Baron columnist Simon Jack asks whether the planned new University Commons building will be cost effective.

The new University Commons will (apparently) soon start to rise over the west of campus.  Experienced veterans of the university may scoff at this, remembering the many past occasions when the Commons was going to start construction ‘just next year’.  Nonetheless, it’s apparently true, and the architectural concept is now available for student and faculty perusal.

The architectural concept for the proposed University Commons by firms B+H of Toronto and Sasaki Associates of Boston can be found on the UNB website at
www.unb.ca/saintjohn/universitycommons/_resources/archpres.pdf.  A quick perusal shows a very pretty building – that still seems to carry some significant flaws.

The architectural concept, for those who have not seen it, depicts a large building with one section of three stories and one of two, with about half of the external wall surface as glass.  Open concept is an understatement.  However, a perusal of the floor plan reveals some problems with this.

Firstly, large portions of the possible floor space go completely unused.  About 25% of the second story is devoted to open areas that allow library patrons to look down to the first floor.  Considering the library’s expanding collections, the university’s constant need for more space, and the several departments and offices which there were apparently not room for in the proposed concept, it seems improbable that this space could not be put to use as, well, almost anything.

The entire third-story is empty-space.  There is no floor.  It exists to provide a really high ceiling.  On part of the first-floor, this will mean that the ceiling is three stories high – at minimum, Facilities Management will not enjoy changing the light bulbs.  But even more likely (since, as even poor Arts students like myself know, hot air rises) is that heating the library will involve a lot of energy devoted to heating a third story that sees no use whatsoever – a third story which could, like the empty spaces on the second floor, be put to much better use.  Of the building’s potential floor space, about thirty percent is currently being wasted – but will still require heating.

At minimum, it would seem to make a lot of sense to remove the completely pointless third story.  I have never felt particularly claustrophobic in the current university library, and I am doubtful that the aesthetic benefits of a three-story ceiling are outweighed by the costs associated with one.  Not to mention what a pain they are to keep clean and maintain from two stories below.  Making some use of the third story would also seem perfectly possible, and would not necessarily compromise the aesthetics if done properly.

Second, a large portion of the building’s outside surface is glass.  From what this writer has been able to determine, even the best commercially available glass is inferior in its insulating ability compared to a standard wall.  For a building which sells itself in part on its environmental friendliness, this is something of a problem.  This also raises the specter of increased heating costs, which are a serious issue for a campus as perpetually indebted as ours.  But what’s of far greater concern is how this meets the need for the new building to be a ‘flagship’ of the campus.

A quick perusal of B+H’s portfolio will quickly show that they’re big fans of the ‘throw-more-glass-at-it’ method of making a building stand out.  In fact, a perusal of their portfolio raises the concern of whether the new Commons can be easily told apart from every other building the company has produced within the past few years.  It’s a pretty building, but it doesn’t seem to be a particularly unique one.

B+H seem to have taken a number of common elements in their designs, thrown them together with many of the current buildings at UNB, and knocked off for lunch.  While the student in me marvels at this impressive display of efficiency, this does seem to be problematic if the objective is to create a unique building which will stand out and draw attention to campus.  B+H and Sasaki Associates has produced unique and impressive buildings – and compared to many of them, our potential Commons does not seem to measure up.

In the end, the plan is hardly a terrible one – the university has no doubt spent more money on far less pretty or efficient buildings.  But there appear to be some serious flaws with the design, both in its practical role as a building and its more ephemeral role as an ambassador for the campus.  The university should take care that when the new Commons draws attention it does so because of its impressive strengths, and not because of impressive perceived flaws.

Simon Jack is a staff writer with the Baron.

You don’t need a large budget to perform Shakespeare. That is what the Shoestring theatre has been able to do for the past few years here at UNBSJ. A group of dedicated students with their director come together ever year and perform selected scenes from the famous playwright’s greatest works free of charge. This year with an audience mostly filled of first year students, they held the attention of the audience with humour and romance with each scene they presented. Each one of the actors preformed with care and passion in each one of the scenes. Whether it was in pairs or in the large groups, you could see the love that the actors preformed and the pride they felt on the stage. The audience enjoyed the performance tremendously. From a scene in the Tempest to the ending with all the performers doing a body count and reacting character’s death in a part call Drop Dead Shakespeare, the show was a massive hit.  This is an event that any fan of the works of the bard would love to see. Though this performance has come to an end for this year, there is a chance to catch it on Youtube and view the performances for the past few years as well. All one has to do is search “Shoestring theatre.”

