silently, her anger begins to swell and her previously underdeveloped telekinetic powers wreak havoc on all those present.

Carrie was first adapted to the silver screen in 1976 by director Brian De Palma. Though now somewhat outdated and dramatically overacted, the film has become a cult classic. The famous lines of Carrie’s deranged mother, “They’re all gonna laugh at you,” has echoed in the heads of every viewer since and Sissy Spacek’s crazed wide-eyed stare is iconic. For these reasons it is hard to imagine what a remake would do.

The answer is not a lot, though it was fully enjoyed. Chloe Grace Moretz plays an admittedly dull version of Carrie in comparison to Sissy Spacek’s strange, otherworldly features. Though her acting is solid, she falls victim to the Hollywood bland beauty, and it is just that much harder to imagine her as truly the outcast the role of Carrie requires. The real improvement on the film is instead found in the role of her mother, Margaret White, played by Julianne Moore. Moore’s character is more fully developed which makes her that much more terrifying. Moore also fully embraces the idea that Carrie’s mother is a masochist and plays it with perfect subtly, scratching of her wrists and gouging her thighs with a seam-ripper while talking to those around her.

Overall the film is simply modernized. Gone are the dramatic swells, slow scene builds, and wide-eyed overacting of the 70s, only to be replaced by dry cruelty and lots of texting. This makes for a less exciting and less inventive, but also probably more accessible version.

The final iconic scene in which Carrie destroys the prom and all those with it does not, however, disappoint. With some believable CGI and a broad range of death traps, the whole scene is a masterpiece of horror. Though Moretz lacks the luster of Spacek, she helps make up for some of it simply though her range of destruction. And here is possibly the most interesting difference between the two films–while the original implies that Carrie’s gift is unmanageable, something that will take her over, and destroy everything it’s wake–the new film seems to imply that she can control it enough to only punish the deserved. Surprisingly we see Carrie actually save those she has made connections with and insistently tortures those she sees as her worst enemies. This calls into question one of the major themes of the story- is Carrie in control of her power or is her power fully her? It also speaks to what modernization has done to the story. It seems we don’t mind witnessing the murder of a pig, but unsolicited death is not acceptable. Certainly an interesting twist to the plot and an asset to the new adaptation, at least from a conversation standpoint.

All in all, I do believe this new Carrie will largely be forgotten in a broad sense, though I would deem it a necessary watch for any horror fan. It is well made, but lacks the star power and intrigue of a true cult classic. Watch it, enjoy it, and then go to the library (yes, the Houghton library) and rent the original. Between the two you will get an eyeful of blood, a few jumps, and perhaps even a few laughs. Halloween is right around the corner after all. Boo!

 

Categories
News

A Letter from the Student Financial Services Office

Houghton campus is finally starting to thaw and that means a season of preparing for finals, getting ready for Mayterm, graduation and most importantly- letting loose on the long-awaited summer. However, this time of year also marks another season: that of readying ourselves for the upcoming financial school year. FAFSAs are completed and packages for both incoming and returning students are rolling out the doors of the financial aid office.

Courtesy of http://springflingcny.wordpress.com/
Courtesy of http://springflingcny.wordpress.com/

This year timing is especially important because it marks a new policy change for The Student Financial Services Office at Houghton College. Students have been receiving emails regarding this policy change- the introduction of EBilling which keeps us in-line with Federal Regulations regarding tuition overload; SALT, which will help students understand their financial responsibilities, enforcement of Church Match deadlines, and a comprehensive checklist to ensure all students are financially registered before returning to campus next year.

In previous years Houghton has given much grace when it comes to financial registration. Over the years we have seen this result in frustrating situations for our students. Students arrive on campus excited for a new semester and quickly become involved in academics, activities and friends. The last thing they want is to add financial strain to their lives. For that reason the new policy will strictly enforce that a student must be paid in full before he or she arrives on campus in August.

The process to be financially registered has not changed dramatically. Students will receive their tuition bills in July. Bills will be due August 16th. Students will be expected to pay the bill by that date. This means that any alternative payment plans and loan applications should already be in place and approved. After August 16th it will then be too late to apply for loans or make other arrangements.

Until a student formulates and communicates a plan in conjunction with SFSO to pay their bill, their housing key will be withheld, a stop put on their account, and their meal plan frozen. The intent of this is to alleviate the frustration and stress that accompanies long overdue bills.

If the student has a special circumstance where the usual payment plans and methods are not possible, they must communicate this with SFSO so that an acceptable alternative payment method can be decided upon before the 16th of August.

Once a student has reached a $0.00 balance on their account, an email will be sent confirming this. The email will act as financial clearance to return to campus, move into their housing and attend classes.

The hope is that through this strict financial policy, the billing process will be easier and smoother for both our students and the institution. Our intention is to engage with families and work through their plans at earlier dates so that the burdens of finance do not linger over the heads of students as a new semester starts. In addition SFSO will be able to proceed efficiently and without the fear of financial dismissal of students we feel should not have to leave our campus prematurely. Moving forward we are optimistic about the new policy and we are looking forward to August where we will find all students financially registered and ready to start a fresh year of academics, activities and friends.