The outbreak of the coronavirus variety COVID-19 that began in Wuhan, China last year and has since spread globally is now affecting the ability of study abroad programs to run safely.  Although SLU has not cancelled its Madrid program, Spring Hill College and Loyola University in Chicago, through which 13 SLU students were attending universities in Italy, suspended their programs on Feb. 28.

Most cancelled programs have been in Asian countries bordering China, such as Japan and South Korea, but a growing number of universities have closed campuses in Italy, where over 500 cases of COVID-19 have been reported. These include universities like Elon University, New York University and Syracuse University, all of which cancelled their programs in Florence despite only two recorded cases of COVID-19 in Tuscany. Other universities have offered students the ability to transfer their credits or complete online courses upon returning.

The University News contacted the President’s Office and Office of International Services about SLU’s response to the spread of the virus and how it may affect students abroad. Rebecca Bahan, director of the Office of International Services, commented that at the time of publishing, 18 SLU students had their programs delayed, suspended or cancelled. 

Speaking on the SLU office’s ability to decide which students are required to return home, Bahan said, “SLU-Madrid is the only study program that’s operated by the University. Other study abroad programs are operated by partner universities and organizations. None have indicated that they plan to cancel classes or close campuses, but we’re remaining in close contact.”

Bahan also stated that the university recommends receiving all necessary immunizations before travelling, and it has been continuously supplying health information and tips for students, in addition to the enrollment of all SLU students abroad in an international health insurance plan.

Three SLU students were affected by the cancellation of a program in Beijing on Jan. 28, including sophomore Jennifer Cheun, who spoke with the University News. Commenting on the justification of cancelling programs, she stated, “I think that people being concerned is fair. People should take precautions, of course. But the flu has a higher mortality rate … I think people’s biggest fear is the unknown.” 

Cheun was disappointed with SLU’s response and lack of assistance. She said, “I had to do everything. SLU did not contact me whatsoever until I contacted them first … I felt as if they were not much help. I understand that this was a first time event, but I am not kidding when I say that every other university that was affiliated with the program was more accommodating with their students than SLU.”

Noah Elbert, a SLU sophomore who was studying abroad at the John Felice Rome Center through the Loyola University Chicago program, commented on the effects the virus had on life in the city: “The only way that we have really been affected here … is through the temperature checks mandated by the government, checking for fever conditions … We also participated in a government mandated informational session on the virus put on by Loyola.”

Anna Burton, a SLU sophomore also studying at the John Felice Rome Center, elaborated on the anxieties the virus has caused, stating, “Everyone has been tense and on edge, especially since we get updates every hour about more programs sending their students back or rising numbers of cases.” 

Both Burton and Elbert agree that the virus seemed to have caused little concern in the local Italian population, and beyond temperature checks in some terminals and several train cancellations, there has been no major or evident interruption in the city’s daily life.

 “My personal opinion on the virus is that it is very much overhyped by the media, as many things are … I believe that this is a complete overreaction by universities whose members are not at risk really,” Elbert said on the subject of American universities’ reaction to the spread of COVID-19 and the cancellation of courses.

Burton expressed a similar skepticism of universities’ decisions, commenting, “From my point of view, I think it spreads panic and hurts the tourism and economy of the Italian communities to a stark degree. On the other hand, this is a public health concern and I understand wanting to put students health and safety as a number one concern.”

As of March 3, SLU also suspended all university-sponsored travel to countries with a Center for Disease Control Level 3 Health Notice, which includes Italy, China, South Korea and Iran. Additionally, the university asked all students, faculty and staff members to state their travel plans for the next month via a Google Form, stating that SLU will require any person who travels to a CDC Level 3 Health Notice country to be isolated at their home for 14 days before returning to campus.

Jennifer Cheun (on how SLU didn’t respond well or give much help) – “For instance, when I initially found out about the program cancellation, I called the emergency hotline that was on the study abroad website because that was one of the circumstances that was listed, and when I called the people on the phone, they said “try contacting a different department because we don’t know what to do.” I thought that was ridiculous because their number was listed for help in circumstances such as this, and they didn’t even have a clue what to do.”

(on whether or not cancellation of abroad programs justified) “I think that the universities have their students health as their main priority. I think that if they pull the program, they obviously feel like it is serious enough to where they need to cancel their program. It definitely is heartbreaking, and you’ll never have an experience like this again. With that being said,  I think that they wouldn’t do it unless it was absolutely necessary.”

