Home Blog Page 437

Bloc Party returns

p. Following the scintillating success of Bloc Party’s 2003 album “Silent Alarm,” producing another critically acclaimed record is certainly a tall order. The British indie band’s latest album, “A Weekend In The City,” responds to the challenge with boldness, innovation and artistry.

p. The post-punk revival band has matured greatly since its last album and evidently looked to the likes of Joy Division and Radiohead for inspiration. Their latest record is filled with spiky guitar riffs, ethereal background synthesizer progressions and punk and R&B inspired drum beats — all of which float behind melancholy lyrics of lead singer Kele Okererke’s woes and the feelings of emptiness and insipidness he shares with British society. This record is their darkest, most experimental and most socially conscious work to date.

p. The album takes listeners full circle, emotionally. Beginning with feelings of depression and emptiness, it then moves to anger, frustration, vanity and boredom, and bookends the album with more depression. The record begins with “Song For Clay (Disappear Here),” a dark meditation on feelings of loneliness and lovelessness, shrouded in energetic guitar play and gloomy synthesizer backgrounds. The second track, “Hunting For Witches” shows Okererke’s socially conscious side with frustrated lyrics about terrorist attacks in London, his desire to act against the violent insurgents and his anger towards “middle class” indecision. All this is sung over a catchy punk rock guitar riff with some Thom Yorke-esque bedroom electronica. “Waiting For The 7.18” addresses living with regret: Okererke pines over not taking enough risks in his past for fear of repercussions. He sings, “ If I could do it again I’d make more mistakes / I’d not be so scared of falling.” “The Prayer” beings a cappella, with humming and clapping, and builds into electronic dream rock very suggestive of TV On The Radio. The track “On,” a song about being turned “on” by a woman who makes “his tongue loose” isn’t the best on the album, but is saved by an ethereal string accompaniment.

p. Okereke’s lyrical stylings certainly don’t have the literary flair comparable to that of Yorke, but they are simple, tight and effective. Jacknife Lee’s brilliant production captures the emotion of each song. Influences from his work with U2 certainly comes out in the album, though thankfully it doesn’t reek of pretentious “save the world with music” bullshit. The songs are played in a variety of meters, sometimes changing within the songs, keeping the album interesting. The clever arrangement of the tracks keeps Okereke from emoting along the same lines song after song.

p. The record succeeds in its strange yet engrossing blend of punk rock and “Kid A” electronica. The melancholy mood of the album won’t necessarily leave you hungering to visit the gloomy isle, but it makes you thankful that it produces talented indie rockers like Bloc Party who aren’t afraid to push the envelop. I recommend you go to your local record store and spend a “A Weekend In The City.”

Horror film flails

p. “The Messengers,” as a movie, is more afraid of me than I am of it. It starts off well enough, with a well-built and creepy first half. Ultimately though, there’s no real payoff, and the audience leaves feeling gypped. The largest problem with this film is that it’s almost scary, but it always backs down before actually becoming frightening.

p. “The Messengers” is an excellent example of what does and doesn’t work in a horror movie. Its ghostly visuals, which are unsettling and deliciously disturbing, provide for some scary new tricks. Some sequences are brilliantly filmed, like when a staircase leaps out, attacking the main character. However, most of the scares are reduced to quiet moments followed by jangling loud noises. The movie’s use of music lacks any subtlety, and almost every spooky moment is emphasized by overdramatic musical crashes. Sure, it’s a common effect in horror films, but such overuse shows the filmmakers’ lack of faith in their audience. Many of the movie’s images, however interesting at the time, seem to lack any kind of substantial plot development, dramatically reducing their impact.

p. The story can be split into distinct halves, the first half being an excellent buildup, and the second being an enormous let down. Here lies the other important lesson about how (not) to make a horror movie: creepy things aren’t really scary by themselves — they’re scary because of how they play into the context of the story. Ultimately, “The Messengers” doesn’t really come back to the more interesting seeds it plants in the first half, instead becoming a cliched mess by the end. The few really scary moments feel like they belong in a different movie — one with better writers, who would know how to use them to their best effect.

