If I'm going to provide commentary on theatre, I'd be remiss at this point in not discussing the most controversial theatrical event of the year, Spider-man: Turn Off The Dark. I'm both a theatre nerd and a comic book-reading, Dungeons & Dragons playing nerd (no joke, I have a weekly game). This show is one that everyone's talking about in both my theatre circles and my regular nerd circle, and dubiously in both cases.
While there's been a lot of buzz about the exciting production team, including music by U2's Bono and The Edge, with direction by Julie Taymor, most of the Spider-man fans I know are wondering, "why?" There have already been the three popular and successful Sam Raimi films in recent years (although they did go a bit off the rails near the end), and now the reboot starring Andrew Garfield, so this isn't a story that's begging for a fresh adaptation.
There's also a concern about lack or reverence for the source material. For example this article in the New York Post references a new villain called "Swiss Miss", who apparently is supposed to resemble a Swiss Army knife, despite sharing the name with a brand of hot cocoa. Spider-man already has a great villain pool to choose from, many of whom will appear in the show, including Carnage, Swarm, and The Green Goblin. Why so many?
The danger level of the show is also a major point of concern. A lot of the buzz about the show lately has been the various injuries incurred by the cast while performing stunts. One performer broke both wrists, and, though I can't confirm it, I've heard rumors that potential ensemble members have left auditions for the show after seeing how risky the choreography is, wary of potentially career-ending injuries.
I located a video with rehearsal footage from the show, which you can check out on their facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=121115394618089
Ok, so this is what we're looking at: the wirework and fight choreography looks really cool. This issue is if it can be done safely--if appropriate precautions are taken, nothing in theatre should actually be dangerous, but we all know accidents do happen. No matter how impressive, the spectacular stunts aren't worth it if the performers are inherently at risk by doing them.
The creators of the show took a long time to start rolling out images and music from the show, keeping the public's speculation firmly focused on how expensive the show is, the numerous delays, and cast injuries and technical problems. If they can take care of those problems, they could have a great looking show, but I fear they may disappoint those looking for some substance with their style--and comic book fans may be left out in the cold altogether.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
The Opera That Made Me Yell At My Television
It was a drizzly Saturday afternoon earlier this fall. I was snuggled up with my cat, a snack and some knitting (I sound like an old lady, don't I? I'm 27. I swear), and settled in to watch The Metrpolitan Opera's production of "Hamlet", which they had previously broadcast live in HD, and was running on TV. I'm a fan of Simon Keenlyside, who was playing the title role, and was really looking forward to watching it.
Before long, my roommates started hearing the following exclamations coming from my room:
"What are you doing?"
"That's not what happens!"
"What? WHAT? WHAT??!!!"
Considering my drama education, it's safe to say I'm pretty familiar with Shakespeare's Hamlet, and to quote star Simon Keenlyside in his between-acts interview with Renee Fleming, "it's Hamlet, it's just not Shakespeare's Hamlet". Now, I wasn't expecting them to follow the original to the letter, obviously to translate it between mediums you need to streamline the story and simplify it to its core themes. I'd say what Ambroise Thomas's opera does is pluck subtext from some scenes, stick it onto others, and also grossly rearrange the show.
The change that bothers me the most (if you don't want to know what's different, stop reading here) is the relationships of Polonius and Ophelie (here, in the French) to Hamlet. Polonius barely appears until halfway through the show, at which point he's revealed to be a co-conspirator. Hamlet discovers this, and becomes the reason he rejects Ophelie--because her father helped kill his. She loses her mind and kills herself, then, not because of the torment of her father being murdered by her beloved, but simply because her would-be fiance turned her down. This makes her a weaker, much less complex creature; but very much of-the-time, as this was first performend in 1868. But come on, if I went nuts and killed myself every time a man let me down...I would be dead by now.
Oh, and speaking of death, Polonius doesn't even die! And Hamlet doesn't duel Laertes in the final scene, he kills him in a fight right before Ophelie's funeral, when he doesn't know she's dead yet. And then the ghost shows up at the end to help Hamlet kill Claudius.
There were a few touches I liked--like when Hamlet is waiting on the roof with Bernardo and Horatio, you can hear the sounds of the wedding party going on in the background, and they look at Hamlet as if to say "Sorry, dude." They also include a love duet for Hamlet and Ophelie at the beginning, which is nice because in Shakespeare's play you never actually see them together as a couple before things start going awry (I also like the fact that soprano Marlis Peterson's skirt was so floofy, they both had to smoosh it down so that Keenlyside could lie in her lap).
