Holiday Hell: A Satire

Aside from summer vacation and Black Friday, the holiday season is my favorite time of year. A solid block from Halloween until New Year’s, when we get to wallow in the beauty of overpriced poultry, jarringly-bright festive lights, and more familial tension than a 12-hour “Jerry Springer” marathon. Really, though, what’s not to love?

Consider the simple goodness of Halloween: a holiday that began as a pagan method of ushering deceased relatives into the afterlife (including human sacrifice and paying homeless people to pray for your family members), and now consists of encouraging children to dress up like a comic book character and walk around parentless, demanding treats from strangers.

This is one holiday that has remained just as whimsical and traditional as when it first started. I mean, what’s the difference between eating a nutmeg-based “soul cake” that signifies a soul being freed from Purgatory and a chocolate-based Mars Bar that signifies an upcoming root canal? Only that whole “Purgatory” thing, but that’s pretty trivial in the long run. Overall, no one could find a flaw in children accepting candy from groups of masked strangers. When has that ever gone wrong?

Thanksgiving is a holiday that keeps on giving (pun shamefully intended), providing us with everything we love about the holiday season: family, good food, and historical turmoil. After all, the only way to celebrate a bunch of Puritans crashing their boat into an enormous rock and massacring 700 Pequot Indians is enjoying a slice of pumpkin pie.

Coming too soon after Halloween to manage any pre-holiday diet, Thanksgiving basically does the same thing to our bodies as the stomach-babies in “Alien”: explodes our stomach without so much as a heads-up and leaves us to suffer. The recurring (but never actually true) plan all of us hold close to our cholesterol-caked hearts is that we’ll try to eat healthier this year. This lasts until we actually begin eating, after which we usually find ourselves reclined in our chairs with the buttons on our skinny jeans screaming for mercy, as our Aunt Flo stuffs a fifth piece of pecan pie down her throat whilst claiming, “I shouldn’t; I’m on a diet!”

(Personally, I intend to follow the “Just eat as much as you want and have fun” plan. I’ll let you know how it goes after my imminent triple bypass).

Then comes the great grandiose of the holiday season: Christmas. We put trees inside, lamps outside, and sing holiday songs that will surface in our subconscious again during mid-April and refuse to disappear until next November. Christmas is like what would happen if all the other winter holidays were put into a blender and pumped full of steroids; you’ve got the forced family bonding of Thanksgiving, the sugary confections of Halloween, and the skinny-jeans-ripping meals of... well, basically everything.

Plus, the best part of all: PRESENTS.

Now, I know the whole Grinch spiel of “maybe Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more,” and all that holly-scented jazz. We all do, having grown up with Christmas specials that shove peace on Earth down our throats with cries of “EAT SYMBOLIC HAPPINESS, YOU TINY ELVES!”

But, lets be real here. Presents are the only reason you remember Christmas at all. Years from now, we may not remember the hot chocolate we drank or the moonlit walks past the blinking house lights, but we WILL remember getting a copy of Call of Duty instead of Halo, and subsequently throwing our XBox across the house in righteous indignation and refusing to speak to our parents until New Years.

Ah, the memories of the digital generation.

The only downside of the holiday season, for me at least, is how FAST everything seems to go. You’re halfway through taking off your Halloween costume when your parents begin ordering a turkey. Three days later, the Christmas Lights Fairy visits all the good little houses and covers them in traffic hazards. And then, before you know it, all that’s left is half a pillowcase full of candy, a skyline of leftovers in the fridge, and that one neighbor across the street who keeps his lights up all year round.

So, this holiday season, try to appreciate each moment. Revel in your younger sibling throwing up eggnog all over their stocking. Giggle in delight as your great-aunt asks why you don’t just cut your hair, you freakin hippie. Suffer in contented silence through hours upon hours of sappy Christmas movies that make your mom cry. Enjoy it while you can.

And, to all my fellow Jews out there: Happy Hanukkah. See you all December 24 for Chinese food and a movie. Happy Holidays!

