Although there won’t be a football game this weekend, the streets of Charlottesville will be packed as ever. Hundreds of filmmakers, writers, directors and tourists from near and far are expected to arrive throughout the course of the weekend to celebrate their love for cinema. Moviegoers from all over will have the chance to experience the unique advantages and talents that the Charlottesville and University communities have brought together to make this year’s 22nd Annual Virginia Film Festival the most memorable yet.

This year’s festival, the theme for which is “Funny Business,” will be filled with a variety of entertaining and comedic films from around the globe ranging from “contemporary to classic, from shorts to features and from documentaries to dramas, comedies and more,” the festival’s new director Jody Kielbasa said. In other words, no matter how limiting your cinematic tastes may be, there will still be something for you. Staying true to the “funny” theme, several films will feature comedic elements as they work to illustrate how humor can expose politics in a variety of ways. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939), Election (1999) and the recent documentary Locked Out: Massive Resistance (2009) are just a few examples of the different types of films scheduled this weekend.

Discussions will follow a number of these flicks as filmmakers and professors gather to reflect on the political implications presented by the films to better understand America’s current political affairs. For example, the Festival’s keynote speaker, Maria Battista — who is also a professor of English and Comparative Literature at Princeton University — will discuss comedy and politics in great depth as she examines how vintage American comedy responded to the Great Depression as well as how our current political state could benefit from a little comedy.

Other highlights of this year’s festival include special guests Matthew Broderick, Cherry Jones and Alan Ball. Broderick will be attending the premier of Wonderful World. The dark comedy stars Broderick as the pessimistic character Ben — a failed children’s folk singer and a less than extraordinary dad who comes to realize that his cynicism may be all a matter of perspective. The film will be followed by a question-and-answer session with the film’s director Joshua Goldin, its producer Glenn Williamson and Broderick himself.

Another Broderick film, the cult classic Election, which also stars Reese Witherspoon, also will play this weekend.

Tony and Emmy award-winning actress Jones will present the festival’s centerpiece screening of Mother and Child (2009), a complex drama focused on three women: a 50-year-old mother, the daughter she gave up for adoption at 15 and a black woman looking to adopt a child of her own. Written and directed by Rodrigo Garcia, the film boasts an all-star cast of Annette Bening and Jones alongside Naomi Watts, Kerry Washington and Samuel Jackson.

Alan Ball, academy award winning screenwriter of American Beauty and director of the HBO series Six Feet Under, will hold a panel to discuss his work on the popular vampire TV series True Blood.
In addition to watching films, students have the chance to create their own films as well. The Adrenaline Film Project, which is presented by the Festival, offers students an outlet to exercise their cinematic skills on a more public and professional level. The project is a 72-hour filmmaking competition in which 10 to 12 teams of three filmmakers must cast, shoot, edit and screen a film during the Festival. The finished films will be screened at 10 p.m. Saturday in Culbreth Theatre.

People often think film festivals translate into movies that the average person won’t typically want to see because the films are just “too weird, too unfamiliar and too experimental” for our expected Hollywood tastes. So, although you may be reluctant to attend from fear of your incapacity to appreciate the experimental camera shots and confusing plot twists that are deliberately employed to infer some grand life-lesson that you really just don’t want to think about during a Friday or Saturday night, do not fear — the Festival offers a movie for everyone. The ever-popular Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975), American Beauty (1999), Pulp Fiction (1994) and Disney’s The Little Mermaid (1989) are just a few films showing this weekend that should attract even the most novice moviegoers, especially since they will be playing on the big screen. If a 5-year-old girl can enjoy this year’s film festival, so can you.

A few weeks ago, I penned an article about the reunion of a band that many in the music world love to hate: Creed. Its comeback album, Full Circle, is the band’s first since 2001, and many fans wondered what form the album would take after the members spent five years apart.

