Catching up on a busy week with reviews of two very different schools.
The first is Hogwarts, the site of the fourth Harry Potter film - The Goblet of Fire. This is the first foray into PG-13 territory for the series, and rightfully so. The book is much bigger and much darker, and I'm happy to say the film is a great adaptation. There is a dark (and rather scary) confrontation with Voldemort, while the spectre of adolescence descends on the students. The funniest and most touching moments in the film come from these teenagers, as they stumble through love and other pitfalls. It's interesting to see how the actors are growing up (some are already hot - hello, Hermione!), and their acting chops have improved as well.
Unfortunately due to the book length some parts were inevitably cut. The first 20 minutes of the film zoom past at an alarming rate - covering at least 200 pages of text! So fans of Quidditch will be rather disappointed.
Meanwhile, this past weekend the SNU and I took a jaunt up to NYC (reminder to self - don't drive to NYC on a holiday weekend). After perusing our options at the TKTS booth, we opted to go see my first play on Broadway after years of musicals (shut up, I'm gay). The winner was "Doubt" at the Walter Kerr Theatre.
This play takes place at a Catholic school in 1960s New York. It features just four characters. A charismatic priest who may or may not have molested an African-American altar boy, the head nun/principal who is determined to bring him down, the novice nun who first noticed suspicious behavior, and the mother of the boy in question.
That's the premise, and the play is really quite simple. It brings about the question of who you choose to believe. You also witness the crisis of faith the nuns have, and the struggle a mother goes through in order to protect her child.
All four performances were stellar, and I loved the simplicity of the script. The whole thing wraps up in about 90 minutes with no intermission, and the audience never receives the true answer as to what happened.
This production won a bevy of Tony Awards this year, and rightfully so. It's one of the best plays I've seen in years. If you find yourself in New York, I highly recommend it!
November 28, 2005
November 19, 2005
Artistic Freedom
Last night the SNU and I went to our second helping of the modern dance subscription series at the Kennedy Center. This weekend features the Bill T. Jones/Arnie Zane Dance Company. For those unfamiliar with the company, let me sum it up. Years ago, Bill T. Jones (a tall wiry African-American virtuoso) met and began dancing as a duo with Arnie Zane (a short White Jewish force of nature). They fell in love and began a partnership in both love and dance. Later they both learned they had HIV, and in 1988 Zane died of AIDS. My favorite work of Jones' is "Still/Here", which was a collaborative project about terminal illness. Jones did workshops around the country with people who had cancer, AIDS, and other maladies, and turned their emotions and words into a fascinating evening-length work. It was later illuminated in a documentary by PBS' Bill Moyers.
The performance we saw was a new work (which premiered two months ago) called "Blind Date". This new evening-length work is a multi-media extravaganza, with several screens showing slides of definitions, morphing faces, and videos of the dancers. Meanwhile there was an actor speaking much of the text from the slides. There were also spotlights being wheeled around, and huge yellow ducks. Yes, that's right...ducks.
First let me say that I think the title doesn't work. For awhile I thought I had a handle on it - was it about how on a blind date you reveal basic facets of who you are to a complete stranger? But that theme seemed to devolve quickly.
Other themes emerged and were much clearer. The piece is clearly (in part) a meditation on war, and the part that religion plays in it. It is also about identity, and how society perceives us. It's about sex, and how that is dissected by politics and the Bible.
But most of all I believe that it's a response to a sort of challenge Jones received from a friend. The friend said he wanted to see "more rage on the stage." So the work Jones has created is full of rage - chaotic, desperate, passionate.
Unfortunately this piece has too much chaos - there were many times where far too much was happening at once, and as an audience member you could barely focus on even one thing. The cacophony of sound, light and movement became numbing. I also think that this type of rage isn't realistic. To me, rage is clear, directional with a unified purpose.
Yet amidst all this chaos, the ten dancers were beautiful to watch. Jones' style is fluid, loose and risk-taking. Dancers flung themselves to the floor, flopped around in bridge poses, or marched in organized lines. They ran to each other to be held in lifts. And they supported each other when someone would make a trust fall. (There was also a performer who bore an uncanny resemblance to Sayid, minus the chest hair.)
So overall I did enjoy the performance, mostly because the dancing was so excellent. But I would prefer to see the company in another work that has more unity of vision.
UPDATE - the Washington Post review is pretty spot-on.
The performance we saw was a new work (which premiered two months ago) called "Blind Date". This new evening-length work is a multi-media extravaganza, with several screens showing slides of definitions, morphing faces, and videos of the dancers. Meanwhile there was an actor speaking much of the text from the slides. There were also spotlights being wheeled around, and huge yellow ducks. Yes, that's right...ducks.
First let me say that I think the title doesn't work. For awhile I thought I had a handle on it - was it about how on a blind date you reveal basic facets of who you are to a complete stranger? But that theme seemed to devolve quickly.
Other themes emerged and were much clearer. The piece is clearly (in part) a meditation on war, and the part that religion plays in it. It is also about identity, and how society perceives us. It's about sex, and how that is dissected by politics and the Bible.
