Kelly Clarkson is "Stronger" Than Ever

Album cover art provided by RCA Music Group

Kelly Clarkson, our American Idol sweetheart has struck again as she released her fifth album, “Stronger,” this past Monday. Her spunky demeanor, powerful vocals, and lyrics of hurt and bitterness are everything we would expect to hear from the pop-rock star based on her previous work, but at the same time, she sticks with it for a reason—she is phenomenal at what she does.

Upon first listen, “Stronger” comes off as generic and sounds the same as everything else we have heard from Clarkson in the past. The feisty attitude we saw in her single “Since You Been Gone” can also be seen in this album in songs like “Mr. Know It All,” and “Let Me Down.” One song ran right into the next and her traditional ratio of songs with attitude to songs with a softer tone is the same as every other CD.

Luckily this is a second-listen kind of album. The songs become more distinguishable and the potential for radio hits sky rocket because of the catchy choruses and the vocal prowess with which she performs. Her first single, “Mr. Know It All” has already made it onto Billboard’s Top 20 and the album’s namesake, “What Doesn’t Kill You (Stronger),” is sure to follow. Her tenacity is evident as she uses her life experience to make a point in every song. While she has tried to branch out of her genre within recent years, this album hovers right in the genre she belongs—pop-rock.

Clarkson performs on tour to promote her new album. Courtesy of the New York Times.

            In an age when auto tune rules, Clarkson is true to herself and her own voice. She hits the high notes and the unbelievably low notes with ease and achieves her goal of trying to sound the same as she does live as she does over recording. Her voice is just as strong today as it was the day she won American Idol at age 16.

           As honest as they are, the lyrics tend to sound a bit wounded. They play the role of the victim a little too much. Whether it be “You Can’t Win” about the scrutiny from her critics, “The War is Over” depicting how she believes she deserves better in a relationship, or “You Love Me” where she is told she is not good enough, Clarkson  sings like she doesn’t receive the credit that is due to her. Either way though, every song has a relatabliliy factor and that is exactly why Clarkson has kept such a huge following. That, and her awe inspiring voice.

           “Stronger” is an album that is a perfect demonstration of everything Kelly Clarkson is and has to offer—feisty pop songs, ardent ballads, a dominant voice, and heartfelt lyrics. It is now available on iTunes and in stores everywhere.

You Have To Be Made Of "Real Steel" Not To Enjoy This

            What do you get when you cross robots, boxing, absentee fathers, and an underdog story? You get Real Steel, a Shawn Levy film that is full of action and heartfelt moments that are sure to satisfy the whole family. My visual and emotional appetites were completely fulfilled. Of course, Hugh Jackman’s presence didn’t hurt either.

            Real Steel tells the story of Jackman’s character, Charlie Kenton, a jerk who loves boxing and making money more than anything, including his son. He sold custody of his son, Max Kenton (Dakota Goyo) in exchange for $100,000 and a summer with him. Charlie was down on his luck when it came to money and how he made it—through robot boxing. Then Max came a long and found Atom, an old sparring robot that was never supposed to amount to anything. From there Charlie and Max battled the odds and their father-son issues in order to become  successful.

            The casting in this movie was absolutely superb. Jackman played the rough-around-the-edges, abandoning jerk of a father well, as usual, but he also captured hearts with his attempts to win his son’s favor back. Twelve year old Dakota Goyo, a Canadian television actor, was just adorable, leaving the women all around the theater aweing and wanted to take him home for themselves. Goyo showed emotion and maturity far beyond his years and really stole the show for most viewers. He will be one kid to keep your eye on in the future. Other great performances were shown by Evangeline Lilly, who played Kenton’s long time love interest and partner, and Kevin Durand, the money grubbing cowboy that doesn’t play fair. Atom, the robot, didn’t have an actor play him, but I think it is important to note that he is just as crucial of a character to be played as any. Overall, the cast was well rounded and they really knew how to tug at the heartstrings.

            I can’t say the same thing about the characterization though. Whether it was John Gatins, the screenwriter’s, fault or just Levy’s translation, Real Steel’s characters had no depth, no motivations. Why would Kenton be so heartless regarding his son? Who knows! Important background information was withheld, leaving the audience a little bit confused as to why the characters are the way they are. That is my sole complaint about the film though.

            The visual aspects were unquestionably breath taking, thanks to the cinematography of Mauro Fiore and the visual effects department headed by Dan Akers. Each shot was crisp and well framed, and the whole movie just made my eyes dance with pleasure across the screen. It was aesthetically pleasing, to say the least.