Margaret Keith

With a sweep of the Academy Awards with 6 wins out of 9 nominations (including Best Director for Kathryn Bigelow), The Hurt Locker signifies a step back from big-budget spectacles and closer towards smaller-scale, character-driven films…

By Jonathan Bruce

In a tight-knit race for the Academy Award for Best Picture of 2009, all eyes were on the ex-spouses gunning for the top prize: acclaimed director James Cameron (Avatar) and sadly-underrated Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker). This was the competition between the $237 million dollar sci-fi epic versus the $11 war drama about Iraq. It was the biggest grossing film of all time versus a character-driven movie about a bomb squad which just covered its budget. Eventually, Bigelow took home the gold by becoming the first woman to win for Best Director.

What does this signify? First, The Hurt Locker is the first modern war film (specifically, Vietnam War onwards…) since 1978’s The Deer Hunter and 1986’s Platoon to triumph at the Academy Awards. Indeed, James Cameron commented that Locker could very well be “the Platoon for the Iraq War.”

It is no Apocalypse Now by any means, but it is one of the most chillingly realistic films concerning the Iraqi conflict and the efforts of American troops. In addition, it is one of the first films to not be in the top ten weekly domestic box office totals in North America. Although it made its budget and marketing back, it is most likely going to reap more profits in DVD sales, rentals, and pay-per-view showings.

However, it also continues a trend in smaller films to being nominated and winning at the Oscars. Nobody can forget indie films such as Crash, Slumdog Millionaire, Little Miss Sunshine, and American Beauty, which all succeeded in that field. Of course, films like Avatar and The Lord of the Rings are fascinating to watch, but there is something appealing about the films with limited budgets and more emphasis of characters and plot.

In addition, these kind of films enable new talent to be discovered and blossom into the next stars of tomorrow. The old Hollywood studio system died in the 1960s, the era of the Movie Brats lasted from the mid-60s to the early 1980s, and now the age of independent film continues from the 1980s unto the present day. Time will tell what has yet to come…

Jonathon Bruce is a volunteer writer with the Baron.

Jonathan Simmons explains the problem with modern war movies

In Green Zone, Miller (Matt Damon) is an ultra-competent soldier that never wavers from his commitment to a moral imperative that seems at odds with the life of a killer. Soldiering, historically, has been a vocation based around compromises, most of which are necessary if you want a functioning military. Idealists may go to war, but they don’t remain unless they’re delusional. At some point, as a soldier, you have to come to terms with the fact that you’re a tool rather than an agent. This is problematic because humans aren’t very good at being automatons.

We put a lot of pressure on our soldiers and we make a lot of judgments that are better left for our leaders. This is not to say that soldiers aren’t culpable, but expecting them to be our truth-seekers in addition to our defenders is a tall order. As a character, Miller strains credulity, or at least he probably does on the page, which makes casting Damon such a brilliant choice. Damon, unlike most other contemporary actors, lends a credibility to all of his performances that is difficult to articulate.

The success of Green Zone on aesthetic grounds depends almost entirely on whether or not you buy into what Miller (via Damon) is selling. I don’t say this lightly because the story, such as it is, feels very much like a Yellow Journalism exposé wrapped in a parable. Some of the film’s arguments are sound and there is a temptation to revel in moral outrage, but all of us have a limit to how much political proselytizing we’re willing to tolerate. I’m sympathetic to Green Zone’s aims, and I’m no anti-intellectual, but the effort of arousing emotions connected with the Big Lie is sometimes lost on those of us who have already acknowledged the trespass.

It is not enough to say that we require something new—a fresh spin; please, don’t take Oliver Stone’s call. The problem may be with the medium itself: if you abhor talky films you’re going to have to come up with other ways to get the necessary information across visually, and there are a limited number of strategies at your disposal for addressing the complexity of war.

If you must have exposition, you need someone like David Mamet who probably has a license to be wordy, no doubt owing to his work in theatre. The trade-off is that you lose some realism, which is clearly important to director Paul Greengrass. Katherine Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) is currently being lauded for her strategy, unconvincingly described as apolitical, but is that the kind of war film we want to see? Focusing on the working life of a soldier is not a bold move—it’s the easy way out of the problem. I don’t know about you, but I’m not comfortable with soldiers existing in a vacuum, cut-off from the machinations that employ them and send them to their deaths.

