Of adaptations and awesome talk show appearances

So apparently Michael Gambon, the actor who's played Dumbledore since the third Harry Potter movie, hasn't read any of the books. And neither have Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort) or Alan Rickman (Snape). As actors, they don't want the books to influence them--they want to rely solely on the script. Which is fine, I guess, though it's not like they'd be watching another actor play the part--they can't steal anyone's ideas except the author's, which doesn't really seem like a bad idea. It bothers me in Gambon's case, though, because there's a piece of Dumbledore that seems to be missing; I can't quite put my finger on it, but some of his empathy and whimsy or something isn't there. He does fine, but I feel like the movie version of Dumbledore just isn't as great as the book version. Fiennes and Rickman are both fine in their roles, but neither role is as complex, really, as Dumbledore--or, at least, have as much that's not in the script. I think Gambon's missing out by not reading the books, and I think the audience is missing out because of it.

In other news, I am kind of in love with Daniel Radcliffe now.

Movies I Want to See This Summer

If I somehow manage to see the movie, I'll scratch it out. Hopefully I'll do better than earlier this year, when a ton of movies I wanted to see came out, and I managed to see, like, none. Good job! (Well, I saved money, at least.)

Star Trek
Up
The Hangover
Public Enemies
The Proposal
I Love You, Beth Cooper
Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince
(500) Days of Summer
Funny People
Julie & Julie
The Time Traveler's Wife
Inglourious Basterds

Another Lincoln assassination book

So back in January I wrote about a book signing I went to for a book about the Lincoln assassination. I finally got around to actually reading the book. And...it was pretty good. I was surprised, though, that all the reviews on Amazon were 5 stars. I mean, it wasn't that good. So I wound up writing my own review, which I was going to quote liberally here, but it hasn't been approved yet and I can't access it. Argh! I was annoyed that I couldn't give it 3.5 stars, which I really wanted to. It doesn't seem 4-star worthy, but is better than 3 stars.

In any case, it didn't help that I was going into the book with a negative impression. The book was good. What I think Pitch did best was give a great illustration of Washington, DC in April 1865. What he did more than other authors writing about the Lincoln assassination is use original sources from regular DC citizens, so there's a lot of depth to his story. He describes the illuminations celebrating the defeat of Richmond and Lee's surrender wonderfully. Throughout the book, no matter what he was talking about, he used diaries and letters to give readers a fabulous picture of what was going on--it's a great book to get the feel of life in Washington at the end of the Civil War. And Pitch gets kudos for that; I really liked that aspect of it.

I also really enjoyed that Pitch managed to cover the entire assassination--from threats on Lincoln coming into the city for his first inauguration to John Surratt's trial to Johnson pardoning the three surviving conspirators before he left office. The problem is that the book is only 400 pages long. For example, in writing about the trial, he goes into a lot of detail about what the people on trial had to deal with, which is great, and impressions of the media and spectators, also interesting, but lacks details of what actually went on during the trial. You know, evidence. Testimony. That sort of thing. If I have one big question about the Lincoln assassination and its aftermath, it's "Why did they wind up putting on trial the people they did?" Specficially I'm talking about poor Ned Spangler, who worked at Ford's Theatre. Booth rode up to the theatre, told Spangler to hold the horse, Spangler handed the reins to someone else. The end! So how did he wind up on trial and not, say, Thomas Jones, who harbored Booth and Herold in a pine thicket for days, knowing full well what Booth did? I mean, nobody probably knows at this point. Clearly I need to write the book about this pressing topic. But anyway. I'd like to know the content of the trial a bit, not just that women in the crowd were fascinated by Lewis Payne/Powell.

Plus, the book loses points with me for not going into detail about Boston Corbett, the soldier who killed Booth. Seriously, the dude castrated himself. How do you leave that out of a book? It's just wrong, I tell you.

And Pitch continues to come across as a little too self-congratulatory. In the acknowledgments, he goes on about how it took him 9 years and he wanted to quit, but his daughter, who doesn't care about history!, and his agent were both all, "No! You must keep going! I'm only partway through the manuscript and am moved to tears!" Look, I get it. These books are a labor of love. Give yourself a pat on the back and move on.

So, in general, points for giving readers a good idea of the region and for covering all aspects; I did learn new stuff, particularly about the chase of John Surratt. But, overall, it didn't go into enough depth. Points for being a good overview, though.

