I winced throughout last night's horrifying edition of 60 Minutes, the geriatric television news magazine, in which correspondent Lesley Stahl granted a fawning interview to unconvicted war criminal Jose Rodriguez, one of the chief perpetrators of the Bush Adminstration's torture program after 9/11.
Rodriguez's lack of repentance for his crimes is not exactly news, of course - nor is the general pro-torture tilt of 60 Minutes. So I wasn't surprised by the revolting tone of Stahl's questions - she joshed with the defiant old sadist, wondering aloud things like, "But golly, didn't the Nazis do things like this?' while generally treating the torture debate as if it were a kind of genial after-dinner conversation.
Of course Stahl was forced by the facts to leave obvious lacunae in her questioning - otherwise all "civility" would have collapsed, for Rodriguez's positions are hilariously self-contradictory: he destroyed whatever evidence might have exonerated him from charges of torture, for instance - because, of course, said evidence would have condemned, not exonerated, him. Stahl daintily pirouetted around that. His other jibes at the sober assessments by outside authorities of his bloody career ("Bullshit!" he exclaims at one point) were largely let stand; it was all a disgusting mockery of "investigative journalism."
Still, the only real news came at the end of the program - Rodriguez's book (for which the 60 Minutes appearance was really a kind of promotional appearance) is being published by - wait for it - Simon & Schuster - a division of CBS. So all along, Lesley Stahl was essentially interviewing an employee of her own company - or rather, she was doing a puff piece on someone from whom her company hopes to reap a substantial profit (and to whom it has already no doubt paid a hefty advance).
Really, it's all just too sickening - and it's proof positive that the cancer Roger Ailes seeded at Fox News has already metastasized throughout the "legitimate" press. Somehow this seems even lower than the New York Times's notorious cheerleading of the Iraq War (and yes, I once actually got paychecks from those people, I'm sorry to say). How anyone could at this point be proud of working for CBS News is simply beyond me.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Bonjour, Girl!
Ah, the pleasures of YouTube! So far over two million people have watched this spoof of Disney's Beauty and the Beast. I wonder why.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
The Spring Hubbies 2012
Yes, it's past time for another edition of the Hubbie Awards - and luckily I found just the piece of vintage soft core to serve as graphic accompaniment! I know this has been a long time coming - people have been asking for it repeatedly - so without further ado:
Best New Play
The Luck of the Irish, by Kirsten Greenidge, Huntington Theatre, directed by Melia Bensussen
Best Productions and Ensembles
Superior Donuts, Lyric Stage - Omar Robinson, Will Lebow, Steven Barkhimer, De'Lon Grant, Beth Gotha, Christopher James Webb, Zachary Eisenstat and Steven James DeMarco, directed by Spiro Veloudos
Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, Huntington Theatre - Jason Bowen, Yvette Freeman, Charles Weldon, G. Valmont Thomas, Glenn Turner, Corey Allen, Joniece Abbott-Pratt, Thomas Derrah, Will LeBow, Timothy John Smith, directed by Liesl Tommy
Daddy Long Legs, Merrimack Rep - Meghan McGinnis, Robert Adelman Hancock, directed by John Caird
The Full Monty, Boston Conservatory - Keith White, Stephen Markarian, Daniel Plimpton, Trevor Hennigan, Meryn Beckett, Andrew Horowitz, Shayne Kennon, Hayley Lovgren, Niki Sawyer, Corey Mosello, Margaret Lamb, John Krause, Avery Smith, Brad Reinking, Jessica Bare, Nathan Scott Hancock, Celia Hottenstein, Rachel Boelter, Kathleen LaMagna, Ryan Halsaver, Diego Klock-Perez, directed by Laura Marie Duncan
Art, New Rep - Robert Walsh, Robert Pemberton, Doug Lockwood, directed by Antonio Ocampo-Guzman
Fen, Whistler in the Dark - Aimee Rose Ranger, Jen O'Connor, Anna Waldron, Becca A. Lewis, Lorna Nogueira, Mac Young, directed by Meg Taintor
The Voice of the Turtle, Merrimack Rep - Hanley Smith, Megan Byrne, William Connell, directed by Carl Forsman
Ma Rainey's Black Bottom at the Huntington |
Best Performances
Yves Jacques - The Andersen Project, ArtsEmerson/Ex Machina
Jason Bowen - Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, Huntington Theatre
Omar Robinson - Superior Donuts, Lyric Stage
Ellen Lauren, Melody Madarasz - Cafe Variations, ArtsEmerson/SITI
Meghan McGinnis (at left) - Daddy Long Legs, Merrimack Rep
Keith White, Hayley Lovgren - The Full Monty, Boston Conservatory
Francesca Choy-Kee, Shalita Grant - The Luck of the Irish, Huntington Theatre
Meredith Hansen, Victoria Livengood - The Inspector, Boston Lyric Opera
Margaret Ann Brady, Corey Jackson - The Full Monty, Stoneham Theatre
Zach Eisenstadt, Lynn R. Guerra - The Play About the Baby, Exquisite Corps
Lyralen Kaye - St. John the Divine in Iowa, Another Country Productions
Mildred Ruiz-Sapp - Ameriville, ArtsEmerson/Victory Gardens
Phil Tayler (at right), Matthew Zahnzinger - Floyd Collins, Moonbox Productions
Sarah Drake, Chris Caron - Next to Normal, SpeakEasy Stage
Nathaniel Gundy - Recent Tragic Events, Whistler in the Dark
Erica Spyres - Time Stands Still, Lyric Stage
Fred Sullivan, Jr. - The Merchant of Venice, Trinity Rep
Erin Markey - Green Eyes, Company One/The Kindness
Joel Colodner - Medea, Actors' Shakespeare Project
Danny Bryck - A Number, Whistler in the Dark
Sarah Coburn, Steven Condy, Jonathan Beyer - The Barber of Seville, Boston Lyric Opera
The Andersen Project at ArtsEmerson |
Robert Lepage - The Andersen Project, ArtsEmerson/Ex Machina
Tim Albery - The Lighthouse, Boston Lyric Opera
Meg Taintor - Fen, Whistler in the Dark
John Caird - Daddy Long Legs, Merrimack Rep
Carl Forsman - The Voice of the Turtle, Merrimack Rep
Best Design
Jean Le Bourdais (set), Nicolas Marois (lighting) Jean-Sébastien Côté (sound) Catherine Higgings (costumes), Jean-Nicolas Marquis (puppetry), Jacques Collin, Véronique Couturier, David Leclerc (imagery) - The Andersen Project, ArtsEmerson/Ex Machina
Neil Patel (set), Caitlin Ward (costumes), Brian H. Scott (lighting) - Cafe Variations, Arts Emerson
Dan Costello (sound) - Floyd Collins, Moonbox Productions
Allen Moyer (set), James Scott (costumes) - The Barber of Seville, Boston Lyric Opera
Tim Albery, Camellia Koo - The Lighthouse, Boston Lyric Opera
Best Musical Direction
Dan Rodriguez - Floyd Collins, Moonbox Productions
David Angus - The Lighthouse, The Barber of Seville, Boston Lyric Opera
Yes, we're all about the classical ideal, dontchaknow. The Hubbies will return this summer! |
Can we see Bombshell without having to watch Smash?
I can't stand Theresa Rebeck's TV mini-hit Smash, which is unsurprising; I can't stand Theresa Rebeck, period. But the New Yorker - which I also often can't stand (I once threw up while reading Sasha Frere-Jacques, or whatever his name is) - recently made a point that has been nagging me, too, every time the partner unit has turned Smash on (yes, at home sometimes we're into cultural dumpster diving).
