in response to an article written by Edward Wyatt
New York Times
March 11, 2008
“Yep, that sounds about right.” Edward Wyatt’s lede, describing each contestant in the seventeenth season of Fox’s hit show American Idol, concisely captures the reappearing personas in the show that even the ones who doesn’t watch the show religiously gets a good idea what this year’s competition looks like. This clever lede smoothly makes its way into Wyatt’s main point being that the show has become one of the most predictable – “if not exactly the most scripted” – tv show on the air. Although Fox was the only broadcast network with steady average prime time audience, American Idol suffers from a 10% decline in the number of its viewers. Despite its predictable outcome, Wyatt brings out an interesting argument implying that all the scandals and tabloid gossips on the darker side of the contestants – especially for being a family show – seem to have had minimal impact on the viewer counts. The real question for the show remains, ‘who will win the competition?’
As Paula Abdul continues to have trouble formulating her sentences and Simon Cowell bashes contestants, the 30 million Americans return to their living rooms each year to watch their favorite small-town-farm-girl becoming a Hollywood star or alike. Familiarities attract people as it bores people. As some may argue, ‘what better is there to watch on TV anyways?’
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Final Project First Draft
Celebrity Profile: Michel Gondry
By. Heain Lee
“As we dream, we unleash the forgotten emotion. Then you wake up in the morning and you need a man to be close with. I think dreams make us want to cuddle in the morning and this may have helped keep the structure of the family across the millennium.” Perhaps this Dream Theory from the short autobiographical film "I've been 12 forever" by Michel Gondry explains this talented French director’s obsession with dreams, illusions, and child-like imagination.
As a director, Gondry creates imaginative worlds that seem to exist where the consciousness and the unconsciousness overlap; alternating states of waking and sleeping – better yet, dreaming. And somewhere in between, Gondry’s signature on-screen theme springs out of romantic turmoil or joy, or sometimes both.
Most of his films tell love stories at the hazy borderline between unconscious longing for human relationships and clear reality. “Human Nature” is a love story about a man who is modestly endowed, a woman whose body is covered in thick black hair and a feral man-child; “The Science of Sleep” is based on a broken love affair where nothing quite works out between Stephane, an inventor who is lost in his own dreams, and his neighbor Stephanie. They have an odd sort of affair, interrupted by sequences of dreams that reveal Stephane’s innermost thoughts; In “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” which won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, Gondry explores the possibility of permanently erasing painful reminders of a former lover from one’s mind. These films carefully dissect the psychological complexities of people through the characters.
These clashes between the real and the imagined create a surreal, chaotic reality. The audience does not immediately understand what they are seeing and Gondry understands the appeal of disorientation very well.
However, his debut film, and the most controversial of all, “Human Nature,” an absurdist parable about the wish to conform a human heart into a civilized mind through the experience of training a wild man, is arguably too absurd. Although there is a hint of romance buried in the film, the premise is too extreme to be emotionally convincing and the movie ended up being a commercial flop. In a way Gondry’s works are more radical and provocative than those of the most avant-garde artists, who use the strategy of doing something socially unacceptable to shock the world. Gondry doesn’t try to outdo or subvert high art. Like the character in the film, Gondry playfully fades back and forth into the art world without seeming to notice, as if it weren’t even such a big deal in the first place.
In his new release “Be Kind Rewind,” Gondry creates a new term called Sweding with the meaning of “putting YOU into the thing you like.” There is a subtle strain of populist defiance buried in the idea. Pop culture is, too often, understood as a top-down enterprise that the public passively consume in its expensive, hierarchal, and disposable product form. Yet, at the same time, all the things are assigned sentimental values as we develop a deep and durable sense of ownership. Gondry’s films belong to us, and part of us lives inside them in some profound way.
However, his off-the-wall imaginations are often criticized for being puerile. Gondry's works are marked with a child-like explorative eye and the jumble of unfolding events usually occur in the handmade prop sets that resemble children’s craft projects. In his defense, Gondry uses his low-tech special effects to enhance the drama in his movies, never just for show. Plus, not everyone can figure out how to turn pizza and cardboard boxes into special effects in remaking Rush Hour 2 as Gondry does in “Be Kind Rewind.”
