In spite of their tremendous contribution to the finished product, filmmakers generally remain anonymous, except to industry insiders and film aficionados. Only a few directors are identifiable to a larger audience, often for their eccentric reputations as much as their films. Terence Malick, whose newest film “To the Wonder” recently played at the Cable Car, is one of the biggest anomalies in the American film industry.

Highly nonconforming and reclusive, Malick infuriates several of his colleagues including George Clooney and Christopher Plummer; both of whom have publicly stated that they would never work with the unpredictable director again. Malick famously blindsided audiences, the press, distributors and above all Adrien Brody, when the final cut of his 1997 war film “The Thin Red Line” relegated Brody – whom everybody was led to believe was the star- to what was essentially a bit role.

Critical reception to his works are usually polarized, with some hailing him as an auteur (and his more films receiving several Oscar nominations), while others decry his works as pretentious bores. Until now, I never could render an opinion either way, as I have never seen a Malick film before. My gut feeling was that he made plodding, incoherent messes.

My gut is again spot on. The plot (amazingly, there is one) concerns a thirty-something couple; the American Neil (Ben Affleck) and the French Marina (Olga Kurylenko), and their volatile on and off-again relationship. There are the additional haphazard subplots of a priest, Father Quintana (Javier Bardem) who is disillusioned with his faith as he visits the poor and the decrepit and a brief doomed romance between Neil and an old flame (Rachel McAdams).

Considering the simplicity of the basic premise of Malick’s screenplay, Malick’s floundering direction is inexcusable.  Even though Marina and Neil receive almost non-stop scrutiny, their characters remain excruciatingly sketchy throughout the entire film. Take for instance, the extended (seemingly non-stop) prologue of a romantic European vacation which theoretically establishes the beauty of young(ish) love and Marina’s desire to settle down, but instead sets the stage for a general sense of incoherent humdrum.

The acting is on par with Malick’s directing and writing. Kurylenko, who has the misfortune of being the film’s protagonist, conveys a gamut of emotions, but since her character has no depth (or any definition) she simply comes across as an idiot who endlessly frolics about. But, the real travesty is Affleck, who is utterly zombie-like in his role. It is inconceivable that a man this stiff could engage in passionate, steamy relationships with two women as beautiful and energetic as Kurylenko and McAdams. To add further injury, Affleck, who speaks most of the English lines in this film, is only comprehensible about five percent of the time, not that it matters. Affleck has never been an outstanding actor, but he’s never been this terrible. Hopefully he’ll consider directing full-time.

Most of the supporting players fare no better. Bardem, a usually vibrant and powerful presence, cannot generate any life out of his colorless role. Worst of show in this category has to go to Romina Mondello  in the ridiculous part of Marina’s annoyingly touchy-feely French friend who convinces our protagonist to be free like a gypsy. (This “transformation” translates into more frolicking, with an occasional flashing of the breasts). At least McAdams as an improbably coiffed rancher commands some attention, not for her role, but for the sheer pictorial pleasure of the old-movie star glamour. Pity she’s around for only about five minutes.

Malick’s screenplay (if there even is one), bears the most responsibility for the film’s vacuous tone. Its abundance of voice-over narration (from the four principal actors) merely illuminates the inanity and superficiality of the characters and situation. Although the dialogue is sparse, all of it is jarringly banal. The most heinous offense is that it impinges on legendary cinematographer’s Emmanuel Lubezki’s ability to make anything meaningful out of his luminous images.

“Wonder” is worse than the inane popcorn flicks because the slow pace made me hyper conscious of every second of the two hours of my life that I was losing. The only bright side of this excruciating “arty” experience is that I can proudly watch and advocate for smut.

After Earth (May 31)

It’s disappointing when people try to pigeonhole a director, but M. Night Shyamalan did it to himself. He tries no harder than any other director in attempting to have a “hook” or a “twist” in his films, he just happens to be good at implementing them pertly at just about the same time in the third act. In each and every single one of his movies. “After Earth” stars the father/son duo of Will and Jayden Smith as two survivors who crash onto post-apocalypse Earth. The twist is pretty obvious from the trailers, but no one should undersell Shyamalan in such a way. Although “The Last Airbender” and “The Happening” were total busts, Shyamalan is not a completely useless storyteller and he may still have one or two tricks left up his sleeve.

This Is The End (June 12)

A bunch of Hollywood’s most hilarious stars (though not brightest) star as themselves when a Beverly Hills party gets violently interrupted by the apocalypse. James Franco, Danny McBride, Seth Rogen, Craig Robinson, Jonah  Hill, Emma Watson and so many others appear and dominate the entirety of the trailer reel. This movie should prove to be, if nothing else, a gut-busting riot.

