Author: Emmy Hughes

On Nov. 1, University Professor of Anthropology and Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies Gina Ulysse, Professors Bianca C. Williams of the University of Colorado Boulder and Dawn-Elissa Fischer of San Francisco State University participated in a panel discussion in Beckham Hall in front of a large audience of University staff and students. The discussion, entitled “Anthropology and #BlackLivesMatter,” covered a variety of topics, particularly each professor’s personal history and how it has shaped their experience in academia.

The talk was hosted by the University’s Anthropology Department. Professor Margot Weiss, Chair of the Anthropology Department and Associate Professor of American Studies, Anthropology, and Professor of Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies opened the discussion by providing context on the intersection of anthropology and the Black Lives Matter movement and introducing each of the panelists. From there, each panelist spoke for 10 minutes about her personal history and relationship to Black Lives Matter.

Fischer spoke first, noting that she had been following the recent news regarding Scott Backer and the relationship between students and administrators at the University. She hoped to engage with students to discuss their perspective on recent events.

“How does the condition that you are experiencing today, in 2016, compare to 1966?” she asked of students in the audience. “Are you feeling ’68-ish? Are you feeling ’72-ish? 1983-ish? 1992? 2004? I’m concerned.”

Fischer moved on to note that she comes from a legacy of activism that she hopes to bring to the University. She emphasized the importance of creating sustainable and visible change in communities such as the University and communities around the world.

Williams was the second speaker, and she explored her interests in the psyche of Black Feminism, which she has spent much of her career researching.

“As a black feminist cultural anthropologist, the main question that I say drives my research, my teaching, my service, my organizing, is, ‘How do black communities navigate the oppressive systems of sexism and racism without losing their minds?’” Williams said. “That’s what I study. I study black women and happiness because for me, emotion…is very much a good source of data. [I ask], ‘How does it feel to live at the intersection of these systems of oppression that we navigate daily?’”

Williams also brought up radical honesty, a term that refers to being truthful about respective biases, sharing identities, and filling in cultural gaps. She emphasized the use of knowledge and learning as a means of action, and also noted the importance of treating the multiple systems of oppression in society not as separate beasts, but as arms of the same systemic power.

“I came to anthropology because I believed that it was a field that would give me the tools and the skills to unlearn the things that I had been socialized to believe, and to help my students learn these things,” Williams said.

Last to give an introduction was Ulysse, who discussed the roles that Haiti and performance art have played in her life and career.

“I came to anthropology via Haiti,” Ulysse said. “There’s no other reason, really. It was what it meant to be a young Haitian person who migrated—yes, I’m an immigrant, and I love to say that—and tried to explain her country to people who didn’t quite understand it, or only understood it as the stereotypical poorest nation in the Western hemisphere. And I knew it was more complicated than that.”

She explained that she entered anthropology to explain Haiti to people in terms that they would understand and appreciate, and to learn enough so that in the future, she could create meaningful change.

“Anthropology to me was not even a question,” Ulysse said.

Ulysse also noted that anthropology bridged the gap between the arts and the sciences, which was extremely important to her, especially given her love of performance as a way of expression.

“Performance has saved me from Afro-pessimism,” she said. “Part of my turn to performance is to have that space where I can express my rage.”

After their respective 10-minute introductions, a Q&A session with the panelists followed. Ulysse opened by asking her fellow speakers about their experiences as anthropologists. Williams responded by meditating on her own identity as an anthropologist who is a woman of color. She spoke about her efforts to “decolonize” the field of anthropology, dismantling its staid hierarchies that deprive scholars like herself of agency.

“We’re being hired in Women and Gender Studies programs, or Africana Studies Programs, or Ethnic Studies, or American Studies programs, because somehow, no matter where we do the work, we’re not read as anthropologists,” Williams said. “And it sucks, for lack of a better word, because we see the decolonizing that a lot of our more senior folks are doing or even our peers, and for some reason we’re not being allowed to do that work within the discipline, because jobs don’t see us as anthropologists.”

Ulysse, in her response to Williams, gave an explanation of the word decolonizing in reference to anthropology.

“This is what I mean by decolonizing: We actually are in a moment where things are shifting in the discipline, because it doesn’t have a choice but to shift, given what’s happening with publications, given what’s happening in the world and how fast things are actually developing,” she said.

Later in the discussion, the panelists moved to answering audience questions. Topics ranged from the importance of diversifying university staff, to the need to dismantle white supremacy, to the 2016 election’s impact on people of color.