            The story was really intriguing as well. We’ve seen stories about boxing before, we’ve seen films set in the future before, we’ve seen the fighting robots before, but we have never seen such a family bonding focus on these ideas. The combination is sure to have a little something for everyone in the family without making you feel like this was a happy-go-lucky children’s film. It was a little rough, showing how the real world can treat you, but still had an optimistic outlook. I personally really enjoyed how the story came to resolution because it was upbeat, yet it wasn’t the predictable happy ending. It wasn’t too “Hollywood.” It has commercial appeal and can be borderline corny sometimes, but at least it had a little bit more of a real life ending than “all the good guys beat the odds and get everything they want.”

            Real Steel was a phenomenal film that the majority of people I know and I all enjoyed. It kept everyone on the edge of their seat at some times and on the verge of tears at others. It showed that sometimes if you have no guts, then you have no glory, but sometimes that “real steel” comes from places you least expect it.

"Ringer" Proves To Be Just That In The Pilot

Most television shows draw you in from the previews as they display the basic idea so you know what you are getting yourself into when you watch the pilot. Not so with “Ringer,” which the CW aired this fall with just an aging Sarah Michelle Gellar and creepy music to entice you.

  Sarah Michelle Gellar watches for those chasing after her in yet another vague picture

advertising the show.

For those of you who need a little bit more to go on before you commit to wasting an hour on the pilot, “Ringer” is a mystery drama following the life of Bridget Kelly, a recovering alcoholic who witnessed a murder. In attempts to avoid testifying, Bridget escapes to visit her long lost twin sister and through not-yet-revealed circumstances, she finds herself hiding in her sister’s life. Little by little, the pieces of her sister’s life come to light and Bridget has to cope to stay hidden. Bridget soon finds out though that she is not the only one with a price on her head.

The plot line promises a lot of potential and the story seemed to be very multi-faceted. It has got alcoholics, fugitives, love triangles, action, sex, mystery, lies, and murder-- everything a viewer could ever want! Through this episodic structure, the viewers get all types of storylines and relationships that they must figure out along the way and as some the pieces come together, even more questions arise. The pilot was very scattered, yet organized as the CW tried to give you all the background you could possibly need in order to move forward with the series. They packed a lot of information into a little amount of time, but it worked splendidly and gave me a longing to watch the next episode. Thus, the pilot’s goal was successfully accomplished.

Gellar in “Ringer” as both Bridget Kelly and Siobhan Martin

It was good to see Gellar back on TV. We have not seen her in anything that has attracted the media’s attention for years, and she has come back as if she never left. Her acting in both the role of Bridget and her twin sister Siobhan was believable and the emotion was relatable. She was supported on screen by the actors behind the many entangled characters such as Ioan Gruffudd, who played Siobhan’s husband, Tara Summers, who was Siobhan’s best friend, and Nestor Carbonell, who played the detective. Their performances were very alluring and after the watching the characters’ lives unfold, I could not help but want to feel for them and watch even more.

The only downside to the new show was possibly a little bit of the directing. They have featured guest directors for every show so this will not be a continuing problem, but for the pilot episode, I found two flaws. One, the green screen seemed very obvious and fake to me when trying to display the New York skyline. Two, there was a bit of confusion because some of the pivotal shots were not very clear, leaving the viewer to interpret the scene for themselves until clarification was provided. Those are simple things to fix and one would think that a big corporation owned by CBS and Time Warner would spend a little bit more time working out those kinks.

Despite minor issues that took me out of the fantasy of the show, I believed “Ringer” to be quite intriguing. The pilot alone has brought great ratings and guarantees that there are more of those to come. The story was clear yet the plot to come was a mystery, and one that I hope to follow and discover for myself. Gellar has done well for herself by picking this role because this show promises a lot of excitement and hopefully a lot of hype as the mysteries unravel this season.

There's Art in the Library?

Who knew Biola’s library held some fantastic religious works of art hanging along the walls of the lobby? Often times people will let these go unnoticed when they are on a mission. Currently Wayne Forte, a religious artist who has taught at Biola, has 30 of his works posted along the walls of the library and they are very relevant to our society and our Biola community.

Each semester Biola features a different artist’s work in the library and this semester belongs to Forte. Forte has been painting since the 80’s and has tried to but a modern day spin on old concepts. His goal has been to pass the old messages on with a “fresh voice to a new generation.” Through his exhibition here, I believe Forte has accomplished his goals through rich Christian allegories and imagery on paintings that are not all necessary religious at first sight.