Man of Steel (June 14)

Just see this movie. Seriously, Zack Snyder (“300” and “Watchmen”) working with some of the greatest actors on screen is an equation for total box office domination. We got Henry Cavill as Superman himself, Amy Adams as Lois Lane, Russell Crowe, Laurence Fishbourne, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Christopher Meloni, Michael Shannon- COME ON! Produced by Christopher Nolan, stamped with the DC Comics approval, the set-up for the “Justice League” film franchise, I mean this movie has everything you want in a summer blockbuster and then some. Plus, it’s Superman.

The Lone Ranger (July 3)

Some are complaining that the film seems to be more about Tonto (Johnny Depp) then it is about the masked vigilante himself, The Lone Ranger (played by Armie Hammer). This is arguable based on what we’ve seen of the trailers, but the story (in the past, as seen on TV or pulp-comic books) has usually been from Tonto’s perspective. Disney and the team who brought you “Pirates of the Caribbean” have all of their fingers in the pies here, so it’s a total flip of the coin here. Heads, it rocks. Tails, it sucks. What can’t be denied is that there will be some serious action.

Pacific Rim (July 12)

Guillermo del Toro (“Pan’s Labyrinth”) has not released a lot of info about his next flick, but we know for a fact that it’s a monster versus mechas film. Humanity builds “Jaegers,” gigantic robots, to take on the insurmountable threat of inter-dimensional monsters. It’s everything the Power Ranger/Beetle Borg/Godzilla fans have been praying for and more. This should be amazing.

 The Wolverine (July 26)

Yes, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” sucked. But with “X-Men: Days of Future Past” in development now, and Bryan Singer, Fox Studios and Marvel working so hard to preserve the franchise, it is safe to bet that (based on the trailer alone) enough time and effort has gone into this to try to salvage the critical character that is Wolverine. Hugh Jackman makes his return as the savage, grizzly, Canadian mutant. This time the story is set in Wolverine’s early training-years, learning his fighting skills and how to balance his power while traveling Japan and (what else?) battling ninjas.

Kick-Ass 2 (August 16)

So remember that time some kid decided he thought it was more impressive to emulate a super hero vigilante than a pop-star, so he put on a crappy leotard, took some batons, and went out and got himself stabbed under the codename “Kick-Ass?” Well, that was based on a comic and Mark Millar penned it. He’s been writing the second one, the issues aren’t even completely out yet, but the film is on it’s way to theaters. This time, Hit Girl (Chloë Grace Mortez) and Kick-Ass (Aaron Johnson) team-up with a whole new group of heroes (including Jim Carrey as Cololnel Stars & Stripes) to go up against The Mother Fucker (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and the new band of super-villains. A war of the costumes and expect all the inane humor from the first “Kick-Ass” to come with it.

Since I’ve been covering RIC performing arts for The Anchor, I had never gone to a dance event on campus. Nothing against the Dance Department or the dance companies of the Performing Arts Series. It just never happened. And then, last Tuesday at Roberts Hall, Complexions Contemporary Ballet blew my mind and I regretted every RIC Dance event I sent a staff writer to cover instead of going myself.

Complexions Contemporary Ballet was a nice cocktail of dance styles; obviously ballet, but also elements of hip-hop, b-boy and some abstract moves that I don’t even know how to categorize.  At points, the show was more gymnastic Vinyasa yoga than ballet; a lot of stretchy moves that looked like they required crazy core strength. The company has a slight male majority in membership, which shouldn’t have surprised me, because there’s a mostly naked man in a tutu doing some combination Cossack-squat/pirouette on the cover of the program.

After the lights came up in the strangely smoky Roberts Hall auditorium, it took me a while to realize I was watching a story unfold in Act I, “Moon Over Jupiter.” The performers moved so fluidly I would have been satisfied without a plot. The last Performing Arts Series show of the year began with a bizarre tableau of male dancers elevating themselves on their hands while holding a lotus pose. Slow and controlled. There was some serious athleticism on display. The pace was fantastic, entrances and exits phased in seamlessly.

Really, I had no idea what was happening in Act I. I knew there was a story, but all I could surmise was that people kept walking in on other people having sex, and then everyone got very upset. That exact sequence happened like three times. Beautiful to watch in terms of human movement, though I might be too dense to follow a story without words.