http://www.scotscoop.com/24853

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

A reflection on childhood

When did being a kid become uncool?
As toddlers, we lived in a state of eternal bliss, unaware that our lives had any schedule beyond wake up, eat, play, and sleep. We were sent outside, where we allowed our imagination to turn us into everything from Batman to a monkey. No one cared if we felt like humming to ourselves for an hour straight, or colored the sky purple and the ground orange. We were encouraged to be whatever and whoever we wanted, and to not care what anyone thought.
Then elementary school hit. Dragged kicking and screaming from our sleep-deprived parents, we learned everything we needed to learn for the rest of our lives: colors, numbers, and to not go around putting worms in people’s hair because you wouldn't like it if they did that. 
Making friends was never easier than in elementary. Show a kid your toy trucks or Barbie dolls, and 90 percent of the time you’d be BFFs within ten minutes. Of course they could always just call you a fart-face and push you into the sandbox, but there were thirty other kids in your class who appreciated the subtle beauty of Hot Wheels. 
Sure we felt like we were growing up, but elementary school was really our last immature hurrah. After elementary, our childhoods screeched to a halt and our imaginations were packed away into airtight shipping crates.
Middle school took everything elementary school taught us about how to make friends and chucked it out a high-rise window. If you went up and showed a guy your Hot Wheels, you’d basically be signing your name on a list called “Please Pick on Me Every Chance You Get.” Barbie dolls were basically the same, but middle school girls can think of some names that put “fart face” to shame.
I recently had a chance to observe seventh graders in their natural habitat (as a reluctant chaperon for a middle school dance), and there were a few times where I thought I was watching “Jersey Shore: The Early Days.” Hair had been flat ironed into submission, push-up bras peeked out to say “howdy-doo,”and the so-called “shorts” they wore contained less material than an average pocket. Oompa-loompa makeup jobs abounded, and I’m pretty sure most of them would need a shovel to take it all off.
The guys were no better. I’m not sure if the dance had a “skinny jeans, Vans, flat brims, condescending attitude” dress-code, but if so, they were dressed to the nines. A large pack congregated in the back, occasionally shoving one poor soul forward into the gyrating maw of the girls, only to have him retreat in shame when he realized he doesn't know how to dance. 
Watching a guy and a girl dance was like watching two people trying to get out of one straight-jacket (except during slow songs, when the walls, ceiling, and floor became the most interesting things in the world to stare at as you and your lucky date sway awkwardly from side-to-side, a minimum of two full feet apart). I verged from hysteria brought on by trying not to laugh to absolute disgust. 
But beyond the actions of the tweens, the most surprising things were what they said. From my perch by the pretzels, I had to spend my entire night listening to guys talk about how they “did so much beer last night” and girls calling “dibs” on guys (including one very entertaining moment where two girls “dibbed” the same guy and one said, “He’s mine! We talked for like, five minutes, and he said he liked my hair.” Truly a deep, meaningful connection). 
I didn't think much on it, until I walked down our hallways and listened in to a few conversations. A group of senior girls were debating furiously whether Captain America and Iron Man made a better team than Superman and Batman- and which would win in a wrestling match. A boy in my History class made a speech about Obama and Romney’s health care plans, then was heard telling a group of his friends that “Toy Story 3” made him cry- to which his friend pointed out that “Up” was WAY sadder. Choir kids spend their time either talking about musicals, or singing Disney songs in large groups.The other day, I saw a boy thoroughly entertained by a Razor mini-skateboard (and making “whoosh” sound effects while jumping with it).  
When did middle schoolers decide that it wasn't “cool” anymore to enjoy being thirteen years old? When did middle school just become an excuse to practice everything you think you needed in high school- and did they base their impressions on purely from “Glee” and “90201”? And, more importantly, if they could see us, would WE be “uncool”?
These are the last years of our lives that we can still claim to be kids; mature kids with stubble and drivers licenses, but kids nonetheless. Don’t spend it trying to grow up. Just step back, pop in a Disney movie, and savor the moment.

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

'Wallflower' brings laughter and tears

For fans of the best-selling book, the movie adaptation of "Perks of Being a Wallflower" is a fantastic version that is sure to make even the most stoic of seniors grow nostalgic. For those who haven't read it, the movie should still not be missed.

The story follows Charlie (played by an unbelievable Logan Lerman), an incoming freshman who has suffered from depression and painful shyness all throughout middle school. Upon entering high school, he is taken under the wing of two seniors: the music-savvy, philosophical Sam (Emma Watson, in her first role after Hermione) and the spontaneous, flamboyant Patrick (Ezra Miller- I'll be talking about him later).

They teach him about friendship, good music, and living life to the fullest. The storyline is satisfyingly complex and simultaneously depressing and uplifting, while the cinematography utilizes some very interesting shots (notably during one scene when Charlie is high on LSD). However, it's the acting that carries the movie along.

Lerman is the perfect choice to play Charlie - he's twitchy, introverted, and has a perfect balance of instability and desperation in his eyes. In other words, he's that one freshman that sits alone at a table during lunch and never speaks during class. It's a nice role, verging on greatness when Charlie begins having a mental breakdown (provoking some looks from Lerman that almost fry the film in the camera).

Watson, on the other hand, has obviously made a conscious effort to take long steps away from her role as Hermione and it works to an extent. She is satisfyingly adorable and American (trading her natural English accent for an American one), but falls flat at times.

The standout cast member is Miller, who takes on a challenge: playing a self-proclaimed "queer as a three-dollar bill" senior who has more underlying issues and snark than a sorority house. He is simply a joy to watch, from his snappy dialogue to moments of loud silence. He is easily the most interesting character, and the movie is worth seeing just because of his performance.

The film does suffer from what I like to call "Underdeveloped Minor Character Syndrome," with a few of Charlie's other friends falling flat. Additionally, the interesting roles of an English teacher (played by the always enjoyable Paul Rudd) and Charlie's older sister (Nina Dobrev) disappear into the mix. But overall, "Perks of Being a Wallflower" is an adorable, touching film that should not be missed (seniors, bring some tissues; those graduation scenes are pretty misty).

