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.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Response to Brantley's Review on 'Virginia Woolf'
This is a response to a theatre review by Ben Brantley
'Marriage as Blood Sport: A No-Win Game'
March 21, 2005
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/theater/reviews/21wool.html
He got it right: most Americans would agree that marriage is a blood-sport where everyone ultimately loses. In his review, Ben Brantley gives a congratulatory applause to Anthony Page’s production of ‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf’ by saying that this ‘welcome surprise’ will make the audience leaving the theater ‘feeling like winners.’ Brantley gives a detailed analysis of the actors and their interpretation of the characters in the play, however, for readers with no previous experiences with Uta Hagen, Arthur Hill, Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, or the play itself for that matter are left clueless by the comment like ‘there probably has never been a "Virginia Woolf" in which the leading roles initially register as such elemental contrasts.”
Brantley continues commending the success of the production by commenting on Director Page’s interpretation by which he tempered the original play's notorious vitriol with eye-opening compassion. According to Brantley, the actors - under Page and through their exceptional acting - restore characters who have acquired the faces of Freudian monsters to purely.
His review seems to be geared toward the older – perhaps middle aged – metropolitan theatergoer couples who had already been there, done that (marriage that is!) However, his raving claim about the ‘satisfaction that comes from witnessing one helluva fight’ is enough to draw in younger audience as well.
'Marriage as Blood Sport: A No-Win Game'
March 21, 2005
http://theater2.nytimes.com/2005/03/21/theater/reviews/21wool.html
He got it right: most Americans would agree that marriage is a blood-sport where everyone ultimately loses. In his review, Ben Brantley gives a congratulatory applause to Anthony Page’s production of ‘Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf’ by saying that this ‘welcome surprise’ will make the audience leaving the theater ‘feeling like winners.’ Brantley gives a detailed analysis of the actors and their interpretation of the characters in the play, however, for readers with no previous experiences with Uta Hagen, Arthur Hill, Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, or the play itself for that matter are left clueless by the comment like ‘there probably has never been a "Virginia Woolf" in which the leading roles initially register as such elemental contrasts.”
Brantley continues commending the success of the production by commenting on Director Page’s interpretation by which he tempered the original play's notorious vitriol with eye-opening compassion. According to Brantley, the actors - under Page and through their exceptional acting - restore characters who have acquired the faces of Freudian monsters to purely.
His review seems to be geared toward the older – perhaps middle aged – metropolitan theatergoer couples who had already been there, done that (marriage that is!) However, his raving claim about the ‘satisfaction that comes from witnessing one helluva fight’ is enough to draw in younger audience as well.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Now, Tell Me How You Feel..
Review - In Treatment
Each year, about 4 percent of the Americans are said to be ‘in treatment.’ America is the homeland for (psycho)therapies and it is deeply ingrained in American culture. Either you have ever been in therapy, known someone in therapy, or just really like the star-studded cast featuring Gabriel Byrne and Dianne Wiest, "In Treatment" gives an interesting insights on psychotherapies.
Adapted from a popular Israeli TV show titled Be ‘Tipul, In Treatment follows Paul Weston, a psychotherapist played by Gabriel Byrne. Each night of the week, Paul keeps regular appointments with the same patients, except for Fridays, when he goes to see Dr. Gina Toll played by Dianne Wiest. The half-hour drama involves more talking than one might expect from a real therapy. Patients stand up and wander around the room a bit, as if they were not so much of patients seeking help, but as actors reciting monologues for an audition. The dialogue does not leave a lasting impression. At times the setting where a couple people are sitting in a room talking for half an hour becomes too stagey, and potentially boring. Also the level of antagonism each patient brings to Dr.Weston not only strains the credibility of the show but also the dramatic pitch.
In attempt to add some excitement, In Treatment offers occasional spurts of in-session violence or some intense confessions. Laura, played by Melissa George, chokes up talking about how she had dreamt of Weston confessing his undying love for her and beginning their future together. The lurid confession of Laura is grating and perverted rather than being seductive to the extent that makes the viewer wiggle uncomfortably in their seats.
Going back to the issue of believability, if Weston were a real psychologist, he would be in a great danger of losing his license because he speaks in over-sentimental terms, which could be viewed as malpractice. Part of this can be blamed on the character who is truly devoted to his clients yet is depressed, egotistical and whiny. Byrne does on exceptional job at utilizing his bushy eyebrows and the droopy eyes to their best advantage, making Paul a man seeking for an answer to his failings even if he cannot quite admit it.
Oscar award winning actress, Diane Wiest, with relatively few lines, radiates the wisdom and bewilderment of a retired woman. With her easy laugh and mercilessly direct questions, she, once again, becomes a therapist and a mentor whom Weston broke with years ago. Her accent, the China-collared shirt, tranquil voice, and insightful lines like ‘there’s a sadness in your voice when you talk about Kate,’ she resembles a Buddhist monk or Mother Nature.
