This past Friday, Oct. 26, Mount Allison was lucky enough to host Amy Hillis, winner of the 41st Eckhardt-Gramatté National Music Competition. Hillis is quite an accomplished young violinist, whose talent is clear from her very first notes. Among her many achievements, she was an artist-in-residence at La Cité internationale des arts in Paris in 2017 and the winner of the 2017 McGill Concerto Competition.

As the winner of the Eckhardt-Gramatté Competition, Hillis is currently on a 12-concert tour of Canada where she is joined by the equally talented Dr. Katherine Dowling on the piano. Dowling has taught at Stony Brook University in New York and performed across North America and Europe, to name a few of her accomplishments. You can find out more about Amy Hillis and Katherine Dowling on their websites, amyhillis.com and katherinedowling.com respectively.

After leading a masterclass with Mt. A violin students in the afternoon, Hillis played a wonderfully exciting concert of contemporary music in the evening. Many of the pieces that she played were either new commissions or released within the last two decades, so at no point was the audience sure of what to expect. I found myself deeply captivated by each piece and was often on the edge of my seat, listening attentively. Hillis and Dowling performed effortlessly together; each run was filled with masterful precision, and the emotional parts were extremely expressive.

I will not lie to you. Contemporary music is not always my favourite, and often I find myself confused or disturbed by the modern music that I hear in concert. However, each of the selections on Friday night’s program gave me a newfound respect for this sort of music.

Along with the incredible attention to detail that was evident in each piece, Hillis had a wonderful stage presence and engaged the audience with short descriptions of each selection. In this way, the audience had a better sense of what to listen for and how to appreciate the music. For example, the first piece on the program, Wild Bird, was meant to evoke the calls of different birds, but also to pay homage to Jacques Israelievitch, the violinist for whom the piece was originally composed. His bright, dyed-orange hair would move back and forth in performance, which reminded composer R. Murray Schafer of a wild bird. With this insight, the piece takes on a new level, and one can almost see the orange hair swaying as the performer, Hillis, moves expressively. I had the chance to speak with Hillis after the show, and she said, “Practicing Wild Bird was the most fun, as I could be very imaginative with the calls of the birds.”

A personal favourite of mine from the program was the newly commissioned piece Foxy Fox’s Musical Games. Originally, I was deeply puzzled by the very “Boaty McBoatface” name of the selection, and I thought that it might be some sort of parody of classical music, or one large practical joke. Once the piece began, it was immediately clear that it was not a joke, although the piece was incredibly humourous and thoroughly enjoyable. Foxy Fox required many levels of musicality and talent, from improvisation based on numbers which were selected by the audience before the performance, to recurring lullabies both played and sung. I was amused and blown away by the selection as a whole, and my congratulations to Hillis and Dowling for pulling it off so marvelously.

Foxy Fox and The Criterion Collection, another selection from the second half of the performance, were not only musical but also visual experiences. The Criterion Collection was accompanied by short segments of classical Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock films (as well as The Sound of Music). As a whole, it was a truly unique experience that I am sure to never hear and see again.

After the performance, I spoke to some other concertgoers, and all were impressed by what they had experienced. “The music was definitely not what you would expect,” said Sannu Nu, a third-year violin student. “It provided something completely different.” I think that sums up very well what a contemporary concert can be: It is unknown and new, which is both thrilling and captivating.

This performance gave me a newfound respect and appreciation for modern compositions, and I hope that I get the chance to listen to more of this sort of live music in the future. I hope that anyone who missed this particular concert does not make the same mistake again. If Amy Hillis or Katherine Dowling are to play here again in the future, be sure to go as you could not be disappointed by their masterful and moving performance.

When I spoke to Hillis, I asked about the kind of practice time that goes into a concert like this one. She told me that The Criterion Collection, which was incredibly rhythmically challenging to my ears, was something that they “had only received in September.” It’s incredible to consider how flawless they sound with the short rehearsal time they have.

I know many music students at Mt. A would be terrified by the notion of practicing such difficult repertoire in only one month, so I asked Dowling if she could provide any advice for aspiring accompanists. “Know the other player’s part better than your own,” she replied.

I hope that more students make time for contemporary chamber music. I had my notions about it challenged and so can you. Next time there is a chamber concert featuring a program from the last 20 years, don’t pass it up – you might discover something different and lovely.

My sincerest congratulations to Amy Hillis and Dr. Katherine Dowling on a fantastic program! Bravo!

Since school started in September, I have been looking for an excuse to check out the Vogue here in Sackville, but until now I hadn’t had the opportunity to do so. However, this past Tuesday I bit the bullet and bought a cheap night ticket to see Venom, the latest blockbuster superhero movie. I’m going to cut right to the chase with this one: I wish I had waited another week before making my way out to the theatre.

Right from the beginning, this film fails to define what genre it belongs to. Forced comedic lines are mixed in with poorly developed thematic material and needless jump scares, which amount to a confusing mess of a screenplay. At best, the plot is generic and riddled with hero film tropes, and at worst it trades in suspension of disbelief for complete disbelief that it made it past the drawing board.

Venom’s worst flaw is indeed the screenplay. As many actors know, it doesn’t matter how good your chops are; if the script is bad, delivery will be too. Lines such as “Less talking, more kissing” or the infamous “Like a turd in the wind” are reminiscent of George Lucas’ masterpiece Star Wars 2: I don’t like sand, which is NEVER a good thing.

Clearly, I don’t think that it is a very good film, but a better standard by which to judge Venom is whether it is a good superhero movie. In my opinion, all that a good superhero movie must be is two things: one, memorable, and two, consistent. By memorable, I mean to say that it contains some sort of distinguishing characteristic that allows it to stand out in such a bloated genre. Iron Man was a new thing, making it memorable. Guardians of the Galaxy took completely unknown characters and popularized them; therefore, it too is memorable. Infinity War was a film with at least somewhat real consequences, which also made it memorable. What has Venom done to reinvent the genre, or which element has it perfected to great success? I can’t think of one thing. Besides the generally horrendous writing, it is the definition of mediocre. The special effects were passable at best, and the humour, while present at times, was inconsistent. I don’t believe that this film is memorably good or bad, which I think is the worst thing a film can be.

In terms of consistency, I believe that superhero movies work best when they stick to one core concept throughout. Whether it be laugh-out-loud humour or gritty and dark content, superhero films can be successful. When they try to achieve a perfect balance of both, the result is confusing to watch and makes for cringeworthy pacing. As previously stated, Venom jumps from political commentary to visual gags and everything in between, which severely hurts the overall film in my eyes.

However, the movie is not all bad. With what he’s given, Tom Hardy does a decent job saving an otherwise terrible movie, and the back and forth between the symbiote and Eddie is the only thing that really kept me watching. Perhaps if the Venom symbiote is ultimately added to the Marvel Cinematic Universe we may get the chance to see Hardy deliver a decent performance with an acceptable script.

Ultimately, I struggled to see why this film needed to exist, and I get the feeling that Sony is feeling the same way too. It checks many of the boxes I attribute to “needless cash-cow film,” designed purely to fill a release window and keep a consistent revenue stream. I hope that if Sony makes a second film, they take a minute to sit down and figure out which direction they really want to take this series.

Do I have any final thoughts? Venom isn’t worth a full price ticket. Cheap night maybe, but I would just wait for it to come to Netflix. (Although my overall recommendation would be to skip it altogether).

VERDICT: The definition of painful mediocracy.