Christina Greer, P.h.D., Associate Professor of Political Science at Fordham University, gave a lecture titled “Challenges to Democracy: Activism, Education and the 2020 Elections” to a crowd of about forty SLU students, faculty and members of the community in the Busch Student Center Wednesday, Feb. 19 as the keynote lecture of SLU’s “Black Future Month.” 

Greer’s research has focused on politics, from the local to the national level, specifically on topics related to African Americans and urban communities. She is currently researching and writing a history of all African Americans who have run for electoral office in the United States. 

Her lecture was divided into a few sections. She began with a slideshow of photos of Shirley Chisholm, a Democratic representative of New York, and Charlene Mitchell, who ran for president in 1968 under the Communist Party, two of the first black women to run for national political office in the U.S. 

Greer used these figures to lead into discussing problems of intersectionality in the history of women’s and minorities’ civil rights, as well as between how alternative political parties are often ignored by history, even while their ideas are absorbed. She stated, “Just because someone didn’t win doesn’t mean that they should be erased from history.”

Following her discussion of the legacy and imperilment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, Greer talked about the difference between descriptive and substantive politics and its relation to the current Democratic Party primaries. She defined descriptive as voting for candidates based on demographics and substantive as voting based on shared beliefs or policy aims, arguing that it is significantly more difficult for black voters and particularly black women to have both aspirations met in the same candidate.

Finally, Greer discussed some of the primary issues threatening American democracy. She argued that “extreme voter disenfranchisement,” saying the 1965 Voting Rights Act has been “gutted” recently, and declining separation of powers at the federal level were two of the greatest threats, but she also expressed optimism at grassroots organizing, increased voter turnout and the growing number of minority candidates. 

One recommendation Greer had not only for political activists but every citizen was “Political Tithing.” Much like religious persons will donate a share of their income to their congregation, Greer posits that politics at various levels of government may come to better represent voters if every person donated five or 10 dollars to candidates and institutions with whom they agree. Greer elaborated, “If we don’t contribute to it [democracy], it will die…. [Tithing] helps candidates feel invested and you feel invested in the cause.”

Throughout her lecture, Greer engaged the audience with “pop quizzes” about various candidates and election results. A healthy and lengthy Q&A section followed in which questions were fielded about differences in media portrayal of Democratic candidates for president, election predictions, defining electability and challenges the black community can face in selecting candidates.

Christopher Tinson, P.h.D., who is the Director of the African American Studies Program and introduced Greer and commented in anticipation of her lecture, “She is one of the best thinkers on the political fortunes of these communities and their efforts to examine, expand, the practice of democracy on local, state, and national levels.”

SLU students and faculty also responded to the University News about Greer’s lecture. Zen, a senior, commented, “I thought Dr. Greer was a great speaker because her speech was relevant to what is happening today, especially with the debate tonight.” 

Senior Dasia stated, “I don’t know much about politics, so I enjoy[ed] just learning and getting different insight on things.” 

Gabe, a senior responded, “I think Dr. Greer did a really great job discussing one of the most charged issues that we face, particularly race, in the country now in 2020 where it’s so clear that our racial divisions are still really present…There are so many threats to the continuation of our democratic process, but at the same time, if we are able to participate in the democratic process, then we can, in some ways, mitigate the damage.”

Greer’s lecture is part of a series of events at SLU celebrating Black history, sponsored by the Office of Diversity and Community Engagement, the African American Studies Program, the Black Student Alliance, and the Cross Cultural Center. 

For those who enjoyed Greer’s lecture and want to attend similar events focused on Black history, Tinson stated, “We have at least two other events this is connected to this event. On Tuesday evening, there’s a faculty panel exploring the future of black studies, and on March 17th the annual Bridge Lecture will feature Ashley Farmer, a scholar of black women’s history.”

Christina Greer, P.h.D., Associate Professor of Political Science at Fordham University, gave a lecture titled “Challenges to Democracy: Activism, Education and the 2020 Elections” to a crowd of about forty SLU students, faculty and members of the community in the Busch Student Center Wednesday, Feb. 19 as the keynote lecture of SLU’s “Black Future Month.” 

Greer’s research has focused on politics, from the local to the national level, specifically on topics related to African Americans and urban communities. She is currently researching and writing a history of all African Americans who have run for electoral office in the United States. 