Even with the interesting concept and some exceptional performance by Byrne and Wiest, the inconsistent level of acting of different characters makes the show seem like an amateur theatrical experiment. Once again, the session ends, but whether it was worth the time and the money invested – by both viewers and the producers – remains questionable.
Each year, about 4 percent of the Americans are said to be ‘in treatment.’ America is the homeland for (psycho)therapies and it is deeply ingrained in American culture. Either you have ever been in therapy, known someone in therapy, or just really like the star-studded cast featuring Gabriel Byrne and Dianne Wiest, "In Treatment" gives an interesting insights on psychotherapies.
Adapted from a popular Israeli TV show titled Be ‘Tipul, In Treatment follows Paul Weston, a psychotherapist played by Gabriel Byrne. Each night of the week, Paul keeps regular appointments with the same patients, except for Fridays, when he goes to see Dr. Gina Toll played by Dianne Wiest. The half-hour drama involves more talking than one might expect from a real therapy. Patients stand up and wander around the room a bit, as if they were not so much of patients seeking help, but as actors reciting monologues for an audition. The dialogue does not leave a lasting impression. At times the setting where a couple people are sitting in a room talking for half an hour becomes too stagey, and potentially boring. Also the level of antagonism each patient brings to Dr.Weston not only strains the credibility of the show but also the dramatic pitch.
In attempt to add some excitement, In Treatment offers occasional spurts of in-session violence or some intense confessions. Laura, played by Melissa George, chokes up talking about how she had dreamt of Weston confessing his undying love for her and beginning their future together. The lurid confession of Laura is grating and perverted rather than being seductive to the extent that makes the viewer wiggle uncomfortably in their seats.
Going back to the issue of believability, if Weston were a real psychologist, he would be in a great danger of losing his license because he speaks in over-sentimental terms, which could be viewed as malpractice. Part of this can be blamed on the character who is truly devoted to his clients yet is depressed, egotistical and whiny. Byrne does on exceptional job at utilizing his bushy eyebrows and the droopy eyes to their best advantage, making Paul a man seeking for an answer to his failings even if he cannot quite admit it.
Oscar award winning actress, Diane Wiest, with relatively few lines, radiates the wisdom and bewilderment of a retired woman. With her easy laugh and mercilessly direct questions, she, once again, becomes a therapist and a mentor whom Weston broke with years ago. Her accent, the China-collared shirt, tranquil voice, and insightful lines like ‘there’s a sadness in your voice when you talk about Kate,’ she resembles a Buddhist monk or Mother Nature.
Even with the interesting concept and some exceptional performance by Byrne and Wiest, the inconsistent level of acting of different characters makes the show seem like an amateur theatrical experiment. Once again, the session ends, but whether it was worth the time and the money invested – by both viewers and the producers – remains questionable.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Response to Oscar Wilde
So, here comes the big question that has been long debated: What is a critic? What does a critic do? The simplest and the most straightforward answer would be a person who offers reasoned judgment or analysis, interpretation, or observation. But is he also an artist? What is criticism outside creation?
Oscar Wilde, an Irish writer with languishing attitude who often appears in cartoons wearing a ‘too-too’ skirt, takes a serious stab at what it means to be a critic in the Critic as Artist. Known for his involvement in aesthetic movement, Wilde argued that the art should provide refined sensuous pleasure, rather than convey moral or philosophical messages. According to him, the art, since it has no didactic purpose, needs only to be beautiful. In the self-righteous voice of Gilbert, Wilde, insists that art is always the result of the most self-conscious effort.
It seems fair to say that great artists worked unconsciously and that they were wiser than they knew as Emerson once said. Then are we, as critics, all looking for something that is not there? Trying to find – or give - meanings in nothing? Gilbert says that the age that has no criticism is either an age in which art is immobile, hieratic, and confined to the reproduction of formal types, or an age that possesses no art at all. If that statement were to be true, how about people taking a pre-historical artifact and consider it to be a beautiful piece of art? It seems paradoxical: by lending to other ages – such as pre historical era when there was no form of criticism, thus no art – what we think we desire for our own – beauty – we are ‘creating’ art. If art means being beautiful, and if one can find meaning in something, just about anything and everything can be called art. So is it really that the primary aim of the critic is to see the object as in itself it really is not?
If Wilde [in the voice of Gilbert] is right, how can criticism be an art? Didn’t he say that art has no purpose or meaning other than being beautiful? Having some sort of a profound meaning as it possesses no meaning at all… He starts to sound more like a philosopher than anything. Perhaps it is more correct to say that the criticism completes art, or that the criticism gives meaning to art.
Gilbert tells Ernest that criticism demands infinitely more cultivation than creation does. To know the vintage and quality of a wine one need not drink the whole cask. Ten minutes must be perfectly sufficient to say whether a book is worth anything or worth nothing, if one has the instinct form. Going with Wilde’s wine metaphor, then, a well-educated sommelier always right? Some research shows that all these sommeliers failed blind testing. Many reviews on wine are inflated. Our senses are all messed up by its label. This reminded me of a story from Afterglow where critics across the nation gave a movie raving reviews because they thought Pauline Kael did so, when in fact she hadn’t even seen the movie. Conscious aim at art is a delusion in a sense. A critic will be always showing us the work of art in some new relation to our age.