And that is that the numbers from the show's mythical Broadway musical Bombshell are consistently pretty good - actually, better than just about anything else I've heard from Broadway recently. So, like the New Yorker's Emily Nussbaum - who rivals Wesley Morris for snark-to-flattery-in-nothing-flat - I've been wondering: can't we see Bombshell on Broadway without having to watch the rest of Smash? Alas, the show has already been renewed, so I guess the answer is "no." But I can dream, can't I?
And that is that the numbers from the show's mythical Broadway musical Bombshell are consistently pretty good - actually, better than just about anything else I've heard from Broadway recently. So, like the New Yorker's Emily Nussbaum - who rivals Wesley Morris for snark-to-flattery-in-nothing-flat - I've been wondering: can't we see Bombshell on Broadway without having to watch the rest of Smash? Alas, the show has already been renewed, so I guess the answer is "no." But I can dream, can't I?
Friday, April 27, 2012
Meet Hatsune Miku, pop star of the future - today
I had a chance to chat with visionary director Robert Lepage this past week, after a lecture he gave at MIT (he's currently in residence there, and has received the Institute's McDermott Award). During our chat - his cadences are a dead ringer for those of his theatrical alter ego, Yves Jacques, btw - he related a funny story. During a recent visit to Japan, he heard repeated mention of a hot new pop star, Hatsune Miku, who was very "into" holograms and projections. As he shares the same interests, Lepage often suggested that he meet with Miku, but was always told, "No, that would be far too complicated."
And here's why - she's not a person, but a "Vocaloid" produced by a software program from phonics spoken by a "real live" actress, Saki Fujita. Her appearance was developed by manga artist Kei Garō; her eventual songs and projected presence were then devised by a company called Crypton Future Media (her name is a rough approximation of the phrase "First Sound Future" in Japanese).
She's not a hologram, btw, but rather a digital projection onto a thin film that's unnoticeable at audience distance - it's something like the "Pepper's Ghost" trick used in Disney's Haunted Mansion ride (you can make out the projection screen in the video's long shots). She is, however, a pop sensation - it seems you can play with her at home, and have her sing your own songs; but she's also had major hits in Japan and has sold out her "live" concert appearances (above, in Tokyo). Her appeal may prove brief, however; after a recent "farewell for now" concert, she has been on hiatus.
Now I'm not suggesting that digitally projected performers will be with us anytime soon - after all, the "Pepper's Ghost" technology has been around forever, and Hatsune Miku is really just projected anime. Still, the acceptance of this as "performance" by a huge crowd of people is a little unnerving. If you thought audiences would automatically reject projections in favor of real actors - I'd say think again!
[Btw, it's interesting to think about Hatsune Miku as only the next phase of the song-assembly machine for the likes of Rihanna and Nicki Minaj that was recently detailed in the New Yorker. Aren't many pop stars already "manufactured"?]
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Don't misunderestimate The Inspector
"I am not a crook!" - the political rogues' gallery of The Inspector. Photos: Erik Jacobs. |
But Boston Lyric Opera's The Inspector, the new work by composer John Musto and librettist Mark Campbell, might make you re-think all that. This is simply one of the funniest shows of the year. Actually, it IS the funniest show of the year, period. Boston Lyric Opera always knows how to throw a hearty comic punch (last year's Agrippina proved that), and they land so many this time around that I and my partner were practically on the floor at some points.
Of course if you think, as some local critics do, that an opera should be thought of as a concert in which the performers happen to walk around, then this kind of praise is almost a liability. An opera shouldn't be just a good time, they insist; it shouldn't be a whip-smart satire of the Bush administration. Lord, no - operas shouldn't be that!
Indeed, some people at opening night seemed to agree about that satire of the Bush administration (some of the most expensive seats were empty after intermission). Perhaps more than any of the arts, opera depends for its funding on finance execs and white-shoe law partners (at least the "Log Cabin" partners, if you know what I mean) and I felt BLO was taking a big risk with the openly blue-state cast of Campbell's razor-sharp libretto (which was inspired by Gogol's ageless satire of small-town corruption, The Inspector General). Technically Campbell has shifted the scene to Sicily (which allows for more bel canto) - and there were, indeed, a few broad, affectionate Italian jokes - but obviously the script was really set in the various South Texas, South Florida, and South Alaska burgs where numbskull Bush scions and Republican stooges are blighting the landscape in their "exile" from the White House.
So - if you're a Republican, beware this horrifying partisan screed! But if you're a thoughtful person with a moral center, you are inevitably a Democrat, and so you should run out and buy a ticket immediately. (Because the show only runs through this weekend.)
There is some bad news, though - John Musto's music isn't as challenging or as rich as it might be; I can't refudiate that. The score is certainly pretty, and even quite witty - in fact, it's almost too much of a sophisticated, Broadway-style pastiche; by the end of the first act, you might be forgiven for thinking the composer had set his sights on operetta rather than opera. But fear not - from the start, the second act is far stronger musically (it opens with a melancholy trio for mandolin, accordion - and tuba!) as Campbell's text begins to limn the sad awareness of universal corruption that undergirds Gogol's original scenario. (So in the end, I think Musto should not be misunderestimated.)
The ruling class shows just how classy it is in The Inspector. |
Hansen is all but upstaged, however, by mezzo Victoria Livengood as her crass, calculating mama; Ms. Livengood is a world-class comic talent as well as a Met-level mezzo, and she expertly crosses Imelda Marcos with Carol Burnett to create an indelibly, almost brutally hilarious performance as, in her husband's words, "the shrewdest of shrews - who'd screw for new shoes." In fact, I'll call this one right now - there will be no one, and nothing, funnier than Ms. Livengood on a Boston stage this year. (And she's a terrific mezzo to boot.)
Although to be honest, this crowd is crowded with good singing and clever comic turns. As the genially corrupt mayor of "Santa Schifezza," ("schifezza" is Italian for "filthy," btw) Jake Gardner (at top) knows just how to hang onto our sympathy by making his sleaze almost sweetly naive. And from the moment Dorothy Byrne launches into an aria with a cigarette dangling from her mouth, you know she's something special, too (she's a Minister of Health who moonlights at the local funeral home!). But there are still more comic cameos sharper than the point of a satirist's quill: David Cushing all but beams stupidity as the torture-happy chief of police, who's "as dim-witted as he is sadistic," while Michelle Trainor nails the Montessori-addled educator who insists "Kids learn bestest when they teach theirselves!"
If you haven't noticed yet, there is a slight gap in the cast - as "Tancredi," the likably opportunistic Inspector General himself, Neil Ferreira is appealing, but hardly compelling, and the usually reliable David Kravitz sounded fine as his sidekick, but didn't seem to have found his comic groove by opening night. But down in the pit, conductor David Angus did well by the clever fizz of the score, and stage director Leon Major always kept the production light on its feet. You left the The Inspector thinking it may be no great contribution to the musical repertoire, but that it might open up a new angle on how we think about contemporary opera in general. For why shouldn't up-to-minute, bare-knuckle satire be a commonplace on the operatic stage, particularly when it's as close to comic perfection as The Inspector?
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
IRNE post-game analysis
As most of you know, this year marked my return to the IRNE Awards, which, as I like to say, are like sex; you never know what you're going to get, or how long it's going to take. Usually (unlike sex) it takes longer than you'd like - although Monday night's awards were the shortest yet, believe it or not. We're well aware, of course, that size matters at the IRNEs, but I think we feel a bit like Odysseus on this particular question - stuck between the Scylla of not recognizing everyone's achievement, and the Charybdis of boring everyone to tears. (You can read a full accounting of nominees and winners at Larry Stark's Theater Mirror, btw.)
Some of us also sense the rising importance of the occasion as a party for the community - particularly now that the annual Stage Source party seems to be on hiatus. There's been some discussion of reducing the number of awards actually announced during the ceremony (but still awarding them, and handing them out beforehand, of course). This would deprive some folks of their "I'd like to thank the Academy" moment, I know, which is too bad - but maybe it compensates them with more time to be congratulated, network, and have an extra drink? It's worth debating, I think.