Her lecture was divided into a few sections. She began with a slideshow of photos of Shirley Chisholm, a Democratic representative of New York, and Charlene Mitchell, who ran for president in 1968 under the Communist Party, two of the first black women to run for national political office in the U.S. 

Greer used these figures to lead into discussing problems of intersectionality in the history of women’s and minorities’ civil rights, as well as between how alternative political parties are often ignored by history, even while their ideas are absorbed. She stated, “Just because someone didn’t win doesn’t mean that they should be erased from history.”

Following her discussion of the legacy and imperilment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, Greer talked about the difference between descriptive and substantive politics and its relation to the current Democratic Party primaries. She defined descriptive as voting for candidates based on demographics and substantive as voting based on shared beliefs or policy aims, arguing that it is significantly more difficult for black voters and particularly black women to have both aspirations met in the same candidate.

Finally, Greer discussed some of the primary issues threatening American democracy. She argued that “extreme voter disenfranchisement,” saying the 1965 Voting Rights Act has been “gutted” recently, and declining separation of powers at the federal level were two of the greatest threats, but she also expressed optimism at grassroots organizing, increased voter turnout and the growing number of minority candidates. 

One recommendation Greer had not only for political activists but every citizen was “Political Tithing.” Much like religious persons will donate a share of their income to their congregation, Greer posits that politics at various levels of government may come to better represent voters if every person donated five or 10 dollars to candidates and institutions with whom they agree. Greer elaborated, “If we don’t contribute to it [democracy], it will die…. [Tithing] helps candidates feel invested and you feel invested in the cause.”

Throughout her lecture, Greer engaged the audience with “pop quizzes” about various candidates and election results. A healthy and lengthy Q&A section followed in which questions were fielded about differences in media portrayal of Democratic candidates for president, election predictions, defining electability and challenges the black community can face in selecting candidates.

Christopher Tinson, P.h.D., who is the Director of the African American Studies Program and introduced Greer and commented in anticipation of her lecture, “She is one of the best thinkers on the political fortunes of these communities and their efforts to examine, expand, the practice of democracy on local, state, and national levels.”

SLU students and faculty also responded to the University News about Greer’s lecture. Zen, a senior, commented, “I thought Dr. Greer was a great speaker because her speech was relevant to what is happening today, especially with the debate’s tonight.” 

Senior Dasia stated, “I don’t know much about politics, so I enjoy[ed] just learning and getting different insight on things.” 

Gabe, a senior responded, “I think Dr. Greer did a really great job discussing one of the most charged issues that we face, particularly race, in the country now in 2020 where it’s so clear that our racial divisions are still really present…There are so many threats to the continuation of our democratic process, but at the same time, if we are able to participate in the democratic process, then we can, in some ways, mitigate the damage.”

Greer’s lecture is part of a series of events at SLU celebrating Black history, sponsored by the Office of Diversity and Community Engagement, the African American Studies Program, the Black Student Alliance, and the Cross Cultural Center. 

For those who enjoyed Greer’s lecture and want to attend similar events focused on Black history, Tinson stated, “We have at least two other events this is connected to this event. On Tuesday evening, there’s a faculty panel exploring the future of black studies, and on March 17th the annual Bridge Lecture will feature Ashley Farmer, a scholar of black women’s history.”

Voting in the U.S. can be complex due to the variation in state laws regarding registration. The process can be further complicated by voting via absentee ballot, even more so for submitting an absentee ballot from outside the U.S. 

The Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) reported that the turnout amongst eligible voting Americans abroad was only seven percent, significantly lower than the domestic 72 percent turnout. Moreover, only 30 percent of the gap was accounted for by logistical difficulties of voting while abroad. 

According to SLU’s Office of International Services, about 750-800 students participate in some kind of international program each year, with 159 students studying abroad during the fall 2019 semester. Although the Office of International Services sends some information to students studying abroad on how to vote, the process can still be difficult. Senior Katie Ross, who studied abroad at SLU Madrid in fall 2018, stated, “It was slightly difficult to make sure I was doing the process all correctly and that I could complete it in time.”

Registration

The first step to voting in any election is registration. Voters can be registered for primaries and general elections. Missouri holds “open” primaries, meaning anyone who is already a registered voter can participate, regardless of party affiliation or registration. However, some states require that voters be registered as Republicans or Democrats in order to vote in their respective primaries. 