Creed was never a critic’s band, as many reviewers mostly complained about the fact that the band never seemed to change its sound. It was always a rock band with a grunge-y heaviness to its songs (“What If,” “Bullets”), or an anthemic, 10-feet-tall sound (“My Sacrifice,” “Higher,” “With Arms Wide Open”). Full Circle, however, seeks to respond to this criticism, as the band seems much more willing to mix it up. For instance, “Bread of Shame,” the album’s second track, features an interesting stop-start feel to it, which almost always feels forced in other songs but works here somehow. The song also features unconventional guitar tuning, giving it a different feel from anything Creed has done previously.

Creed also breaks out the acoustic guitar on this album frequently, something it almost never did on its first three releases. This is most apparent on “Rain,” one of Creed’s softest songs to date. Lead singer Scott Stapp pulls off the vocals with a simple sincerity that makes the song enjoyable. Another interesting moment occurs during the intro to “Full Circle,” which includes a funny mix of bass and acoustic guitar that gives the song an almost Southwestern-ish feel.

Religious themes, which Creed used frequently in the past, are not really found here, which is probably a good thing. There’s also no real big anthemic song either, which is somewhat disappointing, because that is what endeared Creed to many of its fans. Only “The Song You Sing,” and “Time” show flashes of that style.

Lyrically, Stapp does a decent job. He lapses into clichés at times and overuses certain phrases — like the word, “suddenly,” in the song, “Suddenly”. Particularly interesting are turns of phrase such as, “I’m entitled to overcome,” on “Overcome,” and, “Promise me fame and I’ll survive on the bread of shame,” on “Bread of Shame.”

Mark Tremonti’s guitar work is as solid as ever on Full Circle and shows that he is never satisfied with being just good enough. He contributes some fantastic solos that are typical Tremonti in “Overcome” and “The Song You Sing,” but some of his better solos on this record are the more understated ones, such as in the outro of “Rain.” Full Circle also showcases the talents of drummer Scott Phillips more than any other album, especially on the faster songs, where he breaks out the double bass drum.

After hearing the first two singles (“Overcome” and “Rain”), I was afraid that producer Howard Benson would auto-tune away Stapp’s characteristic growl, making his vocals merely average. That does unfortunately happen in a few songs and is made necessary thanks to the abuse his voice has taken from drugs, alcohol and poor vocal technique. But his voice still has a lot left in the tank, as we see on emotional songs like “Away in Silence.” Stapp’s biggest vocal gaffe occurs at the end of “Good Fight,” when he tries to scream and hit staccato eighth notes, singing, “Fight the good fight, fight on!” His voice was not built to do that, leaving a strange impression on the listener at the end of the song.

Overall, this is a solid album and should earn Creed the best critical reviews it has seen. There are no awesome, hit-you-over-the-head songs, but there are few forgettable songs, as well. While its other albums had stronger singles, Full Circle is likely the most consistent, cohesive and sonically interesting album the group has made. I would characterize it as a blend of some of the band’s earlier styles, with the rawness of My Own Prison combined with the slick production of Weathered that shows everyone Creed is back on the music scene to stay.

As of Oct. 15, both houses of the U.S. Congress have passed versions of the Performance Rights Act, a law designed to “grant performers of sound recordings equal rights to compensation from terrestrial broadcasters.” In other words, the government is forcing radio stations to pay royalties to copyright holders for songs played on air.

While supporters of the act, such as musicFIRST Coalition Executive Director Jennifer Bendall, claim that it brings society “one step closer to righting a wrong that has existed since the early days of radio; one step closer to winning the fight for fundamental justice that has been waged by countless artists and musicians over the last 80 years,” it seems more like this law is a backward way for artists to try and keep milking a system that is becoming less and less viable as a business model for digital media and distribution progress.

Artists should not look to radio stations for profit, especially because radio broadcasting is — essentially — free advertising for the artists themselves. So when looking at this law, it befuddles me why bands want these ‘advertisers’ to pay a fee for the publicity the radio provides for them.

It’s hard to say exactly how this act will impact the radio broadcast industry on the whole, but I think I have a reasonable prediction: Public radio will suffer greatly because of the extra financial burden and even commercial radio will probably either take a hit in the pocketbook, or simply narrow the already limited selection of top-40 style broadcasting cycles. And if this is the way it is going to be, I don’t see anyone other than the already popular, famous and rich reaping the benefits from this act, making this writer wonder: Does Kanye West really need any more money?