Through a mixture of acrylics, oils, and objects, Forte masterfully orchestrated a variety of colors and textures that are very intriguing and aesthetically pleasing. I do not claim to know much about art, but I know that I enjoyed the technical aspects that Forte offered. They contained such depth in texture, color, and content that captivated my attention beyond what most paintings can. The greatest thing about the collection though was that while they all had a common thread in them, each painting was still unique. He never used the same color scheme, but always mixed it up. Forte had paintings that were extremely abstract, as well as paintings that were very realistic and literal; he had paintings with varieties of blue and varieties of oranges; he had paintings of just paint and paintings of acrylics, oils, and paintbrushes all stuck to the same canvas. Some even focused more around words than images! The way he let the paintings vary in medium and color was very interesting and by doing so I think he entices the observer to look further into his works and the meaning behind them.

While the technical aspects of Forte’s paintings were phenomenal, the best part was that most of his paintings could be taken at face value from a secular point of view as well as a Christian one. They were intended to be viewed from the Christian perspective though so we should analyze them as such and try to understand their historical significance, or the significance their meaning can have on our lives today.

A painting that Forte has titled three different ways: “Aaron Holding Moses’ Arm (2008),”

“Arms of Prayer (2008),” and “And the Battle Was Won (2009).”

One of my favorites, “And the Battle Was Won,” is supposed to be a picture of Aaron holding up Moses’ arm during the battle against the Amalekites in Exodus 17, but by just looking at it, you would just think of a friend giving support when you are weak. While Forte painted it to have biblical meaning behind it, it does not have to viewed that way. By doing this, I think that a lot of Forte’s painting are available and relevant to a wider audience. While he does this in a lot of his paintings, Forte still is a religious artist and paints a lot of obviously Christian art, seen in his most popular work, “A Wreath for the Sinai Generation.”

“A Wreath for the Sinai Generation (2001)” includes a lot of religious references including that of the serpent, the cross, and Mt. Sinai and the people who were there in the time of Exodus.

Wayne Forte exhibited a lot of talent in his paintings that were showcased in the Biola library. They were complex and intriguing with the common, but subtle theme of Christ woven through them all. Most of all, I believe these paintings have caused me to stop and think, “With work this outstanding and thought provoking, what else have I been missing in the library?”

Review of a Review of "Pride and Prejudice"

            Charles McNulty, a reviewer for the L.A.Times, recently constructed a review for a theatrical adaptation of Pride and Prejudice performed at the South Coast Repertory and he did so with finesse and feistiness. While I have actually seen the play, I do not know if I necessary agree with how he went about it. Overall though, I loved the language McNulty used and I believe he hit the highlights of the play and still made his opinion clear.

            I have mixed reviews about McNulty’s piece. I really enjoyed the way McNulty made his opinions and thoughts about everything abundantly clear throughout the review. He used a lot of creative words and ideas to express what he thought of the production, and because of that, he established the idea that he was a professional whose opinion is to be trusted. He also hit on all the points that needed to be brought up such as the adaptation, the costumes, the acting, the directing, and set design. This made me feel as though he was really looking at every aspect before giving his somewhat harsh opinion. I do not think I liked how he introduced the article in three paragraphs and after all the good things he said about Pride and Prejudice, he turned around and said he was not a fan of the production. It seemed like a waste of space and time to me. After he listed all these good things about it, he still concluded that this theater production was a bad representation of the book. As much as I liked his writing, that just seems like bad form to me. I do not really think he missed anything though. He touched on all the highs and lows and everything in between in this review, so overall I thought this was a good comprehensive review of the play.

            When it comes to style and voice, I think McNulty was extremely enjoyable. His words were intricate and elegant and they kept me striving to understand exactly how he wanted his descriptions to be portrayed. He was clear on his thoughts on each particular aspect of the production. The only thing I did not like is that he listed all these great things about it which seemed to highly outweigh what he did not like, so I think his style is a little bit conflicted and unclear with mixed reviews. Overall his style is trying to be a little bit smarmy in that he is trying to act feisty with his cut downs, but highly praiseful with what he enjoyed. He says what he thinks and explains it well; he just does not organize those thoughts to my liking.

            The audience members are the readers of the L.A. Times, who are probably those who love theater and are looking to see what good performances are going on in the area. McNulty speaks perfectly to that type of audience because that would be an audience that is sophisticated yet critical, just like him. Compared to other reviews in its tier it is written very well, even though I believe that he does not necessarily match up in opinion. He writes with the same complexity that he should for a reviewer from the L.A. Times and as he should according to what the play has demanded. Although his opinions differed, he is definitely one of the better reviewers of whom I have come into contact. He sets the standards high.

            I have really appreciated reading Charles McNulty’s review of Pride and Prejudice and I believe his writings are something of which I should take note. He is a great writer who knows what he is doing. I do not know if I agree with all of his opinions or organizations of thought, but overall, he elegantly described the production at South Coast Repertory and gave accurate information, and that is something to be acknowledged.