Can't we all just live in peace?

Apparently Harvard has used its considerable resources to do a survey on the hard-hitting topic "Who do young people like more: Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert?" Stewart's ahead, 30% to 26% (30% said neither, and 16% hadn't heard of either). Probably the most amusing information to come out of that is that Republicans prefer Colbert, 49% to 21%. Stewart also skews older than Colbert.

It's interesting, though, because it's hard to compare the two. The two shows are so different. Stewart's an anchor, Colbert a pundit. Colbert's playing a part, where Stewart isn't. They both riff on what the media is doing, but they do it in such different ways, and they both have very different strenghts--Stewart's a good interviewer and does a great job with researching what public figures have said in the past (and there's an interesting story about the guy who does a lot of that research in the Post today). Colbert uses fairly straight satire and sarcasm to make his points, but in general, I'm not always a huge fan of his interviews; there are times that the "Stephen Colbert" persona doesn't work.

But choosing between them? That's mean.

On a related note, I'm super excited, as I just got tickets to a taping of The Daily Show for November 3, which is the night before November 4--both my birthday and the presidential election. It's over 6 months away, but I am incredibly pumped.

Welcome back, Logan

As has been documented, probably my favorite part of Veronica Mars was Jason Dohring as Logan. So I checked out Dohring's post-VM gig tonight, Moonlight. Coming into the show-mid-season, all I knew about it was that it was about vampires. And at first, I was completely underwhelmed. Part of the problem is that it is, essentially, a procedural. He's a PI who investigates crimes, with a twist. (Vampire!) (Only, actually not in tonight's episode. But whatever.) And I don't really watch those. I've managed to somehow have only seen maybe two episodes of Law & Order ever.

Anyway, the lead won me over. The voiceovers were a bit much a lot of the time, but the guy playing Mick came across as likeable, with a good sense of humor. And was not bad-looking, which certainly helped. The problem was the love interest. She just did nothing for me. I'm really hoping that the first episodes showed why Mick was so in love with her. Not that I advocate letting people die, but it was just kind of hard understanding why he would sacrifice himself the way he did for her.

It was kind of interesting trying to figure out the rules of vampires on this show. It's one of those cases that I'd have to watch more to understand, but it's always fun figuring that stuff out. It seemed kind of weird that one of the vampires appeared to be in daylight, but maybe he has some special glass in his office that protects him? Now I'm trying to remember whether on Angel, he ever hung out in Wolfram & Hart offices--with windows--during the day.

I totally let out a little squeal the first time Dohring popped up on screen. Yay, Logan! (And they evilly had a different character named Logan. Don't do that, shows! It's confusing!) And honestly, the character is Logan. Which is fine, because Dohring is awesome at that role. But I'd be very interested to see him in something different.

(I also admit that when I saw Forgetting Sarah Marshall last week, I wished for a Dohring cameo. I don't care. I'm going to pretend that Kristen Bell's character winds up with him in the end. Logan + Veronica 4ever!)

Right. Anyway. I'd watch it again, but honestly, I pretty much only watched it tonight because the O's game was postponed. It was enjoyable enough, I guess. They should increase the Dohring and lessen the love interest, and I'd be much more into it.

No one comes between Zack and Kelly!

I totally agree with the premise of this hard-hitting article: Professor Lasky was a big jerk. How dare he stand between Zack and Kelly?

It does amuse me that 13 years after playing Professor Lasky, Patrick Fabian went on to play Professor Landry on Veronica Mars. The first time I saw him on that, I was like, "He...looks familiar," and it was one of those things that stuck in the back of my mind as I watched. And then I had to double-check, because I came up with "Lasky," but was all, "No, that can't be it; it's too close to Landry!"

I'm just going to go ahead and assume that Rob Thomas and/or the casting folks at VM were big Saved by the Bell fans and wrote the part for Patrick Fabian.

I just cannot stand still!

I saw Hairspray again on Thursday. I just saw it last October in Baltimore (which, AWESOME), and when I saw that it would be coming to DC, I was like, "No no, I just saw it." Then I got half-price tickets.

It was just as awesome the second time. It's such a fun show. I cannot listen to "You Can't Stop the Beat" without wanting to dance. I'm considering learning the hand motions that go with the chorus. I am that big a dork when it comes to this. (Though I managed to stop myself from buying any merchandise.)

I caught some of the little things this time around (thanks, binoculars!). In "Welcome to the 60s," there's a hot dog vendor on stage, and I noticed that he's selling Esskay hot dogs, which is right on. And as the show goes on, Tracy learns a lot of the little hand motions and dance moves that come back in "You Can't Stop the Beat."

I also enjoyed watching Taylor Frey as Link. And not just because he's a cutie (which he is, but he's probably also 10 years younger than me). It's that it seemed like he has the same fair skin that I do; he was actually flushed after a lot of the dance numbers, which is kind of nice to see. It blows me away how the casts of these shows manage to sing, dance, and act at the same time (seriously, in my tap numbers, I have a hard time incorporating arm movements with the steps, much less try to remember the words--even to songs I already know), and you rarely see someone a bit pink after a big dance routine. So it was nice to see him a bit flushed.