I personally lean more toward the par-tay side of this argument; I'd like to see the ceremony reduced to an hour and a half, tops - that's about as long as I think you can ask people to keep quiet - and then maybe have a DJ take over! I'd also argue that with a more festive atmosphere, we might attract even more out-of-town names than we managed to nab this year (playwright Stephen Karam and director Mary Zimmerman, along with members of the Candide cast and other luminaries, were on hand to pick up their awards personally, and they're very nice people to meet).
As for the awards themselves - as often happens, a few shows won big, and some worthy theatre companies were shut out, and I didn't agree with all those decisions. We're always struggling with this issue, frankly; the rising number of nominees - which I support in principle, but feel has perhaps gone past a natural limit - has led to a situation where decisions are sometimes determined by a single vote. But on the other hand - some shows should win big, I think, and why not by a single vote? Another perennial question - how to best categorize the theatrical landscape? Have some mid-size companies become so successful that they should be bumped up into the "large company" category? Should we have more separate categories for fringe efforts (making the evening even longer)? Rest assured, these are questions we constantly discuss.
A few more words about the new addition to the ceremony, the Hubbie Award - a cash sponsorship which I presented to actor Danny Bryck to develop his solo show on Occupy Boston, No Room for Wishing (which you should eventually be able to read more about, and even contribute to, on his website, www.dannybryck.com). As I said, I hope to make this award a regular event, and incorporate direct artist sponsorship into the official IRNE culture eventually. As of now, the sponsorship is still small ($1000), and it is basically coming from funds I've raised. We'll continue to work on that as the year progresses; I hope to make at least one more cash Hubbie Award in 2011, and will probably begin incorporating advertising in the Hub Review, with revenues going toward this sponsorship (so if you see an ad here, click on it!).
My criteria for this award - in case you couldn't understand me in the crystal-clear acoustic of the Cyclorama on Monday! - are roughly the following: the money should go to artists, not institutions or programs; it should be awarded to help make possible the creation of a specific work of art - it shouldn't go to education, outreach, or any of the other worthy rubrics favored by other grants; and there should be no formal application process; like the MacArthur awards, the Hubbie should simply be an unexpected gift.
If you're worried, by the way, about this award compromising my, or other, votes on the IRNEs, rest assured that my fellow critics are aware that a Hubbie sponsorship means I am precluded from nominating, voting, or lobbying for the production in question come IRNE time. That goes without saying; we can't have a revolving door of sponsorship and awards. When and if financial sponsorship becomes an official function of the general voting body, that will likewise mean that sponsored shows are ineligible for any votes. (Somehow I think folks will take the cash anyway.)
Well, I think that's about it - aside from a quick thank you to everyone in the IRNE community (but especially to critic Beverly Creasey, who bears the brunt of the logistical work) for making the awards happen once again. And so - congratulations to all winners and nominees - and see you next year!
Some of us also sense the rising importance of the occasion as a party for the community - particularly now that the annual Stage Source party seems to be on hiatus. There's been some discussion of reducing the number of awards actually announced during the ceremony (but still awarding them, and handing them out beforehand, of course). This would deprive some folks of their "I'd like to thank the Academy" moment, I know, which is too bad - but maybe it compensates them with more time to be congratulated, network, and have an extra drink? It's worth debating, I think.
I personally lean more toward the par-tay side of this argument; I'd like to see the ceremony reduced to an hour and a half, tops - that's about as long as I think you can ask people to keep quiet - and then maybe have a DJ take over! I'd also argue that with a more festive atmosphere, we might attract even more out-of-town names than we managed to nab this year (playwright Stephen Karam and director Mary Zimmerman, along with members of the Candide cast and other luminaries, were on hand to pick up their awards personally, and they're very nice people to meet).
As for the awards themselves - as often happens, a few shows won big, and some worthy theatre companies were shut out, and I didn't agree with all those decisions. We're always struggling with this issue, frankly; the rising number of nominees - which I support in principle, but feel has perhaps gone past a natural limit - has led to a situation where decisions are sometimes determined by a single vote. But on the other hand - some shows should win big, I think, and why not by a single vote? Another perennial question - how to best categorize the theatrical landscape? Have some mid-size companies become so successful that they should be bumped up into the "large company" category? Should we have more separate categories for fringe efforts (making the evening even longer)? Rest assured, these are questions we constantly discuss.
A few more words about the new addition to the ceremony, the Hubbie Award - a cash sponsorship which I presented to actor Danny Bryck to develop his solo show on Occupy Boston, No Room for Wishing (which you should eventually be able to read more about, and even contribute to, on his website, www.dannybryck.com). As I said, I hope to make this award a regular event, and incorporate direct artist sponsorship into the official IRNE culture eventually. As of now, the sponsorship is still small ($1000), and it is basically coming from funds I've raised. We'll continue to work on that as the year progresses; I hope to make at least one more cash Hubbie Award in 2011, and will probably begin incorporating advertising in the Hub Review, with revenues going toward this sponsorship (so if you see an ad here, click on it!).
My criteria for this award - in case you couldn't understand me in the crystal-clear acoustic of the Cyclorama on Monday! - are roughly the following: the money should go to artists, not institutions or programs; it should be awarded to help make possible the creation of a specific work of art - it shouldn't go to education, outreach, or any of the other worthy rubrics favored by other grants; and there should be no formal application process; like the MacArthur awards, the Hubbie should simply be an unexpected gift.
If you're worried, by the way, about this award compromising my, or other, votes on the IRNEs, rest assured that my fellow critics are aware that a Hubbie sponsorship means I am precluded from nominating, voting, or lobbying for the production in question come IRNE time. That goes without saying; we can't have a revolving door of sponsorship and awards. When and if financial sponsorship becomes an official function of the general voting body, that will likewise mean that sponsored shows are ineligible for any votes. (Somehow I think folks will take the cash anyway.)
Well, I think that's about it - aside from a quick thank you to everyone in the IRNE community (but especially to critic Beverly Creasey, who bears the brunt of the logistical work) for making the awards happen once again. And so - congratulations to all winners and nominees - and see you next year!
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
One of the best time lapses yet
Perhaps the most gorgeous sequence ever from the International Space Station.
What you see over the course of the flight: :01 -- Stars over southern United States :08 -- US west coast to Canada :21 -- Central Europe to the Middle East :36 -- Aurora Australis over the Indian Ocean :54 -- Storms over Africa 1:08 -- Central United States 1:20 -- Midwest United States 1:33 -- United Kingdom to Baltic Sea 1:46 -- Moonset 1:55 -- Northern United States to Eastern Canada 2:12 -- Aurora Australis over the Indian Ocean 2:32 -- Comet Lovejoy 2:53 -- Aurora Borealis over Hudson Bay 3:06 -- United Kingdom to Central Europe.
The song on the soundtrack is Howard Blake's "Walking in the Air."
The lyrics:
We're walking in the air
We're floating in the moonlit sky
The people far below are sleeping as we fly
I'm holding very tight
I'm riding in the midnight blue
I'm finding I can fly so high above with you
Far across the world
The villages go by like dreams
The rivers and the hills
The forests and the streams
Children gaze open-mouthed
Taken by surprise
Nobody down below believes their eyes
We're surfing in the air
We're swimming in the frozen sky
We're drifting over icy
Mountain floating by
Suddenly swooping low on an ocean deep
Arousing of a mighty monster from its sleep
We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly
More Monty at Stoneham
The guys try to take it all off at Stoneham. |
Although about that stripping - a note to all you eager voyeurs out there: if you're dreaming of seeing the full monty at Stoneham - well, be warned the light board operator at this nice suburban theatre has an itchy trigger finger, so the flash that's supposed to accompany "the flash," if you will, comes early - you can't tell if you've gotten the full monty, or no monty at all. Basically all you see here is some retina burn, which I guess counts as "hot" in its own way.