There's also a great scene for Hamlet at the banquet after the Players put on their show where he actually comes out and accuses Claudius of murder (which did bother me, because that messes up so much of Hamlet's character. He has so many scenes in the play about his self-loathing and lack of courage because he is unwilling or afraid to accuse Claudius openly!), but no one believes him becuase he's drunk, and then he climbs on the table and pours the blood red wine all over himself (see below):
Speaking of which, Simon Keenlyside's performance was completely terrific. He has a gorgeous voice (I will admit a weakness for baritones-I love that full, rich sound), he's very handsome, and has a down-to-earth, likeable stage presence. And then there's his great acting choices; in moments of fury, he's smashing the furniture with rage, and then and in his frustration at Claudius digs little holes in the wall with his knife.
Obviously, I'm not very impressed with the translation of the work from play to opera. I'm irritated by the changes to the plot, and the music didn't really linger with me. However, the overall production elements were quite good. Hamlet is a great part, and Keenlyside performed the heck out of it--the only drawback may have been that he is so interesting to watch, I felt like the air went out of the show when he wasn't on stage.
Before long, my roommates started hearing the following exclamations coming from my room:
"What are you doing?"
"That's not what happens!"
"What? WHAT? WHAT??!!!"
Considering my drama education, it's safe to say I'm pretty familiar with Shakespeare's Hamlet, and to quote star Simon Keenlyside in his between-acts interview with Renee Fleming, "it's Hamlet, it's just not Shakespeare's Hamlet". Now, I wasn't expecting them to follow the original to the letter, obviously to translate it between mediums you need to streamline the story and simplify it to its core themes. I'd say what Ambroise Thomas's opera does is pluck subtext from some scenes, stick it onto others, and also grossly rearrange the show.
The change that bothers me the most (if you don't want to know what's different, stop reading here) is the relationships of Polonius and Ophelie (here, in the French) to Hamlet. Polonius barely appears until halfway through the show, at which point he's revealed to be a co-conspirator. Hamlet discovers this, and becomes the reason he rejects Ophelie--because her father helped kill his. She loses her mind and kills herself, then, not because of the torment of her father being murdered by her beloved, but simply because her would-be fiance turned her down. This makes her a weaker, much less complex creature; but very much of-the-time, as this was first performend in 1868. But come on, if I went nuts and killed myself every time a man let me down...I would be dead by now.
Oh, and speaking of death, Polonius doesn't even die! And Hamlet doesn't duel Laertes in the final scene, he kills him in a fight right before Ophelie's funeral, when he doesn't know she's dead yet. And then the ghost shows up at the end to help Hamlet kill Claudius.
There were a few touches I liked--like when Hamlet is waiting on the roof with Bernardo and Horatio, you can hear the sounds of the wedding party going on in the background, and they look at Hamlet as if to say "Sorry, dude." They also include a love duet for Hamlet and Ophelie at the beginning, which is nice because in Shakespeare's play you never actually see them together as a couple before things start going awry (I also like the fact that soprano Marlis Peterson's skirt was so floofy, they both had to smoosh it down so that Keenlyside could lie in her lap).
There's also a great scene for Hamlet at the banquet after the Players put on their show where he actually comes out and accuses Claudius of murder (which did bother me, because that messes up so much of Hamlet's character. He has so many scenes in the play about his self-loathing and lack of courage because he is unwilling or afraid to accuse Claudius openly!), but no one believes him becuase he's drunk, and then he climbs on the table and pours the blood red wine all over himself (see below):
Simon Keenlyside/The Metropolitan Opera
Speaking of which, Simon Keenlyside's performance was completely terrific. He has a gorgeous voice (I will admit a weakness for baritones-I love that full, rich sound), he's very handsome, and has a down-to-earth, likeable stage presence. And then there's his great acting choices; in moments of fury, he's smashing the furniture with rage, and then and in his frustration at Claudius digs little holes in the wall with his knife.
Simon Keenlyside/The Metropolitan Opera
Obviously, I'm not very impressed with the translation of the work from play to opera. I'm irritated by the changes to the plot, and the music didn't really linger with me. However, the overall production elements were quite good. Hamlet is a great part, and Keenlyside performed the heck out of it--the only drawback may have been that he is so interesting to watch, I felt like the air went out of the show when he wasn't on stage.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Missed The Point Much?
Today I was reading the LA Weekly's Theatre Review pages, and I stumbled upon a review of a production of Into The Woods. I'm not going to discuss the review of the production itself, although the company has apparently made some bold and unusual concept decisions, instead my concern is the following comment on Into The Woods itself:
"The good show would be kid-friendly if it didn't clock in at close to three hours, somewhat tortured by the almost superfluous (though psychologically darker) sluggish Act 2."