But is such work as Gilbert has talked about really criticism? It criticizes not merely the individual work of art, but Beauty in self. Why should people care? (Gilbert, at one point, asks Who cares whether Mr. Ruskin’s views on Turner are sound or not? What does it matter? But really, why do we care what anyone says if art only has personal meanings?)
When Gilbert’s long lecture on what it means to be a critic was finally over, a quote from the movie Thank You for Smoking came to my mind: “if you argue right, you are always right.” As Springfield Republican once commented on Wilde’s behavior, his conduct seems more of a bid for notoriety or a controversy than a devotion to beauty and the aesthetic.
As he began to be involved in the aesthetic movement, Oscar Wilde began wearing his hair long and began decorating his rooms with peacock feathers, lilies, sunflowers, blue china and other objets d'art. It makes me wonder what self-conscious effort Wilde had to make to justify the beauty in a peacock feather. At least, to my uncultivated eyes, a peacock feather is just a colorful bird feather.
Oscar Wilde, an Irish writer with languishing attitude who often appears in cartoons wearing a ‘too-too’ skirt, takes a serious stab at what it means to be a critic in the Critic as Artist. Known for his involvement in aesthetic movement, Wilde argued that the art should provide refined sensuous pleasure, rather than convey moral or philosophical messages. According to him, the art, since it has no didactic purpose, needs only to be beautiful. In the self-righteous voice of Gilbert, Wilde, insists that art is always the result of the most self-conscious effort.
It seems fair to say that great artists worked unconsciously and that they were wiser than they knew as Emerson once said. Then are we, as critics, all looking for something that is not there? Trying to find – or give - meanings in nothing? Gilbert says that the age that has no criticism is either an age in which art is immobile, hieratic, and confined to the reproduction of formal types, or an age that possesses no art at all. If that statement were to be true, how about people taking a pre-historical artifact and consider it to be a beautiful piece of art? It seems paradoxical: by lending to other ages – such as pre historical era when there was no form of criticism, thus no art – what we think we desire for our own – beauty – we are ‘creating’ art. If art means being beautiful, and if one can find meaning in something, just about anything and everything can be called art. So is it really that the primary aim of the critic is to see the object as in itself it really is not?
If Wilde [in the voice of Gilbert] is right, how can criticism be an art? Didn’t he say that art has no purpose or meaning other than being beautiful? Having some sort of a profound meaning as it possesses no meaning at all… He starts to sound more like a philosopher than anything. Perhaps it is more correct to say that the criticism completes art, or that the criticism gives meaning to art.
Gilbert tells Ernest that criticism demands infinitely more cultivation than creation does. To know the vintage and quality of a wine one need not drink the whole cask. Ten minutes must be perfectly sufficient to say whether a book is worth anything or worth nothing, if one has the instinct form. Going with Wilde’s wine metaphor, then, a well-educated sommelier always right? Some research shows that all these sommeliers failed blind testing. Many reviews on wine are inflated. Our senses are all messed up by its label. This reminded me of a story from Afterglow where critics across the nation gave a movie raving reviews because they thought Pauline Kael did so, when in fact she hadn’t even seen the movie. Conscious aim at art is a delusion in a sense. A critic will be always showing us the work of art in some new relation to our age.
But is such work as Gilbert has talked about really criticism? It criticizes not merely the individual work of art, but Beauty in self. Why should people care? (Gilbert, at one point, asks Who cares whether Mr. Ruskin’s views on Turner are sound or not? What does it matter? But really, why do we care what anyone says if art only has personal meanings?)
When Gilbert’s long lecture on what it means to be a critic was finally over, a quote from the movie Thank You for Smoking came to my mind: “if you argue right, you are always right.” As Springfield Republican once commented on Wilde’s behavior, his conduct seems more of a bid for notoriety or a controversy than a devotion to beauty and the aesthetic.
As he began to be involved in the aesthetic movement, Oscar Wilde began wearing his hair long and began decorating his rooms with peacock feathers, lilies, sunflowers, blue china and other objets d'art. It makes me wonder what self-conscious effort Wilde had to make to justify the beauty in a peacock feather. At least, to my uncultivated eyes, a peacock feather is just a colorful bird feather.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Response to Pauline Kael
Since the 1940s, according to Renata Adler, the New York Times has reviewed almost every movie that opened in New York as it would not consider reviewing every book, exhibit, or cultural event. Movie is one of many favorite pastimes of American people and it brings up broad critical discussions. In that sense, Pauline Kael had a significant impact on the 20th Century’s culture industry.