4.3/5 stars

http://www.scotscoop.com/22502

An in-depth look at high school English

Sigmund Freud once famously claimed that “sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar,” making the point that some things can, and should, be taken at face value. High school literature, apparently, is not one of those things.
   Overanalyzation is, in my opinion, one of the greatest pitfalls in a subject I am unashamed to call my favorite. English class has always been enjoyable for me; I have no problem with reading thick volumes in a short amount of time, or deciphering complex vocabulary. I even enjoy Shakespeare. My only real problem with the subject is when a great work (i.e. The Great Gatsby, Jane Eyre, Romeo and Juliet) is turned from a classic to nothing more than homework through a ridiculous amount of overanalysis.
   Why is it that we can never seem to accept the fact that the author may have, in fact, used things such as colors and sounds without giving them some underlying meaning? Take a sentence such as, “The curtains were dark blue to match the drapes.” Now, of course, the author may have meant the color blue to symbolize the deep anguish and anxiousness that the main character was feeling, coupled with the recent death of his father. Couldn't they just be blue to match the drapes? If they had been red, would that change the overall meaning of the book?
   Peter Ravenelle, a senior in AP English, believes that a gross amount of analyzation makes English classes difficult and unlikable- especially for younger students. “I think the upperclassmen can handle going into that much detail, because we’re used to it by now,” he stated. “But freshmen and sophomores should be able to enjoy the books they read, without analyzing them to death. Otherwise, they’ll never like English for the rest of their lives.”
   Senior Emma Smith agreed with Ravenelle, and also pointed out that reading with analysis in mind causes kids to either read too quickly or too slowly for their own tastes. “I read fast,” she claimed, “but when other kids don’t get a small piece of the analysis, or don’t agree with the teacher, we have to go back and read it again, more slowly. It takes whatever fun there was out of reading.”
    If all this analysis makes English so boring and difficult to deal with, is it really necessary to go into that much detail? Well, according to Anne Frost, a sophomore and senior English teacher, analysis is a critical skill not just for English class, but in life in general.
   “For the rest of your life,” she claimed, “you’re going to need to know how to analyze things in detail. You get real-life experience from that, no matter what you’re reading. Plus, it’s a standard that students need to be well-versed in close analysis.”
   According to Frost, having classes at mixed levels (aside from AS and AP) means that reading in class and reading slowly is necessary, as it makes sure all members of the class are on the same page. “Sometimes the language and style of the book is a barrier, or the material is too dry for the student to grasp. Analysis makes sure everyone is getting something out of the experience.”
   Eliza Hunt said that in her past four years at Carlmont, she’s enjoyed the analysis she has done. “If a kid is predisposed to like reading and English,” she explained, “then of course he’s going to hate analysis. I like it, though. Reading books like The Great Gatsby is a lot more enjoyable when you actually know what the author was trying to communicate through symbolism and language.”
   Frost pointed out that, “there will always be those kids who walk in saying ‘I already know how to speak English; why do I need to be here?’ They don’t find the work interesting so the point of the analysis, in my class and others, is to make it real for them.”

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

Words with addiction

 A few words about this piece; this is, without a doubt, my favorite article. I have won several awards for it, and it really reflects my voice and writing skills.

Carlmont is in trouble. There is an invisible menace lurking within our walls. It draws unsuspecting students in with promises of fun and games, and ensnares them in a bottomless pool of addiction.

  It infects anyone and everyone without mercy, and does not discriminate between students or teachers.

  It can hide itself anywhere. In fact, it’s probably lurking in your pocket right now.

  I speak, of course, about the iPhone and Android app, Words With Friends.

  On the surface, Words With Friends seems like just another harmless app. You hear about it from a friend, you download the free version (because who wants to pay 99 cents for virtual Scrabble?), and you don’t give it a second thought. You grow to enjoy playing WWF, and are grateful for buying it.

  But soon, the fun ends. Before you know it, you’re playing countless games at a time. You buy a dictionary, just to check if there are indeed any words consisting of only consonants. Every five minutes, you refresh the page, in the vain hope someone has already played back.

  Your entire life begins to revolve around those little yellow tiles, and any conversation not involving the phrase “triple word score” bores you. Your friends and family soon see the uselessness of trying to converse with you, as you only say things like. “Ooh, ‘weather’. That’s worth like, ten points.” or “Do you think ‘JUXWAZPATION’ is a word?”

  Soon, you are at risk of infecting others. Words With Friends Addiction (WWFA) is an airborne disease, and can be spread by such simple activities as saying to a friend, “Hey, You should play Words With Friends.”

  Thus the cycle continues. An unbroken circle of addiction, that if left untreated, will consume Carlmont in no time at all. Sad as it is, more and more students are falling victim to WWFA every day.

  Sophomore Ryan Yen admitted to be extremely addicted. “I play WWF every day, but I only realized I was addicted when I noticed I had 20 games going at once.” He went on to say, “Everyone I know plays. A friend introduced me to it. I think it’s fun.”