I think the soldier suffers from stereotyping, much like the police officer. In the latter case we can be thankful for shows like The Wire for challenging our preconceptions. I’m not sure we have succeeded in addressing the real challenges that soldiers face. Maybe that’s because we don’t want to, or maybe it’s just because war feels like pretend unless it’s on our own shores.

So, we’re left with a parable, the bread and butter of war films. Miller is our moral compass and we follow him as he comes to the realization that what he thinks he stands for can’t bear the weight of history. He follows through on his promise, but at the end he’s disillusioned. Unfortunately, we can’t experience the revelation of betrayal because that’s where we are at the beginning of the film. Miller is supposed to inspire us through his journey despite the outcome, but it ends up feeling like political confectionery. It would be nice if I could discard it as simply an artistic flourish to an otherwise conventional action picture, but I have the impression that Greengrass is serious, and that’s troubling.

Jonathan Simmons is the movie critic for the Baron. He also appears on the pop-culture radio show “From Tucker Park Road” on CFMH 107.3 FM every Tuesday at 3:00 pm.

Technology columnist Wayne Hansen explains why eBooks will are givening paper books a run for their money

On Christmas Day 2009, fortunate Kindle recipients were anxious to venture online to purchase eBooks to read with these new viewers.  As a result Amazon.com reported that eBooks outsold paper books for the very first time that day.  With the proliferation of the Apple iPad and the Kindle, the technology is finally here to make eBooks a practical, and economical, alternative to paper books.  Still, even with these technological improvements the demise of printed text is a long way off.

Amazon.com’s holiday sales numbers prove that consumers are willing to invest in eBook technology and with these technological improvements eBooks sales will continue to climb. While sales numbers are already impressive experts are telling us this is just the tip of the iceberg.

One of the biggest obstacles facing eBooks was the fact that many people simply prefer the look and the feel of actual paper books. In fact, there seems to be a real dislike towards reading texts electronically. We see it all the time at Universities where students prefer to print a document rather than simply reading it off the computer screen. There is an undeniable quality to holding a paper book in your hand but improved technology makes reading electronically much more enjoyable and that is changing everything.

eBooks have a couple of key advantages that make them appealing to many users. Building your collection of eBooks is much easier than building a collection of traditional paper books and you do not have to worry about storage space – well storage space in a traditional sense anyway.

Any book lover that has moved at some point in their life will tell you that one of the biggest obstacles is in bringing their beloved books with them. This is certainly not an issue with electronic books where the only storage space you need to worry about is the amount of available memory on your eBook reader. Secondly, eBooks are accessible anytime and anywhere through the simple click of a button.  eBooks are available on demand. No more driving to the local bookstore or waiting for an order to arrive in the mail, these books are delivered electronically in mere seconds.

These features of eBooks that have consumers changing their reading habits are precisely the features that have libraries investing in the same technology. Take the Ward Chipman library for example. According to librarian David Ross it took the WCL about forty years to grow the paper collection to about 150,000 volumes. Conversely, the electronic collection was built to 100,000 volumes in just the last five years. If these new volumes had been physical books, space would have become a major issue – instead with absolutely no storage space we can all access these volumes anytime and anywhere.

It seems that while eBooks are gaining popularity we have not seen the peak just yet. According to Ross, “eBooks will really take off when they become easy and convenient to read through a web browser”. Currently, the Kindle (and soon the iPad) make reading these electronic books enjoyable but ask anyone who has read an eBook through their web browser and they will be sure to tell you that their experience is much less enjoyable.

Adopting eBooks allows libraries to investigate a number of new initiatives, perhaps none as exciting as the idea of patron driven selection. Here is how it works. According to Ross, libraries currently buy a number of titles that may or may not ever be read by library patrons. With patron driven selection, patrons are exposed, through database searches, to eBooks that are currently not held in the libraries collection.

These titles appear in the search and can be previewed, for free, a certain number of times. If this title is chosen a defined number of times for electronic delivery then the library automatically purchases the book and it becomes part of the permanent collection. No more wasted space and no more purchasing titles that simply never get read.

I recently wrote an article in which I argue that communication technologies do not replace their predecessors but instead these technologies complement each other. For example, television did not replace radio, and radio did not replace printed text, instead they all co-exist, with each technology finding its own its own niche. Paper books and eBooks will coexist in the exactly the same manner. I thoroughly enjoy purchasing books.

I enjoy walking through a bookstore, meandering through the aisles and browsing the titles. I often buy books I never intended to buy simply because they caught my eye for one reason or another. I enjoy handling books and giving books as presents and there are many other book lovers just like me.