In a delightful memento of whom often addressed as the most influential film critic of our time, Afterglow, Kael’s acerbic, yet honest insights on a variety of topics come through in an informal interview clearly and entertainingly as they did in her published reviews. Francis Davis, author and a friend of Kael, confesses how he once used Kael’s review to convince a friend to watch a movie with him. Her enthusiasm for films is highly contagious for she praised or slammed the movie with frivolous vitality. The colorful details and vivid images she presents to the readers are stimulating. However, upon deciding that she does not appreciate the movie, her bitter straight-shooting is enough to make one wonder if Kael has any sympathy for the movie director or the actors.
Pauline Kael always wrote with brutal honesty and that is what makes her stand out. She is not afraid to write as she saw things. In the times when the critics are way too concerned with having the ‘right taste,’ Kael’s confident voice is very refreshing. One may have a total opposite taste in film as Kael, yet cannot help but to feel curious what she has to say about the new film. The honesty and sincerity under all her flare allows her readers to relate – or empathize – better with her reviews.
Another great merit of hers was that she wanted to write about movies the way people really talked as they were leaving the theatre. She believed that writing in academic English in an attempt to elevate movies actually lowers them. She was a professional movie critic, and of course her reviews are a little more elaborate than simply saying ‘good, bad, or ugly.’ However, Kael’s reviews are not at all intimidating – you do not have to read the same sentence over and over again to figure out what it means.
Pauline Kael bluntly complains how we all have become a heavy-handed society that wants movies to be about the misery and alienation of our generation. However, her claim of being a fan of lighthearted lowbrow movies is jeopardized by Adler’s critic that she, in principle, likes frissons of horror; physical violence; sex scenes; and fantasies of invasion in films (and most people would agree that those are heavy and turgid topics.) Her reviews also indicate her fondness of heated up discussions and conflicts.
Although, often accused of writing more stimulating reviews than the actual film, and also of writing about everything else – including the related social issues – but the fil itself, her reviews easily provoke curiosity in any reader. Either convinced by her rave, or just to see if she’s right, or even for the sake of proving one of the most influential critics of the time wrong, Kael’s readers once again head to the box office.
In a delightful memento of whom often addressed as the most influential film critic of our time, Afterglow, Kael’s acerbic, yet honest insights on a variety of topics come through in an informal interview clearly and entertainingly as they did in her published reviews. Francis Davis, author and a friend of Kael, confesses how he once used Kael’s review to convince a friend to watch a movie with him. Her enthusiasm for films is highly contagious for she praised or slammed the movie with frivolous vitality. The colorful details and vivid images she presents to the readers are stimulating. However, upon deciding that she does not appreciate the movie, her bitter straight-shooting is enough to make one wonder if Kael has any sympathy for the movie director or the actors.
Pauline Kael always wrote with brutal honesty and that is what makes her stand out. She is not afraid to write as she saw things. In the times when the critics are way too concerned with having the ‘right taste,’ Kael’s confident voice is very refreshing. One may have a total opposite taste in film as Kael, yet cannot help but to feel curious what she has to say about the new film. The honesty and sincerity under all her flare allows her readers to relate – or empathize – better with her reviews.
Another great merit of hers was that she wanted to write about movies the way people really talked as they were leaving the theatre. She believed that writing in academic English in an attempt to elevate movies actually lowers them. She was a professional movie critic, and of course her reviews are a little more elaborate than simply saying ‘good, bad, or ugly.’ However, Kael’s reviews are not at all intimidating – you do not have to read the same sentence over and over again to figure out what it means.
Pauline Kael bluntly complains how we all have become a heavy-handed society that wants movies to be about the misery and alienation of our generation. However, her claim of being a fan of lighthearted lowbrow movies is jeopardized by Adler’s critic that she, in principle, likes frissons of horror; physical violence; sex scenes; and fantasies of invasion in films (and most people would agree that those are heavy and turgid topics.) Her reviews also indicate her fondness of heated up discussions and conflicts.
Although, often accused of writing more stimulating reviews than the actual film, and also of writing about everything else – including the related social issues – but the fil itself, her reviews easily provoke curiosity in any reader. Either convinced by her rave, or just to see if she’s right, or even for the sake of proving one of the most influential critics of the time wrong, Kael’s readers once again head to the box office.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Response to Afterflow by Francis Davis
In this delightful little memento of Pauline Kael, who is often addressed as the most influential film critic of our time, her acerbic, yet honest insights on a variety of topics come through in this informal interview clearly and entertainingly as they did in her published reviews. Kael is infamous for writing with brutal honesty on movies, directors and actors. Although, it was not her intention, she did not care who she offended or upset, but called them as she saw them.
As the author, Francis Davis confesses how he once used Kael’s review to convince a friend to watch a movie with him, Kael’s enthusiasm for films is highly contagious for she praised or slammed the movie with frivolous vitality.