  Even the administration is not safe from this debilitating illness. When asked if he was considering quarantining the school, Vice Principal Robert Fishtrom responded, “I think WWF is a good educational outlet for students. Since some teachers also play, it’s a good way for them to connect with the kids they teach. However, playing it shouldn't interfere with the Electronic Policy. Students are not allowed to use any electronic devices during school hours”

  Fishtrom concluded by insisting, “I don’t have a problem.” He then glanced surreptitiously at the iPhone on his desk.

  Is this the future of Carlmont? Are our hallowed halls destined to be roamed by zombified kids with their noses shoved so far into their phones they can’t see where they’re going?

  No. I hereby implore the remaining addiction-free Carlmont students to do their part in stopping WWF from taking over our school. We must make it our mission to help the poor souls who are having their lives ruined by this malevolent app.

  Addicts, or “scrabblers” as they’ve come to be called, are easy to spot. They spend every free moment they have playing WWF. Their eyes are blurry from staring at a small screen from hours on end, and they often voice the complaint “Man, my letters suck this round!”

  In extreme cases, they may turn in homework assignments with all of the letters boxed, or even intersecting each other.

  Approach scrabblers with caution. Though they may appear harmless, if angered, they’ve been known to hurl iPhones or Droids at people’s heads.

  The only known cure to WWFA is to quit cold-turkey. Convince them to stop using their phone, at least for a day. However, there are techniques that can help with symptoms, such as going on a walk or taking a nap.

  If we work together, we can prevent WWFA from becoming an epidemic. I know we can do it.

 Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go play Words With- I MEAN DO MY HOMEWORK. Yeah. Homework is what I meant.

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

Like Hollywood, movies get stupider

There are good movies. There are bad movies. There are REALLY bad movies. Then, there are those movies that are so bad, the only thing that seems logical while watching them is to asphyxiate yourself with a bucket of popcorn. Unfortunately, it seems that this school year was filled with the latter.

  The year started off with a fizzle, bringing Carlmont something called “Shark Night 3D.” This was the epitome of cheesy horror movies. It had it all: predictable plot (“OMG THERE’S SHARKS EVERYWHERE!”), idiotic characters (“Huh. I think I heard a splash three miles away in the middle of the night. I’ll go by myself to check it out. Good thing I’m wearing my barbecue-scented cologne.”), and copious amounts of fake blood. Oh, and don’t forget an overwhelming amount of cleavage from the eternally-bikini-clad actresses. A better name for this movie would have to be, “Busty Women Running Around and Screaming for Two Hours... Plus Some Sharks... 3D.”

  November ruined any appetite we had for turkey with “Jack and Jill,” the latest vessel for Adam Sandler to reprise his role as “Eternal Man-Child.” However, some demented producer (who undoubtedly enjoyed eating lead paint as a child) felt it was a swell idea to put Sandler in drag and make him play his own twin sister. This brings up a valid point: actors in drag don’t automatically make a movie funny. More often than not, they make the audience want to stab their eyes out with their ICEE straws.   

  The two notable exceptions to this would be “Mrs.Doubtfire” and “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.” However, as “Jack and Jill” doesn’t contain Robin Williams or delightfully campy musical numbers, it turns into a nauseating entry on a long list called, “Reasons Why Adam Sandler Isn’t Funny Anymore.”

  “Contraband” (the first real flop of the new year) deserves a place on the list of bombs because it’s one of those frustrating movies that should be SO much more than what it actually is. It had all the aspects of a great action-thriller: an interesting plot, intriguing stunts/action sequences, and freaking MARK WAHLBERG. However, it suffers from one of the worst faux pas that a movie can commit: under-development.

  None of the main characters receive any sort of exposition, and it’s not even confirmed that they all have first names. Every time the audience figures out what’s going on, a new plot line is introduced or Wahlberg brings in a friend/lover/enemy/dog-walker that they’re instantly supposed to understand and care about. “Contraband” isn’t sure WHAT it wants to be, and the audience ends up unsure why they paid fifteen dollars to get a headache.

  However, the pinnacle of the bad movies, the worst of the worst, had to have been “Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance.” Watching it is the equivalent of bashing one's head into a flaming brick for ninety minutes, and is considerably more painful. The plot is impossible to follow, the acting is a disgrace (why is Nicolas Cage still being hired for movies? The man looks and acts  like a senile gorilla. Does Hollywood simply feel bad for him?), and even the editing is awful. The camera swings around like it’s attached to a drunken pigeon, and after a fight scene a collective gasp is heard as the audience attempts not to vomit from motion sickness.

 No aspect of “Ghost Rider” was enjoyable, no breath of air taken by any of the actors was believable. This was the kind of movie that turns into a legend; the kind of movie some weird, foreign cult will end up worshipping because they’re convinced it’s the root of all evil.

  Fingers are crossed tightly in hopes that next year will produce more quality films, but in light of the swill seen over the past year, Hollywood has a high mountain to climb.