(Also, you should see the pictures from my usher appreciation night at Ford's last week. I got to see into the box!)

Ben's looking for some fireworks

I like reading the comics on holidays to see which comics address the fact that it is a holiday, and see which choose to ignore it. I don't have a preference; I just find it interesting. Today, it seemed that most comics ignored that it's Independence Day. But what really amused me was that not one, but two strips decided to commemorate the day by making a "Ben Franklin was a horny beast" joke:

Frank & Ernest

and Mother Goose & Grimm

It's not that I disagree with the characterization, it's just really funny that that's how the artists decided to acknowledge the holiday. Screw your work on the Declaration, Ben! You were a hound! Happy 4th!

(Apropos of nothing, the Frank & Ernest Ben is cuter, don't you think?)

The good times

This morning before work, I was flipping through the channels and 13 Going on 30 was on. Awesome! Sadly, I had to leave before the big dance number. A few days ago, one of the boys in my tap class illustrated his ability to moonwalk, even though he was born well after the move was introduced. In tap the other night, my teacher and I started doing an old routine to "The Way You Make Me Feel."

So Michael Jackson was in the front of my mind when I came home today and saw that he had died. I was surprised at how upset I got when Wolf Blitzer said the news. For those of us who grew up in the 80s, Michael Jackson was just such a huge part of our childhoods. He pervaded everything. One of my earliest memories is being freaked out by the video for "Thriller." (I still can't deal with the ending of it.) (And why the hell did my parents let 4-year-old me watch it?)

But still, over the years he became someone different from who he was when I was younger. He made great music, but was also something of a total nutcase. Linda Holmes does a good job summing up my feelings in an article she wrote, though she doesn't include my uncomfortableness about the child abuse allegations.

Anyway, so I'm just going to include his "Smooth Criminal" video. It's the looong version, from the movie Moonwalker, which I remember watching with my sister. The movie is made of crazy; seriously, just check out the description in Wikipedia. But this criminal is totally awesome. The dancing really gets going around 6:40.



I lied. I'm also including the "Say Say Say" video. I don't care how good (or not) the song is; I just find Paul and Michael adorable in it. Plus, I've heard that Jackson left Sir Paul 50% of the Beatles catalog in his will. I hope that's true.

This is why I don't listen to that many commentaries

I've been watching The Adventures of Pete & Pete on DVD lately. I loved that show in college, so it's been fun to go back and watch again. It's an odd show; it's one that's definitely set in its own universe--maybe a bit ahead of its time. It also has a great guest cast--Steve Buscemi, Janeane Garafalo, Michelle Trachtenberg, Rick Gomez (Luz from Band of Brothers!), Bebe Neuwirth, and so on.

Anyway, one of the recurring themes is whether the older Pete, who's in maybe 9th grade, and his best friend Ellen will get together. They keep coming close, then backing off. Over and over. I can't remember whether it's ever resolved. Anyway, last night I got to my favorite episode (and, as it turns out, the favorite episode of the series creators), "Yellow Fever," about a bus ride to field trip. (It includes one of my favorite lines ever: "Passengers will refrain from killing my soul. Thank you.") And it had commentary! I was hoping they would discuss the Pete-Ellen relationship.

Unfortunately, they didn't. The issue is that they recorded the commentary fairly recently, 10+ years after the show was actually made. So there was a lot of reminiscing about the actors, and much less about the plot of the show. I got frustrated after the first 10 minutes, so maybe they did address their feelings about Pete and Ellen, and I just missed it.

But still. Some backstage info is fun, but I like getting the creators' take on, you know, the plot. Sigh.

Friends forever, indeed

Mark-Paul Gosselaar has rewon my heart. I was always a Zack girl growing up. Loved him. How can you not? Like everyone else my age, I've seen every episode of Saved by the Bell numerous times and still see every actor as their characters. (True story: In middle school, a friend and I went to the mall to get the autographs of the stars. We were too back in line, though, so they left before we got up there. My friend actually broke down and cried.) So how awesome was it for Mark-Paul Gosselaar to embrace his past on Late Night With Jimmy Fallon?



(You can read an interview with the background on the interview here.)

My favorite part is probably when he pulls out the phone. One of my favorite stories from volunteering at the National Museum of American History is when a couple of teenage girls came up and asked me whether we had any "Zack Morris phones." Of course, I knew exactly what she was talking about. (And no, I don't believe NMAH has one on display. If so, I hope to God that when they display it, they give a shout-out to SBTB.