The set was a bit smaller than I remember it being when I saw it in Baltimore, but the Warner Theater is tiny. Apparently some lines have been trimmed as well, but I don't know the book well enough to have noticed that. Unlike when I saw Les Mis a few years back, and noticed every line that they cut. (Including the entire "Drink With Me" reprise, which is just wrong.)

Still very fun. I enjoy the stage version more than the musical, but either is worth checking out.

Killer chick lit

I just finished Goodnight Nobody by Jennifer Weiner, which is kind of a mix of chick lit and mystery. It was entertaining enough as I read it, and is helped by Weiner’s engaging writing style and good characterizations. My problem is that I started reading others’ reviews on Amazon, and am now picking up on things that annoyed me.

Like Good in Bed, the main character is good friends with a woman who seems very different from her. In both cases, everyone seems super nice and fun to hang out with, but I also kind of wonder what the two of them talk about when they’re just chit-chatting about things not related to the plot. In this book, the main character (Kate) chats with another applicant at a job interview and then bam! they’re BFF.

And in thinking back, one of the main plot points is what happened between her and her neighbor Evan. God knows I understand unrequited crushes, but the fallout from an encounter between them seems completely disproportionate to what actually happened. The book jumps between the current action of a murder, with flashbacks to how Kate wound up unhappily living in Connecticut. Weiner dropped hints about Evan and Kate’s history, and the actual climax of that subplot was underwhelming. It was one of those moments where you read it, then think, “Seriously? That’s it?”

I’m conflicted about Weiner’s treatment of the other housewives Kate interacts with in her town. I lived in Connecticut, in a town probably not that different from Upchurch, and unless things have drastically changed in the past 20 years (which is totally possible) (and man, 20 years? I’m old!), the portrayal seems a bit off. She gets behind the façade of a couple of them, but I’m not sure whether we’re meant to assume that there’s more to all of these women than what Kate initially thinks, or believe that these few women are the exception to the snotty rule.

Honestly, though, it was an enjoyable read. I think I may enjoy Meg Cabot’s Heather Wells series, which is another chick lit/mystery hybrid. Maybe it’s the overarching story or the cuteness that Heather was a teen pop star. Seriously, it’s always amusing.

And I just want to take a moment to marvel at Meg Cabot. I’ve been debating whether she has some ghostwriters working for her. Since 1998, she’s written 57 books, according to her book list. 57. Not including pieces she’s written for anthologies. Seriously, I don’t think that’s possible. Admittedly, most of them don’t require much research, but that still seems insane. Good fun to read, though.

Play out, orchestra!

There was an interesting article in the Post the other day about the orchestras in recent revivals of Sondheim musicals. I admit that I was quite tickled because I've seen all of the Sondheim shows he mentions: John Doyle's Sweeney Todd; the Company revival (OK, on PBS); the Sweeney Todd movie; the Sunday in the Park With George revival; even A Little Night Music in Baltimore, which I saw on Sunday.

(It was very good. I was a bit bored with the grandmother, which I recall from when I read the play a few months ago. And I was surprised at how many of the songs I know. Plus, Sarah Uriarte Berry, who I saw in Les Mis back in 1994, was great. It also had Maxwell Caulfield, best known from Grease 2; of course, this involved me trying to explain the plot of that movie to my friend Mike, who saw the show with me. I was impressed that Caulfield listed it in his credits; way to own it! "Send in the Clowns" was a bit weak, as Barbara Walsh performed it more lyrically than emotionally, so it wasn't quite the showstopper it could be. But overall, very, very enjoyable.)

Anyway, overall, I don't really agree with the author of the piece. That's not to say that I think that shows should have smaller orchestras; I don't. But I'm apparently part of the problem, as I didn't notice anything particularly off about the orchestra for Sunday. (Thinking back, I do remember noticing the lack of an orchestra, but that hardly diminished my enjoyment of the show.) I admit that I was hardly blown away by Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter in Sweeney, but I doubt they would've been laughed off the stage. (The kid who played Toby definitely wouldn't have; he was great). I'm still not sure how I feel about Doyle's having the actors playing the instruments, but that doesn't reflect on the use of orchestras in musical theatre in general.

Stuck in the 80s

As I drove home from tap tonight, since the O's game was postponed, I was flipping around the radio. I found Bon Jovi's "I'll Be There For You" on Jack and happily sang along. (And counted to make sure that it's five words. Because I have to make sure every time I hear that song. Apparently I don't remember from the previous time. Or believe Jon.) Then they said that it was 9 at 9, where they play 9 songs from one year; the year tonight was 1989.