On the other hand, I can also see the advantages of having access to eBooks, especially in larger scale operations such as libraries. The popularity of eBooks will continue to grow as technology makes them easier to read but paper books will always have their place. I guess that means I will still have a lot of books to carry during the next move I make.

Wayne Hansen is the Manager of Student Technology at UNBSJ and a regular contributor to The Baron. He can also be heard on CFMH107.3 on Thursday at 6PM with Departures.

Simon Jack and Delsie Burke describe their experience in Montreal over Spring Break

Montreal was once the most important city in Canada.  The centre of Canada’s financial markets and cultural life.  Visiting Montreal is still an opportunity to see the face of the old Canada, enjoy exciting cultural and historical experiences, and enjoy the delightful thrill of people talking another language while still being able to speak your own if necessary.  There’s also good pastry.

You can fly or drive to Montreal, but we elected to take the train, if only for the experience.  Our vacation began in Moncton waiting for the train to pull into the VIA Rail station.  Despite what conventional wisdom would have you expect, there were massive numbers of people waiting for the train, most of them travelling economy class in upright seats.

Once the train had arrived, the economy and first-class (read: everyone who gets to lie down) passengers boarded and the journey began.  The VIA Rail train we were riding on was called the Ocean.  It runs from Halifax to Montreal overnight, then back to Halifax the next night, and is the oldest continuously running passenger train in North America at over a hundred years.  Its route takes it over a thousand kilometres from end to end, and it makes twenty-nine stops on its way.

Riding on the train is certainly a unique experience.  There are a variety of options available – all involve some form of upright seating of varying sizes.  Berths give you a large bench opposite another passenger (also on a large bench), with fold down bunks for the evening.  Roomettes give you a seat, toilet and bed of your own in a private cubicle.  And rooms give you…a room.  That bit is less surprising.  We had opted for the berths.

The train’s use of space is quite economical – hallways are small, and a lot of things fold out into something else or hide away in the wall until needed.  The Ocean runs past some beautiful scenery in New Brunswick and Quebec (and presumably Nova Scotia), and the sight of a mountainside river in Quebec at night is truly impressive.  The downside is that the train can rattle and shake a lot, especially in the winter and especially before they add additional cars in Northern New Brunswick (which stabilizes things somewhat).  If you are easily made motion sick, a train ride can be very unpleasant.

Once in Montreal itself, the easiest way to travel is the Metro (the bus and subway system).  Unfortunately, the very useful tourist passes (which allowed unlimited rides for a fixed time at a fixed price) are no longer available.  Instead, you must buy and load a Metro card or pay with exact change – both of which can be somewhat inconvenient.

The subway portion of the Metro is clearly laid out, though the bus system can be downright arcane, and much more difficult to get the hang of.  A map of the bus system would be a good investment for anyone attempting to venture too far from the subway.  A knowledge of French would be useful, but about half the population speaks English, so making your way around is very possible.  Signs, while in French, are usually not too hard to work out – so long as you paid any attention in grade school, or even are good at guessing, you should be fine.

Our first stop after visiting with friends and family was Chinatown, or the Quartier Chinois, in the heart of downtown Montreal.  Downtown Montreal in general features a wide variety of architecture both old and new.  Many of the city’s fine old churches have been preserved, as have the towering skyscrapers that mark both Montreal’s past as the financial center of Canada and its continued importance today.  Montreal’s Chinatown was originally for Chinese immigrant railroad workers.

Its Chinese character has remained strong over time, and the architecture, people and goods available still display the area’s Chinese heritage in sights and sounds, as well as that of a variety of other Asian cultures (notably Vietnamese).  A variety of shops are prepared to offer you a variety of expensive and inexpensive Chinese imports, and the excellent food draws people from across the city.  We were most impressed by the inexpensive but delicious noodles and Vietnamese sandwiches available, and by the variety of sweet baked goods offered by the Chinese bakeries.

After Chinatown, we next visited the Basilique de Notre Dame de Montreal.  Notre Dame is a Gothic cathedral that was built in the early years of the 1800s.  A church has stood on the site since 1672.  The Basilica is an architectural wonder which demonstrates the faith and dedication of Catholicism within Montreal.  Each piece of wall and ceiling is a work of art – intricate carvings, stained glass, and detailed paintings adorn almost every surface.  Although we took pictures (which are, surprisingly, allowed), they simply do not do the Basilica justice.