If one is not registered to vote prior to studying abroad, they can do so in person at the local County Clerk’s office or the DMV. Applications for registration, which usually require little more than basic personal info such as a permanent address and social security number, can also be requested by mail or printed and sent from home. Deadlines vary by state, and it is important to leave time both to confirm registration and to request an absentee ballot. 

Anyone can check their registration status at Vote.org, as well as a number of other websites that work to educate on registration processes and generate greater awareness of and participation in elections. The Secretaries of State of Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas, also all feature websites that allow residents to check their voter registration and potentially change their registered address. 

Requesting an Absentee Ballot Abroad

After registering to vote, one must request an absentee ballot to be sent to their abroad address or to an email box. It is very important to request the ballot early enough to ensure that the ballot can be returned either by email or mail before the deadline.

SLU’s Madrid campus assists students with questions regarding registration and absentee ballots. Ross commented, “The school did a great job making it known that we could vote and providing resources on how to register.” Additionally, large voter mobilization organizations like “Rock the Vote” have volunteers and staff in Spain that can offer some direct assistance to students. Finally, the U.S. Department of State and the FVAP answer FAQs, provide guides and other information on a state-by-state basis.

Despite the number of resources available, many students, like their colleagues at  home in the U.S., chose not to vote while abroad. Ross said, “It was definitely easier to choose not to vote.” 

Senior Emily Chisholm, who was also at SLU Madrid in fall 2018, commented, “Those who chose not to vote thought it seemed like a lot of work and effort. Being so far from home, they also did not feel informed on the candidates … the [Rock theVote] volunteers in the cafeteria also did as much as they could to guide us through the process, and to be honest, guilt us into voting.”

Both Ross and Chisholm stated that in spite of the confusion and red tape that voting internationally can entail, voting was and is important and meaningful for students even while abroad. Chisholm stated, “I think for those of us who did vote, we felt like it was our civic duty. I still cared about the status of our country even though I was temporarily away from it.”

Similarly, Ross said, “All votes matter and practicing this right is a great way to stay connected to your home country and state. It will help give you a sense of accomplishment and you will definitely not regret casting your vote.”

The SLU chess team finished 2019 with a string of high finishes in recent tournaments. They now look forward to the President’s Cup, or “Final Four,” the collegiate national championship of chess in early April. 

After taking the Midwest Collegiate Chess and Blitz Championships in October, the team travelled to China in November and took third place at the World Prestigious University Chess Invitational, placing ahead of prestigious universities such as Harvard and Oxford. The team also defeated its host, Nankai University. 

SLU chess team coach and grandmaster Alejandro Ramirez, the first grandmaster from Central America, stated that this was the team’s first time competing internationally as a team, although most of the team’s members have competed extensively as individuals in the past. 

Then, SLU finished again in third place at the competitive Pan-American Intercollegiate Chess Tournament, which determines which teams compete in the President’s Cup in New York. The Pan-American Tournament is different from most collegiate chess tournaments in its structure. 

Ramirez explained, “It’s a very unforgiving tournament, simply because it’s a very short event. Tournaments of this strength are usually nine rounds long, which gives a little more wiggle room for mistakes … In this case we had it really rough. We got defeated by Texas Tech, which is one of the best universities in the country, and the fact that we got matched in the last round with number one by rating, which is Webster University.”

SLU went on to defeat Webster, which has won five of the last seven national championships, in the last round of the Pan-American Tournament. SLU Chess Team grandmaster Alex Ipatov, currently ranked 142nd amongst active players in the world by the International Chess Federation, defeated Aleksander Lenderman, ranked 131st, of Webster, which Ramirez said was the highlight of the tournament. Ipatov commented, “[Beating Webster] felt very good. They are our arch-rivals and the highest ranked collegiate team in the nation. We are second.”

In 2018, SLU placed fourth at the President’s Cup. Fellow St. Louisian Webster University also qualified, whose team has won the President’s Cup five times in the last seven years. SLU will again face off against Webster and Texas Tech, as well as the University of Texas at Dallas in New York this April. In contrast to other tournaments, the President’s Cup features only classical chess, in which matches can last for hours as opposed to minutes in blitz or other formats. In addition, teams’ aggregate scores are as important to winning the tournament as victory in individual matches.

