Sunday, August 31, 2008

Also, commentary on the sleeping habits of guinea pigs

A few years back, I received Great Expectations in the mail, one chapter at a time. (Maybe one section at a time; I can't quite remember, and I've gotten rid of them.) It was neat knowing that that's how people read Dickens's books originally. It also had the cool 19th century illustrations.

And now the Orwell Trust, Political Quarterly, and Media Standards Trust are publishing George Orwell's diaries as a blog, exactly 70 years after he wrote the entries. (Apparently, they're also posting it as tweets on Twitter.) It looks like the political stuff will start in early September; right now, it's a lot about the weather and snakes he finds in garden.

I admit that other than Animal Farm, I haven't read any Orwell, or even really know much about him. (No, I have not read 1984.) But this has definitely gotten me more interested in him. Good thinking, people! Technology rocks.

Friday, August 29, 2008

Let others rise to take our place...

Speaking of theatre online, here's a clip from the 21st anniversary of Les Mis, when they had the original cast come back to perform "One Day More." This is just evil. Les Mis is actually playing at Wolf Trap at the moment, and now I totally want to go.

Theatre and YouTube

An article in this Sunday's Washington Post is about bootlegs of theater performances popping up online. The article itself doesn't really say anything new: Performances are normally thought of as "ephemeral", but people sneak in cameras, tape the shows, and post them on YouTube. Or they post clips that pop up on tv shows--modern and older shows (e.g., clips from the original production of Chicago from The Mike Douglas Show)--or promo videos released by the shows themselves for marketing.

I'm totally guilty of watching these. I know there are places where you can go to watch taped performances, but some of them (like the New York Public Library's Theatre on Film and Tape Archive) are restricted to performers and researchers. The beauty of theatre is that it's never the same; the huge downside is that unless you're well off (or an usher or involved with the production), you can only see it once. There are so many productions I wish I could see again. Or, you know, at all.

I know there are issues about paying the people involved in the production, etc. I get why it's not right. But it's also understandable.

And when the article mentioned a clip of Hugh Jackman and Audra McDonald performing "If I Loved You" from a concert version of Carousel in 2002, I immediately went and found the clip. And you know what? I'm pissed that iTunes doesn't have the song for sale, because I totally want Hugh Jackman to sing this to me at will. So it's not all bad.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps

I just finished watching Coupling, the British sitcom. I wasn't sure that I would like it; I watched the first episode of the American one, and wasn't really thrilled with it. But again, British humor doesn't necessarily translate directly. I certainly spent the first season of the US The Office wishing I were watching the British one. And most of the characters on Coupling really need to be handled delicately--they walk a fine line between really annoying and likeable. Also, while sex certainly can be funny, I just wasn't sure that a show where every episode revolved around it would be my cup of tea.

Well, it was. I quite enjoyed it. I actually could see myself hanging out with some of these people. And it was laugh-out-loud funny. Plus, it tended to play with the format--kind of like How I Met Your Mother. Which came later, so I wonder whether its creators watched Coupling. HIMYM tended to play more with time, though, which Coupling certainly did as well. Both have fantasy sequences and the like, but Coupling also did things like split screens and whole sequences mostly in a foreign language. (It worked in context, trust me.) Things like seeing the same events from the eyes of multiple characters, playing with flashbacks...I love that stuff.

So I definitely recommend checking it out. I also might have to add Jack Davenport's character Steve to my list of tv boyfriends. (You know, like in a personal ad: "I'm looking for a guy like Jim from The Office, J.D. from Scrubs, Ted from How I Met Your Mother, Joe from Wings, Xander from Buffy--or some combination thereof. Or David Tennant. Call me, David!")

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Dan FTW! Hopefully

As I believe I've written about before, I generally start watching Big Brother, then give up somewhere in the middle of the season. The people annoy me too much, I find other things to do, etc. But this season...I don't think I've enjoyed a season this much since Season 2, when Dr. Will triumphed. Even though the house broke into alliances, they all pretty much got along for quite some time--much longer than usual. And while some people totally sucked, nobody got anywhere near as bad as some of the previous players (Dick, Boogie). And for a while, the alliances were actually somewhat fluid. Plus, throughout, most of the players have kept in mind that it is, you know, a game. Not everyone, but a lot of them.