Part of this is true; if you wanted to do a short & sweet family musical, just perform the first act, and eliminate the final line, "to be continued." It stands on it's own just fine. But it seems to me that this critic has missed the entire point of the second act of the show! As I already discussed in a previous article, the second act takes the neatly wrapped up fairy tale endings of the first act, and shows that "Happily Ever After" does not come with out it's consequences, and the story does not end when the prince marries his princess. It's also not that good for kids, because they spend much of the time arguing, and half the cast dies.
The second act of Into The Woods, while deftly written, is not exactly subtle. And, frankly, it worries me that a critic for a fairly major Los Angeles publication just doesn't seem to undertand an entire half or a fairly mainstream show.
"The good show would be kid-friendly if it didn't clock in at close to three hours, somewhat tortured by the almost superfluous (though psychologically darker) sluggish Act 2."
Part of this is true; if you wanted to do a short & sweet family musical, just perform the first act, and eliminate the final line, "to be continued." It stands on it's own just fine. But it seems to me that this critic has missed the entire point of the second act of the show! As I already discussed in a previous article, the second act takes the neatly wrapped up fairy tale endings of the first act, and shows that "Happily Ever After" does not come with out it's consequences, and the story does not end when the prince marries his princess. It's also not that good for kids, because they spend much of the time arguing, and half the cast dies.
The second act of Into The Woods, while deftly written, is not exactly subtle. And, frankly, it worries me that a critic for a fairly major Los Angeles publication just doesn't seem to undertand an entire half or a fairly mainstream show.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The Rocky Horror Show (Not The Film, But The Show)
On Sunday night, I went to see these guys perform The Rocky Horror Show. As I mentioned in a previous post, I've been going to see the midnight screenings since I was pretty young; I actually realized recently that I haven't been since I was in high school- so ten years (?!?blurgh!) So I've never actually seen a production of Rocky Horror where the film wasn't being projected by the actors.
I honestly hadn't given much thought to the audience interaction before I got to the theater--I was out with friends that morning, I was meeting people at a restaurant, blah, blah, it never crossed my mind. Then, as my friends and I squeezed into the tiny theater, I noticed the girls in fishnets and lamé sitting behind us discussing their rice and slices of toast. My friend sitting next to me agreed that, while the throwing of stuff is expected at the midnight screenings, also the actors are only pantomiming and lip-synching- I would not want someone throwing playing cards at me while I am trying to sing full-voice.
It quickly became apparrent that throwing stuff was a very bad idea; In the first scene, during "Dammit Janet", the girls behind us hucked a handful of rice at the actors, and one of the phantoms (as the ensemble members are known) looked distinctly displeased. My friends and I started worrying about the actors slipping on the hard, smooth grains, and then we discovered part of their blocking included kneeling on the floor. Have you ever had to kneel on rice? Go ahead and try it. I'll wait here.
At the end of the scene, the aforementioned phantom grabbed a handful of the rice and snarkily threw it back. I really liked that performer, actually--he had great body language, and was hilariously bug-eyed and deadpan. In fact, that same phantom interjected most of the audience responses during the show. I quickly realized that it's been so long since I saw the show that I've forgotten most of the stuff to yell, however I also realized that I didnt' want to. Seeing live performers is very different than watching a film that's been running for 35 years- it's a singular moment in time that can never be repeated. And the show was so inventive, with great performances and engaging original direction and choreography, I didn't even want to yell things out, because I was too interested in seeing what the performers would do next.
There are two notable exceptions- we yelled out "say it!" during the line "antici......pation!" in "Sweet Transvestite". Also, the theater was far too small for us to stand up, but we did quietly Time Warp in our seats.
I honestly hadn't given much thought to the audience interaction before I got to the theater--I was out with friends that morning, I was meeting people at a restaurant, blah, blah, it never crossed my mind. Then, as my friends and I squeezed into the tiny theater, I noticed the girls in fishnets and lamé sitting behind us discussing their rice and slices of toast. My friend sitting next to me agreed that, while the throwing of stuff is expected at the midnight screenings, also the actors are only pantomiming and lip-synching- I would not want someone throwing playing cards at me while I am trying to sing full-voice.
