I like video games. I don’t often lay down my hard earned money on them, but the good thing is that I’m so bad at video games that it typically takes me over a year to complete a single game. “Rise of the Tomb Raider” was the first game I ever popped into my Playstation 4 when I received it last Christmas. I had only dabbled in old PlayStation 1 “Tomb Raider” games before and didn’t care too much for them, but Square Enix’s reboot was an entirely different beast. This was a rich, lush, grounded, yet still incredibly fun game that balanced serious and campy amazingly. This led me to explore more that Lara Croft’s world had to offer, and soon I found myself a fan.

When it comes to film adaptions of video games, however, the road has been much rockier. While there have been dozens of attempts, none have ever truly broken the curse of actually being universally praised. In my mind, the only good film adaption of a video game was the 2006 adaption of “Silent Hill,” but even then, it strayed heavily from the source material, and wasn’t well-received by critics at the time. While this isn’t the first time we’ve seen Lara Croft on screen before, as the Angelina Jolie movies, released in 2001 and 2003, respectively, has its fair share of fans, this is the first time we get to see a more grounded, less sexualized Lara come into her own, led none other by Academy Award Winner Alicia Vikander.

Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander) is a fiercely independent young woman living in London, working for a food delivery service, and moonlighting as a boxer. What all of her friends don’t know is that she is the heiress to missing billionaire Richard Croft (Dominic West), presumed dead. Finally coming to the conclusion of her father’s death, as well as being in need of money after a brush with the law, Lara, with the help of her father’s girlfriend, Ana (Kristin Scott Thomas), signs the papers to receive her inheritance. Receiving a puzzle from her father in his will, Lara discovers with it that her father, a archeological explorer, was searching for an island off the coast of Japan called Yamatai, home to the tomb of an evil force known as Himiko. Believing her father is still alive, Lara travels to Yamatai, where she discovers the evil forces of the corporation known as Trinity, seeking to open the tomb for their own sinister purpose before Richard could. Captured, Lara must escape from Trinity’s grasp, and prevent them from wreaking havoc on the world before it’s too late.

“Tomb Raider” is not the film you go into expecting a straight-faced, completely serious time at the movies, nor should it be. Even if it is more grounded in reality than the previous series, a film like this should be 10 tons of fun, and it is with the right mindset. As a fan of the games, I wanted the film to bridge the gap between the two major discrepancies that plague video game films: 1. It playing it too close to the games, losing its cinematic heft in the process, and 2. Straying so far from the game for cinematic effect that the essence of the game is lost. While it’s not a play-by-play adaption of the 2013 game, it finds a middle ground between the two discrepancies that makes “Tomb Raider” feel a lot more complete and satisfying than most video game movies do. Even when you remove the comparative aspect of linking it with similar movies, “Tomb Raider” still stands on its own too feet just fine.

That doesn’t mean it’s perfect by any means, if only because the film does tread familiar territory that other films have done before, and occasionally even better. There are a lot of different vibes that “Tomb Raider” puts across that remind me of other films; it’s one part “The Hunger Games,” one part “Indiana Jones,” and one part “The Mummy” (the Brendan Fraser one, not that Tom Cruise crap). Director Roar Uthaug has a good eye for a lot of this, like we saw in “The Wave” two years ago, but his direction, and hopeful retainment in the series, certainly makes excited for a “Rise of the Tomb Raider” sequel that opens up the far more original elements of the “Tomb Raider” game series to unfold on screen.

One of my biggest fears going into the film was that Vikander would not be the Lara Croft that I wanted. Playing the games, I envisioned Daisy Ridley in the role long before I ever even considered Vikander, if only for her near perfect look and proven gravitas in action films before. A big fan of Vikander’s work, I was afraid that it wouldn’t be the genre for her to thrive in, and I was so wrong. Vikander might not look exactly like the rebooted Lara Croft in the same way that Angelina Jolie was in the previous series, but Vikander brings a vulnerability and heart to the character that we really needed. She isn’t perfect, she’s stubborn, naïve, inexperienced, and frightened, with only the hope of finding her father keeping her going. It’s a surprisingly human approach to such a cool character that pays off immensely.