Margaret Ann Brady in full theft mode. |
Margaret Ann Brady (left) simply walks off with her scenes as Jeanette, the retirement-home/show-biz refugee who becomes the guys' rehearsal pianist, thanks to some of the most skillfully hard-bitten under-playing I've seen in some time; but the boys do manage to wrestle the show back from her now and again. Newcomer Michael Timothy Howell made a funny, sexy Jerry, the crew's ringleader -- although he never quite made me believe in his connection to his son, the very poised and endearing Colin Breslin. The most emotionally convincing turn in the production actually came from Corey Jackson as Jerry's best bud Dave, a big guy whose sheer size makes him nervous about taking it all off. The rest of the guys had their moments too - David L. Jiles Jr. made a smart, forceful "Horse," and Steve Gagliastro was his usual winning self as the boss who'd gotten fired, too, while Nick Sulfaro and Andrew Oberstein hit all the right notes in the way-too-brief gay romance that blooms in the second act.
Elsewhere there was a crack turn from Amy Barker as Gagliastro's ballroom-dancing, clueless wife (although this lady usually gets quite a bit more choreography, guys), and the versatile David Costa was able to switch-hit from gay to straight without missing a beat in a few literally cheeky roles. Of course pondered coldly - in the buff, if you will - The Full Monty still has some issues; it's a little too long, the second act gets repetitive, the score is good but not great - but these talented folks generally manage to cover the show's gaps the same way those fans used to cover Sally Rand - and with the same entertaining results.
Monday, April 23, 2012
See you at the IRNEs
Sorry for no post today, but preparations are underway for the annual IRNE Awards, tonight at 7:30 pm at the Cyclorama, in which the Independent Reviewers of New England honor their choices for the best of 2011 in just about every category you can imagine (new this year - puppetry!).
And yes, I'll be there - it's a long story, someday I'll tell you the whole thing - with a new surprise up my sleeve, too: the first "Hubbie Award" with a cash value. But I'll tell you all about that - and who's getting the check - after the ceremony.
Yes, I know - critics with money. What a concept. So stay tuned.
And yes, I'll be there - it's a long story, someday I'll tell you the whole thing - with a new surprise up my sleeve, too: the first "Hubbie Award" with a cash value. But I'll tell you all about that - and who's getting the check - after the ceremony.
Yes, I know - critics with money. What a concept. So stay tuned.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
A grand monument to tradition, done grandly (and traditionally)
Celeste Fraser and John Irvin as Blanche and her brother in Dialogues of the Carmelites. |
Right now is a very good time for opera in the Hub. I just got back from a truly hilarious operatic satire at Boston Lyric, The Inspector, which made for quite the contrast with Dialogues of the Carmelites, Francis Poulenc's intense investigation of the spiritual, which I caught on Thursday at the Boston University Opera Institute - in a solid, very moving version which plays through tomorrow afternoon. Fans of Poulenc (or simply fans of great opera - or great drama) won't want to miss this production.
Dialogues is by now established as one of the major operatic achievements of the twentieth century - even though at its premiere, Poulenc's relentlessly tonal music was widely razzed by the Schoenberg Politburo. Needless to say, the opera has survived the pseudo-intellectual fashions of its day - but then most musical history of the twentieth century is slowly being re-written not as a tale of Schoenbergian revolution, but rather as a story of survival by tonal talents somehow enduring a long atonal winter.
But back to Poulenc, whose topic - faith leading to martyrdom in the face of the radical state - likewise had a reactionary cast to the zealots of modernism (particularly coming from a semi-closeted, haute bourgeois homosexual like Poulenc). Now I'm not going to argue that question here; but it seems obvious at this point that the pathos of the opera's libretto, and the beauty of Poulenc's music, simply transcend the transient hobbyhorses of whatever revolutionaries we're saddled with at any particular historical moment.
The story is (roughly) a true one - the opera follows the travails of an order of Carmelite nuns in the provincial town of Compiègne as they struggle with their doubts in the face of death, and then face actual death itself, in the form of persecution from the French Revolutionary government. After the sisters resisted the forced closure of their convent, they were imprisoned, and eventually guillotined - ironically enough, only days before the Reign of Terror collapsed. The opera concludes with a world-famous coup de théâtre that's a brilliant musical statement, too: the nuns meet their deaths singing, marching offstage to have their voices silenced, one by one, by the descending scythe. We can't credit Poulenc, btw, for this inspired scene; the actual nuns did indeed die singing their vows back in 1794. Nevertheless, it's one of the most gripping climaxes in all of opera - and at BU, director Sharon Daniels does it up right, wisely keeping the guillotine offstage (some productions have made the disastrous mistake of revealing it), and suppressing the melodrama of the moment to conjure an almost overwhelming sense of pathos.
Elsewhere, the dramatic work is a bit uneven. Daniels again has done the right thing by sublimating the passions of the plot into the strictures of its text - the scenes feel like scripture, or perhaps, yes, Socratic dialogues. But not all these young singers understand yet how to bring a suppressed emotional fire to bear on a scene, so some sequences are a bit stiff.
Others, however, are lucidly, even finely played, and the women's voices are generally strong - the men's, less so (there's often a lack of power here), although tenor John Irvin made a striking impression as the brother of Blanche de la Force, the novice whose perspective on the event Poulenc adopts. As Blanche herself, Celeste Fraser is clearly a star in the making, with both a rich, warm soprano and a confident, intelligent stage presence. Perhaps too confident - I didn't quite believe in Blanche's timorousness at the opera's outset, and thus her journey from fearful recluse to calmly ardent martyr wasn't fully limned. But Fraser was always impressive nonetheless, and there were other memorable turns from soprano Sonja Krenek as well as mezzos Lauren Ashleigh Lyles and Amanda Tarver.
Down in the pit, the instrumental results were likewise mixed, but generally rewarding. Poulenc's music sounds rather like sacramental Debussy - and he eschews aria for exchanges that aren't quite duets, but again, feel like musical dialogues. The original orchestration was famously lush, but at BU we got a reduced version, which was still ravishing enough. Under the baton of William Lumpkin, most of the orchestra - particularly the strings - soared, but the horns were often garbled. Oh, well; you can't have everything. I also didn't care much for the fact that the text was sung in English rather than French (there are super-titles anyhow). The appropriate set and costumes were by Eleanor Kahn and DeMara Cabrera, respectively; the evocative lighting by Yi-Chung Chen. This traditional version of a monument to tradition makes a pretty strong case for the virtues of Poulenc - and of course the sisters of Compiègne. If only those attitudes became more of a tradition around here!
Friday, April 20, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Café Variations at ArtsEmerson
Melody Madarasz in Café Variations |
The music of George Gershwin is a good thing; a very good thing. Which is a very good thing for director Anne Bogart, as it repeatedly saves her beautiful, baffling, Café Variations (at ArtsEmerson through the weekend) from a persistent threat of tedium.
What's baffling about this show, you may ask? Why it was ever produced, frankly; there really is no show here. Bogart has simply set various snatches of dialogue from playwright Charles L. Mee, Jr. - with whom she often collaborates as she works the college circuit with her theatre troupe, SITI - against a clutch of Gershwin standards, played in a giant period café. And - ta-da! - she seems to think this means she has made some sort of statement.
If only. Mee's banter can be cute in its bitchy pique (at least in the wonderful performance from Ellen Lauren it can), but it doesn't add up to much, and it only relates to the rueful swoon of Gershwin in the most desultory way. I admit there's also some sort of folderol going on here about variations in personality over the course of the evening (the characters come in three variants, labeled A, B, and C) - but this also didn't seem to add up to much, and in fact I found I really couldn't be bothered with following Bogart's bogus acrostic. Because the whole thing was obviously a weightless monument to academic conceit.