Founded in 2015, the team has expanded from five to thirteen members, which allows them to field multiple sets of players within a single tournament. The SLU Chess Team features six male and two female grandmasters. Ramirez commented that the team has also grown closer and developed more chemistry in a relative short period of time since its founding. 

Another factor conducive to the team’s success and in attracting new talent is St. Louis’s chess environment. Ramirez said, “There’s no other city that has the current chess ambiance in the U.S. or maybe in the world. I think for chess players it’s kind of a mecca. There’s always top level chess, lectures, opportunities … we have the resources to be one of the best.”

“Ford v Ferrari,” which debuted on Nov. 15, delivers a satisfying and thrilling account of the epic motorsports duel between the two car companies during the 24 hours of Le Mans races during the mid-1960s. The rivalry is told from the perspective of its two protagonists on the Ford side, Carroll Shelby played by Matt Damon and Ken Miles played by Christian Bale. 

A challenge of any racing movie is to capture the intensity of a high-speed race and put the viewer in the driver’s seat. Although the racing sequences in “Ford v Ferrari” are not as over the top as those in Edgar Wright’s “Baby Driver,” nor as emotionally intense as those in Ron Howard’s “Rush,” director James Mangold does make the stakes and risks, which were incredibly high in motorsports at that time, feel real and immediate. When driver Ken Miles is pushing the Ford GT-40 past 7,000 rpm, the point at which Shelby says “everything fades,” you can feel the mammoth tension on driver and machine with every ascent of the needle on the tachometer. 

Damon and Bale are an exceptional tandem of leading stars that largely carries the film. Damon plays Shelby, perhaps the most famous American automotive designer, a veteran and former winner of the Le Mans race from Texas. He executes Shelby’s Texan accent and gritty determination and charm with ease, meshing well with Bale’s portrayal of what, in some ways, is the British reflection of Shelby. Told to quit racing due to heart problems, Shelby remains anything but out of the racing world and is picked up by Ford to lead the development of its racing team. 

Shelby’s brother in arms and sometimes professional antagonist Ken Miles, a British racing driver and WWII veteran with financial troubles, is the most charismatic and engaging part of “Ford v Ferrari.” His willingness to take risks, commitment to his family, sense of humor in the midst of peril and inability to suffer any fools endears him to the viewer. 

Although the purported central conflict is between the Ford and Ferrari motor companies after Enzo Ferrari uses Ford’s offer to buy Ferrari as a means to increase the sale to Italian car company Fiat, much of the actual conflict on screen is between the more blue-collar, cowboyish Shelby and Miles raging against the bureaucratic idiocracies of Ford. 

Here enters the movie’s most personified antagonist, Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas), a VP who insists on having as much control over Ford’s racing endeavors as Shelby, despite his lack of knowledge, from development to the minute decisions taken during the race in France. The historical accuracy of his feud with Miles is questionable, but the essentially corporate-America conflict does add more moments of tension that are likely highly relatable for viewers. 

“Ford v Ferrari” lacks any real female presence besides Miles’s wife Mollie, played by Caitriona Balfe, who supports Ken and adds a strong comedic and emotional touch at times that keeps the film grounded when the cars on the track seem ready to fly off it. This almost nonexistence of female characters is understandable given that motorsports was then, and in many ways remains today, a nearly exclusive male sport. 

While “Ford v Ferrari” loses some sense of direction between the titular racing rivalry and the corporate mismanagement, its protagonists Miles and Shelby never lose sight of their goal: the “perfect lap,” which Miles tells his son that most people cannot see. Nonetheless, Mangold and crew do an excellent job of bringing the viewer as close to seeing that elusive lap as any racing movie can.

Director Todd Phillip’s new “Joker,” released on Oct. 4, takes a fresh, dark look at the titular DC Comics character. Whereas previous incarnations of the devilish clown portrayed him as the twisted yet funny ultimate foil to Batman, Phillip’s and Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker is given a more complex treatment as a true antihero who, like the film itself, is sure to inspire mixed emotions in audiences. 

One indisputable aspect of the film is Joaquin Phoenix’s tantalizing performance. Filling the shoes of Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger is no small feat, but Phoenix accomplishes the daunting task by taking the character in a new direction. While Romero’s Joker was a playful trickster, Nicholson’s a hilarious and vengeful ex-mobster and Ledger’s a nameless and captivating anarchic terrorist, Phoenix’s interpretation is decidedly original, as he plays an impoverished and named near middle-aged man, Arthur Fleck, suffering from possibly multiple mental illnesses and a lifetime of crushing blows that force him to strike back, and without pulling any punches. 