 

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

'Inheritance' cycle comes to a close

It’s not often that the denouement of a series answers the important questions, ties up all plotlines, and leaves the audience with a feeling of both joy, and profound loss. With the final installment of the “Inheritance Cycle”, Christopher Paolini has managed all of this, and then some.

  Dedicating twelve years (“nearly half of my life,” he writes in the author’s note) to spinning the story of Eragon, a mythical Dragon Rider, Paolini has spun a fantastical tale of warriors, elves, dragons, and evil kings. While those less fond of the fantasy genre would likely shy away from prevalent mentionings of magic and dwarves, the series has grown a large fanbase.

  The past three novels, “Eragon,” “Eldest,” and “Brisingr”, have paved the way for the climactic ending, detailing Eragon’s life in the magical kingdom of Alagaesia. The final installment finishes the journey to defeat the greatest enemy of the kingdom: the ruthless King Galbatorix.

  The plot meanders in needless side-plots at some points, but manages to keep itself suspenseful. Despite a length of over 800 pages, readers will be ensnared enough to finish the book within a week. The writing is beautifully descriptive and utilizes imagery, to the point where reading about someone taking an arrow through the back elicits a wince or two.

  The greatest feature of the book is also its downfall; it perfectly continues from where the last three books left off. While this does a wonderful job of tying up all loose ends (even some that didn’t make themselves known until during the story itself), it’s almost impossible to read “Inheritance” without having read its three predecessors yet. And, as all three are particularly weighty reads, a long weekend of page-turning is necessary for the full experience.

  There are a few instances where a subplot or a certain character is given more exposition and focus than really necessary, but it never detracts from the impact of the book.

  Overall, “Inheritance” is a mind-blowing work of fantasy, and should not be missed by anyone.

 

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

The unwanted return of the sequel

What Hollywood needs is a cold dose of the truth: too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I speak, of course, about movie sequels.

  Now, this is not to say that all movie sequels should be ripped from the reels they were shot on and decimated in a fiery inferno. Oh, no. Not at all. Some sequels have gone on to be huge successes, both commercially and critically.

  Take, for example, the recent “Sherlock Holmes” series. After the great acclaim of the first movie, the studio (and thankfully, the actors) decided to invest in a sequel: “A Game of Shadows”. It has since received a general seal of approval, praised for exceeding the bar previously set by its predecessor. A high bar, for there really is nothing better than a shirtless Robert Downey, Jr.- unless it’s a shirtless Robert Downey, Jr. speaking in a British accent.

  The sequel “Batman: The Dark Knight” had an added advantage of already having the whole “origin story” aspect out of the way, giving its writers room to explore new plotlines and characters. This led to the brilliance of Heath Ledger in the face-paint of the Joker, and quite possibly, one of the best superhero movies of the past decade.

  In short: sequels sometimes work, and work well. That being said, the deciding factor for what constitutes the making of a sequel has been increasingly blurry in the past few years. Compiled here is a list of guidelines for when a movie deserves a sequel, and when it should be left alone.

  One: The movie has to set itself up for a sequel. This may very well be the most important rule of all, as it effectively determines whether the sequel will succeed. Series like “Harry Potter” or “The Hunger Games” are obviously predetermined to have at least one sequel, but stories like the “Bourne” trilogy have still managed to succeed in stretching a storyline across a few movies.

  Basically, if a movie can stand alone as its own story, it should ostensibly stay that way. Conversely, if a movie ends in a dramatic cliffhanger, leaving vital questions unanswered, a sequel should be made before the rabid fans begin breaking down the doors of the studio.

  Two: PAY ATTENTION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER. No matter how much a movie makes in the box-office, or how many questions were left unanswered, the critical approval the movie receives should be a large factor in deciding whether a “Part 2” is in our future. A movie that is universally approved should have higher priority than one that is universally panned.

  Three: The sequel should be noticeably different than its predecessor. An audience comes back to see a sequel because they enjoyed the characters and the premise. They don’t come back for the same movie over again.

  Consider “The Hangover.” The first was an achievement in comedy- situational humor at its best. The second was a carbon copy of the first, to the point where it literally feels like the entire movie was simply picked up and dropped in the middle of Thailand. There is a certain virtue in giving people what they want, but not in ignoring any and all aspect of creativity.

  Four: not all movies need sequels. Remember “Bridesmaids”? That hysterical R-rated comedy that showed the world that Kristen Wiig is a comedic goddess, and that Melissa McCarthy can play more than just the sweet, heavy girl? Writer and main actress Wiig has put her foot down, and refused to write a sequel.

  Will this decision ruin the popularity of the movie? Will it destroy the careers of the main actors? Was it made to spite the directors, the producers, and the fans themselves? No, no, and no again. The reason Wiig has refused a sequel is that the movie is done. There is no need for a follow-up, no need for further adventures of the Bridesmaids.

  Sequels can be fun, but it’s important to decide if one is necessary before signing a contract for “Part 2.”

Open publication - Free publishing - More april 2012

What is Carlmont?