“The xenophobia, the racism and the misogyny is so real,” Ulysse said. “I’m scared. I mean I’m literally scared.”

Williams commented on this nation’s fear of putting black women at the center of power in any form, noting specifically that black women are often rendered invisible. She also commented that the issue of systemic racism is under-acknowledged.

“The problem is not the people in this room; it is the people who are not here,” Williams said.

The discussion finished with student input and commentary on Wesleyan’s administration, with multiple students explaining that they felt their perspectives and voices were going unheard and ignored.

Williams answered student commentary with advice on how to be heard.

“Y’all need to sit down, figure out how power operates on this campus, and figure out the long-term and short-term goals that help benefit everyone in that community,” Williams said. “Use your collective energy to round up and make people uncomfortable.”

Earlier on in the discussion, Fischer also offered a critical point of advice to students in the audience, no matter what discipline they might wish to pursue.

“We have to remember to continue to fight,” Fischer said. “Things didn’t just happen on their own. This is something for anthropology, but this is something for whatever field you’re in. Fight for your discipline. Fight for your theory. Fight.”

On Thursday, Oct. 13, the University’s History Department hosted a talk by alumnus and journalist David Perry ’95 in Downey House. The talk, entitled “Life as the Unofficial Medievalist to CNN,” ranged beyond the topics of journalism and medievalism. Perry spoke about a variety of elements relating to the evolution of his career and life, with a special focus on how medieval studies, disability rights, and writing all intersected in his career.

Perry opened his talk with a quote from presidential nominee Donald Trump. Perry, highlighting Trump’s tendency to refer to ISIS as “medieval,” noted that in contemporary society, we use medieval as a term to describe something removed from us, as something sinister. As a Medieval Studies major at the University and a history professor at Dominican University, Perry noted that the negative Trumpian assessment of medieval culture is actually inaccurate. In addition, he believes that medieval studies can be applied to contemporary issues.

Perry then moved into a discussion of his own career, including receiving his MA and PhD from the University of Minnesota, and his time in Venice as a teacher at a small Catholic school. Perry discussed his continuing interest in medieval studies and how this interest manifested itself in his work and writing.

Perry thought it would also be important to include some information on his personal life, since, as he notes, his personal experiences have had a large impact on his academic career. Perry explained that after receiving his PhD, he had two children, one of whom has Down Syndrome. He explained that he began to study and learn about the genetic disorder, gaining what he felt amounted to a graduate-level education in the subject. It was through the experience that he began writing journalistic pieces.

“Almost exactly eight years ago, I wrote a little piece about Sarah Palin and the discourse of Down Syndrome [that was] critical of the ways in which both the left and the right were talking about [Palin’s] son, and talking about Down’s Syndrome,” Perry said. “I had a lot of things to say about that.”

Along with his journalistic work, Perry also discussed some of the stereotypes that are used to describe people with Down Syndrome, both positive and negative. He explained that after Ann Coulter referred to President Barack Obama as a “retard,” there was a lot of backlash from around the country. This backlash, while well-intentioned, still reinforced a stereotypical image of people with Down Syndrome as angels.

“I was interested in positive stereotypes as the other side of the same coin as negative stereotypes,” Perry said. “Which is to say, I’d rather you call my son an angel than to use a slur, but in fact, my son is also not an angel. He is not a two-dimensional positive stereotype any more than he is a two-dimensional negative stereotype.”

Perry wrote a 900-word article about this topic, which he submitted through a friend to CNN. CNN published the article, which helped solidify Perry’s future relationship with the company. While this was, at the time, one of the few articles that Perry had published, that would soon change. It was after publishing this article, 16 years after graduating from the University, that Perry’s life changed forever in a very atypical fashion.

“The thing that changed my life was that on February 12th, 2013, Pope Benedict retired,” Perry said. “Kind of a weird thing, right? Totally life-changing.”

Perry explained that when Pope Benedict retired, media outlets began spreading misinformation.

“[They said] pretty much in unison, that this hadn’t happened since 1406 when Pope Gregory the 12th had retired,” Perry said.

Perry realized, however, that this information was inadequate and didn’t tell the whole story.

“I was listening to NPR, I was watching CNN, and I said, ‘Pope Gregory the 12th?” Perry said. “That is ridiculous. Everybody knows that the proper historical analogy is Pope and St. Celestine the Fifth! Everybody knows that.”