In a 2006 New York Times interview with Lynn Hirschberg, Gondry said that, “other than being childish, the criticism that [he] most often receive[s] is that [he] can’t really tell a story. That while [he] has a strong sense of the visual, [his] narrative skills are weak.” He defended himself by saying, “I would like to think, instead, that my movies are more like real life. In a relationship, so much goes unsaid, but that doesn’t mean the emotion is not felt. In my films, I want to show all the abstract ways that people can affect us when we are in love.”
Gondry also confesses that he was upset by the turn out of “Human Nature” but he had learned a valuable lesson: audiences will not accept the flights of fantasy if they can’t identify with the characters and their dilemmas. In that sense, dreams and imaginations in his films become useful means that allow the repressed parts of the mind to be satisfied through fantasy and also let the mind express things that would normally be suppressed in the waking world.
Characters in Gondry’s works are heroic and flawed, attractive and unattractive simultaneously while remaining unpretentious. He tells stories about people and their lives while questioning our definitions of reality. His characters are honest and human and his worlds playfully reflect the interaction between the worlds we live in: nature, society, and the mind.
This light-hearted and almost silly approach to a more philosophical issue about people’s relationships is what makes Gondry’s career so successful. It is refreshing to watch a film that is giddy, goofy and, ultimately, tender but still makes you think. The Kidult syndrome of grown-ups enjoying things that are usually thought as more childish although they are not necessarily socially immature, further explains why such juvenile narratives and visuals have become popular in today’s society. According to Gondry, “childhood occupies the biggest part of your brain” and “childhood is a wondrous stage of our lives and we should not be in such a hurry to finish it as though it were some terrible inconvenience.”
Gondry’s world of visual marvel allows his audience to revisit their childhood as they dream a little dream that are made of ‘love, friendships, relationships, and all those –ships’ as Stephane explains in “Science of Sleep.”
By. Heain Lee
“As we dream, we unleash the forgotten emotion. Then you wake up in the morning and you need a man to be close with. I think dreams make us want to cuddle in the morning and this may have helped keep the structure of the family across the millennium.” Perhaps this Dream Theory from the short autobiographical film "I've been 12 forever" by Michel Gondry explains this talented French director’s obsession with dreams, illusions, and child-like imagination.
As a director, Gondry creates imaginative worlds that seem to exist where the consciousness and the unconsciousness overlap; alternating states of waking and sleeping – better yet, dreaming. And somewhere in between, Gondry’s signature on-screen theme springs out of romantic turmoil or joy, or sometimes both.
Most of his films tell love stories at the hazy borderline between unconscious longing for human relationships and clear reality. “Human Nature” is a love story about a man who is modestly endowed, a woman whose body is covered in thick black hair and a feral man-child; “The Science of Sleep” is based on a broken love affair where nothing quite works out between Stephane, an inventor who is lost in his own dreams, and his neighbor Stephanie. They have an odd sort of affair, interrupted by sequences of dreams that reveal Stephane’s innermost thoughts; In “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” which won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, Gondry explores the possibility of permanently erasing painful reminders of a former lover from one’s mind. These films carefully dissect the psychological complexities of people through the characters.
These clashes between the real and the imagined create a surreal, chaotic reality. The audience does not immediately understand what they are seeing and Gondry understands the appeal of disorientation very well.
However, his debut film, and the most controversial of all, “Human Nature,” an absurdist parable about the wish to conform a human heart into a civilized mind through the experience of training a wild man, is arguably too absurd. Although there is a hint of romance buried in the film, the premise is too extreme to be emotionally convincing and the movie ended up being a commercial flop. In a way Gondry’s works are more radical and provocative than those of the most avant-garde artists, who use the strategy of doing something socially unacceptable to shock the world. Gondry doesn’t try to outdo or subvert high art. Like the character in the film, Gondry playfully fades back and forth into the art world without seeming to notice, as if it weren’t even such a big deal in the first place.