From performing arts to school sports, the definition of Carlmont continues to be shaped by its students, which in turn shapes student lives along the way.

  Students spend most of their lives here at Carlmont. For a total of six hours a day, five days a week, students can be found in these classrooms and hallways. They have the same teachers, take the same classes and they even eat the same hot lunch. Yet when asked to answer the question, “What is Carlmont?”, students came up with very different answers.

  For some, the academic programs are the most notable aspect of Carlmont. Junior Andrew Cardozo talked about the expansive math and science programs. “We have so many high-level math classes,” he said, “like multi-variable and AP statistics. They’re really hard classes, and they show the high academic level of the kids at this school.”

  Sophomore Ryan Dimick believes that the wide variety of classes is an important feature of the school. “We don’t really focus on one subject,” he said. “We’re more of an all-around school. We have a lot of programs other schools don’t have, like biotech. They even put in an entire new building for that, and not many other schools can say they have a whole building just for biotech.”

  Regardless of what courses or programs they’re involved in, it’s clear that academics plays a large role in the lives of Carlmont students and it shows through their dedication.

  “Students really have to put in a lot of effort at Carlmont,” Cardozo said, “We take really hard classes with a lot of homework, and on top of that people are involved in sports, which can be really demanding too. I think that the amount of dedication Carlmont students have is a big part of what makes our school what it is.”

  On the other end of the spectrum, the social aspect of Carlmont is the most important for some students. Junior Gillian Spring cited school friends as the reason most kids come to Carlmont in the first place.

  “Socializing is a big part of Carlmont,” she said, “A lot of kids here don’t show up because they like going to class. They show up because they want to see their friends.”

  Beyond small groups of friends, some students, like junior Emma Smith, mentioned school-wide activities and spirit as an outstanding feature of Carlmont.

  “I feel like school spirit is a big thing here,” Smith said, “We have ASB who does things in the Quad during lunch every day, and they put together assemblies like Homecoming and the Heritage Fair. The Screamin’ Scots go crazy at the football games, and the rest of the sports also have a lot of school pride. Whenever the school comes together for something...that’s what I think represents Carlmont the best.”

  All of the students interviewed could point out different things that made Carlmont what it was, whether it is a certain class, a club, or a sports team. However, there was a common thread connected the answers. They all showed that in some way or another, Carlmont shapes the lives of its students just as much as they shape their school.

  Student Body President Kelly Robinson thinks that how Carlmont changes the lives of its students is the most important feature of the school. “Carlmont is a different school depending on what you’re into,” she said, “but everybody has something here for them. People are always starting new clubs, joining new teams, and those are places that shape how those kids go through their lives. They’re changed by what they do here.”

 Robinson went on to say that going to Carlmont has changed who she is as a person. “It’s where I made my friends that I spend every minute with,” she said. “It’s shaped my views, my opinions about everything. I’m so much more outgoing now than I was before coming here. Carlmont has changed me for the better.”

Smith agreed, and said that Carlmont is a “comfortable” place for its students. “The teachers here have helped me so much,” she remembered, “and they’ve opened my mind to new possibilities that I would never have gotten had I not gone here.”

  So, what is the right answer to, “What is Carlmont?” An intellectual environment? An opportunity to socialize and make new friends? A place that grows along with the students, and that helps them grow along the way?

  Robinson put it best when she simply said, “Carlmont is my home away from home.”

Open publication - Free publishing - More high school

Kick off your Sunday shoes

For this year’s Spring musical, Carlmont is in for a treat. “Footloose,” an 80’s era rock musical, will soon be dancing into the Performing Arts Center.

 “Footloose” is a classic story of teenagers trying to find their way in the world, despite prejudice and discouragement. The plot is riddled with fast paced music and energetic country-style and modern dance that represents the era it was made.

  “I love the songs in the musical,” said junior Cierra Reimche. “They are based off of 80’s songs, but they’ve been modernized. They’re really fun and upbeat.”

   Sophomore William Lash echoed, “My favorite part of the musical are the dances, and the music.”

  The musical tells the story of Ren, an independent teenager with two passions in his life: dancing and fighting authority. He and his mother move to the tiny town of Bomont, a city in the middle of nowhere with strict rules and an even stricter devotion to the church.

  The town is still under the shadow of a brutal car accident that had taken place years before, where four teenagers died on their way home from a dance. Due to the suffering of the townspeople and their fervent desire for restitution, a new law has been established in Bomont. To his horror, Ren learns that any and all public dancing has been declared illegal.

  Sick of the stuffy, strict atmosphere and the amount of pressure the teens of Bomont are under, Ren decides that someone has to stand up for what’s right: he decides to take the law into his own hands, to fight for “the right to dance.”

  Facing persecution and anger from all sides, Ren enlists his friends to help him: Willard, a country bumpkin with a soft spot for his mother; Rusty, a chipper girl with a motormouth; and Ariel, the fiery daughter of the town’s preacher.

  “I play Ariel,” laughed Reimche.“She’s the daughter of the Reverend, but she doesn’t act like it. She’s always getting in trouble!”