But most of all I believe that it's a response to a sort of challenge Jones received from a friend. The friend said he wanted to see "more rage on the stage." So the work Jones has created is full of rage - chaotic, desperate, passionate.
Unfortunately this piece has too much chaos - there were many times where far too much was happening at once, and as an audience member you could barely focus on even one thing. The cacophony of sound, light and movement became numbing. I also think that this type of rage isn't realistic. To me, rage is clear, directional with a unified purpose.
Yet amidst all this chaos, the ten dancers were beautiful to watch. Jones' style is fluid, loose and risk-taking. Dancers flung themselves to the floor, flopped around in bridge poses, or marched in organized lines. They ran to each other to be held in lifts. And they supported each other when someone would make a trust fall. (There was also a performer who bore an uncanny resemblance to Sayid, minus the chest hair.)
So overall I did enjoy the performance, mostly because the dancing was so excellent. But I would prefer to see the company in another work that has more unity of vision.
UPDATE - the Washington Post review is pretty spot-on.
525,600 Minutes
Through a little luck and a healthy dose of good connections, the SNU and I were invited to a special preview screening of Rent, the movie. We were accompanied by a couple work friends and Lady B.In short, the film is fabulous but not perfect. Considering what a Herculean task it is to convert such a beloved rock opera into a screenplay, I'm very forgiving! We all left in tears (the good kind), and humming our favorite tunes.
The highlights:
- any scene with Jesse L. Martin
- Rosario Dawson performing the hell out of her role and helping me forget the truly awful Daphne Rubin-Vega from the original production
- Wilson Jermaine Heredia portraying Angel with winking glee, particularly when "she" gets drunk
- Santa Fe being performed in the most entertaining subway car ever
- Maureen's hilarious performance art (watch the TVs)
- La Vie Boheme
- the fact that when two lesbians fight, it's often hot and passionate (think The L Word)
- Roger doing a Bon Jovi "Living on a Prayer" impression in pseudo-Santa Fe
- a couple crucial scenes being cut, like Goodbye Love
- not enough Taye Diggs (I know he's the villain, but he's so frickin' adorable)
November 13, 2005
Don't make fun of the man's lisp
Yesterday the SNU and I took in what was probably my first film to kick off Oscar season. We went to see Capote, starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the title character.
In short, it was very good. Incredible acting throughout, stark wintry landscapes, and costumes that are appropriate to the time. Hoffman (whom I have a wee crush on) plays Capote with full-on lisp, always with a drink in hand. The film focuses on Capote's efforts over a four-year period to write In Cold Blood - the non-fiction account of the brutal killing of a Kansas family. By his side is childhood friend and research help Nelle Harper Lee, who just happens to write her own novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. She's played by the always wonderful Catherine Keener.
Expect this film to receive at least a couple Oscar nominations, possibly more. And go see it.
My rant for today is movies in which actors wear fat suits. They trivialize the real struggles of those who battle their weight. It's silly, insulting, and predictable. Man is fat and unloved, man loses weight, man gets the girl. (Or reverse the genders, same premise - remember Shallow Hal?) The latest crime in this horrific trend is Just Friends, which stars the always-annoying Ryan Reynolds. May it tank and go straight to video!
In short, it was very good. Incredible acting throughout, stark wintry landscapes, and costumes that are appropriate to the time. Hoffman (whom I have a wee crush on) plays Capote with full-on lisp, always with a drink in hand. The film focuses on Capote's efforts over a four-year period to write In Cold Blood - the non-fiction account of the brutal killing of a Kansas family. By his side is childhood friend and research help Nelle Harper Lee, who just happens to write her own novel, To Kill a Mockingbird. She's played by the always wonderful Catherine Keener.
Expect this film to receive at least a couple Oscar nominations, possibly more. And go see it.
My rant for today is movies in which actors wear fat suits. They trivialize the real struggles of those who battle their weight. It's silly, insulting, and predictable. Man is fat and unloved, man loses weight, man gets the girl. (Or reverse the genders, same premise - remember Shallow Hal?) The latest crime in this horrific trend is Just Friends, which stars the always-annoying Ryan Reynolds. May it tank and go straight to video!
November 11, 2005
Fox is evil.
Note this email and reply from the SNU to me:
--------------------------------------------------
BASTARDS!!!!!!!
Fox is so f***ing stupid. It's their own damn fault the show is tanking. If it weren't for the baseball shuffle, it might have built an audience. Instead they cancel it because of poor performance after a multi-week hiatus.
Screw you, Fox. I hate you. If it weren't for the Simpsons, I'd never watch you at all!
-----Original Message-----
From: The SNU
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 2:57 PM
To: J-Lo
Subject: TRAGEDY
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/11/television.shows.reut/index.html
--------------------------------------------------
BASTARDS!!!!!!!
Fox is so f***ing stupid. It's their own damn fault the show is tanking. If it weren't for the baseball shuffle, it might have built an audience. Instead they cancel it because of poor performance after a multi-week hiatus.
Screw you, Fox. I hate you. If it weren't for the Simpsons, I'd never watch you at all!
-----Original Message-----
From: The SNU
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 2:57 PM
To: J-Lo
Subject: TRAGEDY
http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/11/television.shows.reut/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