In his new release “Be Kind Rewind,” Gondry creates a new term called Sweding with the meaning of “putting YOU into the thing you like.” There is a subtle strain of populist defiance buried in the idea. Pop culture is, too often, understood as a top-down enterprise that the public passively consume in its expensive, hierarchal, and disposable product form. Yet, at the same time, all the things are assigned sentimental values as we develop a deep and durable sense of ownership. Gondry’s films belong to us, and part of us lives inside them in some profound way.
However, his off-the-wall imaginations are often criticized for being puerile. Gondry's works are marked with a child-like explorative eye and the jumble of unfolding events usually occur in the handmade prop sets that resemble children’s craft projects. In his defense, Gondry uses his low-tech special effects to enhance the drama in his movies, never just for show. Plus, not everyone can figure out how to turn pizza and cardboard boxes into special effects in remaking Rush Hour 2 as Gondry does in “Be Kind Rewind.”
In a 2006 New York Times interview with Lynn Hirschberg, Gondry said that, “other than being childish, the criticism that [he] most often receive[s] is that [he] can’t really tell a story. That while [he] has a strong sense of the visual, [his] narrative skills are weak.” He defended himself by saying, “I would like to think, instead, that my movies are more like real life. In a relationship, so much goes unsaid, but that doesn’t mean the emotion is not felt. In my films, I want to show all the abstract ways that people can affect us when we are in love.”
Gondry also confesses that he was upset by the turn out of “Human Nature” but he had learned a valuable lesson: audiences will not accept the flights of fantasy if they can’t identify with the characters and their dilemmas. In that sense, dreams and imaginations in his films become useful means that allow the repressed parts of the mind to be satisfied through fantasy and also let the mind express things that would normally be suppressed in the waking world.
Characters in Gondry’s works are heroic and flawed, attractive and unattractive simultaneously while remaining unpretentious. He tells stories about people and their lives while questioning our definitions of reality. His characters are honest and human and his worlds playfully reflect the interaction between the worlds we live in: nature, society, and the mind.
This light-hearted and almost silly approach to a more philosophical issue about people’s relationships is what makes Gondry’s career so successful. It is refreshing to watch a film that is giddy, goofy and, ultimately, tender but still makes you think. The Kidult syndrome of grown-ups enjoying things that are usually thought as more childish although they are not necessarily socially immature, further explains why such juvenile narratives and visuals have become popular in today’s society. According to Gondry, “childhood occupies the biggest part of your brain” and “childhood is a wondrous stage of our lives and we should not be in such a hurry to finish it as though it were some terrible inconvenience.”
Gondry’s world of visual marvel allows his audience to revisit their childhood as they dream a little dream that are made of ‘love, friendships, relationships, and all those –ships’ as Stephane explains in “Science of Sleep.”
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Response to “Instant Nostalgia? Let’s Go to the Videotape” by Philip Lim
NYTimes 1/27/08
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/movies/27lim.html?_r=1&sq=be%20kind%20rewind&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=3&pagewanted=all
In his review, Philip Lim gives his readers an interesting history lesson on the fall of the VHS and the rise of the DVD to bring out the nostalgia of the outdated technology that Michel Gondry focuses on in his new film Be Kind Rewind. Lim’s long list of lo-fi videos in “ancient formats,” along with the quotes from his interviews explain the appeal of the VHS, and thus of the Gondry’s film itself. Gondry’s quote used in Lim’s review noting that “today new product comes so fast that sometimes the human brain doesn’t have the capacity to adapt,” may make many – especially the older generation’s – heads nod. Lim makes it clear that the DVDs are superior over the VHS tapes in many aspects, however, it is hard to ignore the authenticity of the degraded aesthetic from the formative age.
Lim does a good job at pointing out the society’s fascination with the technology, yet fails to give the sense of what the film is really about. His review is unsuccessful at criticizing the movie as well. I enjoyed reading this article in preparation for my final project on Michel Gondry, but would not have read it if I wanted to be informed about the movie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/movies/27lim.html?_r=1&sq=be%20kind%20rewind&st=nyt&oref=slogin&scp=3&pagewanted=all
In his review, Philip Lim gives his readers an interesting history lesson on the fall of the VHS and the rise of the DVD to bring out the nostalgia of the outdated technology that Michel Gondry focuses on in his new film Be Kind Rewind. Lim’s long list of lo-fi videos in “ancient formats,” along with the quotes from his interviews explain the appeal of the VHS, and thus of the Gondry’s film itself. Gondry’s quote used in Lim’s review noting that “today new product comes so fast that sometimes the human brain doesn’t have the capacity to adapt,” may make many – especially the older generation’s – heads nod. Lim makes it clear that the DVDs are superior over the VHS tapes in many aspects, however, it is hard to ignore the authenticity of the degraded aesthetic from the formative age.