p. Still, there is a much appreciated stab at character development. The two child protagonists do an amazing acting job. Evan and Theodore Turner, who play 3-year-old Ben, create a perfect portrayal of childlike wonder in the strange visions he experiences. His innocent expressions and cheerful, exploratory demeanor capture someone who doesn’t understand the implications of what he does. Kristen Stewart (Panic Room), who plays Ben’s older sister, does a good job portraying the teen nobody is willing to believe. She’s a convincing actress, but the writers failed to connect her major subplot to the primary thread of the movie, yet another downfall of the plot. Fans of the television series “The X-Files” will also appreciate a cameo by William Davis, the infamous cigarette smoking man. The rest of the performances are solid, if only slightly predicable.

p. The cinematography is strong in most scenes, successfully building a suspenseful atmosphere. There are brilliantly filmed sequences in “The Messengers,” though the poor storyline hampers their effect in the end. The use of perspective between how adults and children perceive the same thing (with Ben seeing ghosts, and the adults not) reveals what this movie could and should have been. There are a few creative tricks, but throughout the movie it feels as though the directors were holding back, instead of making something truly unique.

p. There are times when ‘The Messengers’ shows so much potential, and then for no reason it doesn’t follow through. There are moments so tense that they’re hard to sit through, but the tension is either released too soon or in a simple jolt scare that’s only frightening because of the accompanying volume. It’s almost as if the movie is afraid to actually scare the audience. Those who find most horror movies too intense might get a kick out of it, but overall, “The Messengers” is too tame and lacks the punch a real horror movie should have.

Hip business book misses mark

p. Business books: dry, boring, irrelevant, trumped up (pun intended). But sometimes non-business majors can choke their way through a business book; after all, “Freakonomics” was a pleasure to read. Attempting to further the movement to bring business literature to those not fluent in business-ese, “Mavericks at Work: Why the Most Original Minds in Business Win,” by William C. Taylor and Polly LaBarre, claims to offer a look into success itself.

p. Taylor and LaBarre examine a variety of companies that use unusual and original methods that have propelled their respective businesses forward and made them leaders and innovators in their respective fields. Some are easily recognizable to the common man —Starbucks and Netflix, for example. Others are less famous but just as innovative, like clothing retailer Anthropologie and restaurant Potbelly Sandwich Works. Some are successful but rather unknown to the general public, like mining outfit Goldcorp and construction magnate DPR.

p. Each chapter looks at two or three “maverick” companies, revealing business strategies through interviews with executives and inspections of company operations and procedures in an attempt to explain why the company’s decidedly different approach succeeded.

p. One such company was Commerce, a large bank with over 400 branches, more than 13,000 employees, and an annual revenue over 1.6 billion dollars. The authors reveal the company’s strategy — hire only employees who are genuinely excited to work there so that customers have the best possible banking experience. Newly hired employees — “part-time tellers, store managers, even vice presidents and senior executives” — all attend a day-long course to familiarize themselves with the bank’s high-energy approach to company service. Not only does it serve to energize new hires but also to weed out those not service-oriented enough to survive the work environment.

p. One of the more fascinating and unexpected businesses examined was Cirque du Soleil, the modern circus group. Company scouts travel the globe, looking for performers in likely and unlikely places: other circuses, opera houses, sporting events and street performance groups. Many of their hires come from the athletic world. I had never thought about the business operations of a circus, but it is very interesting to learn about how they seek out unique and talented performers. Cirque then tailors the characters in the performance to match the skills and abilities of the performer — not the other way around, as is the norm.

p. Unfortunately the book does not live up to its name; it explains how these maverick companies work, not why they succeed. Although they examine and explain the model for each business, the authors never delve into why that particular strategy works for the target demographic. Sure, Pixar makes excellent movies for people of any age, but why have they performed so well, and why do they have no real competitors? And for the considerable amount of space the authors use discussing Southwest Airlines, it is surprising how little time is spent analyzing why it is succeeding in a failing market. It is also questionable how the authors chose the companies they did; after all, it is fairly unbelievable that these companies are the only ones in their fields, or even at all, to employ these business techniques. Were the choices random or did the authors have some outside incentive that may have affected their decisions?

p. Moreover, ‘Mavericks’ fails to successfully captivate the reader with the sections and chapters devoted to advice. Culled from interviews with the executives from the featured companies, the parts of the book devoted to making the reader a better businessperson are tedious, unremarkable and forgettable, especially in contrast to the relatively fascinating descriptions of how these companies operate. This is a major contributing factor to the book’s failure to reach a wider audience, since the advice is really only applicable to top-level executives instead of the rank-and-file readers more likely to grab the book.

p. There is also a crucial aspect missing from the book: where are the mavericks who failed? Surely there are dozens of failed or failing companies for each maverick featured in this book. Is there nothing to learn from the mistakes of others? Could their failed techniques work in a different time, in a different place, with different people? Nobody knows, since the authors quietly skirt around the problem.

p. ‘Mavericks at Work’ provides an interesting look into the operations of some of today’s most successful companies. Unfortunately, it is just not relevant to most people; many of the ideas presented seem rather ordinary, and the successes of some of these mavericks could be chalked up to luck. If you attend classes in Tyler Hall, read this book; otherwise, don’t bother.