  While Ren and Ariel realize their growing feelings for one another, her father Reverend Shaw plans to overthrow Ren’s dance revolution once and for all. Shaw enlists the adults of the town to set up a united front against the teens, and the town is immediately divided over the issue.

  The message of the musical is a classic one: sometimes, you have to stand up for what you know is right, even when the odds are against you.

  “Ren has a line in the play,” Reimche added, “that goes something like, ‘This is our time.’ I think that’s a really good message for teens to remember. This is the time we need to live it up, and really live our lives, even when people say we shouldn’t. That’s what the play is all about: getting people together and taking a stand for what’s right.”

  For all those curious about whether the teens of Bomont ever get to dance again, “Footloose” will be performed from March 8 to the 11.

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

Starving for entertainment

The popular series The Hunger Games is being adapted into a movie that will hit theaters  Mach 23, 2012, and fans of the series are anxious to see if their beloved books will be honored sufficiently, or turned to slander.

  The practice of turning books into movies is one that has been around for ages. Our generation has grown up with them, and learned to love them. Many of us remember watching our VCR tape of Snow White, or Cinderella, then rewinding it and playing it over and over again (much to our own delight, and the chagrin of our poor parents, who have had “Bippity Boppity Boo” stuck in their heads for the past three weeks). We were raised on Disney and the like, learning new lessons through classic old stories.

 Then as we got older, we discovered new movies to satisfy our growing attention spans. The Harry Potter series is one such example. Personally, I was only seven when the movie came out in 2001. I was enthralled by the exciting story and wonderful special effects, quickly becoming enamored with the series.

  Basically, books and movies have been intertwined since as long as any of us can remember. Yet it seems that lately, the quality of book-movies has hit a drastic decline- or at least a plateau with a downward-slope.

  Two of my favorite books as a child, Inkheart and Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief, were both revamped into movies. When I heard that Inkheart would appear on the silver screen, I was understandably excited. The book is filled with wonder, magic, snappy writing and beautiful descriptive language.

  The MOVIE, however, was filled with over-dramatic music, predictable dialogue, bad acting, and was basically an excuse for Brendan Frasier to give angsty-yet-courageous looks to the camera every five seconds.

  Oh, and Percy Jackson? The plot was completely changed, they FORGOT to put in the main antagonist, and most of the cast didn’t even REMOTELY resemble the characters they were supposed to be portraying. If they hadn’t mentioned their names in the movie, I would have thought it was an entirely new story. Which it was, basically.

  So now, as a die-hard fan of The Hunger Games and its two sequels, my stomach curdles at the thought that continues to dance around in my head: “What if they ruin it? What if they take the awesomeness that is Suzanne Collins’ writing and morph it into something new and different? And not different in a good way. Different in a “why-did-I-pay-eleven-dollars-to-see-this” kind of way.”

  But here’s the thing: I don’t think they will. Because I’m not getting any of the warning signs I got from the two movies I previously mentioned.

  First off, you have to consider the cast. Jennifer Lawrence is filling the mud-caked shoes of protagonist Katniss Everdeen, and appears to do so quite nicely. I was initially worried that she was too fancy-shmancy for a “plain-Jane” character like Katniss, but she seems to have de-glammed for the role, going without makeup and dying her normally platinum-blond hair a mousy brown.

  The rest of the cast is more-or-less what I expected, with a few exceptions. But these exceptions (such as Lenny Kravitz in the role of Cinna the stylist) are not so crazy that I couldn't see these actors as the characters. It still works, cast-wise.

  Then, consider the special effects. In Eragon, the fuzzy dragons and super-cheesy bursts of magical light quickly turned me off from the story. But Hunger Games doesn’t require a whole lot of CGI (except buckets of fake blood). In the preview, the androgynous clothing and strict formation of the citizens is all the movie needs to evoke the feeling of a utilitarian, dictator-ruled nation that Collins describes Panem to be. In this case, less is more.

  Finally, just consider the source material. The Hunger Games is an exciting, thoroughly enjoyable book, and its sequels are nothing if not even better. Collins has painstakingly crafted a harsh, unbelievable future and makes us believe in it from the first one hundred words.

  In my opinion, the books are a masterpiece of fiction. And it will be pretty hard to mess them up.

  And even if they do, remember: All is not lost. We’ve still got Harry Potter.

Open publication - Free publishing - More belmont

Students want freedom for lunch

  Many students are fed up with eating PB&J sandwiches every day for lunch and have noticed the dozens of restaurants less than a mile away from Carlmont, often wondering why Carlmont doesn’t have an open campus.

  An open campus during lunch is something that students have been asking for for years.The idea itself is rather simple: during lunch, students would have the chance to leave school grounds to eat. The most likely option would be to visit the Carlmont shopping center, where there are many lunch options. Then, once lunch period ends, the students would need to be back at school in time to get to their next class.