The honesty and sincerity under all her flare allows her readers to relate better with her reviews. Being introduced to this legendary critic for the first time, I almost fell in love with her when Kael said, "It's not fun writing about bad movies. I used to think it was bad for my skin." She also wanted to write about movies the way people really talked as they were leaving the theatre. She believed that – and I strongly agree to this point – writing in academic English in an attempt to elevate movies actually lowers them. She quotes, “It denied them what makes them distinctive.”
A fan of classic dancer-comedians like the Ritz Brothers, Pauline Kael, bluntly complains how we all have become a heavy-handed society that wants movies to be about the misery and alienation of our generation. I often wonder, especially in a class like Arts Journalism, if watching – and enjoying – light movies makes me appear less intelligent. People, especially in academic settings like Kalamazoo College, seem to expect a movie to be heavy, turgid and moral, as Pauline puts it.
The slim 126-page book devoted to a real conversation between two friends is more a highlight of her legacy than anything. Definitely interesting and enjoyable, yet, Afterglow has the feel of a finale of a reality TV show.
As the author, Francis Davis confesses how he once used Kael’s review to convince a friend to watch a movie with him, Kael’s enthusiasm for films is highly contagious for she praised or slammed the movie with frivolous vitality.
The honesty and sincerity under all her flare allows her readers to relate better with her reviews. Being introduced to this legendary critic for the first time, I almost fell in love with her when Kael said, "It's not fun writing about bad movies. I used to think it was bad for my skin." She also wanted to write about movies the way people really talked as they were leaving the theatre. She believed that – and I strongly agree to this point – writing in academic English in an attempt to elevate movies actually lowers them. She quotes, “It denied them what makes them distinctive.”
A fan of classic dancer-comedians like the Ritz Brothers, Pauline Kael, bluntly complains how we all have become a heavy-handed society that wants movies to be about the misery and alienation of our generation. I often wonder, especially in a class like Arts Journalism, if watching – and enjoying – light movies makes me appear less intelligent. People, especially in academic settings like Kalamazoo College, seem to expect a movie to be heavy, turgid and moral, as Pauline puts it.
The slim 126-page book devoted to a real conversation between two friends is more a highlight of her legacy than anything. Definitely interesting and enjoyable, yet, Afterglow has the feel of a finale of a reality TV show.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Once Review
Falling Slowly, Once Again
There is a guy who is living a life of a pathetic Dublin busker – or a self-claimed ‘broken hearted hoover fixer sucker guy’ - after a breakup, and a girl who is living a life of an immigrant mother with a young daughter she had as a result of her ‘hanky panky.’ As the piano accompanies the guitar solo, she starts to sing in harmony to the song he used to sing alone, and slowly the song that began as a pleading monologue turns into a rich conversation. The Irish musical film, Once, written and directed by John Carney, shows how beautiful our routined life can be without adding too many accidentals to the piece.
The movie poster asks, ‘how often do you find the right person?’ It is hard to say, but Glen Hansard. 37, and Marketa Irglova, 19, a real life couple, definitely had found each other. Both professional musicians with limited acting experiences, Hansard and Irglova appear awkward and flat in the film, however, Carney allows them to adapt this major flaw into their personalities on screen, and also as the authenticity of the film. Casting ‘good singers who could half act,’ as Carney said in a Chicago interview, was an essential choice. The music really is the centerpiece of the film, and the way the emotion of the character blends with the songs to create a unified story is genuine and sincere.
The two main characters remain nameless throughout the movie. Credited as Guy and Girl, they understand each other through music, thus asking questions or giving answers seems unnecessary. Likewise, the audiences are able to empathize with the characters without knowing their names nor being assured that their relationship inclines love. When Guy finally decides to ask Girl if she still loves her husband, she answers him back in Czech, coyly refusing to tell Guy what it means – you may choose to find out what it means online, but some things are better left unknown!
This $160,000 low-budget movie filmed with a long lens camera even had an apologetic warning sign in Korean theatres before the showing, regarding its poor screen condition. However, the unsteady, home video like camera angle is what makes the movie seem much more real. In the beginning scene, the camera bobs along as it draws closer to the singing Guy. For a moment there, it is as if we are seeing Grafton, Dublin’s famous shopping district, through Girl’s eyes, not through a camera lens. This honest quality brings the viewers right to the heart of Dublin.
The movie that starts out with a lonely street performer makes a smooth transition to the scene where Guy, Girl, their band, friends and families are all gathered together around the dinner table, showing the creation of relationships in parallel to that of music.
Carney does a great job quilting the little pieces of the ordinary lives with mesmerizing melodies, capturing the moment of two talented musicians with burdened shoulders ‘falling slowly’ for each other.
There is a guy who is living a life of a pathetic Dublin busker – or a self-claimed ‘broken hearted hoover fixer sucker guy’ - after a breakup, and a girl who is living a life of an immigrant mother with a young daughter she had as a result of her ‘hanky panky.’ As the piano accompanies the guitar solo, she starts to sing in harmony to the song he used to sing alone, and slowly the song that began as a pleading monologue turns into a rich conversation. The Irish musical film, Once, written and directed by John Carney, shows how beautiful our routined life can be without adding too many accidentals to the piece.