The next day, we visited Montreal’s Olympic Park in order to see the Biodome and Botanical Gardens (which include Montreal’s Insectarium).  The Biodome features ecosystems from around the world – the tropical forest, the Laurentian forest, the St. Lawrence marine ecosystem, the arctic and the antarctic.  The ecosystems are presented in full with fenced paths allowing visitors to walk through.  Though the Biodome presents both animal and plant life, the animal life is usually the focus of the visitors.  A visit to the Biodome is an exciting opportunity to experience animals in something approximating their natural habitats, which was a deeply satisfying experience even with the crowds.

The Botanical Gardens not far from the Biodome. The gardens are a massive greenhouse displaying plants from around the world, with sections for desert plants, bonsai gardens, and a variety of tropical and other plants.  A walk through the exhibits can be very soothing.  The highlight of the gardens is the appropriately-named butterfly room, where hundreds of butterflies fly freely around the room – some of them are even friendly enough to land on you.

The problem was that everyone in Montreal knew this too, and children had been brought there for a March Break visit.  The line was at least half an hour long – which seems lengthy for a room the size of a lecture theatre, even one full of butterflies.  The Insectarium is set up inside the gardens and allows you to experience the many wonders of insect life (although mostly in the form of dead bugs pinned to the wall).  It is also the last resting place of casualties from the butterfly room.

One of the best experiences of Montreal was going to see “Bodies: The Exhibition” at the Eaton Centre.  Bodies is a world renowned exhibition and is featured across North America (only in Montreal and Toronto for Canadians).  The exhibition uses real human bodies, which are preserved through a process called plastination so they don’t decompose.  The bodies are then dissected in various ways to display bones, muscles and organs.  Seeing Bodies was a great educational experience and is one that should be repeated by every student.

The bodies were displayed in many ways, the most notable ones were full human body specimens who were posed in such ways as to show off the specific stretch of a muscle and how it interacts with bones and ligaments. Also notable in the exhibition were cross sections of brains and organs inflicted with cancer and other diseases, full digestive systems, an entire nervous system, and various appendages with ligaments, tendons and veins carefully highlighted and exposed.

The human development room showed the development of human embryos over the course of pregnancy.  Sadly, we were not allowed to take any pictures (but they were more than happy to allow visitors the opportunity to acquire a book of pictures of the exhibits).  Even without pictures, the experience was very interesting and provided real insight into the human body.

Unfortunately, our time in Montreal came to an end after this, and we returned to New Brunswick with a ridiculous number of pictures, many happy memories, and more souvenirs than was entirely wise.  Which, really, is the sign of a very good trip.

Simon Jack and Delsie Burke are Baron contributors.

Baron movie critic Jonathan Simmons explains why The Wolfman honors the legacy of classic horror films

Horror films were different in the ’30s and ’40s than they are now. Maybe they were more frightening or perhaps the audiences were just more naive. I grew up with a love for the Universal monsters, as creaky as they may seem today. I was fond of running around our house wearing a mask based on Lon Chaney’s gruesome visage in Phantom of the Opera. I will permanently have an image of the Phantom’s upturned nose and sunken eyes ingrained in my memory.

The Wolf Man was released in 1941, and whether you’re aware of it or not, many of your conceptions of the werewolf began in the mind of its screenwriter Curt Siodmak. Given my appreciation for these classic films, you can imagine my trepidation when I heard that it was going be remade. Benicio del Toro was attached early on, which gave me some hope as he’s known as a huge fan of the original film. Mark Romanek was hired to direct, but he left the project before production could get started, apparently because of a budget dispute. Several names were thrown around as replacements, all of them inappropriate. Joe Johnston finally took the helm, sending many horror fans and critics into a rage. By the time I heard that Johnston had employed David Self to do rewrites I had more or less given up on the project.

There’s something to be said for a film being able to stand on its own, free of the trappings of nostalgia, at least if you want to capture a mainstream audience’s attention, but being exclusive, detailed, and uncompromising has its fans as well. Sharing the sheer joy the filmmakers evidently had in paying homage to the 1941 film is not something I get to experience very often without being unsettled for all the wrong reasons, e.g., Superman Returns.

The best way to approach The Wolfman is to view it as a love letter to an older style of filmmaking with some contemporary flourishes. This is as much its strength as its flaw, in the sense that it’s unlikely most people are interested in seeing a traditional werewolf film, but for genre fans that have affection for the old studio system it’s a treat.