—campbell bird

Rarely has a show like FlashForward posed so many questions and so few answers. As competitive of a title that may be, with shows like Lost hanging around, FlashForward tries to go above and beyond other shows by showing viewers what will happen in the future. It is obvious why the executives at ABC would find a show like FlashForward so appealing, but in only six episodes, the show already has become too mysterious while failing to progress and develop the plot in a meaningful way. Some Lost fans will love the mysteriousness of FlashForward, but for most, this show will not offer enough to have them flipping to ABC at 8 p.m. Thursdays for more episodes.

FlashForward is centered on the investigation and aftermath of a worldwide blackout. Everyone in the world lost consciousness for 137 seconds and — during that time — saw what they would be doing in exactly six months. FBI agent Mark Benford, played by Joseph Fiennes, takes the dreams for fact and starts the investigation into the cause of the blackout based on his vision, in which he looked into the evidence for the case. The show follows several characters as they try to piece together why their professional and personal lives will take such drastic turns in half a year.

FlashForward goes all out in trying to hook the audience. Nearly every episode ends as if the case will be solved as more evidence is uncovered, but these only ever amount to be the most superficial of revelations. Although the show does well to end each episode with the audience wanting more, this viewer is not willing to turn on the TV to find out the next useless discovery. Through six episodes, the show has frustratingly made no attempts to uncover any of the questions that it raises.

One of FlashForward’s biggest problems is that the idea of the show, which was inspired by Robert Sawyer’s 1999 novel of the same name, would be better suited to be played out in a movie. But, in an attempt to use this idea and adapt it to a 25-episode season, the show stretches itself and its premise out too far. There are too many characters with storylines, some of whom seem completely unnecessary in the show right now.

Furthermore, the show seems to be headed down the path of Lost, with some far-fetched traumatic event. One positive aspect of the show is the motif of fate. But I fear that the show will have some solution through which everyone is controlled by another individual, instead of exploring the complexities of the role of fate and human agency. Through the first six episodes, the way that people react to knowing their own futures is stimulating and hopefully will be expanded upon.

The casting of Joseph Fiennes as the main character is a bit of a mystery to me. The tough detective is constantly making wide-eyed glossy expressions, making him seem less like an FBI detective and more like a cast member of Grey’s Anatomy. John Cho, of Harold and Kumar fame, continues to illustrate the surprising fact that a stoner movie is capable of producing good, serious actors. As FBI agent Demetri Noh, who is obsessed with the date of his own death, Cho and FlashForward showed great promise for the first episode. But for now, the show is stuck in the mud and refuses to give the audience what it wants.

In

Sarah Palin — The former vice-presidential candidate releases her highly anticipated memoir Nov. 17. We’re not embarrassed to say we pre-ordered it on Amazon.

Glee — A musical TV series that has a bite to it will always earn high marks in our book.

This Is It — The long-awaited Michael Jackson documentary bankrolled the box office this past weekend, adding another achievement to the Jackson family mantle.

Rihanna — Her new single, “Russian Roulette,” is an artistic stroke of genius and a brilliant out-of-left-field move from the best pop star in the game.

Out

Heroes — It actually pains us to see this once landmark TV series in the state it is today.

Twilight is Back — Apologies to those offended by this, but we just cannot and will not ever celebrate anything to do with this brain-numbing vampire romance saga.

Adam Lambert’s album cover — If you’ve seen it, you understand. If you haven’t, consider this a cautionary warning.

Al Groh — No explanation required.