Supporting cast members aren’t as exciting as Vikander, but do a nice job filling the holes. Walton Goggins, portraying the island Trinity supervisor, Matthias Vogel, was a perfect pick for a good, old-fashioned, campy villain. Goggins has been an actor that really shows that it’s possible to be campy and be a talented actor at the same time, as they are not mutually exclusive things. I’m imagining that Daniel Wu is taking the spot of Jonah in this film as Lu Ren, and while he isn’t given much, assuming he keeps his position in the series, he’s going to get much more. But what makes me most excited is the potential of immense growth for Thomas’ Ana, who plays a much bigger role in “Rise of the Tomb Raider,” than she does in the first outing.

Another fear I had was how the film was going to pull off a PG-13 rating. While the original game series was rated T, and the films PG-13, the reboot scored a full M rating, presenting a darker, and far more brutal vision of Tomb Raider to the public. While the tone is certainly darker here, the brutal nature of it is not quite as strong. In many regards, this doesn’t really matter, but an R rating certainly would’ve spiced up its action sequences and made the film a little less familiar feeling. I understand why the PG-13 rating was a must for a major studio, especially for one on such a rebound like MGM, but I still wonder what could’ve been.

Seeing the film in IMAX, the scale of it all really was showcased and built upon the film’s already beautiful look. As Warner Bros. no longer shows their 3D releases in IMAX 3D anymore, I only got to see the film in 2D, but given the quick editing of the film and dark visuals of its finale, I can’t imagine the 3D format being very useful in a film like this. No matter which 2D format you see it in, it’s a beautiful looker of an adventure film.

I love how this new “Tomb Raider” series is starting off, with such a strong showing for Vikander in the lead role, and for Uthaug to stretch his legs as a Hollywood film director. I think much like many “first films” in franchises, now that the obligatory origin story has come and gone, the possibilities for growth and refinement in the series has just begun. It’s stylish and incredibly fun, and while it’s a bit derivative of quite a few other films that have come before it, it’s a rousing adaption of the games that respects the series just as much as it seeks to grow on it. I don’t expect other video game adaptions to magically become good just because this one is, but dammit, it’s a great first step.

4/5

Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

Directed by: Roar Uthaug
Starring: Alicia Vikander, Dominic West, Walton Goggins, Daniel Wu, Derek Jacobi, and Kristin Scott Thomas.
Runtime: 118 minutes
Rating: PG-13 for sequences of violence and action, and for some language.
Also available in RealD 3D, Dolby Cinema and IMAX.

Warner Bros. Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures present, a Square Enix production, a GK Films production, “Tomb Raider”

John L. Latham (79L), an Atlanta-based securities litigation lawyer, has been elected to the Emory University Board of Trustees.

Latham joins the Board of Trustees as a term trustee, according to Vice President and Secretary of the University Allison Dykes. He will serve a six-year term, after which he may serve renewable terms of four years. The Board of Trustees is the highest governance body of the University, “establishing policy and exercising fiduciary responsibility for the long-term well-being of the institution,” according to its website.

A trial lawyer and partner at Alston & Bird, Latham has served as a chair of the company’s Diversity Committee since 2001. The committee focuses on diversity recruitment, retention, mentorship and communication, according to its website.

“It is important to me to make sure that the lawyers that we hire and work with have an opportunity to succeed at Alston & Bird just as I did,” Latham told the Wheel in a March 15 interview. “I feel very, very strongly about that, and that has driven my commitment to the firm’s diversity programs.”

Latham’s, who has leadership experience in diversity programs, joins University governance at a time when the Class and Labor Report Committee 2 found low levels of faculty diversity and low faculty retention rates at Emory.

“Every organization faces [this] as a challenge — we do at Alston & Bird as well,” Latham said when asked about low retention rates. “People leave for a variety of reasons, but certainly, you want to make sure that … all students and faculty, in particular, diverse students and faculty, feel welcome and [able] to express themselves professionally and to succeed at the University.”

In 2012, Latham and his wife Sheri Latham, an instructor in the Emory Dance Program, donated $300,000 to establish the need-based Latham Law Scholarship Fund at the Emory School of Law. Last year, Emory School of Law presented Latham with the Distinguished Alumni Award, which is bestowed upon individuals who demonstrate “extraordinary achievement in the legal profession and in service to society,” according to a May 2017 Emory Law press release.