Also, Dan. Dan is awesome. He's playing a fascinating game; he took elements of Will's game (looking weak), but adapted it. Other people since Will have had good strategies, but I think Dan's is probably the strongest, as he knows that it is something that has to change throughout the season. You can't stick to one thing. Plus, until very recent events, he's been pretty good at being friendly with everyone in the house, which is crucial.

Will last night screw him over in the long run? Getting Ollie and Michelle that pissed at him won't help him if he makes the final two; on the other hand, now we get to see how completely insane they are. And besides, Dan got $20K for being America's Player for a week. Win win.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

I want to work at The Agency!

I admit it. I LOVE Scarecrow and Mrs. King. So much, I love it. I have, in my (very bored) days, even read SMK fanfic. The possibility of meeting a spy and getting involved in his wacky adventures may have been a subconscious part of my decision to live in the DC metro area. I spent a very pleasant summer watching reruns, and a friend and I in college bonded over this seminal show.

So I was psyched to see a blog post comparing the ratings of SMK to those of American Idol:
In its highest-rated season (the spring of 2006), American Idol averaged a household rating of 17.6. This means that 17.6 percent of television-owning households were watching. In the 1986-1987 season, Scarecrow managed a 17.4.

Fascinating! Definitely check out the comments for the weaknesses in the author's arguments, but I was still pumped to see this. First of all, there aren't near enough references to SMK these days. I remain upset that it's not on DVD. (A travesty, people!)

I will take a moment to point out one of things that I really admire about that show. It was on four seasons, and the sexual tension between Lee and Amanda was there from the second episode, in which they had to pose as a married couple. And man, the way they handled the relationship was kind of fantastic. You see them flirt, and you see them allude to their relationship (once it begins), but it never takes over the show. You see it develop, but it doesn't hit you over the head. It's cute, but never too cute. It's such a fine line to walk, and so kudos to you, people who made Scarecrow and Mrs. King.

Now seriously. Spies. Call me.

First Time I Saw Jerry

Jerry Springer: The Opera is currently playing at the Studio Theatre here in DC. I was somewhat tempted to see it, in part because I actually have seen it before--I saw it in London back in November of 2004. It was very controversial over there; there were a lot of protests about its upcoming broadcast on the BBC.

I remember enjoying it a lot, though definitely feeling a bit odd as an American watching this in an audience of mostly British people. I was distinctly more uncomfortable than amused in one part of the show that featured a burning cross; most of the audience seemed to find it funny. In context. And given that the second act of the play is set in hell, a burning cross in context certainly may be amusing. I definitely wondered if the difference in my reaction is because there's so much more weight to that image to an American than there is to a Brit; not that they didn't know what it signified, but it's decidedly different. I imagine that, in context, I can find a swastika pretty amusing (e.g., The Producers), where a German may see the humor, but still not be able to laugh at it as much.

When I saw the show was going to be here, I actually pulled out my journal from the trip I saw it. I noted that I found references to Viagra more amusing than apparently the majority of the audience did. I guess the Brits just couldn't appreciate the sheer overwhelming number of commercials to help fight ED.

Of course, in addition to the burning cross thing, what I remember the most from that night is getting lost both going to and from the theatre. Good job, Barb!

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Down the Hole

I saw Rabbit Hole at Olney at the other night, about a couple (Becca and Howie) whose son was killed when he was hit by car about 8 months before the action of the play. The acting was superb, and overall, I thought the play was quite good. I particularly liked that Izzy, Becca's sister, is pregnant. Not that I've seen many plays (or read many books, etc.) about parents who've lost a child, but adding this layer seems like something that isn't addressed as often as maybe it should be.

But in some ways, the play seemed a bit pat. The ending is somewhat abrupt, and doesn't necessasrily feel earned. You see one character's catharsis, but I didn't really feel that it would lead as directly to the ending as it did.

Also, for some reason it seemed a bit too easy that the son's death was truly an accident. A lot of small things led to it; it was everyone and no one's fault. That bothered me a bit watching it, and thinking about it now, I can't decide whether that makes the effects of it easier or harder on the characters. Is grief easier to deal with if you have no one to blame? Is it harder? Does one help people move on more quickly? Obviously there aren't answers for these. Maybe it's just that the play seemed to almost go out of its way to make sure the audience knew that the accident was, in fact, completely accidental. The problem isn't the issue itself; the problem is the execution.