Perry detailed how he posted about the anachronistic mistake on Facebook, and friends suggested he write something up and pitch it to a news media source. So Perry did just that, sending an email to CNN, and it took them only three minutes to reply and express interest. Perry spent the rest of the day writing the article, submitted it, and it made the front page of CNNs website that day.

This sparked Perry’s more committed involvement in the world of journalism. According to Perry, the articles he had written gave him what amounted to a fast track to publishing more articles in the future. Perry began writing a variety of pieces on a variety of subjects, including a piece entitled “For strong daughters, stop with the sex stereotypes,” which, according to Perry, got over a million views.

From here, Perry’s writing took another turn in subject. Perry learned of the death of Ethan Saylor, a man with Down Syndrome who was killed by police at a movie theater. Taylor was forcibly thrown to the ground after he did not comply with the police, who then crushed his windpipe.

“I was angry about this,” Perry said. “And I was kind of waiting for the smart journalistic take on it. Mostly what I was seeing was people saying, ‘This is an unbelievably tragedy, how could this have happened?’ as opposed to saying, ‘This is terrible, and this sort of thing happens to people all the time,’ just usually, they’re not suburban white men with Down Syndrome. I wanted someone to say that sentence, and to back it up. And eventually, I decided that maybe the journalist who was gonna have to say that sentence would be me.”

It was at this point that Perry began writing about patterns of targeted individuals of police violence, and how disabilities factored into their victimization. Perry presented a list of names of African American individuals who were known victims of police aggression, including Eric Garner, who had diabetes and congestive heart failure; Michael Brown, who had ADHD; and Sandra Bland, who had epilepsy and depression. One-third to half of all people killed by police have disabilities, noted Perry. He went on to say that there was a lack of material written about this pattern, and that there needed to be an expanded conversation, so he began to write about it.

Perry spoke about this aspect of his work, detailing how he has worked with a variety of groups to promote awareness of the issue. He then devoted the remaining time to discussing other articles he had written and his ongoing blog, as well as the importance of writing every day.

The talk was attended by a variety of individuals, including Sadie Renjilian ’17, a history major, who was there to promote interest in the History Department. Renjilian shared her thoughts on the talk.

“It’s really interesting, as seniors, seeing what we can do with our degrees, because I think all of us would like to keep doing history and we’re worried we won’t be able to keep doing history,” Renjilian said. “So it’s really inspiring to see someone who was able to keep doing what they’re interested in and expand their interest beyond that.”

On a more humorous note, Renjilian shared one of her favorite parts of the talk.

“There were so many amazing lines,” she said.

One of those lines was a closing line of Perry’s talk: “You can’t prove that I’m not the unofficial medievalist of CNN.”

On Oct. 3, Wesleyan Democrats (WesDems) invited State Senator Danté Bartolomeo to speak to a group of students about her platform and experience as a senator, as well as her current race against Republican Len Suzio. The talk lasted 45 minutes and took place at Harriman Hall at 7 p.m.

WesDems President Simon Korn ’17 organized the event.

“Between her role in the higher education committee, her proximity to campus, and her close re-election campaign, which is a microcosm of several statewide issues, Senator Bartolomeo was the perfect person to introduce the WesDems to local politics,” Korn wrote in an email to The Argus.

At the event, Bartolomeo began her speech with an introduction to her experience as a state senator, including her path to politics. Bartolomeo explained that her original degree from Colby College was in psychology, and before becoming a senator, she found herself in a job not directly related to either political science or psychology. She later spent some time as a stay-at-home mom, but it was through her role on a diverse range of community boards that she found herself running against then-incumbent Suzio in 2012. She narrowly beat him by less than 300 votes. She ran again in 2014 and won by a similarly small margin.

Bartolomeo spoke about her achievements as a state senator over the previous few years, highlighting her role as Co-Chair of the Committee on Children, where she has worked to provide support for children with behavioral, mental, or emotional health issues. She also mentioned her role as Co-Chair of the Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, through which she has worked to increase college affordability.

Bartolomeo equated her race against Suzio to the presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, with herself as Clinton and Suzio as Trump.

When asked about her thoughts on budgetary matters, specifically how to get more money in the pockets of the middle class, she responded with an answer that tied into her experience as a promoter of higher education.