Latham has been named as one of “The Best Lawyers in America” since 2006 in areas such as corporate law, commercial litigation and litigation-securities. He was appointed special assistant attorney general for the State of Georgia Teachers and Employees Retirement Fund and Office of Treasury and Fiscal Services, according to a March 8 University press release. Latham also chairs the Georgia Corporate Code Revision Subcommittee on Officer and Director Liability and Indemnification.

When asked about how he plans to balance his new role with his legal career, Latham said that serving as a trustee “will be my highest priority.”

“The law firm is aware and very pleased and supportive of my role,” Latham said. “There’s that saying — ‘If you want something done, give it to a busy person.’ ”

Latham received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Toledo (Ohio). As an Emory Law School student, he was research editor of the Emory Law Journal.

The post Emory Law Alumnus John Latham Joins Board of Trustees appeared first on The Emory Wheel.

An overwhelming amount of concerts have been announced in the Denver area. With the rising ticket prices, it can be hard to pick and choose which ones to go to.

There’s something about the books we chose to read throughout our childhoods and the ones we were forced to read in high school English classes that stay with us in odd ways as we age. We often recognize the titles when they come up in conversations or are featured on banned book lists. The University of Utah is home to a large number of banned books and participates in Banned Book Week to raise awareness of banned books to celebrate the freedom we have to read. From childhood favorites with a bad reputation to prohibited titles on prison bookshelves, concerned parents and parties have made some interesting challenges to books over the years.

“Where the Wild Things Are” by Maurice Sendak is one of the many fascinating additions to the banned book list, which is expanding to include books that have been challenged, but not banned, in schools and public libraries. Sendak’s classic children’s work was banned in schools because some people felt the story’s dark and occult nature was unsuited to the age group. Max’s journey to the land where the wild things are was considered too frightening for the young minds the story is meant for. This idea and the later banning of the book was encouraged by an article written for Ladies’ Home Journal by Bruno Bettelheim, a well-known child psychologist in the 1960s, saying exactly that.

“What [Sendak] failed to understand is the incredible fear it evokes in the child to be sent to bed without supper, and this by the first and foremost giver of food and security — his mother,” Bettelheim said.

Though it has been banned in many libraries over the years and has made it onto the list of the most banned books from 2000 to 2009, it was most heavily banned in the south.

Another children’s series that has made its way onto banned book lists is Barbara Park’s “Junie B. Jones” series. These books chronicle the life of Junie B. Jones as she explores and creates solutions to common childhood problems, such as riding the school bus, swearing and the birth of a younger sibling. The books were banned by some libraries because Junie B. doesn’t speak properly and parents were concerned about children’s potential to develop behavioral problems as a result.

The possibility of bad behavior and grammar are odd reasons to want to ban a book. The middle and high school reading curriculum classic “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee has recently been challenged for possibly the vaguest reason yet.

“There is some language in the book that makes people uncomfortable,” said Kenny Holloway, vice president of the Biloxi School Board in Biloxi, Mississippi.

Lee’s work has been consistently challenged and banned across the nation since 1966 for a variety of reasons, giving it the 21st spot on the most banned or challenged books list between 2000 and 2009.

Concerned parties across the United States are banning books for more than dark themes and incorrect grammar. The Utah State Prison recently banned Robert Greene’s “The 48 Laws of Power” and “The Art of Seduction.” Both of these works contain themes such as power, seduction and war, which Greene centers many of his works around. Though these themes drive many social, political or economic interactions, officials at the Utah correctional facility feared the books would teach inmates the art of manipulation. The Salt Lake Tribune stated the books were banned as a security measure by an official who is no longer working for the prison.

Sometimes censorship can come as a surprise and these shocking books are just a few of the many books challenged in the U.S. every year. Take a look back to a childhood favorite now deemed inappropriate and learn something from a book banned in your local prison — think about how reading is a necessary part of our world today.

j.eggleston@dailyutahchronicle.com

@ladyofth3lak3

The post De-bunking Banned Books appeared first on Daily Utah Chronicle.

