Summers Hidden Treasure: The movie that got swept up in the summer chaos that you need to see.

It’s 10:20 AM, there is a cherry-coke icee in my left hand, a large popcorn in my right, and a pack of Twizzlers smuggled away in my tote bag. It’s 104 outside on a Saturday morning, and I’m expecting an empty theatre, to my delight, it is not empty, each row is filled with dazzling smiles and awaits a specific yet inviting ensemble of perky, ambitious, talented theatre kids.

It’s no secret summer is a big time for blockbusters, from Transformers to Turtles, to the unmentionable double feature that has swept the nation, the fanfare has been hearty to theaters everywhere. That being said, it is impossible to make sure you’re completely caught up with everything that makes its way to our screens, and sometimes the best things get lost in the chaos.

Theatre Camp follows the adventures (and misadventures) of a camp in upstate New York for performers and their summer under the spotlight. This ensemble cast is tasked with keeping the lights on amidst show season, secrets, and lots and lots of show tunes. With eccentric teachers and students, and eager motivations for the perfect opening night, Theatre camp is a delightful summer surprise.

Without many spoilers, the film takes approaches in a relatable, heartwarming, and original way.

It felt like watching Fame as a kid and seeing my most secretive, ambitious, musical side be portrayed, not in a caricatured way telling me there's something wrong with my eccentricities, but in a considerate unashamed way, while still poking fun at the albeit, silly ways of a true theatre kid. While Theatre Camp is most definitely not Fame, It brings something special and unique for our time that will ultimately make it a theatre kid classic.

What was even more interesting, was how well it fits into our society today and the irony of the continued efforts of the arts being taken for granted, for instance, the WGA and SAG strikes.

Creatives are struggling to live and sustain, and yet we loom on over a hundred days of the strike for the WGA, and the thought process for most is that the entertainment industry is unimportant, so their fair wages are unimportant as well, but this is more than unfair, it is unjust.

There is a line said in the film during a troubling part of putting together the production, It flies by in about two seconds before the movie moves on to its next crazy crisis, but I couldn't help breaking all my theatre etiquette training by immediately pulling out my phone (don't worry it was low light) to save it in my notes page, it was “we’re theatre people we turn cardboard into gold”.

Something like that stops you in your tracks when you've seen low-budget theatre directors make dreams come true, or spent hours putting together idea boards for a short film, or when for the past three-plus months, you've watched mentors and future colleagues walk the picket lines outside of multi-million dollar companies. It stops you in your tracks not only because of how true it is but because of how real it makes it.

The entertainment industry loves to be idolized and put on a pedestal, telling my mother I wanted to make movies was basically like telling her I intended to rule the world, in her eyes I think she saw it as foolish and narcissistic because, to her, that is what “Hollywood” makes you, this is not true.

Exhibit A comes in the form of one of my favorite plots of the movie, the relationship between Molly Gordon and Ben Platt’s characters. They are at first seen as brightened, overgrown, over-ambitious camp counselors, but as the story develops we see they care so deeply not only about the kids but the craft. Amos, Platt's character, goes through this discovery that his passion is what makes him a good director and teacher, and that where he is, isn't a placeholder for fame, just as Molly Gordon's character, Rebecca-Diane, allows herself to go after the same ambition that got her to camp in the first place, despite doing it without her best friend and her favorite safety net.

Watching Theatre Camp, or even strike coverage, one may think it's dumb. Why take something like this so seriously? why care so much? As artists, there is almost an expectation because of the field we choose, that we should expect and accept to be underpaid and overworked, but just because we can “make gold out of cardboard”, doesn't mean we should have to.

Making art isn't done because it is always sunshine and rainbows, and definitely not because it is easy and rewarding. It is done because it is impulsive and necessary, it is done because it connects, builds, and makes this world a lot more understandable.

Theatre camp takes this idea and wraps it in a bundle of joy with the core being why most of us start in the first place.

From Noah Galvin's show-stealing step in as the titular in-house role of older Joan to the throat coat dealing before performances, Theatre Camp finds its balance between humor and heart that showcases the truth of what theatre is and should be, fun.

Written by Toni Desiree

“Oppenheimer” Could Have Been Better: Here’s Why

With the new release of the well-watched film “Oppenheimer,” and the constant talk about the film’s projected success and strong reviews, I felt that this one was a movie I couldn’t miss. Even with the seemingly boring topic and three-hour run-time, I was intrigued to see Cillian Murphy play J. Robert Oppenheimer, and of course, I was excited to see another Nolan film. So, I texted some friends, bought my ticket to the Lincoln Square AMC, bought a large bucket of popcorn, and settled in on a Thursday, during the heatwave in Manhattan, for three hours of intense investment into the story of the creation of the atomic bomb.

Of course, upon watching the entire movie, I had some thoughts.

The Christopher Nolan film was beautifully shot and edited and the cinematography was gorgeous. This is to be expected with such a famous cast, director, and crew, and a $100 million budget. Cillian Murphy was a seemingly perfect fit and successfully portrayed the brilliant scientist that Oppenheimer was. Along with most of the people who saw the new smash-hit film, “Oppenheimer,” I was impressed with the portrayal of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s life as a scientist and his contributions to the war effort during the Second World War. The film has now surpassed $550 million internationally (as of August 8, 2023), showing that people are loving it and are continuously spending money to view it in theaters.

That being said, there are a few things that could have made the film more well-rounded. I was surprised that many seemingly crucial plot points that should have been included were not in the film, despite its three-hour run time. There are multiple sex scenes with Cillian Murphy and Florence Pugh, though, which may beg the question as to why I am asking even more from an already successful and sexy film.