Phoenix’s wide array of facial expressions, chilling laugh and deft use of physicality (he lost 52 pounds for the film) make his Joker feel incredibly real and, most interestingly, independent because he is not defined in opposition to Batman. His transformation from Arthur to Joker is gradual, challenging the idea in Alan Moore’s “The Killing Joke” that just “one bad day” is all that separates Batman from the Joker. His character development from loner to popular “hero” after murdering three bankers who assault him on the subway is measured, even if the popular movement that develops behind him seems unrealistic. 

“Joker” is a singular portrait in many ways, as few characters have enough screen time to compete with Phoenix’s dominating presence as Arthur, though Robert De Niro’s Murray Franklin, a late-night host, offers an interesting idol for Fleck’s comedic aspirations. 

The film is also a portrait of the city. Set sometime in the 1970s, the film continues to portray Gotham as a barren urban wasteland riddled with crime and poverty, an image more fitting with the 1970s setting when urban crime was significantly higher. The dark, graffitied subway stations, filthy alleyways and forests of tenements recall Tim Burton’s gothic “Batman.” Arthur remarks to his therapist that “things are getting crazier out there,” and the city’s indifference, particularly the wealthy’s, to abject poverty and mental illness is suggested as a partial cause of Arthur becoming the Joker, although his own childhood traumas play a larger role. Negative news broadcasts and heavy low strings form a soundtrack that contributes to the sense of despair. 

The horrific acts of violence that Arthur commits as the Joker have been criticized in the press and raised concerns that the film could inspire violence, as Arthur’s psychological profile is thought to resemble that of today’s mass shooters. To this unjustified fear, Phoenix responded to IGN, “If you have somebody that has that level of emotional disturbance, they can find fuel anywhere.” Although there is little evidence at present to suggest that overly violent video games or movies inspire real world violence, “Joker” is by far the most realistic and serious depiction of the villain’s murderous streak, departing from the tongue-in-cheek and bloodless representation in past iterations, which may shock some viewers. 

Perhaps more troubling or unsatisfying is the lack of any hero—any Batman—to swoop in to save the day or deliver a well-deserved sucker punch or rousing speech about the good people left in Gotham City. Except for Murray’s brief counter to Arthur when he appears on the former’s show and in a few other moments, no character in the film counterbalances Arthur’s heavy sense of loneliness, anger and despair. 

However, this bleak perspective is purposeful. For once told from the Joker’s perspective, Phillip’s film is not meant to have a hero or offer any hope. Literally abandoned, deceived, robbed and ignored, “Joker” shows what can happen when a society ceases to care and individuals with mental health problems are dismissed as “crazy.” 

Unlike previous Jokers, Phoenix’s is decidedly unfunny. The very few moments of humor are mostly situational and involve Arthur being made fun of rather than cracking anything resembling a joke. The absence of any humor, light or dark, plays into the gritty world Phillips is trying to create, but it also robs the film of another more memorable way of communicating with its audience that would have made it significantly more enjoyable. 

Fans who hoped for Easter eggs of the caped crusader will not be entirely disappointed. Thomas Wayne plays a significant part in the film as an aloof billionaire running for mayor, who, like everyone else, cannot take the time to listen to Arthur. Bruce does appear as well, even in another reinterpretation of the iconic shot after the theater, but has no real role. As a standalone film, not in the canon of the larger DC Cinematic Universe that includes “Justice League” and “Wonder Woman” (as well as Jared Leto’s controversial Joker), it is unclear if “Joker” will receive a sequel or ever be connected to DC’s other films down the road.

Philip’s film, staked on Phoenix’s performance, won top prize at the Venice Film Festival and has received enormous attention from critics and popular buzz, likely making it a hit, albeit a risky one for Warner Brothers. “Joker” is certainly entertaining and thought provoking beyond the clear majority of comic book films—if “Joker” can in fact be considered a comic book movie at all—and it has and should inspire productive conversations about people suffering from mental illness and violence in our society. Yet, while in Arthur’s mind the Joker is the “hero” a broken city deserves, it is questionable if it is the one it needs most right now.