But there is that Gershwin. Some of the music here is recorded, but there are also performances on offer from a live band tucked behind a shimmery curtain on Neil Patel's gorgeously luxe set (below). The arrangements by Rachel Grimes - particularly the wordless chorale drawn from "Embraceable You" - are likewise to die for, as are the costumes (Caitlin Ward), lighting (Brian H. Scott), and sound (Stowe Wilson). It all made me wonder - couldn't we just keep this design team and drop Bogart?
If we do, perhaps we can dodge in future the dodgy vocals that dot the show. The Emerson kids do okay - although only Melody Madarasz, who caught my eye in Bat Boy a year ago, is a standout. The actors from SITI, Bogart's troupe, are another story. In a word, SITI can't sing - which is a problem, because singing Gershwin is far more difficult than it sounds. I love a Gershwin tune, but I know it usually hovers between at least two keys, and so any vocal jump larger than a third can be perilous (that's why I only sing them in the shower). And let's just say there are a number of awkward landings here - in fact, some of the SITI vocals may be the weakest I've ever heard in a professional venue. And I wish I could say that the dancing made up for this, but it really didn't until the very end (again, SITI can't dance - but Emerson has at least one talented hoofer in Maximilian Sangerman). So I guess you could say I left singing the set, and dancing the arrangements, and that's about it. But at least Bogart and Mee can't take that away from me.
Like the music, the set is 'swonderful. Photos: Paul Marotta |
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The best film you will see this year is Cats in Space
And here's the whole thing. Wesley Morris will be reviewing shortly.
The Temperamentals fails to make Hay
Do they look temperamental? Not really. |
Which may be why in Jon Marans' The Temperamentals, they've chosen a fascinating political subject but a very weak political script, whose obvious faults director Jeremy Johnson unintentionally underscores at every turn. As a result, even the actors (some of the area's best) don't really connect here - and that's rare in Boston theatre.
But first, how to explain Marans' failure, given his play treats some of the most flaming queens in gay American history? It is a puzzlement; how could such blazing characters have inspired such a wet blanket of a play?
Clearly the dramatist's (worthy) intent was to bring back to our cultural consciousness the pre-Stonewall struggles of the Mattachine Society, America's first political group with, yes, a homosexual agenda. But Marans adopts precisely the wrong tone toward the Mattachines and their era. He seems to imagine the knowing irony of our current parlance can somehow give us entrée to the paranoid birth of the gay nation; but I ask you - does that make any sense? Honestly - I don't think so. Nevertheless, the cloak-and-dagger tactics of the Mattachines - their oaths of silence, their clandestine meetings - are here given the Spy-vs.-Spy treatment; guys in fedoras lurk in dark corners of the sleek set, taking career-destroying notes before vanishing into the night (to the tinklings of noir-style lounge music, no less).
From this stance of bemused detachment, you take it that everyone involved really should just have known how things would eventually turn out, and realized they were all being a wee bit silly! But of course they didn't, and the bravery of the Mattachines really should not be underestimated - even if their secret society fizzled, and today their baby-steps toward gay identity look quaint (or sometimes plain weird).
I will admit that this play reminded me, however, of the political dimensions that gayness has lost as it has converted itself into a commercial niche in our ever-burgeoning consumer culture. Simply being gay - or simply having sex (any sex)- used to have political and intellectual resonance; intimacy of the kind epitomized by, say, Winston and Julia in 1984, was thought to be of a different order of experience from the machinations of the market or the coercions of the police. Sex was not a product but a truth, and thus a statement of individuality, even resistance.
So it's not surprising that the Mattachines resisted the political order in all kinds of ways - many were Communists, in fact, so their political lives were perhaps even more dangerous than their sex lives. They were rebels, in the old sense of the term - frightened rebels, perhaps, but still rebels. Indeed, Mattachine founder Harry Hay was a kind of scruffy radical drifter - a Stanford drop-out, a rancher obsessed with Native American culture, a Hollywood stunt rider and a folk singer and a devoted cross-dresser, Hay floated between the upper and lower classes as well as just about every facet of both the gay and straight experience - he even married and fathered children, though he ended up (in one final, controversial stand) voicing support for NAMBLA, largely because he resisted gay assimilation into straight sexual norms as a matter of principle.
That NAMBLA stand, though, gives you a glimpse into Hay's eventual quandary, I think; resisting everything turned him into a kind of incoherent self-parody. And anyway, resistance is so passé today; for what (beyond the obvious crimes of pedophilia) is there left to resist? Winston and Julia's secret trysts were illegal in 1984, but now Big Brother would be happy to rent them a room, and livestream their coupling, too. O'Brien has won without resorting to his rats - which may be why the real Harry Hay can't be found in a play that has supposedly been designed to honor him.
Harry Hay in the 90's. |
Now there's certainly a solid dramatic conflict to be found in the push-pull between Hay's burgeoning radicalism and Gernreich's conservative chic. But playwright Marans seems unable to tap into this; indeed, I'm not sure he realizes it should be his real theme - it's too politically complicated! Instead, Marans makes his play all Gernreich, and no Hay; when he should be conjuring the closeted gay world's temptation to join Hay's brand of crazy, he instead encases everything in so much camp alienation that the motor of the Mattachine's short-lived success (and eventual collapse) never coughs to life. Oh, well; Marans does at least nod to Hay's transvestitism (which was probably the safest of his many predilections).
Given this void at the heart of the drama, I suppose it's no shock that Jeremy Johnson's production wanders all over Sarah Lee Brown's stylish set without really going anywhere. It briefly gets traction as a superficial history lesson (when the Mattachines win a court case involving entrapment). But beyond that it simply has no heat, no drive. As Hay, Will McGarrahan repeats the wry, knowing performance he has perfected in his past few shows - and it's still amusing, it just has nothing to do with Harry Hay. Meanwhile Nael Nacer takes Gernreich's Eurotrash cool so much to heart that he seems to be having an out-of-body experience; he nails his Viennese accent, and looks great in his designer duds, but he has no chemistry with McGarrahan, and in their love scenes you get the impression he's somehow manipulating his body from somewhere offstage. As their associates in the Mattachines, Shelley Bolman and Steve Kidd strike a few sparks here and there, but hardly enough to build a fire under the damp material. I left thinking that someday we'll see a great play, and a great production, devoted to Harry Hay and the Mattachines. Maybe when Big Brother isn't watching.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
This is not what democracy looks like
This is what the Tea Party and the Boston Police look like! A Boston police officer "pushes" by the neck an Occupy Boston protester identified by name ("Allie"), but not gender, during Occupy's demonstration against a Tea Party hate rally on Sunday.
There's currently an "investigation" underway, and the Boston Police are "scrutinizing" this photo. But sometimes a picture is worth a thousand memos, isn't it.
(Of course maybe the officer just felt threatened by that very scary purple wig.)
There's currently an "investigation" underway, and the Boston Police are "scrutinizing" this photo. But sometimes a picture is worth a thousand memos, isn't it.
(Of course maybe the officer just felt threatened by that very scary purple wig.)
Monday, April 16, 2012
Hobbit porn - oops, I mean "Game of Thrones" - comes to HBO!
Oh, man, rarely has SNL nailed it as it does here, with this wicked takedown of the new soft core hobbit porn series, HBO's Game of Thrones. I've just sat through the first few episodes of this, thanks to Netflix - and Christ on a bike; what can I say? I was never taken in by the fanboy praise (although I'll admit after watching this that maybe Isaac Butler isn't quite as gormless as I've always thought he was), but when even the Atlantic began to post breathless patter about this potboiler, I began to wonder; finally I decided I had to see it. Well, now I know, and whooooo boy! Power and titties and dragons, oh my! Who will gain the Iron Throne?? And more importantly - who'll be doing it doggie style on the Iron Throne???