Lim does a good job at pointing out the society’s fascination with the technology, yet fails to give the sense of what the film is really about. His review is unsuccessful at criticizing the movie as well. I enjoyed reading this article in preparation for my final project on Michel Gondry, but would not have read it if I wanted to be informed about the movie.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Final Project
Celebrity Profile: Michel Gondry
Abstract:
As a director, Michel Gondry creates imaginative worlds that seem to exist somewhere between the consciousness and the unconsciousness; states of waking and sleeping – better yet, dreaming. These clashes we see in films such as Science of Sleep, Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind, and his new release Be Kind Rewind transform into a surreal, chaotic reality. The audience does not immediately understand what they are seeing and Gondry very well understand the appeal of disorientation. Amongst the jumble of unfolding events that occur in the handmade prop sets that resemble children’s craft project, Gondry tells the stories about the longing for human relationships. His off-the-wall imaginations are often criticized for being puerile and his low-tech version of special effects are also controversial among many film critics. This project will examine why we all love Michel Gondry’s absurd dreams, and what the similar trend in independent films across the globe – I’m A Cyborg But That’s Ok (Korea), Love Me If You Dare (France), Waking Life (USA), etc - tells us (or tells about us).
Abstract:
As a director, Michel Gondry creates imaginative worlds that seem to exist somewhere between the consciousness and the unconsciousness; states of waking and sleeping – better yet, dreaming. These clashes we see in films such as Science of Sleep, Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind, and his new release Be Kind Rewind transform into a surreal, chaotic reality. The audience does not immediately understand what they are seeing and Gondry very well understand the appeal of disorientation. Amongst the jumble of unfolding events that occur in the handmade prop sets that resemble children’s craft project, Gondry tells the stories about the longing for human relationships. His off-the-wall imaginations are often criticized for being puerile and his low-tech version of special effects are also controversial among many film critics. This project will examine why we all love Michel Gondry’s absurd dreams, and what the similar trend in independent films across the globe – I’m A Cyborg But That’s Ok (Korea), Love Me If You Dare (France), Waking Life (USA), etc - tells us (or tells about us).
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Oscars Without Excitement With No After-party to Go To
The Oscars Review
Wasn’t the writer’s strike over? What a pathetic “make-up sex” the 80th Academy Awards turned out to be! The all-too-long two hours wrapped up in a four-hour package without any heart-stopping moments supposedly had some face-saving circumstances for its slack performance. The hundred-day long strike left everything up in the air until a couple of weeks ago but did they seriously think that Hollywood would let the Oscars go unremarked? Besides, if God can create the universe in six days, surely a fortnight gives enough time to prepare for a decent award show.
With its endless profusion of montages from the past, the evening came close to what it would have been if the strike had not ended. There were times when the writers seemed to be going through the motions as evidenced when introducing Patrick Dempsey as “versatile.” The producers were in such a rush to get winners off the stage although the best moments come from memorable acceptance speeches.
As the host of the Daily Show, John Stewart was relaxed and funny in his second hosting of the Oscars. Only gently touching on his stock-in-trade, political humors, he did manage to score with several amusing ad-libs. One of the most notable moments came when he complained about the modest composer Glen Hansard("Once") by exclaiming, "That guy is so arrogant!" Stewart even dragged Irglova Marketa out again to deliver her remarks.
On the whole, it was a far better night for film than for fashion. There were some definite trends: strapless, wavy hair, toned-down jewels, and a serious lack of make-up or tanning. What was Tilda Swinton, this year’s Best Supporting Actress, thinking as she was getting dressed in her much criticized ‘garbage bag?’