- compiled by dave taggart

No one really likes overly pretentious bands, and neither do Astronomers, the four-piece local band that describes itself as a bunch of danceable, yet intelligent rockers. Since its formation, the band has produced a few demos, added a guitarist and played many a gig. But soon, Astronomers will take one of the most critical steps in its music career. Tomorrow, the band will celebrate the release of its first professionally produced album titled Think Fast. Before that happened though, tableau snagged the chance to sit down with singer/songwriter/guitarist Nate Bolling and guitarist Kyle Woolard to see what this ‘Astronomers’ business is all about.

tableau: Tell me a little about what you guys have been up to.
KW: [The record]’s anti-jam, and even though I’ve joined the band late, it sounds like everything’s been labored over, and I’m happy to be a part of this project.

tab: How do you think your music stacks up against the rest of the local music scene?
Nate Bolling: I’d say that we have a more thought-out and unique style that doesn’t sound regurgitated.
KW: I agree, there’s so much of that stuff catering to bar crowds, like jam and cover bands.
NB: It seems like anything that’s alternative to that, no one gives props to.

tab: How do you guys see yourselves fitting into the larger, musical picture, and what do you think of the current state of the industry?
KW: There’s one splinter of the music scene that’s doing something progressive, like Adam Smith. Music has been raped and pillaged while not being treated as an art form for too long.

tab: What’s with the name?
NB: We’re just a bunch of science geeks. We don’t play video games or anything like that, but if we’re bored, we’ll just pick up an astronomy book.
KW: Also, we’re “Astronomers,” not “The Astronomers.” We feel that’s an important distinction because we think the “The” sounds pretentious, but just being “Astronomers” fits because at the end of the day, we are all astronomers in one way or another.
NB: Yeah, that and it was between that name and “Space Tits,” which is now our fake label name.

tab: Your singles for this new album seem pretty different from your demos. What changed?
NB: We got the opportunity to spend more time on songs with this record. Everything before this one was basically recorded live.
KW: We owe a lot of our change to our producer, Lance Brenner. He has been incredibly involved and is always ready to try new things.

tab: So, no changes in musical inspiration or influence?
NB: I’ve been listening to Muse, but also a lot of Supergrass. Also, I’m addicted to The Strokes.
KW: I always say we’re like a perfect mix between Radiohead and Franz Ferdinand.

tab: What does this new album bring to the table that your previous efforts haven’t?
NB: What I get from listening to it is that it’s not trying to be anything else than what it is. That lack of pretentiousness is what I really want people to take away from it.

tab: Like your name, your lyrics usually reference back to astronomical terms. Is there a particular reason why?
KW: It makes for great metaphors.
NB: To be honest, I’ve never been able to s*** out lyrics, so writing about what I know helps my process.
KW: The only way to make sense of the world sometimes is to just use what you know.

tab: What is the future of Astronomers looking like?
NB: We just want U.Va. to be aware of us even though we don’t play shows near Grounds too often, but we should be playing a show at Cantina soon. Also, our CD release party will be at AstroLodge (2020 Pireus Row) Nov. 6 at 9 p.m.

tab: Anything else?
NB: Keep an eye out for us.

During a busy week of multiple club meetings, 10-page papers and other stressful college responsibilities, do you find yourself putting off homework and reliving your childhood by watching Recess reruns on YouTube? No?

Well, I highly recommend it — if I’ve learned anything from volunteering with kids, it’s that sometimes the best stress-buster is not reaching for the nearest cup of coffee and/or alcoholic beverage, but for the LEGOS. And so, when I stepped into John Paul Jones Arena to see Finding Nemo on Ice and found the auditorium lit by the spinning red lights of whirling, lit-up, Nemo-topped thingamabobs in the hands of hundreds of sticky 6-year-old kids, I knew I had come to the right place.

The show followed the familiar plot and dialogue of the well-loved Disney/Pixar movie, more or less, but the show did not focus so much on the plot as it did on the visual spectacle of beautifully costumed characters gliding gracefully on the ice, looking very much like fish swimming through water. The elaborate sets ranged from a coral reef glowing in psychedelic neon colors to a fish tank filled with life-sized aquarium décor to a creative version of the East Australian Current made up of synchronized skaters trailing rippling ribbons.

The main skaters who played Marlin, Dory and Nemo were fantastic on the ice, each with their own distinct style of skating that reflected their characters’ personalities, often incorporating axles and other tricks into their skating routines. But, the real highlights of the show were the synchronized skating scenes, during which the stage was crowded with colorful characters. Particularly impressive was the scene in which a school of moonfish skate in patterns to create impressions of swordfish and other shapes. My personal favorite, meanwhile, had to be the ominous jellyfish scene: an ethereal ice ballet featuring an acrobat swinging on a ribbon in the air while dozens of skaters glided gracefully in patterns around her.