Act II, “Pretty Gritty Suite” was more of a cabaret-style show. Multiple pop-songs with distinct dance styles versus one long piece of music in a ballet style. The second act was energetic and enthralling and sent audiences home astounded rather than asleep. Particularly cool was “I’m Goin’ Back Home,” a gospel song. Now, when I think gospel music and dancing, I immediately go to that scene with James Brown in “Blues Brothers.” High energy, 4/4 raucousness. What was amazing about this interpretation of the song was that the dancing was silky and flowing instead of pounding and rhythm driven. If there was supposed to be a story in Act II, I can’t say. But I left Roberts Hall feeling absolutely invigorated.

As an actor, I appreciate movement in an entirely new light having seen Complexions perform. The way this company harnessed levels; that is, relative height and distance of the performers, was supreme. There was as much groundwork as there was acrobatic jumping. Arrangements of dancers in the background to accentuate the featured dancers was really appreciated. Is this how all ballet companies do it? Do I like ballet now? RIC, what have you done to me?

Books have become like vinyl records. If either “Game of Thrones,” “Harry Potter,” or “Lord of the Rings” comes up in casual conversation nowadays, the literary Hipster will not hesitate to explain how and why the books are better than the movies. Most Hipsters don’t read much beyond Alt-J album reviews on Pitchfork. The Hipster literary elite are hard to come by; crazy thick-rimmed glasses, ironically unfashionable cable-knit sweater, replica Nazgul ring brandished without shame. That is the literary Hipster. This is literature Hipsters like.

Charles Bukowski

Hipsters like Bukowski because he led a perverted, drunken existence in a state of constant despond. He wrote in celebration of that. Everything Bukowski says is depressing, unless he is vividly describing acts of sex. Then everything Bukowski says is gross. Charles Bukowski is unabashedly honest, and what’s more, he’s an incredibly clear writer. Any Hipster worth his weight can quote Bukowski off-hand. “There is no strong man/There is no beautiful woman/ Know this, and you will die having the only possible victory.” Christ, that’s sad. And if his poetry doesn’t jettison you into depression, you should know Bukowski’s epitaph reads, “Don’t Try.” That’s what it says on his fucking tombstone. Hipster king.

Hunter S. Thompson

This man did a lot of drugs. He also smoked his cigarettes Cruella deVille style and wore badass aviator sunglasses at all times. Hipsters love Hunter S. on those merits alone. His Gonzo Journalism is a practice abided by writers, even today. The drug taking aspect, anyway. Hipsters like Hunter S. Thompson because he committed his life to going against the grain and documented the experience in bizarre, drug-addled pseudo-fiction. When Thompson died, he was cremated and his ashes were shot out of a cannon by Johnny Depp. Look it up.

Ernest Hemmingway

He liked cats, he had a beard, he shot himself in the face. Hipster trifecta. Hemmingway’s spare, clean writing should be the envy of the English speaking world. Though his ceaseless emphasis on masculinity becomes tiring, hipsters like Hemmingway because he just lead an interesting life. He hunted big game in Africa, chilled out in Cuba and participated in what could be the greatest intellectual expatriate circle of all time; The Lost Generation. He may be mainstream, but he was also a suicidal jerk with a one-eyed cat, and thus, Hemmingway was a great American Hipster.

Peter Singer

Every Hipster is, or at some point was, a vegetarian. Accordingly, every Hipster has read “Animal Liberation.” The Bible of animal rights literature provides compelling evidence and reasonable rhetoric cause enough for most readers to swear off meat for good. Or until a month later when a vegetarian diet because an inconvenience. Either way, Hipsters like Peter Singer because he provides them the opportunity to employ a misplaced ethical superiority in social situations. “KFC, huh? They scald chickens alive to get the feathers off.” Great, what a bastion of information you are.

Strobe lights usually come with a white light bulb installed; so the light bulb is white. There are these little plastic squares to put on over the strobe light, though. These come in different colors and filter the light. When we put the filter in front of light bulb, we get different colors—maybe red, yellow, blanched almond and so on.

This is analogous to how our emotions filter reality. When we feel angry, the anger becomes a filter, or lens, that changes our perceptions. For example, say some person is rushing, late to work and is speeding. That is reality. But when we put on the “filter” anger (so we are feeling angry); we tend to perceive this person as some jerk who is flying by and cutting everybody off because he thinks he is more important than everyone else.

This can be problematic, especially when we are looking through a negative filter such as anger. We were feeling angry, then we have an experience that encourages our anger, and then we feel angrier, and then we have another experience that we perceive aggressively, we feel even angrier, and so on.