As for Marion Cotillard, the French actress shined as she was awarded the Best Actress of the year for her portrayal of Edith Piaf in “La Vie En Rose.” Her emotional and earnest remarks was later shadowed by always-eloquent Daniel Day-Lewis describing the award as the "handsomest bludgeon in town” after being named the Best Actor for his performance in “There Will Be Blood.”
The former stripper Diablo Cody received the honor for the Best Screenwriter for the surprise hit Juno. There were a lot of first-time nominees and winners although Coen Brothers scooped Oscars including the Best Picture for “No Country for Old Men.”
It was nice to see the soldiers in Baghdad introduce the nominees for the Best Documentary Short Subject, but them saying that they “watch a ton of movies here [in Iraq] and love them all” was tacky and uncomfortable. (If they are in Baghdad watching movies, can we just bring them home instead?)
A few questions remain in the Octogenarian Oscars where no one apparently tried “too hard to please” as Steward said. Did Cate Blanchett really leave empty-handed? Was Owen Wilson feeling happy enough to be at the Oscars? And finally, were we supposed to think that we are lucky to be getting any at all during the fully staged rendition of three unmemorable “Enchanted” numbers?
Wasn’t the writer’s strike over? What a pathetic “make-up sex” the 80th Academy Awards turned out to be! The all-too-long two hours wrapped up in a four-hour package without any heart-stopping moments supposedly had some face-saving circumstances for its slack performance. The hundred-day long strike left everything up in the air until a couple of weeks ago but did they seriously think that Hollywood would let the Oscars go unremarked? Besides, if God can create the universe in six days, surely a fortnight gives enough time to prepare for a decent award show.
With its endless profusion of montages from the past, the evening came close to what it would have been if the strike had not ended. There were times when the writers seemed to be going through the motions as evidenced when introducing Patrick Dempsey as “versatile.” The producers were in such a rush to get winners off the stage although the best moments come from memorable acceptance speeches.
As the host of the Daily Show, John Stewart was relaxed and funny in his second hosting of the Oscars. Only gently touching on his stock-in-trade, political humors, he did manage to score with several amusing ad-libs. One of the most notable moments came when he complained about the modest composer Glen Hansard("Once") by exclaiming, "That guy is so arrogant!" Stewart even dragged Irglova Marketa out again to deliver her remarks.
On the whole, it was a far better night for film than for fashion. There were some definite trends: strapless, wavy hair, toned-down jewels, and a serious lack of make-up or tanning. What was Tilda Swinton, this year’s Best Supporting Actress, thinking as she was getting dressed in her much criticized ‘garbage bag?’
As for Marion Cotillard, the French actress shined as she was awarded the Best Actress of the year for her portrayal of Edith Piaf in “La Vie En Rose.” Her emotional and earnest remarks was later shadowed by always-eloquent Daniel Day-Lewis describing the award as the "handsomest bludgeon in town” after being named the Best Actor for his performance in “There Will Be Blood.”
The former stripper Diablo Cody received the honor for the Best Screenwriter for the surprise hit Juno. There were a lot of first-time nominees and winners although Coen Brothers scooped Oscars including the Best Picture for “No Country for Old Men.”
It was nice to see the soldiers in Baghdad introduce the nominees for the Best Documentary Short Subject, but them saying that they “watch a ton of movies here [in Iraq] and love them all” was tacky and uncomfortable. (If they are in Baghdad watching movies, can we just bring them home instead?)
A few questions remain in the Octogenarian Oscars where no one apparently tried “too hard to please” as Steward said. Did Cate Blanchett really leave empty-handed? Was Owen Wilson feeling happy enough to be at the Oscars? And finally, were we supposed to think that we are lucky to be getting any at all during the fully staged rendition of three unmemorable “Enchanted” numbers?
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Response to Hasting's Review on Michael Clayton
The cool and trendy film featuring the one and only George Clooney receives a raving review from Mike Hastings. As a former critic for Detroit Metrotimes and the current director of Netflix, Hastings' insights on popular American films as well as on the actors make his review more enjoyable, engaging and informative. Hastings draws on accurate and concise picture of Clooney's Michael Clayton without any spoiler, especially by the comparison he makes to Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction, an all American classic film.