That being said, I'd totally recommend the play, if only to see the fabulous set. I totally want to live in that house.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Top 15 Songs Played on My iTunes

1. For No One - Beatles
2. Life Is Wonderful - Jason Mraz
3. I Like to Move It - Reel to Real
4. Ring of Fire - Johnny Cash
5. Boom! Shake the Room - DJ Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince
6. Flowers in the Window -Travis
7. The Night Before - Beatles
8. If I Loved You - John Raitt & Jan Clayton (from Carousel)
9. Henry Ford - Original Broadway Cast of Ragtime
10. What About Everything - Carbon Leaf
11. The Boxer - Carbon Leaf
12. Leavin's Not the Only Way to Go - Original Cast of Big River
13. Another National Anthem - Original Cast of Assassins
14. Where Does the Good Go - Tegan and Sara
15. Only You - Yaz

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Beware: Rancors ahead

I saw Pineapple Express last weekend. I was mostly drawn in by the presence of Seth Rogen and James Franco, both of whom I love. There was one point, when I watched Undeclared, 40 Year Old Virgin, and some episodes of Freaks and Geeks, that I wound up with a huge crush on Seth Rogen. I still find him fairly impressive, but the crush is mostly gone. Mostly. Franco, however...seriously, just look. Behold the pretty. Anyway.

In general, though, I'm not really a fan of stoner humor. I got annoyed with all the sequences in Knocked Up that involved them sitting around, smoking pot. So why see Pineapple Express? Other than the pretty.

I think I thought it would be more like Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, which is also a stoner movie, but struck me more as a kind of wacky adventure movie. Also, it had Neil Patrick Harris. It was strange and bizarre and random...but I really enjoyed it.

I can't say the same thing for Pineapple Express. It had some really hilarious moments--the thought of the car chase still makes me laugh--but overall, it was eh. However, I had no problems with the last sequence, which a lot of critics seemed to single out. It highlighted one of the things that I like in movies like this, namely, showing how normal people would actually behave in a fight. (Which also makes me think of the Xander-Harmony fight from Buffy.) If for some reason I found myself in a fight, that's pretty much how I see myself behaving.

Overall, Franco and Rogen are likeable, and the movie definitely has its good moments, but you can definitely hold off and Netflix it later.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

It was a moan-a, a groan-a, he left her alone-a

So a couple weeks ago I went to Oregon to visit my parents and also visit the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Unlike various Renaissance festivals, the OSF is somewhat permanent; it has four theaters, and performances run from early spring to late fall. Some actors have 10-month contracts, so it's a pretty decent season.

I had gone once before, in high school. We saw three plays in two days, and it was fantastic. I have only vague memories of the plays themselves (though I will say that I imagine I'd have a much better appreciation of Arcadia if I saw it today, as opposed to when I saw it 12 years ago), but I remember loving the town and being bowled over by it all.

And yeah, still loved the town, still bowled over. We saw Comedy of Errors and A View From the Bridge, which really could not be more different--broad comedy and fairly dark drama (though it did have a few funny moments). They added some songs to Comedy of Errors, which is also what they did in a Royal Shakespeare Company production I saw a video of back in high school. I think I enjoyed the songs in the RSC production more; the OSF one seemed to take some monologues and put them to music. It was still neat, but I think I liked the original songs more. The acting, naturally, was all quite good, though Adriana's voice was a bit...off. I initially thought she sounded sick, and maybe she was. I kind of hope so. Overall, good acting, enjoyable show.

What was really cool is that we saw it in the Elizabethan theater. The seating is all modern (unlike at the new Globe in London), but the stage looks Elizabethan. It was just such a neat experience. Plus, the weather was perfect.

View From a Bridge was just riveting. I didn't know the story at all, and wow. I could not take my eyes off it. Everyone was phenomenal. I kind of want to see Death of a Salesman again, because I feel like this is just way better. The issues are harder to deal with, so I can see why Death might be the more famous one. It's always impressive watching a play where you pretty much know how it's going to end, but still can't take your eyes off what's going on. And while it was written in reaction to events of Miller's era, there are themes there applicable to current events.

If you get a chance to go to Ashland and see a play (or two) (or three--I would've, but my parents weren't up for it), do it. And definitely get a backstage tour. Totally worth it, and given by actors in the company. Fantastic.