I propose one out of many solutions: Cognitive Restructuring—manually changing our perception. This includes first recognizing we perceive the world inaccurately through our filters.

Jumping back to the strobe light: Let’s say we are the friend showing up to the party and the strobe light is flashing green (because green is awesome). As a person who knows about filters; we can probably judge that the light bulb isn’t actually green, and that the light bulb is in actuality white. This makes it easier to express, or impose, other filters should the need arise.

A similar process can be applied to real life. Take the opinions out of the equation, and we have someone that is driving over the speed limit and is late to work. Done—stop there. Let all the other thoughts go. Because you and I both have been late to work and have sped and “cut other people off.” It happens all the time. If you have never done it, then bless you—you angel. We can now accept our angry thought by saying it out loud or writing it down (I write out when I have free time) and then say/write a thought that will invoke the kind of feelings and thoughts that you actually want to be having (positive thoughts). This can be a struggle. More often than not, we are unaware of our emotional state and subconscious perceptions. A green strobe light can get boring, so why not throw on multiple colors to make it more fun. Also, let’s combine colors; realistically, this how we actually filter reality.

Through the Head Turning Method, scientists have discovered that babies can pick up differences in sounds much better than adults. This is partially because babies haven’t been socialized to the English language, yet. We think “beach” and “bitch” sound very different, but some of the French people I met couldn’t tell the difference in sound. They thought the words sound the same. We haven’t just been socialized with our language. We have been socialized with beliefs, values, social norms, etc.

A hard core democrat is going to perceive the world differently than a republican. A rich person is going to perceive the world differently than a poor person. Add in heritage, nationality, media, religion and current emotion; and now people tend to see the world differently. It’s important to learn our self. It’s important to learn other persons self. It’s important to learn about different cultures and emotions. For every culture, nationality, heritage, media, sport, emotion, person’s self, belief, value: we have a new filter to put on in order to truly empathize and communicate with those around us. We only have one perception, and it’s by far not the only one out there.

Graduation arrives this month, and I still can’t believe it’s actually happening. A lot is about to change in my life, but I think the biggest change might be that I will never write another Anchor article. Work will continue, my education will continue, life will continue, but I will never again sit down over a weekend and write for RIC’s newspaper. To be honest, I’m going to miss it indescribably.

I’ve come a long way as an author since my first articles. I’ve talked about some important topics and I’ve changed some lives, including my own. I cannot explain the feeling you get when you receive messages or phone calls saying “thank you for writing. What you said made such a difference to me.” I can’t explain what it felt like to be stopped in the hall or interrupted at lunch by someone who just wanted to thank you for saying what you did, or compliments your writing. In your imagination, you expect to feel powerful, competent, perhaps even a trifle smug. The truth is—it’s humbling.

You know how little what you said reflected what you meant. You know how much more you wanted to say, but couldn’t find the words. You know that what you wrote made a difference, and yet you want to apologize for not having said something more, something better. It drives you, sends you back to the drawing board to seek that spark of greatness that should be there, but is lacking. Then life intercedes, you are distracted by other commitments and the cycle renews. It’s exhilarating and frustrating and I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

I think the common thread of every article I’ve ever written for The Anchor was making the world a little better. Sometimes I wore the hat of a futurist, predicting technological improvements that would improve our lives. Sometimes I stood up with those who refused to be suppressed, crying “No more! Love them and let them be!” Sometimes I was just angry, tired of the people who seemed so intent on finger-pointing, playing the blame game or wasting time mocking the loser when the winner had bumbled to victory. But my intent was always the same: make a little mark; give the world a little push. I always felt that if one person read a single article, the writing would be worth it. If what I said in that article made some small difference—that would be success. The response I’ve received for my small efforts has surpassed that benchmark. It’s been more than I ever dreamt possible.

So this last article, it’s not about making a difference for others. It’s about telling others what a difference they’ve made for me. To everyone who ever read an article, thank you. To everyone who ever gave me an idea, or shared an insight, thank you. I’d like to thank The Anchor staff in general, and Sam Mandeville in particular, for everything they’ve done to make my time at The Anchor a great one. But I’d especially like to share my heartfelt gratitude to Jonathan Lamantia, who brought me into The Anchor family, and to Jesse Posl Rhinehart, my editor. You both gave me a chance to say things I felt were important, even when the relevance of an article to RIC students wasn’t clear. Without you, I’d have been voiceless. Thanks to you, I’ve done something I will always be proud of. Gratitude seems paltry, but it’s all I can offer.  Thank you both again.