By providing a backgroudn on Tony Gilroy, the director of Michael Clayton and the screenwriter for the Bourne Trilogy, Hastings allows his readers to establish an expectation for a suave political thriller.
An unmistakable fan of Clooney, Hastings praises this "most perversely bankable leading man in Hollywood," and shows his strong preference to Clooney over Edward Norton or Mel Gibson. (This may be arguable yet point well taken!)
I especially enjoyed his comparison of Tilda Swinton's Karen to "Lady Macbeth in a Burberry scarf, ruining lives with a stroke of her Blackberry." Further down in the review, this image of an all mighty corporate executives is reinforced when Hastings points out multinational corporations being stronger than Oprah and God combined in today's society. Satirical and exaggerated metaphors Hastings uses are right on the dot.
Hastings also targets a broader spectrum of audience by ensuring them that they "don't have to necessarily buy into the movie's dogma to enjoy" the film.
In the kicker, Hastings ties the knot by going back to calling Clayton a 'fixer' as he did in the lede of his review. This clever return to the point one smoothly concludes the piece. the only possible flaw on this review is that Hastings, for better or for worse, may be building too high of an expectation in his readers for the film.
By providing a backgroudn on Tony Gilroy, the director of Michael Clayton and the screenwriter for the Bourne Trilogy, Hastings allows his readers to establish an expectation for a suave political thriller.
An unmistakable fan of Clooney, Hastings praises this "most perversely bankable leading man in Hollywood," and shows his strong preference to Clooney over Edward Norton or Mel Gibson. (This may be arguable yet point well taken!)
I especially enjoyed his comparison of Tilda Swinton's Karen to "Lady Macbeth in a Burberry scarf, ruining lives with a stroke of her Blackberry." Further down in the review, this image of an all mighty corporate executives is reinforced when Hastings points out multinational corporations being stronger than Oprah and God combined in today's society. Satirical and exaggerated metaphors Hastings uses are right on the dot.
Hastings also targets a broader spectrum of audience by ensuring them that they "don't have to necessarily buy into the movie's dogma to enjoy" the film.
In the kicker, Hastings ties the knot by going back to calling Clayton a 'fixer' as he did in the lede of his review. This clever return to the point one smoothly concludes the piece. the only possible flaw on this review is that Hastings, for better or for worse, may be building too high of an expectation in his readers for the film.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Nothing But A Game
Review - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (the Whole Art Theatre, Kalamazoo, MI)
There are no games without pain, and the marital game, particularly, is a tough one to play. The Whole Art Theatre’s production of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” provides the audience a chance to examine the blood sport of marriage.
Based on Edward Albee’s 1962 Broadway play, “Virginia Woolf” is a story of a long night’s journey of a spineless history professor (George), his big-breasted antagonist wife (Martha), and their guests – a pretentious biologist (Nick) and his mousy wife (Honey).
As George and Marta continue their booze-fuelled battle, the audience realizes that their vicious marital wrestling match is only a device to hide real wounds. People prefer fantasy to reality and avoid looking directly at their pain. The scene where George slamming the door-chimes in agony after Nick and Martha runs off to the kitchen for the game of ‘hump the hostess,’ presents to us the chilling sign of vulnerability. The story acquires a shattering emotional power, as the characters break through the game-rounds and confront the truth about their much-discussed son. Like Martha says, “Truth or illusion, who knows the difference?”
Martie Philpot is remarkable at conveying the transition between Martha's braying sultriness and her suddenly becoming unbearably poignant as she faces the facts about herself and her gin-soaked charade – marriage. Philpot’s Martha cannot be any more convincing when she murmurs to herself “I disgust me.”
But it is Richard Philpot who truly steals the show by playing George, the pathetically obedient husband who does “whatever love wants.” The actor who spent eighteen years in New York City studying acting transforms himself into a perfect George and makes everyone wants to scream ‘how do you stand your wife?’ When George finally snaps and almost strangles Martha to death saying “Well, that’s one game, what should we do now?,” chill runs up and down the spine.