Emory School of Law Professor Frank J. Vandall discusses methods to prevent mass shootings on Wednesday./Courtesy of Debbie Silverstein

Emory community members assembled on Wednesday to call for legislative action to prevent further gun violence and to remember the 17 victims of the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting.

The demonstration was part of a national movement of student walkouts across high school and university campuses in response to the Feb. 14 Parkland shooting in which 17 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students and staff members were killed by a former student. About 150 Emory students, staff and faculty members attended Emory’s walkout in front of the School of Medicine. The event was scheduled from 10 to 10:17 a.m., one minute for each life lost in the Parkland shooting.

Courtesy of Debbie Silverstein

Women’s March Youth Empower initiated the walkouts “to protest Congress’ inaction to do more than tweet thoughts and prayers in response to the gun violence plaguing our schools and neighborhoods,” according to its website.

One of the Emory walkout organizers, Alyssa Greenhouse (21M), spoke about why Emory University should care about the issue of gun violence and led a moment of silence as she read the names of the 17 people who were killed in the Parkland shooting. Emory School of Law Professor Frank J. Vandall followed by discussing methods to prevent mass shootings, and Marta Bean (19M) concluded the walkout by leading the crowd in chanting “Enough is enough.”

“We’re joining together to finally bring about the beginning of the end of this epidemic which is running rampant in this country,” Greenhouse said. “We’re here because gun violence is a public health issue — Emory leads the way in public health and high-quality health care, and we are the ones who really should be talking about this.”

Vandall said that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has not presented strong reasons for why people must own guns.

“You hear the NRA and our elected leaders say we need one good man with a gun,” Vandall said. “Well, [Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School] had three trained sheriffs, waiting for the shooting to stop … [therefore] one good man or woman with a gun [theory] is bulls**t.”

Vandall said that the United States can combat gun violence by electing legislators who will support gun safety, ban guns and repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which protects firearm manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when their weapons are used for crime.

“Support leaders who will embrace safe and meaningful solutions … the opposite of [Florida Sen.] Marco Rubio,” Vandall said. “Reverse the gun sellers immunity act [PLCAA]: You can’t sue the bastards, Congress has immunized them, [so] get rid of that immunization, so we can sue the gun manufacturers.”

Courtesy of Debbie Silverstein

Vandall noted that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s inability to conduct research on gun violence is a problem that needs to be addressed.

“CDC is banned by Congress from doing gun research,” Vandall said. “We need to know who gets shot, what guns are used, where they live … this is an epidemic. Much more money is spent on much less serious diseases than gun violence, but your elected people have forbidden our wonderful agency CDC from doing gun research.”

Several of Emory’s divisional schools, including the College and Goizueta Business School, are currently on spring break. Emory’s event organizers provided a live stream of the walkout for those who were unable to attend and encouraged people to post on social media in support of stricter gun control laws.

In a tweet Wednesday morning, the NRA condemned gun violence in schools.

“Let’s work together to secure our schools and stop school violence,” the tweet reads. “We protect our banks, our sports stadiums and our government buildings better than we protect our schools. That must change.”

Jennifer Kirk-Sorrow (20M) expressed admiration for the high school student activists who are leading the national movement for stricter gun control laws.

“I’m really proud of all the Parkland students who have been speaking out,” Sorrow said. “I want them to be the change because I think that it’s great that young people are the ones speaking out.”

Molly McCallum (21M) spoke to the Wheel about her frustration with the lack of action regarding gun violence.

“I think that it’s ridiculous that no one’s doing anything against gun violence,” McCallum said. “As someone who cares a lot about public health and what’s best for society as a whole, the fact that the CDC can’t do research is ridiculous.”

The post Emory Community Members Join National Walkouts for Stricter Gun Control appeared first on The Emory Wheel.

Members of the UCLA women’s basketball team met before the start of the season to decide on a method of demonstrating during the national anthem. Senior guard Kelli Hayes turned their decision to link arms into a social movement called Together We Link.

Part two of this series will be released next week after the Bruins take on American Saturday in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.