The violence in The Wolfman is not trivial, despite the absurdity of a half-man/half-wolf monstrosity roaming the countryside. Through careful editing and at times realistic gore, you’re never completely absorbed into the violence. It’s disturbing enough to not be exploitative, but there’s a mischievous quality to how it’s displayed as well. Many contemporary horror films rely on the startle reflex for scares, and there is a little of that, but it is more about iconography than cheap-thrills. This probably sounds disappointing, but the horror of The Wolfman is not meant to replicate an amusement park ride.

The Wolfman is a tragedy, but this doesn’t mean that it isn’t fun. There’s a unique pleasure in watching the damned go about their lives, hurting themselves as well as others. This is morbid, I admit, but it is at the core of all good horror. It’s much like catching sight of a car accident or watching a child tear the wings off a fly: You’re repelled by your own fascination. If you experience anything resembling fear it is the kind you get when you have a conversation with someone that’s a “little off” or when you hear a strange noise while passing a graveyard.

My grandfather was fond of reminiscing about sneaking into Universal’s Frankenstein. He was so frightened at the end of the film that he didn’t want to walk home in the dark. Later in life he laughed at horror films, never quite able to get back to that place of innocence that colored his experiences prior to World War II. I’m not sure if The Wolfman would have kept my grandfather up at night, but I think he would have enjoyed it all the same.

Jonathan Simmons is the movie critic for the Baron. He also appears on the pop-culture radio show “From Tucker Park Road” on CFMH 107.3 FM every Tuesday at 3:00 pm.

One of the most successful student events of the year ended with a bang

By Rafał Szymański

The long awaited night finally came.  On February 23^rd, after a rigorous month of competition, a winner was crowned.  That winner turned out to be Kendra Breedveld and Zoe Nadj.  Kendra spoke to the Baron about her joys of winning UNBSJ’s Got Talent.

When asked about the competition Kendra was very surprised and “had no idea what the outcome would be because everyone performed so well that last night, and the cheering was so loud!”

To make the final night of the competition even more electric and entertaining, K100’s Jay Delong joined host, Nigel Wiles, as master of ceremonies.

The evening began with Melissa Colwell singing Black Velvet, by Alannah Myles.  The change of performance style revealed just how influential the judges had been on Mellisa.  The crowd enjoyed the performance and showed their appreciation.

There was also the surprise fourth judge who liked Melissa’s second performance: Hallelujah, written by Leonard Cohen.  Even though it is an incredibly difficult song to perform Melissa took a huge gamble with her final choice.

The judges were once again very impressed with the execution of such a hard song, saying that she “left the best for last”, and that “this was the one [they] wanted.”

Patricia Harrity performed her own country version of “That’s what I Like About You”.  The immense crowd support immediately revealed Patricia to be fore-runner in the competition.  The auditorium went wild with screaming and howling.

Patricia had fun on stage, enjoyed the song, entertained the crowd, but was criticized for once again continuing the competition with a country song.

Her costume change for the second performance revealed she was taking this competition seriously.   It was no surprise that her second song was country, but this time, a sad song.

Kendra Breedveld and Zoe Nadj’s first performance was “I Know You’re There” by Casting Crowns and delivered yet another impassioned performance.  Kendra’s voice seemed to improve with her every performance.  Whether it was a growing confidence or lessons learned from the judges, the quality of harmonies produced by the sisters was felt by all.

The judges, rightfully gave equal credit to the performers, although mentioned that Zoe would have to let loose on stage a bit more if she was going to take the prize.  Words like “fabulous, terrific, and great” were common place when discussing their performance.

What is more impressive is that the judges realized just how far the two had come during the duration of the competition.  Two out of the four judges claimed that they had “easily made the most progress throughout the competition.”

When asked about the difficulty of the competition Kendra had no reservations.

“It was definitely a challenge.  The judges were great because they forced us to come out of our shells, and loosen up a bit, and we knew that they were expecting more each week.”

The second performance solidified their victory.  The final harmony of the song was as close to perfection as the competition has seen.

The judges realized just how intently the competitors took their words, Zoe looked energized and at peace on stage, at moments even looking like she was “having a fantastic time.”  One judge even called their sound “Rankinish.”

“The competitors were great.  It was fun to hang out all together backstage while waiting for our turns.  Everyone was very encouraging.”

The guest performers were very entertaining and gave a good amount of time for reflection and voting to occur.