“What I think that we need to do is we need to really commit more funding to the higher education system for the training and the educating of our work force for these future jobs,” Bartolomeo said. “That’s the way and that’s how, in my opinion, we would make the most difference. We have people telling us ‘We have jobs, we just don’t have people who are skilled at the level they need to be to have these jobs.’ Or things are changing, more bioscience and more advanced manufacturing…we’re being told the high-tech STEM jobs are going to need more people than we are currently graduating.”

Bartolomeo discussed options for increasing night life and public transportation in Connecticut to transform regions into thriving business and cultural spots. This, she explained, was another way to increase revenue in the state, and one that could also be promoted on the scale of local politics.

She explained that there have been attempts to get money out of local politics by setting a minimum amount of donations that a candidate needs in order to receive a $90,000 grant from the state. However, according to Bartolomeo, this isn’t enough.

“That was all supposedly to equalize the playing field, but there’s also an allowance for what we call ‘independent expenditures,’ and that is a union, a group, a company, a person, anybody can spend money on my race as long as they’re doing it independently from coordinating with me.”

Bartolomeo explained that in this race, a lot of money has been spent on her opponent. Connecticut Republicans only need four more seats to take a majority in the State Senate, which is why they’re spending over $50,000 on this race.

Bartolomeo also took the opportunity to take a swing at her opponent, Suzio, by pointing out his past business decisions.

“[My opponent] took $500,000 of payments and deposits from people because he had a log home business, but he didn’t deliver on the homes before he closed, and they didn’t ever get a penny of that money back,” Bartolomeo said. “He had this tax bill of $300,000 that he walked away from. He sold the land for one dollar; I have the receipt where he signed it. And now other people are trying to clean it up.”

She used this story in conjecture with campaign spending, citing the Connecticut Business and Industry Association’s support of him despite his poor record.

“The reality is, I feel like I could put my business record against his anyway,” Bartolomeo said.

After more discussion of education and income, as well as the Community Health Center in Middletown, Bartolomeo commented on the political climate and the ways political races have become so negative.

“It’s become more and more personal and ugly, I guess, since I’ve been doing it,” Bartolomeo said.“And I really think that our current presidential election is hurting us in that regard because it kind of makes it seem like it’s all good, you can attack someone, you can lie about someone, you can beat the heck out of them, and that’s okay.”

Students’ reactions to the event were generally positive.

“It was interesting to hear a representative from Connecticut speak, as I really don’t know about Connecticut’s issues, since I’m from Virginia,” Tristan Genetta ’20 said. “She primarily talked about the economy, which I was surprised about, but it’s an important matter.”

Another student appreciated hearing about the local aspect of politics in a political climate focused on the presidential election.

“I thought it was really interesting hearing a local politician speak about the issues that face the community,” Jake Multer ’20 said. “I also thought it was interesting hearing about the front line of politics, and how on the local level different issues are worked out, how disagreements between fellow party members worked out.”

Student Livia Wallick ’20 agreed.

“It was really great to get to interact with the local politician, especially a female politician, because the issues that she’s working on directly affect Wesleyan,” Wallick said. “She approved a $10,000 grant for Wesleyan’s community partnerships for the Center for the Arts earlier this summer, so she’s really been an advocate for Wesleyan’s role in the Middletown community.”

Wallick also noted how difficult it is to be a female politician in this environment and expressed her respect for Bartolomeo in that regard as well.

“The language surrounding female politicians and their campaigns is incredibly problematic, and she’s had to experience a lot of that from her opponent,” Wallick said.

Korn, too, considered the event a success.

“Her visit really went better than I could have hoped,” Korn said.“I was really happy to see how much she wanted to interact with all the students in the audience, take their questions, and address their concerns. I think she got people more interested in getting involved with local politics, which was my goal for the whole event.”

Over 80 million people watched this election’s first presidential debate on Sept. 26, making it the most-watched debate in United States history. Among those watching were hundreds of University students, tuning in from various formal and informal screenings around campus.

The two largest organized debate-watching events this year were in the Usdan University Center and the Exley Science Center, hosted by the Usdan Center Activities Board (UCAB) and Arcadia Magazine, respectively. At Exley, a watching party was hosted in Tischler Hall for a sizable and enthusiastic audience.

Arcadia Magazine is a multi-partisan magazine dedicated to the full spectrum of political thought, originally started by the Wesleyan Democrats and the Wesleyan Republicans.

Audience members in Tischler Hall filed in minutes before the debate began, munching on snacks provided by Arcadia Magazine and taking seats in the large lecture hall. The debate was broadcasted on a large screen visible to students sitting in any corner of the room. After a few minutes of “The Voice,” the debate began promptly at 9 p.m. and students quieted down to listen and watch.