  However, executing this idea may be harder than it seems. “Allowing students to leave campus at lunch creates a liability for the school and district in the event that an injury or other situation ,” said Robert Fishtrom, Vice Principal, “Additionally, when the district did have an open occurscampus policy, attendance in the afternoon was very poor.”

  Open campus lunches could easily turn into a negative situation, where students take advantage of their freedom and treat it as an entitlement, not a privilege. However, rules could be made in order to keep open campus lunches a safe, beneficial aspect of Carlmont.

  For example, a rule could put in place that in order to be able to leave campus during lunch, a student must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. This way, open campus lunch becomes a reward, not an entitlement. This policy would increase the effort students put into their grades, and would promote better grades at Carlmont.

  Another idea would be to limit the restaurants to where students are allowed to go. For example, students would only be able to go to the Carlmont shopping center or any of the restaurants across the street.

  In order to address the issue of the liability of a student being injured or another situation occurring while out to lunch, students could have to sign a release form before they leave campus. This form would state that the district is not liable for any injury the student sustains, or any other situation that occurs. This way, the student would know the risks before they left.

  Students are more than happy to offer opinions and advice on how to operate open campus lunches. “I think they could have a sign-in and -out sheet in the office,” said senior Monika Skinner, “Before they leave, students could write down where they’re going to lunch. That way, if they don’t come back, security could go find them in whatever location.”

  Sophomore William Lash agrees. “[The faculty] needs to make sure that we would go back to school and not ditch, no matter how tempting it may be.”

  Open campus lunches are possible at Carlmont. It would just take a little cooperation from students and faculty alike to make it happen. “Open campus lunches are a great idea,” said Skinner. “They provide more freedom and more food options to everyone. We are old enough and responsible enough to handle them.”

Open publication - Free publishing - More carlmont

The evolution of slang

Since the dawn of man, language has played a dominant role in the very fabric of our society. It started with one caveman uttering a fateful “ug.” Whether he was asking for a piece of food, commenting on the weather or simply emitting an extremely irregular belch, that “ug” changed the future of the human race. Soon, all of his caveman buddies began using “ug” to express various needs or concerns. Then, the “ug” evolved into “ooga ug”, which soon evolved into “eega ooga ug”. You get the picture. Eventually, it would occur to a few human beings that language should evolve beyond guttural noises like that of the common gorilla. Thus, the evolution of language advanced once again. Over many years language developed even further. During the height of Ancient Rome, Greek and Latin became the stepping stones for hundreds of different languages, including the one that most of us speak on a daily basis. Klingon. Nah, I’m just kidding. English. Then, during the time of Shakespeare, someone decided all the English words were too short, and decided to add “-eth” and “thy” and “doth” onto them. Like little word tumors. Thankfully, these literary hemorrhoids soon fell to the wayside as English progressed further. In fact, mankind began doing to opposite of their renaissance counterparts; they began shortening words. This practice is one we all know and love: slang. During the roaring twenties, slang really began to take off, and teens began using it full force. No longer did you have to tell your friend that her new glasses are great. Now you can tell her, “Golly-gee, Doreen! Your new cheaters sure are the cat’s pajamas! But you better get a wiggle on, or you’ll miss your date at the sock-hop with Vern! He sure is the bee’s knees!” The sixties was a magical time for slang. When else could teens pay for a new car with “bread”? Hopefully the damage won’t be too bad, or else you won’t be able to go “catch some rays” with the girls, “slug down some antifreeze,” and check out the new guy. I hear he’s got great “buns.” Being physically sick (not as in, “Oh, that’s so sick,” but more like, “Gimme a bucket and hold my hair, I’m gonna be sick”) took on an entire new meaning depending on when you were born. In the forties, you’d chuck up. In the fifties, you’d barf. In the sixties, you’d upchuck. And (my personal favorite) in the seventies, you’d bork up your lunch. Pleasant, no? And where are we now, in regards to slang? At Carlmont, at least, most of our slang consists of two key items: text slang and Bay slang. Text slang is a more recently developed form of slang. Originally becoming popular while texting (in order to save time and space), it is now becoming prevalent in day-to-day life. For example, instead of telling your friends, “Oh my god! You guys have matching sweaters! That’s totally adorable!”, you can now tell them, “OMG! You guys are matchers! Totes adorbs!” By making those changes, you just saved yourself twelve syllables. Just think about how much your BFFs will appreciate it. Finally, we come to Bay slang. This area of slang seems to have no definition except slang that seems to be directly synonymous with the Bay Area. Walking around any area on campus, you are sure to hear any of the following words: “Hella,” “swag,” “swole,” or even “chillax.” These words have gotten so widespread, there’s even a Wikipedia page called “California Slang.” Don’t believe me? Look it up. God only knows where slang will progress to next. Considering the fact that seventies slang like “peace” and “man” is slowly making a comeback, maybe our slang will progress backwards. Imagine: years from now, you’re sitting with your family and in a flash of nostalgia, you describe something as being “hella sick.” Your kids proceed to look at you and say, “Gee wiz! Could you be any more of a square?”

Open publication - Free publishing - More highlander