Tuesday night the San Jose Sharks made an incredible comeback in a wild Game 7 against the Vegas Golden Knights, winning 5-4 in overtime. What is controversial about the Sharks’ victory is a 5-minute major penalty and ejection on Vegas’ Cody Eakin for cross-checking and injuring the Sharks’ captain James Pavelski. However, the Sharks’ impressive win in what was a memorable Game 7 was actually well deserved and should not have generated as much controversy as it has.

           First, regarding the penalty itself, it is difficult to argue that the referees seriously bungled the call. Rule 59.3 from the NHL rulebook states, “A major penalty, at the discretion of the Referee based on the severity of the contact, shall be imposed on a player or goalkeeper who ‘cross-checks’ an opponent.” Most are not debating whether Eakin cross-checked Pavelski, which is quite common after face-offs in the NHL and usually not called, but rather if it should have been a major or minor penalty, which was made awkward by Paul Stastny’s involvement in the hit.

           To add insult to injury, the NHL apparently quietly apologized to Vegas for the call after the game, and the refs who made the call will not be working in the second round of the playoffs. The NHL’s bewildering apology notwithstanding, considering the referees were not able to review the play and that the rulebook is clear on the consequences for injuries resulting from cross-checking, the call should not be so controversial.

           Vegas’ Jonathan Marchessault heavily criticized the call in a post-game interview, attributing Vegas’ loss in the series to it. Fans of all sports dispute difficult calls that make a big impact in a game or series. While missed calls can be much more important in single-game playoffs like in the NFL, which received a lot of criticism this year, in the NHL, teams have potentially seven games every series and abundant chances to turn the tide of or finish a series.

           Critics of the call should remember first that usually teams do not score four goals on a 5-minute power-play, as the Sharks did Tuesday – tying the NHL record. I distinctly remember when Vegas scored its third goal with about 15 minutes left in the third period, thinking that the game was over. Even after Pavelski was injured and Eakin ejected, I did not expect San Jose to score more than two goals on the power-play, after which Vegas would batten down the hatches and hold on to the end of the game.

Everyone’s surprise at the Sharks’ blistering power-play success is understandable, considering that Vegas had killed the previous four Sharks’ power-plays that game and had been stellar at killing penalties the whole series.

The Golden Knights could have called a time out to settle things after the first or second goal, but instead not only allowed a record number of goals on a major penalty, but failed to win the game in overtime after tying it with less than a minute left in regulation. To top it off, Vegas was leading 3-1 in the series. Forget about the horrible last penalty-kill in Game 7, what happened in games 5 and 6?

Anytime a teammate gets injured, especially one as respected as Pavelski, good teams usually respond with a new level of intensity and urgency. Considering the ballistic fury that the Sharks unleashed on the Golden Knights after the injury, I think that even had the call been simply a minor penalty, the Sharks would have possibly tied the game anyways.

           Vegas fans should focus not on the call, but on what was a very admirable season and great series to watch. Many fan bases have waited eons for a playoff run like Vegas’ historic one last year.

           For fans of San Jose, perhaps Pavelski’s loss may motivate the Sharks to make this their year, though it will not be easy without him.

BB’s Jazz, Blues and Soups, located at 700 S Broadway between Soulard and downtown, hosted the blues portion of the St. Louis Sound Project’s inaugural festival Thursday, March 28. St. Louis Sound, which began on March 23 and ended March 30, featured five nights of local artists from various genres performing at five different venues throughout town.

Although St. Louis is nationally famous for its robust blues and jazz history, producing giants like Chuck Berry and Miles Davis, the city is less well known for some of its prominent artists in other genres, such as Ike & Tina Turner or Nelly. The festival, produced by Reedy Press, celebrated the release of the “St. Louis Sound: An Illustrated Timeline” book by Steve Pick and Amanda E. Doyle, which can be ordered from the festival’s website. The book and its festival aim to honor St. Louis’ diverse musical heritage and promote its current local performers.

The city’s rich blues history, which came about due to its connection to the Mississippi River and large African-American community, was well displayed Thursday night at BB’s. Rich McDonough and the Rhythm Renegades opened things up with a set of relaxed tunes, some including a zydeco washboard. Marquise Knox performed next with a series of more easy going songs that passionately communicated the young bluesman’s soulful style. Roland Johnson and Soul Endeavor then played a number of fun covers of classic blues-influenced soul and pop classics. The evening also featured a special guest, former Ikette Robbie Montgomery.