Arcadia Magazine asked the audience to be respectful and avoid arguments or fights, but acknowledged that the hall need not be silent. Students were vocal throughout the debate, expressing their reactions at various poignant or memorable moments. There was a clear bias for presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in the room, evidenced by the reactions of the crowd throughout the event.

Students generally oscillated between clapping with appreciation and groaning with distaste over the course of the debate. An audible cringe swept through the room when presidential nominee Donald Trump asked Clinton what name she’d prefer he use when referencing her, stating, “I want you to be very happy.”

Many students also scoffed loudly when Trump said, “I also have a much better temperament than she does.” Clinton’s reply after Trump’s assessment of her temperament, a terse “Okay” with a wry smile, was met with a roomful of applause.

A favorite debate moment for the students watching in Tischler Hall was Hillary’s response to Trump’s comment about her lack of stamina.

“As soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world, or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina,” Clinton said, and the room went wild.

There were other moments that students enjoyed, including, according to one student, the instances in which Trump was clearly uncomfortable.

“I liked the parts where [Trump] was sipping water and looking really unhappy,” Susana Hair ’20, who was an attendee of the event, said. 

In Usdan, the debate-watching party took on a different, more informal tone, with students sitting in clusters at tables or on couches. The debate was broadcasted on multiple screens around the floor. UCAB also provided cupcakes that students were able to decorate.

However, according to Grace Snyder ’20, the snacks were not the only thing that differed between the screenings at the two locations. 

“Usdan seemed more tightly packed, and people were closer together,” Snyder said. “People at Exley were focusing on the debate and on their work, but they were also focusing more intently because it was a lecture hall.”

Emma Greenfield ’20 echoed this sentiment.

“It was more casual [at Usdan]; I felt like at Arcadia, people were working and were really into the debate at the same time,” Greenfield said.

Despite the difference in locations, students enjoyed watching the debate with their peers. Many students interacted with each other before and after the debate, trading thoughts and expectations. Even throughout the debate, students kept a running commentary in both Usdan and Exley.

“It’s much better than if I had just watched it alone in my dorm room or something,” Hair said. “I think that the majority of the people here seemed to have views that correlated with mine, and that was nice. I wish there had been more snacks, but other than that I think it was good. Big screen. I always love having political interactions with other people because I get very vocal.” 

In some ways, however, some students found the debate slightly disconcerting. For Snyder, the debate was evidence of the perpetuation of mainstream media and entertainment craze.

“I think it’s interesting that the debate was like an entertainment spectacle,” Snyder said. “What does it say that we’re watching this and we’re just laughing at this presidential candidate? It just seems like it’s taken on a very unprofessional tone, which is kind of concerning, because you’d hope that there would be some seriousness going on around the time of the debate. But with all this media, I think we’re just kind of making a lot of jokes…about Donald Trump.”

Despite this consideration, overall reactions to the debate were positive, and both events were objective successes. Many students enjoyed watching the debate, as evidenced by the sheer number of individuals who tuned in from locations around campus, as well as the general reactions of students after it was over.

“[This debate] is a completely unique experience that would not have happened at any other time period in the U.S.,” Hair said.

If you’ve ever spoken to me, it’s entirely likely that I’ve managed to either bring up The Beatles or sneak in some obscure song reference under the radar, hoping someone will pick up on it. I can’t help myself. They’re an omnipresent force in my life, and in each moment, I am silently (and often audibly) willing them to be equally omnipresent in everyone else’s.

To emphasize my love of The Beatles (and to make matters worse [better?]), I’m going to launch into a review of the recent Beatles documentary “The Beatles — Eight Days a Week: The Touring Years”, which I only managed to watch after a lot of obsequious persuasion directed at friends with Hulu accounts. The documentary came out in theaters on Sept. 16, and thankfully, on Hulu Sept. 18.

As an ardent consumer of Beatles media, part of me was somewhat skeptical about the documentary, just on principle. The amount of books/articles/movies/satire that have been made about the iconic band over the years could fill up multiple strawberry fields, octopuses’ gardens, Penny Lanes, and long and winding roads. In some ways I found that this fear was actualized while watching the film, and in others I was pleasantly surprised by the new material.