A nice touch was bringing a semi-finalist, Jordan Kennedy, back to play a Neil Young song, “Helpless”, while incorporating the finalists as back-up singers.  Jordan Kennedy surprised everybody listening, including the finalists, who kept turning around to watch him sing.

Anthony was introduced onto the stage and after thanking everyone for coming to, helping at, and supporting the show, presented the envelope to Nigel Wiles.

The competition being over, Kendra was asked on how the music they sang was chosen.  She revealed just how important what she sang was to her and her sister.

“Well, we wanted to sing Christian music each week because we wanted to show our faith is important to us and that we want to live what we sing about.”

The courage to captivate an audience with Christian music revealed just the right amount of confidence.  It proved to be a positive turn, as the confidence of both artists peaked at their final performances.  Their performances were believable and very personal, an attribute the other competitors simply lacked.

Rafał Szymański is a staff writer with the Baron.

If the nomination process for SRC positions had been better publicized, maybe this year’s election wouldn’t have been such a farce.

By Simon Jack

Previous UNBSJ’s Student Representative Councils have had their share of scandals. In past years, much ink on this publication’s pages was devoted to chronicling fiascos ranging from budgetary malfeasance to impeachment of negligent executives. This year, all appearances pointed to a welcome change. It seemed that we would finally see the scandal free end to a successful end to academic year.

But, after last month’s disgraceful election to select the new student government, it is clear that this was wishful thinking.

One of the responsibilities of the Student Representative Council of the University of New Brunswick at Saint John is to hold the elections which produce next year’s student government.

The deadline for nominations was February 10th. Nominations for candidates were announced through two methods easily accessible to most students: posters that were placed around only a week in advance and the Student eNews for the 8th of February (buried at the bottom below thirty-four other announcements).
Elections, meanwhile, were much more effectively publicized. Twice the number of posters (50) were plastered across the school. A special eNews was sent to the entire student population urging students to vote and for the various candidates. 200 cars were given fliers notifying of the vote and mini flyers were distributed in the computer labs.  A big banner hung over Tim Hortons for the duration of the vote. Numerous Facebook messages exhorted students to vote early (voting often was presumably left to the discretion of the individual).

Elections were an event – albeit one many students may still have contrived to remain unaware of. And the effort paid off. Turnout was nearly eleven percent (much better than some years), despite the fact that there were only two candidates running for one of the lower level executive positions.

Nominations, on the other hand, effectively did not exist.

Of the fourteen positions available for election (including the new position of Mature Student Representative), all but one were acclaimed (only one candidate ran for the position). Of those thirteen acclaimed positions, seven were filled by people who were already serving on the current SRC. The one position that was not filled by acclamation was run for by two people who were already serving on the current SRC.

Of the remaining six positions, at most three were vacated because their incumbent chose not to run again – the others were vacated due to graduation. In short, there are six new SRC members, none on the executive, and of the six new members only three are taking over from someone who could have continued in the position but chose not to. As far as can be seen, anyone on the SRC who wanted to keep their position did so.

The SRC nominations process was massively underpublicized relative to the elections (which, considering the lack of nominated candidates to choose from, were basically pointless).

In a message to the UNB SRC Elections Facebook group, President Melissa Colwell admitted as much when she acknowledged: “…it has come to my attention that there may have been students/student groups who were overlooked in the advertising process. The SRC and its election designate sincerely apologize if this was the case.”

She continued: “Posters and flyers are our number one avenue for advertisement and communicating with our students and in hindsight we were not as strong with our electronic advertisements as we should have been. This error has been noted and in response a formal election procedure is being drafted to prevent such errors in the future.”

But whether this was intentional or not is completely immaterial. The nominations process needed to be publicized just as thoroughly as the elections were in order for the elections to matter. It is impossible to tell if the current SRC is what the students really wanted – they never had a chance to exercise a real choice. The current SRC failed utterly in their duty to the student body. They had a responsibility to ensure that the elections were as open as possible to students, and they failed in that obligation.

The SRC will claim that students should be interested in their student government enough to find out the information on their own. They have a point. But the absolute blitz of election advertisement and notification rather undercuts this point of view – if elections need to be called to student attention, surely the nominations for those elections are important enough to be brought to their attention as well?

And why should students expect the deadline for nominations for student government in early February, in any case, when there are a full two months of classes remaining? If the elections were important enough to need the level of advertisement they did, how could the nominations process for those elections be any less important? Especially if there was a shortage of candidates?

