ADVICE/REVIEW

Unsettling, Tasteful, Bold: 3 Spooky Season Essential Movies

The SAT: Past and Future
Picture
By Anne Czajkowski and Sophie Kunstman

After the spooky season, it’s time to unwind and reflect on some of the classic movies. You may be squeamish, immune, or indifferent, but we will unload the levels of all of the emotions in three mandatory watches. John Carpenter’s Halloween, Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride, and Jim Sharman’s Rocky Horror Picture Show, all movies from across the spooky spectrum. Ready?

Halloween (1978)

Sophie:
    A silent, still man creeps into your backyard and stares. With a film filled with the simplicity of this action, Halloween still kept me anticipating a next move. The jumpscares were tame enough to create a horror movie for those who shiver at the genre, and the attacks—for a slasher movie—did not make me duck and cover in disgust. With a killer screechy score—made with notes virtually anyone gets chills to—the corny dialogue and 70s acting can be denoted. In addition to Michael Meyers building the suspense, Jamie Lee Curtis plays the perfect skeptical babysitter who just wants to keep children safe—we would all be lucky to have her. In addition to watching the 1978 version, I watched Halloween (2018) and Halloween Kills (2021). If you dig well-executed parallelism and don’t mind gorier kills, the experience of frustration, anger, and evil is worth watching the other movies in the saga. Overall, a well worth saga that did not disappoint the hype of it being a classic. 

Anne:
Halloween was a bit underwhelming. Considering it’s a cult classic slasher film—and consistently ranks as one of the best movies in the horror genre—I expected much more than the predictable and improbable film I got. Corny dialogue aside, Halloween has some major logistical issues. How does Michael Meyers (the main antagonist) know how to drive? Michael, now 21, escapes after 15 years in a mental hospital at the beginning of the film. This begs the question, where and when did he learn to drive? Despite other logistically-questionable situations, Halloween was overall enjoyable due to the incredible cinematography, especially considering the $350,000 budget. I particularly enjoyed Jamie Lee Curtis’s acting, and the iconic soundtrack by John Carpenter. All things considered, Halloween is a film you watch once to say you’ve seen it, and never speak of again. 


Corpse Bride (2005)
    
Sophie:
While being an intense fan of Burton’s Nightmare Before Christmas, this was another phenomenal breath of Tim Burton’s art. My first impression was that the plot of the movie could afford improvement. While the thought of being dragged to the dead sounds intriguing, it felt more like a game of cat-and-mouse. However, the visuals of the movie made up for the underwhelming story. The graphics read as a dream, as the stop-motion animation, blues, greens, and purples create a story book effect—a classic Burton move. Stellar musical intermissions, the character’s signature bulging eyes, and the voices of Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter will put you in the mood for a joyous, innocent movie that you can enjoy as a highschooler and a little kid.

Anne:
As a devout Tim Burton fan and a lover of all things Victorian, it should come as no surprise that I enjoyed this film. The plot was difficult to follow in some instances, especially concerning the semantics of going back and forth between the world of the dead and the living world (affectionately called “upstairs” by the dead.) Nonetheless, this movie is worth watching solely for the visuals. The muted greys, blues, and greens of an unnamed Victorian village where our main character, Victor Van Dort (voiced by Johnny Depp), resides, contrasts perfectly with the bold colors of the land of the dead. The premise of the film is quite smart: Victor, the son of a wealthy fish merchant, is set to marry Victoria, the daughter of a bankrupt aristocratic family. While practicing his vows, however, he accidentally marries Emily, our Corpse Bride. 


Despite the film being just over an hour long, I grew attached to the main characters, and truly sympathized with Victor’s dilemma. For being so short, the film also has significant character development. In fact, I would argue that Corpse Bride is a character study, therefore focused on character development rather than being plot-heavy. The film also evokes a feeling central to fall—that is, death—quite beautifully, while still staying light enough to appeal to all audiences. The costuming was also fairly period-accurate, which you don’t see often for animated films. Corpse Bride had a comforting effect on us, and I will definitely be rewatching it throughout fall and into winter; you should too. 