Sheesh - I admit this wacky (if lumbering) mash-up of I, Claudius, The Lord of the Rings, and Debbie Does Dallas rarely has a dull moment - except when the dialogue cranks up. So my advice is: watch it with the sound off - it's a lot more fun; by now I've had the benefit of enough portentous adolescent wisdom to last a lifetime, and sometimes I thought if I heard "And what doth milord command of me?" one more time I might just barf. But bring on the double blow jobs and the child-murders and the incest (the villains commit both in the premiere episode alone - later on they kill an innocent dog!). This is "compulsively watchable" all right - fuck yeah! And after we've all blown our wads, let's engage in a collaborative symposium on the parameters and significance of genre, shall we?
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Wait, wait, don't edit me
I caught the Wang Theatre taping of NPR's "Wait, Wait . . . Don't Tell Me" show last week - mostly because the partner unit, an avid listener, wanted to go. For my part, I'm amused by "Wait, Wait" - when I happen to hear it - but I'm hardly addicted.
Alas, "Partner's Night Out" turned out to be more of a favor than I anticipated; the taping was only intermittently entertaining - although it was interesting as a peek into the way "live" experience is shaped and massaged into NPR fare.
Now I'm not so naïve as to imagine that "Wait, Wait" - or any other radio show - is anything like "live;" still, I was surprised to find that in the flesh, as it were, it was so often half-dead. The taping ran nearly two hours (to generate a half-hour show), and this was with only a little re-tracing of steps and re-recording (maybe five or ten minutes worth?) at the very end. Basically, the real live version of "Wait, Wait" is four times longer than the "live" version you hear at home. There's three shows' worth of filler.
Not that there's anything wrong with that! Still, while you're trapped in the Wang Theatre, waiting for the assembled comics to hit on the fresh topical bit that's going to make it on the air (and there were some funny jokes), you do feel that sense of persistently escaping theatrical oxygen that, well, is supposed to be anathema to live theatre (imagine a production in which every actual line is preceded by an "ummm" and two "bum" lines, and you get the idea). My partner was less fazed by all this - he told me he'd once sat through a taping of a Hollywood sitcom that lasted four hours (that's like most of Götterdämmerung!), so he told me I was being too demanding.
Maybe. But I couldn't forget that the slick, witty host, Peter Sagal, turned out to have far less presence than his voice does (which is in and of itself kind of intriguing); sidekick Carl Kasell has more, but still, you wouldn't call him magnetic. The comics likewise clearly had personae that might have cast some low-grade spell, but they were sitting down - behind a conference table! - so the whole thing felt like you were tapping your heels through a corporate retreat in which upper management, bizarrely enough, was full of liberals. They really should have served coffee.
I may have been alone in this response, though; the people around me seemed to be participating in some virtual event for which my ticket didn't provide admittance. The full house whooped and applauded with surprising enthusiasm, and responded almost gratefully to the Boston references threaded like bait through Sagal's monologue. They weren't experiencing it "live," but rather "on the air;" in their minds, they were at a show that was going to happen sometime in the future - and they were on it!
In fact, it happened yesterday; I heard it again on the radio, condensed down by three quarters, with my partner. We agreed the "live" show was nothing like the experience of the live show; not only had all the hesitations and boring bits been banished, but some sequences seemed slightly re-arranged, and audience responses were far quicker on the trigger; the laughs were roars, and the cues were like pounces. It was quite strange having the actual experience of the show fresh in the memory while listening to its new "live" version - but the remodel was also somehow re-assuring in its subdued sense of control; everyone knew what they were doing every single minute; there was no room for risk, or human error.
I looked at my partner when it was finished; he was smiling. "You know, it was a lot better than I remember it being," he said.
Exactly.
Alas, "Partner's Night Out" turned out to be more of a favor than I anticipated; the taping was only intermittently entertaining - although it was interesting as a peek into the way "live" experience is shaped and massaged into NPR fare.
Now I'm not so naïve as to imagine that "Wait, Wait" - or any other radio show - is anything like "live;" still, I was surprised to find that in the flesh, as it were, it was so often half-dead. The taping ran nearly two hours (to generate a half-hour show), and this was with only a little re-tracing of steps and re-recording (maybe five or ten minutes worth?) at the very end. Basically, the real live version of "Wait, Wait" is four times longer than the "live" version you hear at home. There's three shows' worth of filler.
Not that there's anything wrong with that! Still, while you're trapped in the Wang Theatre, waiting for the assembled comics to hit on the fresh topical bit that's going to make it on the air (and there were some funny jokes), you do feel that sense of persistently escaping theatrical oxygen that, well, is supposed to be anathema to live theatre (imagine a production in which every actual line is preceded by an "ummm" and two "bum" lines, and you get the idea). My partner was less fazed by all this - he told me he'd once sat through a taping of a Hollywood sitcom that lasted four hours (that's like most of Götterdämmerung!), so he told me I was being too demanding.
Maybe. But I couldn't forget that the slick, witty host, Peter Sagal, turned out to have far less presence than his voice does (which is in and of itself kind of intriguing); sidekick Carl Kasell has more, but still, you wouldn't call him magnetic. The comics likewise clearly had personae that might have cast some low-grade spell, but they were sitting down - behind a conference table! - so the whole thing felt like you were tapping your heels through a corporate retreat in which upper management, bizarrely enough, was full of liberals. They really should have served coffee.
I may have been alone in this response, though; the people around me seemed to be participating in some virtual event for which my ticket didn't provide admittance. The full house whooped and applauded with surprising enthusiasm, and responded almost gratefully to the Boston references threaded like bait through Sagal's monologue. They weren't experiencing it "live," but rather "on the air;" in their minds, they were at a show that was going to happen sometime in the future - and they were on it!
In fact, it happened yesterday; I heard it again on the radio, condensed down by three quarters, with my partner. We agreed the "live" show was nothing like the experience of the live show; not only had all the hesitations and boring bits been banished, but some sequences seemed slightly re-arranged, and audience responses were far quicker on the trigger; the laughs were roars, and the cues were like pounces. It was quite strange having the actual experience of the show fresh in the memory while listening to its new "live" version - but the remodel was also somehow re-assuring in its subdued sense of control; everyone knew what they were doing every single minute; there was no room for risk, or human error.
I looked at my partner when it was finished; he was smiling. "You know, it was a lot better than I remember it being," he said.
Exactly.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Yes, Virginia, the BSO can still sound great - Esa-Pekka Salonen proves it
Salonen in action with Philharmonia. |
And judging from the performance last night, we'd be very lucky to lure Salonen here. He has all of Levine's technical chops, that was clear from a program that included Ravel's Le Tombeau de Couperin, Stravinsky full score for The Firebird, and Salonen's own Violin Concerto - only he's so much better than Levine in so many ways!
Chief among these may be that he simply showed up for his concert. (This also gives him a big leg up over other recent "auditioners"!) Salonen has also already led a major metropolitan orchestra (the L.A. Philharmonic) to global prominence - his base is now the Philharmonia Orchestra in London; so he has a proven track record in cultural leadership. And at 53, he is younger than Levine - and not just physically healthier, but actually intellectually younger; with Salonen, we wouldn't be stuck in some mid-twentieth-century debate over Schoenberg and Beethoven. Up on the podium, Salonen also gives the sense of a more open and experimental presence (it helps that he's kind of cute, and looks a decade younger than his age). Moreover, Salonen simply conveys a sense of personality. Let's be honest - even though I know this hurts - Levine was always a vacancy on stage, because his actual life was utterly closeted; what we got instead was his devotion to technical musical perfection, which was hardly the same thing. In a way, Levine was a monument to a live unlived (and unloved, except at one remove); in contrast Salonen seems quite alive, emotionally, politically, and sexually; with him, you feel the BSO might suddenly gain a conducting figurehead with a presence, a profile, like Handel and Haydn and Boston Baroque have always had.