Even if there was no intention of wrongdoing, it appears questionable to have all but one position acclaimed, and that position be contested by two serving SRC members. Running elections this way hurts the SRC’s credibility, which hurts students – both of which are things the SRC should be endeavoring to avoid.

The SRC will also claim that it is difficult to bring information to student’s attention, and again, they have a point. The university allows the SRC to make one mailing to students each month using the university e-mail – no more. But the election advertising proved that the SRC can make students aware if it wants to. And it should have wanted to. An open nominations process benefits the SRC as much as the student body – it brings in new ideas, it forces the incumbents to formulate their own ideas, and it gives the SRC legitimacy by demonstrating that students chose their representatives, which unfortunately the current SRC lacks much of a claim to.

The SRC has enduring problems trying to engage the students of UNB and trying to represent them adequately when many students seem almost unaware of their existence. It is difficult for the SRC to claim to represent students when election turnouts hang around ten percent. Engaging students in the process by which the SRC is elected is critical in order for the SRC to be able to effectively represent students.

The SRC does not have enough legitimacy to sit back and let students figure it out for themselves – if UNB students look any more apathetic than they already do, the SRC will suffer. After all, if the students don’t care about the SRC, why should the university? And having all positions on the SRC but one be acclaimed makes both the SRC and UNB students look like they don’t care about student representative government.

By failing to adequately advertise the nominations process, the SRC has hurt both themselves and the student body. Under the circumstances, the university might ask whether the SRC is worth the investment if it is not even going to try to fulfill its basic function of properly representing students.

And really, they’d be right to do so.

Simon Jack is a staff writer with the Baron.

Jonathan Bruce explains why Shutter Island’s stunning imagery and surreal plot make it a must see.

With three collaborations under their belts, Leonardo DiCaprio and director Martin Scorsese branch out into a new genre: the horror-thriller. It is DiCaprio’s tour-de-force performance that carries the film.

When Leonardo DiCaprio became a movie star back in 1997, the boyish actor solidified his fame by standing at the bow of the Titanic. Ironically, his first scene in Shutter Island is of him vomiting due to seasickness. Now thirty-five years old, DiCaprio is no longer the long-haired, baby-faced teen idol. If compared to past films by Scorsese, this would be Leo’s Raging Bull; except it is not shot in black or white and or heavy on profanity.

Based on the best-selling novel Shutter Island by Dennis Lehane, the film is set in 1954. It starts off with U.S Marshals Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) arriving at Shutter Island’s Ashcliffe Asylum for the Criminally Insane in the Boston Harbour. Teddy and the sardonic Chuck have come to investigate patient Rachel Solando (Emily Mortimer), who murdered her three children and vanished from her cell.

They engage in a battle of wits with the head psychiatrist John Cawley (Ben Kingsley), Deputy Warden McPherson (John Carroll Lynch), and psychologist Dr. Jeremiah Naehring (Max von Sydow).  However, it is clear that she could not have gotten far; the prison is guarded by an electric fence, the water is freezing, and the only exit is by boat. Furthermore, Teddy and Chuck are forbidden to examine patient records or visit Ward C, which houses the violent mental patients. Just as they prepare to leave, a hurricane traps them on the island, and all communications with the mainland are severed.

But Teddy is not placated by the staff’s reaction to Rachel’s disappearance. Convinced there is something wrong, he uncovers clues that suggest a conspiracy. In addition, he struggles with haunting memories of his World War II experiences in liberating the Dachau death camp and dreams of his deceased wife Dolores (Michelle Williams), who died two years ago. He took up Rachel’s case due to the fact that Andrew Laeddis, the arsonist who killed his wife, is incarcerated there too.

Teddy believes the German-born Naehring and foreign spies are concocting a scheme of brainwashing patients and releasing them back into society. As he digs deeper, Teddy uncovers shocking truths that explain the mystery and reveal what is real and what isn’t real.

Directed by Scorsese, the film is beautifully shot, and Jerry Goldsmith’s foreboding score adds an element of suspense to the plot. DiCaprio shows his full dramatic range of emotions, and the penultimate scene where he breaks down emotionally is truly heartbreaking. Ruffalo gives likeability as the straight-laced Chuck, but the most riveting performance is that of Williams. One feels sympathy for her, confusion, and then horror as the plot twists are revealed in a shocking fashion. This will be a guaranteed Oscar contender for the 2011 Academy Awards. Four out of four stars.

Jonathan Bruce is a volunteer contributor to the Baron.