Still, there is one final, minor effort I’d like to make to leave things a little better than I found them. To every student who reads this: consider joining our ranks. If you’ve ever had an idea or a passion and wished you had someplace to write about it, stop by The Anchor. They’re good folks. We always need more news writers, more photographers, more everything. But this coming year, we especially need opinions writers. Joining The Anchor family made such a difference in my life, and I think it will make a difference in yours as well.  Check it out, and see where life’s journey takes you with us! It’s an experience you will never regret!

“Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no.” This message was yelled on high and written on a sign by the members of the Sophomore class marching in the 2013 Slut Walk.

A small procession of Gianna Auger, Ashley Goldberg and Rachel Miale, dressed in what could be considered scandalous clothing, looped the RIC Quad urging people to join. Though no one joined in the march, the Sophomores still managed to capture the attention of many students situated on and around the Quad.

The Slut Walk took place on Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. Larger Slut Walks have been held in cities around the world in hopes of bringing an end to victim blaming in cases of sexual assault. There are documented cases of sexual assault victims coming forward and receiving doubtful or blameful reactions. These types of reactions often use language along the lines of, “She was asking for it. Look what she was wearing.” The Slut Walk movement focuses on supporting these victims and eradicating this line of thought.

When asked what made her want to do a slut walk, Ashley Goldberg, secretary of the sophomore class said, “I’m a sexual assault and domestic violence survivor. I wanted to [participate in] one and when I found out there wasn’t one in Rhode Island, I wanted to do my own.” When Goldberg was asked about the lack of a turnout she said it was sad. “But we got the word out for next year,” she continued, adding, “we would’ve had a better turnout if we hadn’t postponed it.”

The 2013 RIC Slut Walk was originally scheduled for Wed., April 3 which is in fact National Victim Blaming Awareness Day, but, due to weather, it was postponed to April 30. “Tuesday made it difficult. A lot of my friends who would’ve come had class and therefore couldn’t come today,” Goldberg said when asked about the change in date.

The slut walk was sponsored by the sophomore class and Feminists United. The groups are hoping to make it an annual event and increase the participation next year.

A body pulled from the water off India Point Park on the East Side of Providence was identified as that of missing Brown University Student Sunil Tripathi.

The search for Tripathi, who has been missing since March 15, became an international effort after notices of his disappearance spread on social media sites.

Tripathi was also wrongly identified by the online forum Reddit as the perpetrator of the Boston Bombings. The administration of Reddit later issued an apology to Tripathi’s family for any harm the thread may have caused.

The body was found on Wednesday morning by a Brown University crew team.

The 2013 NFL Draft saw the New England Patriots do what they do best, trade down to get extra picks while fulfilling many positional needs. This year they had fewer picks than in years past, so they traded out of the first round in order to get four picks. They traded the 29th overall pick for picks 52, 83, 102, and 229. This allowed them to add several young players, as well as trade for running back LaGarrette Blount.

One thing the team needed is a pass rusher capable of creating havoc for the quarterback. The team’s first pick addressed this, as they picked OLB Jamie Collins from Southern Miss with pick 52. This 6’3”, 250 lb linebacker had a great senior season, making 92 tackles with 10 sacks, four forced fumbles and five passes broken up en route to being named first-team All-Conference USA honors. Scouts rave about his quick feet and long strides that help him get into the backfield, as well as his ability to tackle once he gets in the backfield. His agility is good for his size, making him good at a lot of different things, as well as filling him with potential.

The next position they needed to fill was wide receiver, as the likes of Wes Welker and Brandon Lloyd have departed. The first man they chose for this position came at pick 59 when they drafted 6’3”, 210 lb Aaron Dobson from Marshall. Dobson was named to the All-Conference USA second-team in his final season in college, catching 57 passes for 679 yards and 3 touchdowns in 10 games. He has strong hands that he uses to make acrobatic catches against defenders down field as well as create separation. He can be a tough, down field threat that has been compared to Sidney Rice and has a great deal upside.

The biggest weakness in New England for the last few seasons has been pass coverage, and the team used its next two picks on this area. The team used its first of two third round picks on CB Logan Ryan of Rutgers. The 83rd overall pick, the 5’11” Ryan posted 94 tackles with 17 pass breakups and four interceptions in 13 games while being an All-Big East selection last year. His biggest strength is his physicality. He is not afraid to be reckless with his body in the interest of making plays, and can make plays in the running game as well. He is not the fastest, but makes up for it with his physical style. Eight picks later, the Pats grabbed his college teammate Duron Harmon. This 6’1” safety wasn’t high on many experts’ draft boards, but rose up them in recent weeks. He started 13 games last year, recording 50 tackles and seven pass breakups while being named first-team all-Big East for the second consecutive year.