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Sophie:
One of the first things I thought after finishing this film was a smack to the face from Frank-n-Furter with joy, color, and music. Rocky Horror Picture Show, a flamboyant visual experience and several music performances, made it feel like the entire thing was big and bold like a sharpie written on a wall out of rebellion. However, it was fortunate that the art spoke loud, as the plot was scrambled and filled with too many flying parts. I appreciate the sentiment of “don't dream it, be it” and obvious themes of expression; however, I found myself lost and having to pause to catch my brain up to the screen. I recommend the risque film for anyone looking to watch it without an intention of understanding on the first go, but if you are looking for a narrative, this may not be for you.

Anne:
I would call The Rocky Horror Picture Show an experience rather than a film, due to the practically nonexistent plot.  Though this is definitely not to say that it isn’t worth watching. The stunning visuals alone are enough to draw you into the film—the opening credits are accompanied by a floating mouth with bright red lips singing one of the film’s many songs, “Science Fiction Double Feature.” Although the film’s most notable character, Dr Frank-N-Furter, who is portrayed by Tim Curry, doesn’t appear until around 25 minutes into the film, the other characters are interesting and enjoyable enough for you to not lose interest. 


For the rest of the film, prepare to be bombarded with glitzy, colorful, and most of the time scandalously-clad people engaging in, talking/singing about, or dealing with the repercussions of sex. The film is definitely outdated in how it refers to and portrays transgender individuals. For example, Frank-N-Furter sings a whole song about how he is a “sweet transvestite.” The character of Frank-N-Furter is also extremely sexual, having sexual relations with three characters over the course of the film. The portrayal of trans people as hypersexual in this film and others leads to a prejudice against them in real life. Still, the film is quite progressive for how it portrays sexuality and gender identity considering it was released in 1975. I love Rocky Horror because of its superb costuming and makeup, captivating set design, catchy musical numbers, and most importantly: it’s kitschy. That being said, if you like a comprehensive plotline, Rocky Horror is probably not the film for you.
 Picture
By Olivia O’Callaghan

This past month, thousands of high school students took the Practice-Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT). This practice test is in preparation for the official Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), which will take place in early spring. While the test has traditionally been a regular part of the high school experience, many students could not take it last year because of Covid-19 safety concerns. As a result, many colleges decided to drop the standardized test requirement as part of their application. For many years, higher education professionals have discussed the accuracy of standardized tests and whether they provide an authentic datapoint to assess student success. This discussion has caused many to wonder: how necessary is the SAT in determining student intelligence, and does it do more harm than good?

The idea for the SAT first came to fruition under Carl Brigham, a eugenicist and psychologist that dominated the psychology field during the early 1900s. He designed the first version of the test with the goal of determining a person's "pure intelligence," regardless of educational, social, political, or racial background. However, noticeable race-based disparities presented themselves from the start: the test results showed white test-takers routinely scoring significantly higher than Black test-takers. This outcome was then used to justify white supremacy and the notion that the more “white blood” someone had, the more intelligent they were. Over time, this embedded testing bias resulted in fewer students of color being offered admission at institutions of higher education. 

When colleges and universities only look at standardized test scores, they often exclude students of color, specifically Black students, from the admissions process. Additionally, the curriculum reflected by the test is generally one that favors American/Western students, putting international students at a clear disadvantage. Class-based differences are also evident in student results. Students whose families make more money tend to fare better on the test because they can afford tutors and test preparation materials that low-income students do not have access to.

However, proponents of the test advocate that the exam offers a good idea of how students will perform in college. The test also makes it significantly easier for admissions offices to compare thousands of students using one metric. Additionally, it adds another data point for students to bolster their application if grades alone do not create a favorable profile. While SAT scores are not the final data point admissions offices consider when admitting students, they certainly boost applications with high scores.

In recent years, CollegeBoard has begun piloting a new technology called Landscape, which gives a student's score environmental context. In addition to the test score, universities will see how each student did in comparison to their peers, as well as information about the student's neighborhood. The CollegeBoard has made it clear that they do not see this test as an "adversity score," but a technology to judge a student's ability to "achieve more with less." This way, otherwise overlooked and ignored students have a better chance of getting more consideration.

As the spring test date approaches, students should continue to keep a close eye on the test and how their prospective universities decide to proceed.