Super Bowl XLI: the commercials

Does $2.6 million sound like a lot of money to you? It did to me, especially when I considered the things that Robin Leech might advise me to purchase if I were to come into that kind of money. You might ask, what does $2.6 million buy you these days? For starters, you could score a five-person private jet. Or maybe you’d prefer six Lamborghinis (the Versace edition, of course) with some change for a couple hundred bottles of Cristal? Better yet, how about a 30-second advertising spot during the Super Bowl?

p. Okay, so maybe you can come up with a better way to spend $2.6 million, but some of the country’s biggest companies are only too willing to shell out that kind of cash for a tiny window of time during the biggest television event of the year. The mega productions they create are the blockbusters of the advertisement world, and many Americans admit that they look forward to them more than the game itself. Here is a run-down of the best and worst of this year’s fare.

p. The first quarter of the game was sloppy on the field, and the ads weren’t much better. They started off slowly with an amateur **Doritos** ad that went nowhere and an unremarkable ad from **SalesGenie.com** that apparently featured the world’s best salesman. Yawn.

p. **Sierra Mist** continued their desperate attempt to make Michael Ian Black seem funny, and failed miserably, ending up with Jim Gaffigan in a very, very unflattering pair of cut-off shorts. Drink Sierra Mist and you can be a mal-adjusted guy with pale legs — sounds appealing, right?

p. We get our first glimpse of a move in the positive direction with the first **Bud Light** ad of the night. Bud Light may be shitty beer, but at least the company knows how to make a decent ad. This one addresses the age-old paradox: how in the world does paper beat rock? In the commercial, two guys square off for the last Bud Light with a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors and when confronted with paper, the “loser” chucks a rock at the “winner’s” face, proving that rock is way better than paper. Deal with it.

p. After briefly returning to mediocrity with a **FedEx** “Moon Office” ad saved only by a brief audio clip of “The Final Countdown” and a “Lady and the Tramp”-inspired **Snickers** ad that purports that homophobia is still somehow considered funny, we finally reach a moment of true brevity. Sure, it was a **CBS** house ad featuring David Letterman and Oprah, but it was short, sweet and funny — quite literally the Holy Trinity of Super Bowl ads. Finally, we had an early front runner for Best in Show.

p. But lest we actually start enjoying the ubiquitous commercial breaks, we immediately plunge back to **GoDaddy.com’s** sad attempt at sex appeal. Wow, there are fake boobs everywhere — what a novel concept. It would’ve taken a lot to unseat this ad for worst of the night, and thankfully, nothing did.

p. Fortunately, though, it got better. I was happy to see a feel-good story about the wannabe **Budweiser** Dalmatian that gets the girl in the end, followed by humorously grotesque guys who couldn’t resist removing their shirts to treat a **Chevy** to a spontaneous carwash. Continuing with the feel-good theme, **GM** presented us with a vignette about an assembly line robot that loses its job for dropping a screw. The robot goes on to commit suicide, and while the room collectively sighed in relief when it turned out to be a dream, I couldn’t help but feel as if nobody felt this bad for the worker who that robot replaced. Not to mention the fact that it makes light of suicide, which is never good.

p. As we moved on to the third quarter after a halftime show that was great for all the wrong reasons (where did that Foo Fighters song come from?), the game began to slow down, and it seemed like the ads did, too. **Bud Light** returned with a humorous gorilla who couldn’t resist striking a pose, and **Taco Bell** served up an amusing spot featuring two lions arguing over rolling the “R” in “carne.” Cute, but not cuddly – I liked it.