It also probably helps that Salonen is more open to the modes of pop music - in something of the manner of Thomas Adès - than most classical music globe-trotters. That was the impression left, anyway, by his Violin Concerto, which didn't, I admit, entirely blow me away, although it certainly has its moments. Its opening movement ("Mirage") is a kind of millennial variant on Ligeti - gorgeous with deep notes of dread - overlaid with frenzied figures from Glass; its following sections ("Pulse I" and "Pulse II") leaned even more heavily on Glass - buffed with a subtler version of that pop phenomenon's zen-pop sheen; its finale ("Adieu") proved a bit more interesting, and seems intended as a literal metaphor (as the entire piece does, in fact) for Salonen's departure from the modernist strictures of his youth. It's a big, solid piece that wowed the BSO audience (as it was designed to wow the crowds at Disney Hall), but it's pretty derivative, and in the end Salonen seems to lack the intellectual rigor of Adès (another major presence at the L.A. Philharmonic, btw). The Violin Concerto ends with a famously "surprising" chord that's out of the harmonic sequence provided so far; Salonen has said this represents the idea that something "new" is just around the corner. Only why isn't the Concerto itself that "something new"? (That is basically what's wrong with it.)
A Bakst design for The Firebird. |
And - AND - he's just a terrific conductor (at least of Ravel and Stravinsky!). The opening movement of Tombeau was sublime; the piece did lose a little rhythmic loft as it progressed - I think Salonen's tempi sometimes tend toward the contemplative; and perhaps the meaning of the finale was somewhat unfocused. This was still a superb performance, though. The BSO is a famously recalcitrant set of musicians - they generally only play well for people they want to play well for. Clearly they want to play for Salonen, and it showed.
If anything, Stravinsky's complete music for The Firebird was even more ravishing. I admit I'm a little fonder of the 1919 suite in the concert hall; without the actual ballet going on (which I wish the Boston Ballet would do!), the original score always seems to me a bit wandering, and half-abstracted. Still, it's good to hear it again in full, and Salonen seemed to approach it with a sense of perspective grounded in an awareness of the career for which it proved a springboard. And somehow the conductor found a structural sense to the piece's harmonics, too, despite its narrative discourse, and his sense of atmosphere and texture proved unsurpassed (texture may be his greatest talent, in fact, which is key to the mixed atmosphere of savagery and magical awe that defines The Firebird). I admit I've never seen this piece fail - it's quite possibly the greatest ballet score in existence - but this performance was still a dazzler.
I should mention, too, that this very program was one of the better ones I remember from the BSO's recent history. There were subtly pleasing thematic affinities here. Ravel's elegy to Couperin paralleled mournful notes struck in Salonen's own farewell to modernism in his Violin Concerto - which tapped here and there into twentieth-century modes that grew from Stravinsky. Beyond these historical connections there were sometimes pleasing sympathies - or oppositions - in tone and color; so I left thinking Salonen might lead the BSO out of its whole "greatest hits - plus Tan Dun!" mentality, too. Sigh. I'm not sure, really, why he would come to Boston - I mean, he's already done this before, hasn't he? But we can dream, can't we?
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Notes from the underground
Mark Linehan and Phil Tayler connect in Floyd Collins. Photos: Sharman Altshuler. |
But to my surprise, I left pleased - and a little suspicious. Who's behind all this? I wanted to know. Theatre companies just don't get this strong quite this quickly! Someone with expertise and pull is clearly behind Moonbox - and given Michael Maso's presence in the house on the day I attended, I'm guessing there's some Huntington connection here - but honestly, despite my enthusiasm for games of theatrical Clue, for all I know this was produced by Colonel Mustard (in the Conservatory).
And just in case you can't tell - this is a long, back-handed kind of compliment; Floyd Collins, though not perfect, is still one of the shows to see right now in town (and you only have till Sunday). It's notable for two major reasons - its lead, Phil Tayler, provides one of the most effortlessly charismatic performances of the year (with supporting actor Matthew Zahnzinger only a few steps behind). And the musical direction, by Dan Rodriguez, is superb (even given the constraints of the BCA Plaza Theater space).
Which is a good thing, because this is one of Adam Guettel's strongest scores; I might even argue that it's a bit better than his big hit, The Light in the Piazza, which for me kind of congeals over its course into self-conscious post-romantic schmaltz. Floyd is self-conscious, too (and how); but believe it or not, the tension between Guettel's two sources here - roughly, Ravel (!) and the folk music of the Appalachians - proves surprisingly fruitful. Weirdly fruitful. And Guettel's feel for phrases rather than melody finds its natural parallel in the yodeling that's common to the region - indeed, Floyd's opening "song," a long solo as he creeps further and further into a network of caves, yodeling to asses their size, may be the best thing Guettel has ever written, and it's brilliantly performed here by Tayler (with an assist from Dan Costello's evocative sound design, which later conjures a convincingly thunderous avalanche, too).
By now you're probably wondering - what the hell is Floyd Collins about? Well, it's the tale of one of America's earliest (and largest) media sensations - the attempted rescue of the eponymous Floyd Collins, the eccentric operator of "Crystal Cave," one of Kentucky's lesser underground tourist attractions, from his entrapment in an uncharted cavern he had been exploring. Poor Floyd didn't make it out in the end - but in the meantime, the media circus that surrounded the various efforts to free him became a legend in its own right.
The story has already inspired a minor film classic - Billy Wilder's caustic satire of media exploitation, Ace in the Hole, which still shocks in its cynicism (but only because it's so accurate about the press). Alas, Wilder's film failed at the box office; its worldview proved too acrid for popular taste. And the musical didn't really become a hit, either; the rap on it is book problems - which I'm afraid it does indeed have (and which Moonbox does not quite triumph over). But these largely stem from the fact that Guettel's librettist, Tina Landau, clearly wanted to dodge Wilder's dark tone, but keep some satiric edge to the material - while simultaneously varnishing her characters with a solid coat of musical-theatre treacle.
Thus Floyd is here transformed into a wide-eyed innocent (when really he was spelunking more for profit than pleasure), while his neighbors, and even the reporters who descend on them, are viewed through a veil of sympathetic emotional gauze. Now I'm not saying some surprising synthesis from these seemingly contradictory points of view is impossible - stranger things have happened! - but I am saying that Landau doesn't nearly pull it off in this case.
Still, the book has its moments. The satire only works in one lightly pointed song - but Floyd's plight remains quite touching to the end, and his brief moments of human connection down there in the dark, buoyed by Guettel's delicate score, inevitably tug at the heart strings. And Moonbox is certainly lucky in its Floyd - Phil Tayler (at left) offers both a beautifully sung and an utterly heartfelt performance. Meanwhile Matthew Zahnzinger more than holds his own as Skeets Miller, the one newspaperman who really seems to care for Floyd, and there's also solid work from Mark Linehan, Teresa Winner Blume, and others in the cast. Alas, the set isn't particularly evocative (although it gets the job done), and director Allison Choat can't quite keep the show's early momentum going - but she always keeps things in hand (wherever the tone may wander), and thank God everyone in the cast can sing (and as mentioned, the band is exemplary). Fans of the minor gems of the recent Broadway catalogue won't want to miss this production - for I doubt we'll see a stronger Floyd Collins in these parts anytime soon.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Looking back at a Master of the Impossible
Kubínek in mid-flight. |
I did want to take a moment to look back - before they're too small in the rearview - at Tomáš Kubínek's performances at ArtsEmerson a little over a week ago. The self-advertised "Certified Lunatic and Master of the Impossible" has been performing his quirky variant of what I suppose are now called "circus arts" to spellbound crowds across the globe - and in his first moments onstage, Kubínek did cast a strangely potent spell over his audience at the Paramount Theatre. Creeping out into the half-light in an old-world robe, babbling softly to himself, his hair a ghostly nimbus around his head, Kubínek conjured an almost eerie atmosphere while doing hilarious battle with a lone candle. Were we locked in the curiosity cabinet of some ancient wizard?, I wondered. Had we been kidnapped by some wizened gypsy caravan? Or were we watching a silent scrap of existentialism long lost in Samuel Beckett's wastebasket? For a time Kubínek kept us delightfully guessing as to the true nature of his persona and act - even the proportions of his body seemed unstable - as he simultaneously kept us howling at some of the subtlest pieces of sleight-of-hand (and pure schtick) that I've ever seen.