There's a part of me that's firmly stuck in the 80s. In 1989 I turned 11, and a large chunk of me still thinks that things that were cool then are still cool. My dancing style hasn't particularly changed, and I can't really mock some of the outfits I see on old tv shows and movies, because the 10-year-old in my mind is going, "But she looks cool!" Not all styles, mind you, but a lot. It's sad, really.

Anyway, after Bon Jovi and the announcement of 9 at 9, I thought I recognized the very beginning of the next song. "Is this 'Iko'?" I wondered. And it totally was. And it was the version that I think of when I think of that song; I actually have another version of it on CD. After that was "Like a Prayer." Then "Cult of Personality," which I appreciate for countering each bad guy (Josef Stalin) with a good one (Ghandi). Also, awesome video.

I maintain that 80s music is far superior to anything that has come since.

Hangin' tough

So it looks like New Kids on the Block are officially reuniting. I certainly enjoyed NKOTB back in the day, but I'm kind of disappointed. Mostly because when I think of Donnie Wahlberg, I no longer think of NKOTB, I think of Carwood Lipton, from Band of Brothers. He was really, really good in it. (And by the way, if you haven't seen it, go watch it. It's crazy long, but so worth it. Plus, pretty much every actor in his 30s was in it.) Seriously, watch this scene. At this point, I don't think I could see him on a stage singing "The Right Stuff" without it seriously messing with my mind.

Plus, I have no desire to relive my middle school years. Those are best left in the past.

Thank you, EW photographer

When I first got my Entertainment Weekly on Friday, I wasn't blown away by the cover. At first. Then I noticed a blurb about John Krasinski. And, flipping through it, I also noticed an article on Jason Segel. Sweet!

Let me tell you, the picture of John Krasinski is very good. The story is also nice, confirming that he's a nice guy. And I may have swooned a bit at the sidebar, in which he imagines life as an English teacher. I already have a soft spot for teachers, and John Kras + English teacher = Hot. I'm just bummed that the picture goes across two pages, making it harder to tear out and put up in my cube. Because I'm 12 years old. And I saw License to Wed for him. (And will totally see Leatherheads when I have the time.)

Sadly, the article on Jason Segel doesn't mention that he also enjoys musical theater. One of my favorite YouTube clips is Segel and Neil Patrick Harris singing "Confrontation" from Les Mis on The Megan Mulally Show. Awesome. I totally want to hang out on the How I Met Your Mother set.

Also worth checking out from this week's issue is the list of top baseball players in the movies.

Bonfire on the Mall

DCist had a fun post this afternoon about the lack of a novel that encapsulates D.C. It's timely, as I just finished reading Bonfire of the Vanities, the novel of New York. Well, the novel of New York in 1987. I loved the descriptions of the stylish women's very large shoulder pads. It was a good read, once I realized that Wolfe was going for a Dickensian feel. And by "Dickensian," I don't mean "mid-19th century London"; I mean "written in installments and deliberately evokative of a certain time and place." Wolfe has a tendency to go off on tangents (I don't need descriptions of everything, thanks), but it makes more sense in context. And the story itself is pretty interesting; touches on a lot of sensitive topics. The New York Times did a retrospective on the 20th anniversary of the book that's worth checking out.

Anyway. Nothing like that for D.C. It's a hard balance, because a lot of books set in D.C. concentrate solely on the politics side of the city. While obviously the government is a huge part of the city, just because it's here, and just because some of us may work for it, doesn't make it the primary force of our lives.

And if the author goes with the idea suggested in DCist, who wouldn't want to read that?

Off-season excitement

It's that time of year when theaters announce their 2008-2009 seasons, so it's an exciting time. If you like theater. Anyway, the Kennedy Center had a big ad in the Post, and I'm psyched because they're putting on a production of Ragtime, which is probably my second favorite show (after Les Mis). It's such a great show; it's a bit more mature than a lot of musicals, and has way too many songs that make me tear up just listening to them (e.g., "New Music," "Back to Before"). Plus, it's what first introduced me to Brian Stokes Mitchell. Love!

But there's more than Ragtime. They're also putting on Giant, in collaboration with the Signature Theatre, a pairing that intrigues me. Maybe I should check out the movie. Also coming to the Kennedy Center is Spring Awakening. I admit that their Tony performance didn't really make me want to see the show, but it's pretty edgy, which isn't necessarily the first word that comes to mind when I think of the Kennedy Center. And Frost/Nixon. Sadly without Michael Sheen, who I developed a crush on after seeing The Queen.

Amusingly, they're also doing Playboy of the Western World, which I saw in Helena, Montana, on a field trip with National Honor Society in 12th grade. I remember hating it, and then getting a pizza with ham and pineapple. It'd be interesting to see it again; I know that my tastes have developed since then. Or maybe I should just try reading it.

In the meantime, I'm keeping an eye out for discount tickets to History Boys at the Studio Theatre. I know I should be more motivated, but it's hard knowing that there's a movie of it out there. With the original cast. (Including the guy playing Willoughby in the new Sense & Sensibility. Weird!)