Anyway, reunion, whoo!

Maybe I should start just randomly buying cast recordings, to help

The Washington Post had an interesting story today about cast albums. Admittedly, I own quite a few, and it makes me sad to see how it's becoming harder and harder to produce them. I can't imagine the time when songs from musical theater was popular music, but there was such a time, and it's sad that we're so far past that. There are jukebox musicals, which take popular music and turn it into a musical (and I admit that I'd rather people buy ABBA Gold than the cast recording of Mamma Mia!), but I wonder whether that gets people to see other shows. I somehow doubt it. It is encouraging to see people snapping up copies of CDs at shows...they need to continue to be made. It's how I relive those experiences; I can't imagine seeing a show that really moves me, and not be able to listen to the songs over and over again.

And it's nuts to think that there used to be many versions of shows recorded. Do they still make Broadway and London recordings of shows? I mean, at one point, I had the London, Broadway, Complete Symphonic, and 10th Anniversary recordings of Les Mis. I can't imagine that they'd do that these days. Unfortunately.

(I don't have the Broadway version anymore. What's the point? No Michael Ball.)

How DO I solve this? (Hint: DVR)

Why do the tv gods hate me? Tomorrow night is a veritable bonanza of shows I want to watch. I already knew the Tonys would be on--with Neil Patrick Harris hosting. Awesome! I'm one of the 10 people who regularly watches the Tonys, so I was already psyched. But then I realized that some idiot at BBC America scheduled the finale of Any Dream Will Do, which is a 2-year-old reality show casting for the part of Joseph in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. And of course I'm watching. How can I not? Some of my earliest memories involve listening to that record. My favorite, Daniel Boys, was tragically cut a few weeks ago (why, Andrew Lloyd Webber, why?) and I've been spoiled on who wins for ages, but I can't miss this show! And afterwards, they're starting to air How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?, which was done the year before ADWD and cast the role of Maria in The Sound of Music. Awesome! Surely the people at BBC America had to realize the people who watch shows casting roles in West End productions would want to watch the Tonys, correct? It can't be that big an audience that they think it's a smart idea to split it, right?

And then I was going through the "What to Watch" in last week's Entertainment Weekly when I see that the first episode of The Next Food Network Star ALSO airs tomorrow night. Good Lord, people! Thank God for my dual-tuner DVR.

Carnal embrace and other topics

I first saw Arcadia when I was 17, on a trip to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival with my high school drama class. I enjoyed it, but was confused. In the play, Stoppard addresses concepts like chaos theory and predeterminism and art vs. science. Fortunately, he does it in an engaging way and has some fantastic characters discussing it, meaning that Barb At 17 liked it, if she didn't quite grasp it. In the years since, it's the final image of the play that's stuck with me.

I saw it again last night at the Folger, and again, it's going to be that last image that sticks with me. I appreciated the other elements (and understood them) much better this time around (it's amazing what 13 years will do!), but still...that last image, and all that it symbolizes, is what gets me. It really brings together the themes of the play, but in a poetic way. Love it.

The actors did a fantastic job. Erin Weaver, as the 13-year-old Thomasina in the 1809 world, was a bit over the top, particularly for the last few scenes, when she's supposed to be 16, but I never doubted her relationship with her tutor, Septimus Hodge (Cody Nickell, who has just fabulous hair), which is an important point. Nickell was awesome; it has to be a gratifying role--he's funny and charming and mischievous and a bit of a rake. His is a character easy to fall for. (Let's just say that yes, I did check out Nickell's website. And yes, he is married. Of course.)

The characters in modern times were good as well. I was actually probably most impressed by Peter Stray, who played Valentine. It's a hard character--he's clearly a smart guy, but has to also be completely dense about the literature side of things. When he's first introduced, he comes across as a fool, which he isn't. He's also quite likeable, and I loved his interactions with Hannah (Holly Twyford, who's apparently quite the fixture in DC theater; I've never seen her before and enjoyed her in this). (And holy crap, apparently Stray is Welsh. Fantastic!) (Also married. Of course.)

Seeing it made me wish I ushered at the Folger, just so I could see it a few more times, despite the long running time. And it is quite long. But it didn't feel it.