The movie poster asks, ‘how often do you find the right person?’ It is hard to say, but Glen Hansard. 37, and Marketa Irglova, 19, a real life couple, definitely had found each other. Both professional musicians with limited acting experiences, Hansard and Irglova appear awkward and flat in the film, however, Carney allows them to adapt this major flaw into their personalities on screen, and also as the authenticity of the film. Casting ‘good singers who could half act,’ as Carney said in a Chicago interview, was an essential choice. The music really is the centerpiece of the film, and the way the emotion of the character blends with the songs to create a unified story is genuine and sincere.
The two main characters remain nameless throughout the movie. Credited as Guy and Girl, they understand each other through music, thus asking questions or giving answers seems unnecessary. Likewise, the audiences are able to empathize with the characters without knowing their names nor being assured that their relationship inclines love. When Guy finally decides to ask Girl if she still loves her husband, she answers him back in Czech, coyly refusing to tell Guy what it means – you may choose to find out what it means online, but some things are better left unknown!
This $160,000 low-budget movie filmed with a long lens camera even had an apologetic warning sign in Korean theatres before the showing, regarding its poor screen condition. However, the unsteady, home video like camera angle is what makes the movie seem much more real. In the beginning scene, the camera bobs along as it draws closer to the singing Guy. For a moment there, it is as if we are seeing Grafton, Dublin’s famous shopping district, through Girl’s eyes, not through a camera lens. This honest quality brings the viewers right to the heart of Dublin.
The movie that starts out with a lonely street performer makes a smooth transition to the scene where Guy, Girl, their band, friends and families are all gathered together around the dinner table, showing the creation of relationships in parallel to that of music.
Carney does a great job quilting the little pieces of the ordinary lives with mesmerizing melodies, capturing the moment of two talented musicians with burdened shoulders ‘falling slowly’ for each other.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Writers Strike Response – Drum Roll Please, and the 2008 Oscar goes to…
So, the Writers Strike has resulted in an 1.5 billion dollar loss in Los Angeles area alone, and even more money is at stake with no clear answer to whether the show, specifically the Oscar, will still go on.
At the heart of this long lasted feud are three major issues: DVD residuals; union jurisdiction over animation and reality program writers; and compensation for "new media"—content written for the Internet. In more simple terms, ‘who gets the money?’ issue. With the nation’s most prominent writers like John Wells at the front of the picket line, I personally cannot be any less sympathetic for two reasons; they must have millions and millions of dollars already, do they really need more dough? Plus, I don’t even watch TV anymore!
Surprisingly, I am not alone. According to the SurveyUSA poll result, the 75% of respondents were found to have little to no concern over the strike, and the USA TODAY poll shows that 49% of the viewers said they were more likely to watch reruns, 40% said they planned to watch reality series and other programming not disrupted by the strike, and 26% were more likely to buy or rent DVDs of television series from past seasons. These not-so-empathetic poll results almost makes me wonder, ‘is the era when the Sunday paper’s TV guide was the new American Bible finally coming to an end?
Of course, the writers must fight for their rights, and of course, they should be compensated fairly for all their hard work which requires a lot of hair-pulling, energy drinks, and no sleep. But, is this really working? Will the 11 weeks of struggle be in vain? It is definitely a close competition between the Writers and the Producers, and the winner is soon to be announced. Now drum roll, please, and the 2008 Oscar goes to…
Related Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/business/media/23strike.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=writers++guild&st=nyt&oref=slogin
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-12-18-strike-poll_N.htm
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=bbb91c3a-2bf2-4ef4-a009-e588fef04ed2
At the heart of this long lasted feud are three major issues: DVD residuals; union jurisdiction over animation and reality program writers; and compensation for "new media"—content written for the Internet. In more simple terms, ‘who gets the money?’ issue. With the nation’s most prominent writers like John Wells at the front of the picket line, I personally cannot be any less sympathetic for two reasons; they must have millions and millions of dollars already, do they really need more dough? Plus, I don’t even watch TV anymore!
Surprisingly, I am not alone. According to the SurveyUSA poll result, the 75% of respondents were found to have little to no concern over the strike, and the USA TODAY poll shows that 49% of the viewers said they were more likely to watch reruns, 40% said they planned to watch reality series and other programming not disrupted by the strike, and 26% were more likely to buy or rent DVDs of television series from past seasons. These not-so-empathetic poll results almost makes me wonder, ‘is the era when the Sunday paper’s TV guide was the new American Bible finally coming to an end?