The musical numbers, featuring water-related pop songs, were random, but fun — the most entertaining had to be the rendition of the Beatles’ “Octupus’s Garden” as performed by synchronized, enthusiastic moonfish. Unfortunately, the entire climax of the film that follows the reunion of Nemo and Marlin was replaced in the show by one long musical finale of (inexplicably) “Joy to the World,” with all the characters reemerging to skate triumphantly around the reunited pair.

But, as the show ends, you can’t help but shrug your shoulders and leave the theater feeling refreshed by your momentary dip into the world of colorful kiddie enthusiasm, as you now reenter the world of homework, exams and papers armed with your very own whirling, light-up, Dory-topped thingamabob.

Professor Chong, you have been teaching at the University since 2004. What brought you to Charlottesville?
When Ed Ayers, whose degree is in American Studies from Harvard, was Dean of Arts & Sciences, he had a real commitment to interdisciplinary studies and oversaw a job search in American Studies … I was one of these hires and I was placed in the English Department. And that really jumpstarted the American Studies program and gave birth to [the Asian Pacific American Studies program]. Pensri Ho and I started the APAS minor out of American Studies after we were hired together in 2004, and we got the minor approved in 2005.

What professional goals have you set for yourself?
I enjoy breaking the stereotype that Asian professors can only teach in the math and sciences. When people learn that I am an English professor, they try to watch their language around me, and I think that’s amusing because I am not a native English speaker and am usually not paying attention to the kind of language they are using. So I don’t fit the stereotype of what people think an English professor should be and I that’s continually a goal I try to uphold … I just finished a book on the Vietnam War and am starting another one on World War II. Those books are meant to change the way people think about racial politics in relation to film and popular culture, so that’s also a goal for me.

How have your past experiences influenced the way your approach to teaching?
I went to a liberal arts college that was very intellectually intense and very small — about 1,200 [students] total. Professors there treated students really seriously, and I’m still friends with many of them, so I always have that in mind when trying to create a classroom atmosphere here. Intense, intellectual and intimate … I came here [to America] really young so I feel like both an insider and outsider to American culture. Growing up, I never would have thought I would study Asian-Americans because no one I knew did, and I would have wanted to be seen as assimilated. Studying your people makes you seem like you’re not part of the mainstream, so I understand the social phenomena I teach about. But as I grew older, I realized you also can’t ignore things like gender and race. I was a feminist before I became a race scholar, and it took me a lot longer to get into Asian American studies. Even now, some of the topics I study can be too personal, which hampers your ability to be critical, so I am always trying to balance that.

What have you enjoyed most about your experience so far?
The students have been really great. I‘ve become really involved in student life through APAS and APA programs. I’ve attended culture shows and political speakers and visited their homes. Every year we go to D.C. to attend the Asian Pacific American Film Festival — which has been a great atmosphere for learning and just being a person because I’m surrounded by friendly people … Also, I enjoy spending time with my partner Micheal Puri who teaches in the music department. One thing I don’t do with my spare time is watch movies because it feels like work.

How do you spend your free time?
Well, I have a minor addiction to Facebook — even made this interview through wall posting. I spend a lot of time with my friends, a lot of other young professors. I sing in a lot of choirs and recently joined a choir called the VA Consort. I love karaoke. When I go to conferences, I gather my colleagues and friends together and drag them out to do karaoke. I also like to cook.

If you could attend any concert, whose would it be?
Well, I regret not going to a Madonna or a Prince concert. I’m a child of the ‘80s, so those two are some of my favorite artists. I hear their concerts are spectacles. When I go to a concert, I want to see a show, not just a musical number and especially in the ‘90s, they gave shows … I did just go to a concert that I’ve wanted to go to — Immortal Technique, who is an indie rapper. One of my former students at Berkeley gave me his album after reading Frantz Fanon [a Caribbean post-colonial theorist] with me because he said Fanon reminded him of Immortal Technique.