Throughout the whole movie I was waiting for more insight into American Politics and anti-bomb rhetoric from the period after the bomb was first dropped on Hiroshima, on August 6, 1945, and years after the end of the war. It was clear in the film that the creation and use of the bomb were confidential and unknown to the American public until it was dropped. After the war had ended, there was 90% public approval of the use of the bomb, which was implied, but not specifically mentioned. I wanted to see more of the public perspective in the film because it wasn’t until years after the bomb’s use that people began to realize the gravity of the atomic era and the destruction that had been imposed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilians. This transformation of opinion regarding the bomb would have been important to include as, without mention of it, the comprehensive and true reaction to the atomic bomb was not shown in the film. With only including the positive, nationalist response, audiences who did not do further digging would have concluded that the bomb continued to be supported in a positive way, which was not the case. Nolan’s choice to leave this out is interesting as I think this is crucial to the story and could have been mentioned at least once in the aftermath of the bomb or even at the hearing that Oppenheimer is brought to that takes place throughout the majority of the duration of the film.

The film follows the trajectory of showing Oppenheimer’s life, still, I felt like something was missing from the ladder part of the film. Showing more of the public view could have amplified the gravity of the bomb and the awe it created in the public sphere. I am aware that there was some mention of a growing concern for the start of the Cold War, but I felt there needed to be more insight into the general opinion of the times. Geopolitics were mentioned often, which was great. Still, I wonder what Christopher Nolan’s motivations were behind really only including conflict between Strauss and Oppenheimer rather than showing the public favorability of the bomb later transforming into more of a mixed response over time.

In a biography about Oppenheimer, people noted that he could adapt his personality to any situation and that he was a great addition to parties and gatherings; that wasn’t necessarily my takeaway from the film, though. Any added information about who Oppenheimer was as a person would have allowed the audience to have a further chance to connect and understand Oppenheimer as a character. Not including information about his personality seems intentional, and could have created a more well-rounded picture of him as a person.

Maybe I missed it and it’s apparent that he was a social chameleon, but I took him to be pretty reserved and hesitant in social situations that didn’t automatically suit his scientific wheelhouse.

There was also little to no talk about Robert Oppenheimer’s upbringing, wealthy family background, or the motivations behind becoming a theoretical physicist. For example, during his time as a single man, Oppenheimer was in a car crash with a woman he was seeing at the time, and he thought he had killed her when he saw her unconscious after the accident. Upon her recovery, his father gifted her with a Cézanne painting to apologize for the accident. So, why was this familial wealth not mentioned more in the film?

If there had been more inclusion of prior career details about his life, I would have connected with Oppenheimer more or would have at least seen reasons he went into a scientific field, which would have given a more encompassing view of his character. There was no mention of his upbringing, making him feel superficial rather than someone the audience is meant to understand, trust, and follow through the film that is meant to follow the creation of such a controversial weapon and key to the destruction of humanity. I wanted to see motive and effort. What did Oppenheimer do to gain his credibility? Where was he from? What was his upbringing like? This would have given his character more humanity, rather than the detached and undefined presentation of Oppenheimer that was created as a result of the lack of information about his background.

Though the film as a whole had its faults, in my eyes, I thought it was well worth the attention it received from critics and the public. Though there were holes in the representation of Oppenheimer as a character, I was able to gather that he was an intelligent man with good and moral intentions behind the creation and testing of the atomic bomb. The story of what it would have been like to create a weapon of mass destruction was shown in great detail with a comprehensive retelling of the secrecy and sacrifice needed on behalf of scientists to create the bomb.

Overall, I am happy a film like this exists, because it does provoke existential thoughts and forces the audience to realize that humans have the key to world destruction, and that’s terrifying. Would I see the movie again? Potentially, but three hours is a long time. Though, I will admit the ending may have been one of my favorite film endings of all time. The reveal of his conversation with Einstein, and Einstein’s words of wisdom to Oppenheimer was insightful and a perfect ending to such an anxiety-ridden, and morality-driven film.

Written by Mia Kosarek

Isabel Pless: Out Of Town #2

How long have you been making music? What led you to want to be a performer?

I started taking guitar lessons when I was 10, and I started writing music at 12. I didn’t actually

think that a career as a performer was possible for me– it always sort of felt like a pipe dream.

So I wrote music just for myself for a long time and would perform at open mics and cabarets, I didn’t start pursuing music as a career until I started posting on Tiktok, and started releasing music in late 2020.

What have been some of your favorite/ memorable performances?

I recently did a couple of headline shows (one in Boston and one in London) that blew

my expectations out of the water. I’ve never had audiences sing all of my songs so loudly

before– it was emotional for me. I also really enjoyed opening up for Donovan

Woods and Henry Jamison were on tour this past spring.

What are your favorite songs to perform?

I love when I’m able to perform stripped-back versions of my songs live– so people can hear

how the songs sounded when I wrote them. I love playing “Spam Calls”, “Keeping Score,” and

“Bechdel Test” especially.

Who are some of your influences?

I’ve been listening to a lot of Gregory Alan Isakov’s new stuff lately, as well as The Japanese House’s new album. I feel really inspired by Dijon’s record. Ryan Beatty’s new album is insane. And I get a lot of inspiration from my very talented real-life and internet friends also like Margot Liotta, Casey Dubie, Sophia Blake, Ash Tuesday, and Kevin Atwater.