Alas, the spell couldn't last; indeed, it was slowly broken by the performer himself, as the lights rose, he began to speak (and then engaged directly with the audience), and slowly emerged from several levels of eccentric disguise to reveal - well, a consummate physical performer, yes, but also one who was happy merely to entertain rather than enchant. Does that sound ungrateful? Maybe it does - and I really shouldn't be; like the rest of the crowd, I left the show happy. But I still wished that among the pratfalls and tricks, Kubínek had somehow been able to hang onto his first, utterly evocative persona. At the same time, if he comes back to town, I have to admit I'll be in the first row.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Boston Ballet meets Beyoncé
Yes, that's James Whiteside, Principal Dancer of Boston Ballet - or rather that's his alter ego, "JBDubs," breaking out into the club scene and channeling Beyoncé - or at least her famous SNL skit - with his new (hopefully) hit single "I Hate My Job" (backed by fellow Boston Ballet dancers Bradley Schlagheck and Lawrence Rines; I hope they don't all hate their jobs!). Now I'm not sure old Beyoncé needs to worry about James' pipes - but his legs are another matter; the choreography here is hot, and the boys are definitely rockin' those, um, red shoes, oh yeah. And it sounds like James may have chops as a producer, and the lyrics are nasty fun most definitely. You can hear more of JB's songs on his blog (see how many of the Ballet's dancers you can spot in the song "So I Cry"), or, boogie down in a master class with him for just $15 at Urbanity Dance next Wednesday. Now all I have to do is shake these images before I see Don Quixote in two weeks . . . that is if James hasn't decamped for stardom in Lady Gaga's entourage by then . . .
Monday, April 9, 2012
Long Day's Journey proves a long night, too
Will Lyman and Karen MacDonald channel the doomed Tyrones. Photos: Andrew Brilliant. |
If you're an O'Neill aficionado, I doubt you'll be as impressed - even though I don't quite count myself as one. I've taken a half-dozen Journeys - one of which was unforgettable - and in the end, I'd probably rate this almost precisely at the middle of the pack; it's certainly better than the boring Katharine Hepburn movie (or the disaster at the A.R.T. back in the nineties); and it's slightly better overall than the Gloucester Stage version some five years ago (although Sandra Shipley in that production was the best Mary Tyrone I've ever seen).
And thankfully Edmiston has mostly reined in his penchant for tidying up the script - mostly, that is; but he's still underlining things with his virtual directorial highlighter. Janie E. Howland's set is heavy-handedly metaphoric, for instance; it's a pale ghost of a real house (everybody's haunted, get it?), and there are spooky sound-effects here and there that are sometimes a bit much; yes, it's all pretty clever, but it's also a little too pretty; we're aware of the design when we shouldn't be. Still, the set does allow for one genuinely evocative bit of stage business, in which Mary, lost in a fog of morphine, passes like a blur back and forth behind a frosted door. But on second thought, transforming young Edmund Tyrone literally into Eugene O'Neill - mustache and all - is, well, far too obvious (we know this script is autobiographical, we've read the program). So if you tallied up the wins and misses here, you might come to a draw; compared with Edmiston's various sins against authors in the past, though, I suppose you could count all these directorial flourishes as relatively minor.
But what Long Day's Journey inevitably highlights, I'm afraid, is that beneath his decorative skills, Edmiston is simply too superficial for O'Neill. He arranges the play quite well, I admit; actors are set up for their solos, the pacing slows here and there but never quite comes to a stop, and the blocking is well-balanced, etc. - still, no sense of real ensemble develops over the course of the production.
And this is because Edmiston hasn't really dug into the play and worked out a coordinated emotional vision for the actors. And that's what Long Day's Journey Into Night is all about; it's a tragic web, in which the usual "lead" is replaced by an entire family, operating as both hero and accusatory chorus. The Tyrones are in sad shape - patriarch James is at the tail-end of a matinee-idol career which brought him riches but never cured him of his innate cheapness, or his inability to actually connect with other people. Only now, in the twilight of his life, is he realizing that his sons are both wrecks, and that his wife is - well, Mary is slipping back into the morphine addiction she developed when a hack doctor (the only one her husband would pay for) prescribed the drug for her as a painkiller.
Lewis Wheeler does his best to hate Nicholas Dillenburg. |
Whew. Are we having fun yet? Well, while I can't pretend that Long Day's Journey is a grand night out, I can argue that it is great art - one of the greatest portraits of familial dysfunction in literature, in fact. And what makes it all the more piercing is that O'Neill understood above all that deep, familial ties are bent, but rarely broken, by betrayal and disappointment; yes, despite the tangled skein of their mutual guilt, the Tyrones still love each other, which makes the poignance of their predicament all but unbearable.
Needless to say, limning this lattice of recrimination and loyalty requires a strategy, but Edmiston doesn't seem to have one, so you keep feeling that the actors are largely doing their best on their own. MacDonald and Lyman have worked together before, of course (in the by-now-legendary production of All My Sons at the Huntington), so they trust each other, and sometimes connect at the level O'Neill intends. But they're actually reversed in terms of type - MacDonald has the broader, louder presence of a possible matinee idol, while Lyman often has an aura of elegant introspection, so their relationship never quite has the deep resonance it should. Still, Lyman is sometimes touchingly puzzled, and MacDonald simulates porcelain as best she can, and in fact is often riveting (she knows all the notes she should hit) - the performance is just slightly scattershot; and we don't feel that at bottom Mary is essentially deceptive, as we really should.
But then we don't feel that about anyone; what used to be called 'actor intent' is largely missing from this production, even though everybody in Long Day's Journey is basically attempting to deceive someone (or everyone). And this means that Edmiston has missed the motor of the play, which is why the production slowly begins to drift, and makes you feel every minute of its three-and-a-half-hour running time (a hint to future directors of O'Neill: shave ten minutes off the second act of this baby). The gap is most apparent in the performances of the troubled Tyrone siblings; as Jamie, Lewis Wheeler actually has the only fully-worked-out portrayal to be found in the cast, but at least as of opening night it was still an intellectual exercise; he hadn't internalized it yet. To be fair, this may have been partly due to the fact that as Edmund, newcomer Nicholas Dillenburg was a handsome blank, so Wheeler didn't have anything to work against. Edmund often seems to be the weak point of this script; the role, I think, is underwritten, perhaps because the other characters are largely seen from his vantage point; still, there's much for Dillenburg to play that he hasn't yet figured out - most importantly, his own efforts to hide his deteriorating health, and not face the terrible moment in which he must see that his own mother (like his father!) is unavailable to him in his time of need.
Still, all things considered - if you've never had any contact with this play, you should probably see this production. It is a worthy introduction to this dramatist, if not too much more. And at the very least, in Karen MacDonald's performance you will sometimes see the muse of tragedy peek out from behind her mask; and in these slick, superficial days, that's something to treasure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)