A Supreme Court justice once said, in the context of the death penalty, that when a judge feels unable to apply a law because of his or her personal views, it’s time to resign and either launch a political campaign or lead a revolution. We might venture similar career advice for academics, many of whom, like federal judges, enjoy the remarkable luxury of life tenure, and are constrained in what they do and say largely by their own sense of propriety. In much the same way that judges must be careful to distinguish between what the law is and what they think it ought to be, academics have to keep on the right side of the often blurry line between teaching and political advocacy.

Sometimes the line isn’t all that blurry though.

Last Thursday, Brown’s Middle East Studies program held a “critical conversation” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This one was called “Permission to Speak: Boycott and the Politics of Solidarity,” and promoted a newly-published collection of essays supporting the boycott of Israeli universities — among other institutions — to protest injustices against Palestinians. (The book in question was actually being sold outside the event.) Perhaps I’m jaded, but it seems pointless to waste perfectly good column space debating whether Israel is diabolical enough to be boycotted. Rather than further swell that already abundant genre, instead I want to simply point out why — no matter one’s views on Israel — academic boycotts are, by their nature, a form of political activism that invariably corrupts education.

What makes academic boycotts so pernicious is that they establish one standard of pedagogy for teaching Israel, and another standard of pedagogy for teaching all other countries. Israel is, along with Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey, one of the Middle East’s four most politically influential countries. It is the region’s only non-Muslim state. It wields emotional and symbolic influence wildly disproportionate to its actual power — or perhaps it actually wields such disproportionate power because of its emotional and symbolic influence. It is simply impossible to properly instruct students on the history and politics of the Middle East while out-of-hand ignoring a major actor’s academic institutions. Universities are crucial to the development of a nation’s moral ethos and political strategy, often incubating ideas before they take root in media, government and laws. If these institutions are made into lepers, how are students supposed to learn about Israel in the same way they learn about Egypt or Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Those who would join the boycott indulge in a rather dangerous solipsism, where the task of education is sacrificed for the moral gratification of this or that educator. This is not to say professors cannot have opinions, even ones that color their teaching. There’s a difference between presenting a perhaps slanted take on a particular topic and treating that topic as if it is not even worth the courtesy of equal analysis. No matter how valid institutionalized support for academic boycotts of Israel might be politically, it is a priori wrong educationally. This is not just some epistemological abstraction. Three years ago, Brown hosted an event with Adi Ophir, current director of the Minerva Center at Tel Aviv University and then-visiting professor at Brown. After his planned participation was criticized by a pro-Palestinian organization, the Middle East Studies program director at Brown, Beshara Doumani, withdrew from the event. It stands to reason that there have been similar incidents that have gone unreported. A link to an Israeli institution should not preclude entirely the possibility of discussion and debate when links to those of other countries do not. Of course, there are those who would say that the circumstances justify the selective treatment, but that’s an argument about politics — not pedagogy. In sum, academic boycotts philosophically undermine a liberal education and deprive students of the opportunity to consider all views equally and decide which they prefer.

It appears that four of nine “critical conversations” hosted by the Middle East Studies have been about Israel. But these conversations all featured panels that were about as sympathetic to Israel as the Texas parole board is to death-row inmates. Not one has included an individual who defends Israel with half the intensity of the median panelist who criticizes it. Not surprisingly, this isn’t an oversight. At one of the conversations, a student expressed concern that the panel was so lopsided. The director of the Middle East studies program replied that because his approach to the conflict is perhaps the academic consensus, he did not feel obliged to include views that diverged from it in his panel.

I don’t mean to suggest professors can’t personally endorse boycotts of Israel. They can. Just as democracies have no choice but to extend their liberties to people who would deny them to others, to avoid censorship universities must brook professors who, to end where we began, allow their teaching to be choked by political passion. But talking about what should happen to Israel without talking with Israeli schools is like deciding policy on abortion without consulting any women. When an entire program routinely puts on activities with people who advocate boycotts of Israel — and almost never sees fit to present a contrary view — the pro-boycott position effectively ossifies into an unofficial policy. And that’s when “critical conversations” become critical only in the sense that they criticize Israel.

Jared Samilow ’19 is a member of Brown Students for Israel and a fellow at the organization CAMERA. He can be reached at jared_samilow@brown.edu. Please send responses to this opinion to letters@browndailyherald.com and op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.