It quickly became apparrent that throwing stuff was a very bad idea; In the first scene, during "Dammit Janet", the girls behind us hucked a handful of rice at the actors, and one of the phantoms (as the ensemble members are known) looked distinctly displeased. My friends and I started worrying about the actors slipping on the hard, smooth grains, and then we discovered part of their blocking included kneeling on the floor. Have you ever had to kneel on rice? Go ahead and try it. I'll wait here.
At the end of the scene, the aforementioned phantom grabbed a handful of the rice and snarkily threw it back. I really liked that performer, actually--he had great body language, and was hilariously bug-eyed and deadpan. In fact, that same phantom interjected most of the audience responses during the show. I quickly realized that it's been so long since I saw the show that I've forgotten most of the stuff to yell, however I also realized that I didnt' want to. Seeing live performers is very different than watching a film that's been running for 35 years- it's a singular moment in time that can never be repeated. And the show was so inventive, with great performances and engaging original direction and choreography, I didn't even want to yell things out, because I was too interested in seeing what the performers would do next.
There are two notable exceptions- we yelled out "say it!" during the line "antici......pation!" in "Sweet Transvestite". Also, the theater was far too small for us to stand up, but we did quietly Time Warp in our seats.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
"I Will Not Be Out-Enunciated By You"
A friendly contest of diction starts at about 3:35...
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Kevin Kline | ||||
| ||||
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The Tempest
A couple of years ago, I designed a production of The Tempest for the theatre company I work with, and therefore I've had an opportunity to become extremely familiar with it. So when I found out that Julie Taymor would be directing a film version of it, I was intrigued; I know that not everyone loves her work, but I'm a big fan. I've really enjoyed her films (Titus, Frida, and Across the Universe), and I've also seen The Lion King and the production of The Magic Flute that she did for the Metropolitan Opera. I don't always love every choice she makes, but the important thing is that she's always doing something interesting.
I still haven't decided how I feel about a female Prospero (Prospera, in this case). I love Helen Mirren and think she can do anything she wants, but I feel like the dynamic between Prospero and Miranda is very specific to the father/daughter relationship, however Prospera is both father and mother to Miranda, so maybe it will work; I'll reserve judgement until I see the film.
Anyway, I stumbled across some production images today, and I wanted to share something interesting I noticed about the costumes. Of course they're beautiful, having been designed by Sandy Powell, one of my idols (she won the Oscar last year for The Young Victoria, and also designed Shakespeare in Love, Interview with the Vampire, and Velvet Goldmine, one of my favorites)
So take a close look a these stills of David Strathairn and Chris Cooper (good cast, eh?)
See the details on those doublets? They look completely period-appropriate, yes?
THOSE ARE ZIPPERS!! Tres contemporary and chic, eh? There is a crazy zipper trend going on right now (which I actually feel is a bit overdone) where you're seeing a lot of exposed zippers on the backs of dresses and skirts, and blouses adorned with zipper rosettes. But this is the best use of them I've seen in garment detailing. The give the doublets an edgy, textured look, but it's really subtle. I bet most people watching the film in theaters won't even notice.
And do you see that belt holding David Strathairn's cloak? I have that belt! It's from H&M!
This film is coming out in December; I hope as the release date comes closer that Sandy Powell will do some interviews about her concepts, because there's some really interesting choices being made here, and I'd love to know what inspired her.
I still haven't decided how I feel about a female Prospero (Prospera, in this case). I love Helen Mirren and think she can do anything she wants, but I feel like the dynamic between Prospero and Miranda is very specific to the father/daughter relationship, however Prospera is both father and mother to Miranda, so maybe it will work; I'll reserve judgement until I see the film.
Anyway, I stumbled across some production images today, and I wanted to share something interesting I noticed about the costumes. Of course they're beautiful, having been designed by Sandy Powell, one of my idols (she won the Oscar last year for The Young Victoria, and also designed Shakespeare in Love, Interview with the Vampire, and Velvet Goldmine, one of my favorites)
So take a close look a these stills of David Strathairn and Chris Cooper (good cast, eh?)
THOSE ARE ZIPPERS!! Tres contemporary and chic, eh? There is a crazy zipper trend going on right now (which I actually feel is a bit overdone) where you're seeing a lot of exposed zippers on the backs of dresses and skirts, and blouses adorned with zipper rosettes. But this is the best use of them I've seen in garment detailing. The give the doublets an edgy, textured look, but it's really subtle. I bet most people watching the film in theaters won't even notice.
And do you see that belt holding David Strathairn's cloak? I have that belt! It's from H&M!
This film is coming out in December; I hope as the release date comes closer that Sandy Powell will do some interviews about her concepts, because there's some really interesting choices being made here, and I'd love to know what inspired her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)