The documentary opens with 74-year-old Paul McCartney, in his quintessential Scouse accent riddled with “you knows,” discussing the transformation the Beatles went through before every concert. They donned their suits and “Beatle boots,” suddenly becoming the band that the audience was expecting. It’s a great opening, not just because hearing Paul’s voice sends waves of excitement into every Beatles fan, but because it feels so familiar. Viewers are also allowed access to The Beatles’ nascent lives on tour. This combination of nostalgia from a new angle is a theme that weaves its way throughout the entire movie. Most Beatles fans, even hardcore ones, don’t know about the little details of the Beatles’ touring years, but they do know the story. This documentary delivers some of those details, in the cheeky way that only a Beatles movie can.

Before getting into the years on tour, the movie provides context on the formation of the band, including some fun shots of the very early pre-Beatles group The Quarrymen, lead by John Lennon, which John was in when he met Paul and George Harrison. The movie quickly moves into the hectic lifestyle of The Beatles while on tour, highlighting the absolute insanity of fans and inundating the viewer with telling photos of fainting 14-year-olds and fan interviews. “Ringo has a sexy nose!” shouts one girl to the camera (I couldn’t agree more). These images and clips truly solidify the hold The Beatles took on the teenage world. They were a phenomenon. Sprinkled in with these images were fun interviews of some of the stars you didn’t know were early fans, like Sigourney Weaver and Whoopi Goldberg. Both interviews were surprising and fabulous, because knowing that these distinguished actors were total fangirls back in the day is both adorable and humanizing.

Whoopi’s interview particularly, along with historian Dr. Kitty Oliver’s interview, gave the documentary a new take that hadn’t been explored in previous films. A lot of the film focused on political and social context, like segregation and the Civil Rights movement, during the age of The Beatles. Some of the shows in America that The Beatles were meant to play, specifically at the Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, were intended to be segregated, an idea that the lads found both ludicrous and wrong.

“We don’t like it if there’s any segregation or anything because it just seems mad to me,” Paul said in a 1964 interview. “You can’t treat other human beings like animals.”

The Beatles refused to play at the Gator Bowl unless the show was desegregated, so the segregation rule was promptly dismantled. Dr. Kitty Oliver recounted the experience of standing next to white people for the first time, yelling and singing as loud as she could. Whoopi, too, noted that she felt The Beatles were universal, ubiquitous, and meant for everyone, regardless of skin color. This context, especially with personal accounts, gives the film a new perspective that certainly heightens its appeal.

After highlighting the brotherhood and camaraderie that pervaded the early years, the film eventually covers the slow collapse of the touring years. Soon, the cramped quarters, the screaming fans, the tiresome sets, and the lack of free time began wearing down The Beatles, and on Aug. 29, 1966, they gave their final performance (discounting the iconic rooftop concert of 1969). The final 1966 concert set in San Francisco was not a particularly moving one either. The Beatles were done.

While the film doesn’t cover the collapse of the touring years in quite as much detail as I would have liked, it nicely chronicles the evolution of albums and the evolution of the musicians themselves, which, in part, led to the collapse.

“It’s just we’re men now, you know, we’re a bit older than those lads that started out,” Ringo said in 1969.

With a combination of old and new footage, the film gives great insight into the sentiments of the four boys during the end of their years abroad. It’s honest and endearing, and what more can we ask for than that?

Sprinkled throughout the film are some classic songs, many live from the Hollywood Bowl and remastered for the first time by Giles Martin, son of the one and only George Martin. The songs also come on a CD that you can purchase online, and I highly recommend you do, if only to hear the enjoyable introductions to songs and banter from John and Paul. The new footage and images that the documentary presents range from adorable to striking. They, too, make the documentary into its own treasure trove. Other online materials are available, including a wonderful interview live from Abbey Road studios with filmmaker Ron Howard, Paul, and Ringo that I’d highly recommend everyone watch (in some ways, I liked it even better than the documentary).

What all this goes to show is that when it comes to The Beatles, we’re never really out of material. The story may be an extremely well-known one, but it’s not worn out just yet, and this documentary proves there are new angles to be found and explored.

Before watching the film, I found myself mindlessly humming “Please Please Me,” which was the first Beatles single to truly put them on the map. It’s also one of my favorite songs to dance to. If my singing was a metaphor for my hope that the film would fulfill my expectations, all I can say is that it did, and then some. If you’re looking for a taste of honey and nostalgia, or if you’re a new Beatles fan just testing the waters, “The Touring Years” is a great film for the Lovely Ritas and Eleanor Rigbys alike.