Carol Zombro (Honey), on the other hand, might want to consider that sometimes less is better and tone down the level of dramatization and her make up a bit. Even with the understanding of Honey’s overly perky and immature character, watching Zombro giggling and throwing a fit like an inane child wearing horrible green eyeshadows and orange lipstick seems over the top. Trevor Maher who plays Nick lags down the production. Maher’s over-theatrical performance is what makes the audience feel uncomfortable rather than the character’s pretentiousness, cockiness, anxiety and constant frown. Nick is supposed to be uncomfortable in the situation, not Maher on stage.
Despite a few minor flaws, Randy Wolfe, the director, pulls it all together and clearly demonstrates the intensity and drama that can be unleashed when the persona people have created are exposed. The story starts out with a simple question, ‘who will win tonight’s game?’ and moves dramatically toward an answer, exploring deeper issues such as the life of academia, marriage and the culture around it. The simple set that consists of two couches and shelves full of liqueur bottles, including the much-familiar Popov vodka, is sufficient enough to convince the audience of the middle-class house setting.
Toward the end, George asks Martha, “Are you tired? I am.” The story is an uneasy one to watch yet it has a strong grip on the audience and leaves them closely engaged for the whole 160 minutes. You will leave the theater shaken and emotionally exhausted from watching one helluva game.
There are no games without pain, and the marital game, particularly, is a tough one to play. The Whole Art Theatre’s production of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” provides the audience a chance to examine the blood sport of marriage.
Based on Edward Albee’s 1962 Broadway play, “Virginia Woolf” is a story of a long night’s journey of a spineless history professor (George), his big-breasted antagonist wife (Martha), and their guests – a pretentious biologist (Nick) and his mousy wife (Honey).
As George and Marta continue their booze-fuelled battle, the audience realizes that their vicious marital wrestling match is only a device to hide real wounds. People prefer fantasy to reality and avoid looking directly at their pain. The scene where George slamming the door-chimes in agony after Nick and Martha runs off to the kitchen for the game of ‘hump the hostess,’ presents to us the chilling sign of vulnerability. The story acquires a shattering emotional power, as the characters break through the game-rounds and confront the truth about their much-discussed son. Like Martha says, “Truth or illusion, who knows the difference?”
Martie Philpot is remarkable at conveying the transition between Martha's braying sultriness and her suddenly becoming unbearably poignant as she faces the facts about herself and her gin-soaked charade – marriage. Philpot’s Martha cannot be any more convincing when she murmurs to herself “I disgust me.”
But it is Richard Philpot who truly steals the show by playing George, the pathetically obedient husband who does “whatever love wants.” The actor who spent eighteen years in New York City studying acting transforms himself into a perfect George and makes everyone wants to scream ‘how do you stand your wife?’ When George finally snaps and almost strangles Martha to death saying “Well, that’s one game, what should we do now?,” chill runs up and down the spine.
Carol Zombro (Honey), on the other hand, might want to consider that sometimes less is better and tone down the level of dramatization and her make up a bit. Even with the understanding of Honey’s overly perky and immature character, watching Zombro giggling and throwing a fit like an inane child wearing horrible green eyeshadows and orange lipstick seems over the top. Trevor Maher who plays Nick lags down the production. Maher’s over-theatrical performance is what makes the audience feel uncomfortable rather than the character’s pretentiousness, cockiness, anxiety and constant frown. Nick is supposed to be uncomfortable in the situation, not Maher on stage.
Despite a few minor flaws, Randy Wolfe, the director, pulls it all together and clearly demonstrates the intensity and drama that can be unleashed when the persona people have created are exposed. The story starts out with a simple question, ‘who will win tonight’s game?’ and moves dramatically toward an answer, exploring deeper issues such as the life of academia, marriage and the culture around it. The simple set that consists of two couches and shelves full of liqueur bottles, including the much-familiar Popov vodka, is sufficient enough to convince the audience of the middle-class house setting.
Toward the end, George asks Martha, “Are you tired? I am.” The story is an uneasy one to watch yet it has a strong grip on the audience and leaves them closely engaged for the whole 160 minutes. You will leave the theater shaken and emotionally exhausted from watching one helluva game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