Of course, the writers must fight for their rights, and of course, they should be compensated fairly for all their hard work which requires a lot of hair-pulling, energy drinks, and no sleep. But, is this really working? Will the 11 weeks of struggle be in vain? It is definitely a close competition between the Writers and the Producers, and the winner is soon to be announced. Now drum roll, please, and the 2008 Oscar goes to…
Related Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/business/media/23strike.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=writers++guild&st=nyt&oref=slogin
http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2007-12-18-strike-poll_N.htm
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportEmail.aspx?g=bbb91c3a-2bf2-4ef4-a009-e588fef04ed2
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
NYT Critical Defense
Article: “Feisty Gods, Bored with Ambrosia, Still Get a Kick Out of the Cancan,” Written by. Vivien Schweitzer
January 22th, Monday
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/arts/music/22kaye.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=feisty+gods%2C+bored+with+ambrosia&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Vivien Schweitzer’s flashy headline about the feisty Greek Gods getting ‘a kick out of the Cancan’ is just enough to provoke the curiosity in any reader. Her flamboyant and almost over-the-top voice, along with the picture of the enthusiastic soprano Nicole Lee Aiossa promises a fun night out at the ‘irresistibly comical’ hit operetta “Orpheus in the Underworld.”
Although impressed by the success of the show in many European cities, as well as by the sets including the cute detail about the wheat field and the orchestra, Schweitzer is quite critical of the actors’ singing skills. She does make an attempt to be polite by saying that ‘the acting was generally significantly better than the singing,’ however, she simply cannot resist some harsh words slipping out of her mouth: ‘[singing] was often ragged.’
In focusing on the performance of the crew, Schweitzer seems to have forgotten to explain the plot of the operetta to the readers, or perhaps she just assumed that everyone is familiar with the Greek myth about the Orpheus.
In the kicker, Schweitzer does not forget to tell the readers that the colorful ending by a troupe of lively cancan dancers makes the show all worthwhile despite the sluggishness of the show at parts, once again reassuring them of her promise for a fun evening. Vivien invites her readers to lean back, relax and enjoy the show. After all, mocking the gods is never a serious business.
January 22th, Monday
The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/arts/music/22kaye.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=feisty+gods%2C+bored+with+ambrosia&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Vivien Schweitzer’s flashy headline about the feisty Greek Gods getting ‘a kick out of the Cancan’ is just enough to provoke the curiosity in any reader. Her flamboyant and almost over-the-top voice, along with the picture of the enthusiastic soprano Nicole Lee Aiossa promises a fun night out at the ‘irresistibly comical’ hit operetta “Orpheus in the Underworld.”
Although impressed by the success of the show in many European cities, as well as by the sets including the cute detail about the wheat field and the orchestra, Schweitzer is quite critical of the actors’ singing skills. She does make an attempt to be polite by saying that ‘the acting was generally significantly better than the singing,’ however, she simply cannot resist some harsh words slipping out of her mouth: ‘[singing] was often ragged.’
In focusing on the performance of the crew, Schweitzer seems to have forgotten to explain the plot of the operetta to the readers, or perhaps she just assumed that everyone is familiar with the Greek myth about the Orpheus.
In the kicker, Schweitzer does not forget to tell the readers that the colorful ending by a troupe of lively cancan dancers makes the show all worthwhile despite the sluggishness of the show at parts, once again reassuring them of her promise for a fun evening. Vivien invites her readers to lean back, relax and enjoy the show. After all, mocking the gods is never a serious business.
Response to the Gloria Steinem article
Gloria Steinem begins her New York Times Op-Ed article, ‘Women Are Never Front-Runners,’ by drawing an image of a woman in question. This character is a multiracial lawyer and a state legislator. The readers soon catch on and start to think, ‘wait, that just sounds like Barack Obama!’ The answer is yes, but with a little twist. Steinem follows by imposing her big question to her intrigued readers: “After less than one term there[in the Senate], do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?” What she really means is, ‘now that the sex factor has been eliminated, do you really think Barack makes a better candidate than Hilary?’ In her clear and commanding voice, Steinem guides the readers in comparing the two candidates in more political terms – for example, the experiences they had in the Senate as well as in the White House - not so much in the typical ‘the first female vs. African American candidates’ way. After all, it is all about who can do a better job in the office, not so much about who would look better in the President’s suit.
In the long list of things that worries her, Gloria Steinem cleverly convinces the readers that Clinton is clearly the superior candidate, but at the same time she assures the readers of her support toward the Democratic Party by telling them how she would ‘volunteer if he[Obama]’s the nominee.’
In the long list of things that worries her, Gloria Steinem cleverly convinces the readers that Clinton is clearly the superior candidate, but at the same time she assures the readers of her support toward the Democratic Party by telling them how she would ‘volunteer if he[Obama]’s the nominee.’
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Sweeney Todd Review
Sweeney Todd: A Story of the ‘Bloody’ Good Revenge
By Heain Lee
The musical scores of Stephen Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd sound very dissonant at first, however, as it continues, those dissonant cords start play in a perfect, yet eerie harmony. Tim Burton, teamed up with Johnny Depp, the unofficial ‘persona’ for Burton from their previous works such as Edward Scissorhands and Sleepy Hollow, and Helena Bonham Carter of the Corpse Bride and Big Fish, once again created an eerie masterpiece dripping in blood; the adaptation of Sondheim’s musical Sweeney Todd - the Demon Barber of the Fleet Street. From the opening scene, the screen version of Sweeney Todd is full of Burton’s brilliance. As Sweeny Todd (played by Depp) walks to Mrs. Lovett’s Shop on the Fleet Street upon his arrival in London, the camera travels – more like floats – along the narrow streets of London, and the dark city we see looks very much like a cartoon.