p. Up to the end of the third quarter, the ads had been pretty miserable, albeit with a few high spots. Then, finally, we hit gold. First up was an **Emerald Nuts** ad featuring the magnificent Robert Goulet as some kind of office nymph with low blood sugar. In a word: hilarious. Next, **Nationwide** gave us the schadenfreude moment of the year. The insurance company’s ad starts with a cringe, featuring a “rap” by notorious ex-Mr. Britney Spears, Kevin Federline. Suddenly, however, K-Fed is downgraded to fry cook along with a warning: “life comes at you fast.” Well played, Nationwide. Well played.

p. We finally reached the fourth quarter of the game, and clearly CBS didn’t save the best for last. Other than a **Budweiser** ad that shows crabs on the beach pilfering and subsequently worshipping a cooler that happens to resemble a giant crab god (by the way, associating anything with crabs may not be the best marketing technique), all we get are a few unmemorable car ads and Jay-Z playing a football video game with Don Shula that, apparently, was for **Budweiser Select**.

p. The fourth quarter was more or less a complete dud. It was a fitting end to a largely unsatisfying four hours, speckled with a meager assortment of overachievers. If not for the resplendent Nationwide/K-Fed collaboration, the night might have been a complete disaster.

Heroman

Editorial Cartoon

Advertising

**Thinking of advertising in The Flat Hat?**

p. Download this year’s “Media Kit & Rate Card”:https://www.flathatnews.com/file_download/13
for all the info you’ll need to get started.

p. E-mail us today to reserve space: “fhads@wm.edu”:mailto:fhads@wm.edu

We can also be reached by phone: (757) 221-3283

Or via fax: (757) 221-3242

Interested in subscribing to our print edition?

Send an e-mail to “subscriptions@flathatnews.com”:mailto:subscriptions@flathatnews.com with your name, address and phone number, and start receiving your copy of The Flat Hat immediately.

The Flat Hat
Campus Center
PO Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795

Subscriptions

**Interested in subscribing to our print edition?**

Send an e-mail to “subscriptions@flathatnews.com”:mailto:subscriptions@flathatnews.com with your name, address and phone number, and start receiving your copy of The Flat Hat immediately.

The Flat Hat
Campus Center
PO Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795

News in Brief (Feb. 2)

New e-mail addresses will have different format

Starting March 1, all new College e-mail addresses and usernames will have a new format and will contain full last names, up to a 16 character limit. The current system creates e-mail addresses using just the first four letters of a student’s last name. Current addresses will not be affected. When two last names are the same they will be followed by random two-digit numbers.
Because the new format will allow a greater variety of names, old names will no longer be recycled after a student graduates or a faculty member retires. They will instead be maintained for College records.

Bush to address Democrats near Williamsburg Saturday

President Bush will address House Democrats at their retreat near Williamsburg on Saturday, the Daily Press reports. Some consider Bush’s address, which is not open to the public, to be a sign of the Democrats’ new power. Bill Clinton is also speaking at the event tonight.
Student groups at the College are preparing to protest and support the event. A facebook.com event group titled “Bush Bashing: Protesting an Escalation of the War in Iraq” plans to rally around the building where Bush is to speak. As of Thursday, 68 students said they would attend, while 180 said they might show up. The College Republicans are also recruiting students for “an event to welcome the President to Williamsburg.”
The Daily Press reports that U.S. Capitol police were seen preparing the site Wednesday, and a county police spokesman speculated that the Secret Service might close down certain roads.

This Week in Flat Hat History (Feb. 2)

1928
Washington Hall, the College’s “beautiful new $200,000 academic building,” opened for the first time. It was named after President George Washington, who was licensed by the College as a surveyor in 1749. The new building housed the department of biology.

1976
The administration reversed a policy change that would have taken away the exemption of language house residents from the lottery process. The change was considered amid a severe housing crunch.

1980
The Flat Hat reported that the fenced-off tunnels in front of the
Campus Center had been built as an underpass to allow students to safely cross Jamestown Road. The tunnel was closed due to rumors of assaults and rapes in the tunnel and because many students found crossing the street on top easier.

1996
The State Internal Auditor accused College President Timothy Sullivan of violating state regulations because he served sherry, an alcoholic drink, at weekly staff meetings. Sullivan pointed out that the tradition of serving sherry at staff gatherings dated back to 1703.
“[James Blair] inaugurated the practice of having regular meetings over tea, sherry and tea cakes,” Sullivan said. “It struck me as such a good idea that I can’t believe other presidents didn’t do it.”

2000
The first opening of the coffeehouse that is now the Daily Grind was delayed a week due to snow. The name of the Daily Grind was later selected by students.