The one distracting thing is that Othello was also being performed, so naturally we saw a lot of posters for it. And I can't think of Othello without getting the Othello rap from The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged)in my head:

Monday, August 11, 2008

Something old, something new...

I just finished reading Baby Proof by Emily Giffin. I had read her first two books, Something Borrowed and Something Blue, and had a mixed reaction--I liked the first, but not so much the second. Borrowed is about a woman who winds up having an affair with her best friend's fiance (boyfriend?), and Blue is from the best friend's point of view. The thing is, the best friend, Darcy, is horrible. You don't really sympathize with her in Borrowed; you know that she isn't faithful to her fiance/boyfriend, and she treats her friend horribly--always has. In Blue, she continues to act as an innocent player, even as she realizes that she was a bad person. At one point, she's basically like, "I'm going to be a good person!" and then is. My problem is that I didn't find the transformation at all believable. Her thoughts didn't really reflect any change, and I just never liked her.

So after really liking one main character and really not liking another, I was intrigued to read Baby Proof. I was kind of baffled reading reviews on Amazon, with people saying that they loved Giffin's first two books, but Claudia, the main character in Baby Proof, was just too selfish and unlikeable. Wha?

It may be a reflection of the topic of the book. Claudia and Ben have a great marriage. From the first date, both agreed that they definitely did not want children. However, Ben realizes he wants kids, and Claudia still doesn't. How do you move on from there? I'm not sure how not wanting children makes a person "selfish."

I didn't find Claudia selfish. I was actually surprisingly neutral on her, which is probably why my reaction to the book was basically, "It was OK, I guess." (Even with some misgivings about the end of the book.) Of course, that's much better than my reaction to Something Blue. And now I'm like, "Maybe I should check out her next book, and see how I like that main character!" I probably will. These books don't take terribly long to get through.

Except there's the very real prospect that Darcy might pop up in it, as she did in Baby Proof. Claudia described her as "unaffected," which is exactly opposite of how Darcy appeared to me--her whole change was incredibly affected. So maybe I should avoid the next book.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

He's a funny sort of spectre

My first introduction to musical theater was a mix tape my dad made with songs from Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, and Cats. Yep, an Andrew Lloyd Webber mix. And I love Lloyd Webber. Not so much some his more recent work; I couldn't get into Beautiful Game at all, and am not even slightly familiar with Woman in White (well, I know the book, which is awesome and you should go read right now) or Bombay Dreams. But even some of his more obscure pieces--Song and Dance/Tell Me On a Sunday, Aspects of Love, Whistle Down the Wind--I own and enjoy.

Andrew Lloyd Webber is something of a guilty pleasure. Theatre geeks tend to look down on him--the spectacle of Phantom of the Opera, the strange concept of Cats. For theatre cred, you're supposed to swoon over Rent and Sondheim and Spring Awakening and In the Heights. I'm hot and cold on that sort of thing; love Sondheim (who seems to be OK with Lloyd Webber, at least judging from the video they did for Cameron Mackintosh's birthday), never got into Rent, totally have no interest in Spring Awakening, want to see In the Heights. Love the old musicals, too--movie musicals, stage musicals. And for some reason, all of those are OK; even the crappy early movie musicals with laughable plots. Hey, the dancing is fun!

But I grew up on Lloyd Webber and just can't feel bad for liking his stuff. I even enjoy Cats. There. I said it. The dancing is phenomenal, and the music is fun. The stupid operetta thing in Act II is a bit much, but that's OK.

This all is coming up because I was listening to Phantom of the Opera the other night. It was the first musical I ever really became obsessed with (followed eventually by Les Mis). Like a lot of other shows of his, I've grown to find some of the set songs ("Music of the Night," "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again," and from other shows, songs like "With One Look" and "Don't Cry for Me, Argentina") to be pretty tiresome, but I still really like the show. I can't help it. Especially the "Notes" songs.

And above all, the overture. How can anyone not get a thrill when those first notes are played? I thought the movie version was pretty terrible, but I did love how they did the overture. The raising of the chandelier, the transformation of the theater--love it.



Of course, as much as I love most of his work, I do think it's probably a good thing that Lloyd Webber is focusing more on producing and doing reality television. In some ways, it's all been downhill from Evita. But it's been an enjoyable way down.