I hear you like to cook for your students, which is something not a lot of professors do. Why do you do it?
I went to small liberal arts college called Swarthmore, and there, the professors all have their students over for dinner at the end of the year. Some professors even teach their classes out of their homes. I loved my professors, which is probably why I try to recreate that experience, even though U.Va. is a really big school.

What are your plans for the future here at the University and elsewhere?
I’m itching to buy a house. I have never owned a house. When you go to graduate school for a Ph.D., you stay in kind of an infantile state for a long time — everyone else is starting their careers and you’re still in training. After that, if you’re lucky and become a professor, you’re starting out in your 30s while others have been at it for years.

In high school, did you know what you wanted to be a professor? If so, did you know you wanted to teach Pan-American Studies?
No, I didn’t. [Laughs.] I actually wanted to be an actress or poet.

If your friends could describe you in three words, what words do you think they would use?
Hyper, um, hyper, hyper, hyper. Also friendly and hungry all the time.

-compiled by Rasheda Nipu

I have seen only two truly terrible movies in my life — “La Moustache” and “Twilight.” The former, a French movie, is about some guy who wakes up one day to find his moustache gone. When he asks his family about how this came to be, nobody even knows what he is talking about. They claimed he’s never had a moustache in the first place!

The movie would have been intriguing if it had not gone on for an hour and a half, with the same scene of him looking shocked in a mirror about the sudden disappearance of moustache — which, if you ask me, was an improvement. If you’re not a porn star from the ’70’s, lose the ’stache.

In any case, my dislike for that movie is nothing compared to the burning, all-consuming hatred I have for “Twilight,” the worst movie ever made.

Where to begin? Well, for the sake of fairness, I will start with the positives. The soundtrack was decent and there is a character named Jasper, which I think is a nice name.

And … Yeah, now we’re done with the positives. So, why do I hate thee, “Twilight”? Let me count the ways.

Right off the bat, the casting for “Twilight” was an absolute shame. Nikki Reed, of Italian and Cherokee descent, cast as a blonde? Hmm. I know there is a terrible dearth of blonde actresses in Hollywood but I have to think that someone, somewhere could have put in a little more effort to find an actress who could at least pass as blonde.

And Bella. I can’t recall a time where I have been in more pain watching someone attempt to act. Kristen “Block of Wood” Stewart cast as a lead? What did we do to deserve this? Her one expression, absolute boredom, is never appropriate in the movie. In the books — not that I’ve read them or anything — Bella is funny. She’s got gumption and, well, emotions. Kristen Stewart, instead of being likeable, is a vacuous hole where a personality should be. Although you’d think after all the panning her acting received, she would take some classes. But no. She looked just as inanimate in the next movie. Geez.

Now I risk death in saying this, but Robert Pattinson? Eh. I mean, he’s cute and I dig the accent, but I think as far as “object of my affection” goes, we could all do better.

Adding to my already great displeasure with this movie is the “Team Edward” and “Team Jacob” debate. As if the movie itself wasn’t bad enough, I have to hear, in real-life conversations, about which mildly attractive person everyone wants to win. First, I just want to say if you own a shirt displaying either one, we must never meet. Second, Taylor Lautner is 17. Don’t be gross.

“Twilight,” in general, was just a snoozefest. Once I realized that I would not enjoy my cinematic experience, I thought, “OK, maybe I can just make fun of the film to dull the throbbing pain of viewing it.” I was wrong. Not only is it bad, it’s also not silly enough to make fun of — two things that make for a tragically boring movie.

Now, admittedly, it is strange that I would dispense this much time and effort talking about a movie that came out a year ago. Why now? Well, as I have heard 9,000 separate times, “New Moon,” or “Twilight 2,” for the true fans out there, is coming out this month.

Because I have been repeatedly asked if I am going to see this movie and am tired of saying, “Absolutely not, I’d rather gouge my eyes out,” I have written this column as my answer. If I do hear this question again, be sure that I will launch into a rant lasting about 45 minutes about how truly terrible the whole series of movies is sure to be. So please, for your sake and mine, resist the urge and refer to the text above.

Belle’s column runs biweekly Thursdays. She can be reached at b.gamble@cavalerdaily.com.