Pale, dry and detached from everything with a dark sense of humor, Johnny Depp transforms himself into the perfect Mr. Todd from the musical. In the scene where Todd reunites with his blades, which he calls ‘his friends’, Depp sings with the glare as if he is looking at a real lover or a friend and Mrs. Lovett savors the lyrics imagining Todd confessing his undying love for her. Throughout the movie, Todd and Lovett often sing the same song yet it means two totally different things. Burton does a splendid job capturing this ‘conflict’ on screen.
Helena Bonham Carter, on the other hand, created a whole new Mrs. Lovett through her superb acting on screen. The new Mrs. Lovett is a dreamer and a lover. The scene where she daydreams and sings about her their happy future together next to Todd who has a blank look on his face is like seeing the couple from the Corpse Bride in real life. In the score ‘Not While I’m Around,’ Mrs. Lovett and Toby shares a long embrace that makes them appear like a mother and a son, but at the same time like lovers. This ambiguous embrace and the pretty singing voice of little Toby is enough to give anyone a chill up and down one’s spine.
The reason why Sweeney Todd is so eerie is not so much because of all the blood we see - as the matter of fact, the obviously fake blood squirting everywhere is so unreal that it looks animated – but because of the motive behind all the killing and the emotional detachment. The use of fake flood allows Burton to capture the murder to the very last moment, which elevates its brutality - not necessarily to the eyes of the audience but the effect of it. Tim Burton not only did a good job adopting a famous musical into a film, but took one step further and created his own Burton’s Sweeney Todd. A perfect harmony created by contrasting concepts like horror/murder story and humor/comedy dazzles the audience for two hours, just like Sondheim’s dissonant musical scores. Seeing familiar actors like Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman singing is a pleasant surprise – they all did a good job - and the great costumes are not to be missed!
By Heain Lee
The musical scores of Stephen Sondheim’s Sweeney Todd sound very dissonant at first, however, as it continues, those dissonant cords start play in a perfect, yet eerie harmony. Tim Burton, teamed up with Johnny Depp, the unofficial ‘persona’ for Burton from their previous works such as Edward Scissorhands and Sleepy Hollow, and Helena Bonham Carter of the Corpse Bride and Big Fish, once again created an eerie masterpiece dripping in blood; the adaptation of Sondheim’s musical Sweeney Todd - the Demon Barber of the Fleet Street. From the opening scene, the screen version of Sweeney Todd is full of Burton’s brilliance. As Sweeny Todd (played by Depp) walks to Mrs. Lovett’s Shop on the Fleet Street upon his arrival in London, the camera travels – more like floats – along the narrow streets of London, and the dark city we see looks very much like a cartoon.
Pale, dry and detached from everything with a dark sense of humor, Johnny Depp transforms himself into the perfect Mr. Todd from the musical. In the scene where Todd reunites with his blades, which he calls ‘his friends’, Depp sings with the glare as if he is looking at a real lover or a friend and Mrs. Lovett savors the lyrics imagining Todd confessing his undying love for her. Throughout the movie, Todd and Lovett often sing the same song yet it means two totally different things. Burton does a splendid job capturing this ‘conflict’ on screen.
Helena Bonham Carter, on the other hand, created a whole new Mrs. Lovett through her superb acting on screen. The new Mrs. Lovett is a dreamer and a lover. The scene where she daydreams and sings about her their happy future together next to Todd who has a blank look on his face is like seeing the couple from the Corpse Bride in real life. In the score ‘Not While I’m Around,’ Mrs. Lovett and Toby shares a long embrace that makes them appear like a mother and a son, but at the same time like lovers. This ambiguous embrace and the pretty singing voice of little Toby is enough to give anyone a chill up and down one’s spine.
The reason why Sweeney Todd is so eerie is not so much because of all the blood we see - as the matter of fact, the obviously fake blood squirting everywhere is so unreal that it looks animated – but because of the motive behind all the killing and the emotional detachment. The use of fake flood allows Burton to capture the murder to the very last moment, which elevates its brutality - not necessarily to the eyes of the audience but the effect of it. Tim Burton not only did a good job adopting a famous musical into a film, but took one step further and created his own Burton’s Sweeney Todd. A perfect harmony created by contrasting concepts like horror/murder story and humor/comedy dazzles the audience for two hours, just like Sondheim’s dissonant musical scores. Seeing familiar actors like Johnny Depp and Alan Rickman singing is a pleasant surprise – they all did a good job - and the great costumes are not to be missed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