In round four, the Patriots added another wide receiver in Josh Boyce. The 5’11” Boyce is coming off a foot injury that lowered his draft stock. He still managed 66 catches for 891 yards and seven touchdowns his junior year at TCU. He can play both the slot and outside receiver position because he has good speed and quickness (he ran a 4.38 40 yard dash). He won’t wow you physically, but can create space, will be hard to tackle, and will make big plays.

While there might not be one player that gets you overexcited, it looks like Bill Belichick has made solid selections while filling positional needs in the 2013 draft.

The blast of trumpets. The sweet notes of the flute. The wail of a train. These sounds filled Sapinsley Hall Friday, April 26 for the RIC Wind Ensemble’s final concert of the semester, “Something New.”

I was surprised to find the definition of the word “new” (an adjective meaning “to have recently come into existence or use; not experienced before”) on the second page of the program, obviously placed there for us illiterate folk—I kid. The word was a simple touch that emphasized the night’s theme and purpose; that is, to celebrate music “that may be new in three different ways: recently composed works, first works for wind ensemble by established composers and music that was new to the listeners.” These works would certainly be new to me. After all, I’d just barely gotten adjusted to the classics of “Something Old” and now had to contend with modern works that were sure to be in the realm of off-beats and cacophony.

The first piece “Serenade No. 1, Op. 1 for Ten Wind Instruments” by Vincent Persichetti didn’t disappoint. Each short snippet was packed with irregularity- instruments constantly interrupted one another and yet, somehow, worked together. A menacing air dominated the piece, largely emphasized by the groans of the tuba and the near-shrieks of the clarinet and flute.

Persichetti’s next, longer and larger piece contrasted starkly with the former. A near full ensemble took its place on stage, proceeding into “Divertimento for Band, Op. 42” with beautiful tone and enunciation. The piece alternated between a fast, upbeat tempo accentuated by aggressive percussion with a much slower, softer and melancholy arrangement. Unlike the first Persichetti piece, “Divertimento” featured instruments that worked to complement one another.

For the third piece of the night, the audience greeted on stage flutist Stephanie Garcia for her special performance in Georges Hue’s “Fantasie for Flute.” Stephanie quickly demonstrated that her impressive turquoise dress wasn’t the only thing to offset her from the black-clad ensemble; instead, her elegant execution of this technically-demanding piece surpassed the dress as the highlight of the stage. With an amazing display of concentration, Stephanie made the challenges of this speedy and intricate piece look easy; while the emotional language of the flute gripped the audience’s attention.

After intermission, which featured the presentation of the John Pellegrino Brass Scholarship to trumpet player Shawn Baptista, the full strength of the wind ensemble was released in “Fanfare for Wind Ensemble.” This performance of Fanfare, written by RIC alum Nathanael Tronerud, marked its world premier—another example of the “newness” this concert presented. Described as a chance to “write something fun and bombastic,” Tronerud’s piece was certainly exciting. A sense of urgency pervaded the work with an almost news bulletin-like quality.

Next came Eric Whitacre’s 1994 piece “Ghost Train,” which was by far my favorite of the night. “Ghost Train” proved to be an ingenious creation, in that its composition enabled a wind ensemble to mimic the sounds and sensations of a train—its approach to the station, the clamor of the bell, the chugging of the engine as the train sped up. “Ghost Train” delivered a shock of sound enhanced by impressive percussion. A release of “steam” concluded the piece, transporting the audience back into reality.

Jake Wallace’s work “Sheltering Sky” followed next, a song that both continued the dream-like quality of “Ghost Train” while forsaking its loud and powerful element for something more gentle, flowing and melodious. Indeed, the bittersweet quality of the work contributed to its sense of “wistful nostalgia.”

The final composition of the night was that of Rhode Island resident Roger Cichy in the form of “Quartets.” A pulsing beat accompanied the big, dynamic sound of this piece—an explosive sound that was just as fun to play as it was to hear, evident by the smiles of the Wind Ensemble members in between breaths.

Overall, the RIC Wind Ensemble’s concert “Something New” delivered the new sounds and experiences it had promised. Featuring a variety of pieces that experimented with song arrangement, emotion or reality, as well as challenged players’ technical abilities, “Something New” provided a new experience for everyone involved.