BB’s made an ideal place for the blues night of the St. Louis Sound Project. The restaurant and live music venue won the Riverfront Times’ Best Blues Club award in 2016 and has won it 16 additional times since 1997. Like many establishments in St. Louis’ downtown, BB’s has a colorful history. Since the building was first constructed in the mid 1800s, it has operated as a boarding house, hotel, bar, diner and “a House of Ill Repute with 37 rooms between its 2nd and 3rd floors,” according to their website.

The atmosphere was warm and congenial, even as more guests came and packed the ground floor to the brim later on during the night. While service was a bit slow, the mix of regulars and those coming for the festival created a lively and almost neighborly scene, with one birthday party sharing cupcakes with the entire bar.

Doyle, co-author of “St. Louis Sound,” told The University News that her and fellow co-author Pick are very interested in holding the festival again next year, even though it was originally intended simply to promote the book’s release. While exact ticket-sale numbers are not yet available for the events, Doyle commented that attendance “definitely exceeded expectations” and that the various concerts have been immensely fun. With Loufest, the city’s only major annual music festival, experiencing financial trouble, hopefully St. Louis Sound returns next year.

The St. Louis Symphony Orchestra hosted an electric Student Night Saturday, March 30, which featured returning guest violinist Karen Gomyo and Czech conductor Jakub Hruša of the Bamberg Symphony Orchestra. For a mere $10, students could listen to Bela Bartok’s “The Miraculous Mandarin,” Tchaikovsky’s “Violin Concerto in D major” and Shostakovich’s “Symphony No. 9 in E-flat major” and enjoy free Snarf’s sandwiches, cupcakes and Urban Chestnut beers after the concert.

The Symphony opened the evening with Bartok’s “The Miraculous Mandarin,” an aggressive piece that tells the story of a girl who is forced by three thieves to dance in front of a window to attract victims. After the first two unsuspecting men are found to be penniless and thrown out, the girl attracts a wealthy Chinese man, the “Mandarin,” who gets the closest to having his way with the girl. But unlike the other two victims, he is murdered by the thieves. “The Miraculous Mandarin” evokes a dismal urban slum, punctuated by its discordant and anxious themes that never truly give way to a hopeful or restful melody. Originally performed as a one act pantomimed ballet, the SLSO instead used a libretto displayed on a long screen above the stage to describe the action that would otherwise be performed by ballerinas.

“The Miraculous Mandarin” was followed by the evening’s premiere event—Gomyo’s performance of Tchaikovsky’s only concerto for the violin. The 37-year-old Japanese virtuoso was outstanding in her interpretation as she at times appeared to dance with her violin from side to side. Yet, each movement of her arm and fingers seemed mechanical and incredibly precise, done with the confidence that only comes from playing a piece of music countless times—to the point that the artist forms a connection with the music, which flowed out from her commanding performance. Playing her “Aurora, ex Foulis,” a 1703 Stradivarius violin, Gomyo maintained a beautiful and full tone despite the difficult high notes the concerto required, which she made sound almost songbird-like.

The spirited and kinesthetic direction of Jakub Hruša added a visually entertaining element to the SLSO’s three works. His passion for the pieces that were performed was clearly visible in his intense face and expressive conducting. Hruša frequently moved back and forth on the conductor’s stand, occasionally jumping just a little to add some extra emphasis to particular movements. Like members of the SLSO, Hruša could not help but smile at times during Gomyo’s emotional cadenzas.

Students interviewed by the University News responded very well to the event. Lindsay of Albany University said, “It was incredible.” “It was amazing!” said Caroline of SLU. “The very first piece blew my mind,” said Karen of Rochester University. When asked what their favorite part of the evening was, the majority of students named the violin concerto as their favorite, though some also favored “The Miraculous Mandarin,” citing its uniqueness compared to the other two works. While some students attended simply to try the SLSO for the first time, a couple mentioned that they were particularly attracted by the promise of refreshments, a surefire way to garner initial curiosity in students. Most of the students interviewed had never been to an SLSO or other symphony experience, but, after seeing the great bang for their buck they received Saturday night, all responded that they would like to go to more SLSO and other symphonies’ events in the future.

Although the next SLSO Student Night will not be until the Fall 2019 season begins, students can continue enjoying $10 tickets for most events, though without the after-concert noshes.