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.

Also, that's not what Smithsonian ID badges look like

I saw Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian last night. It was enjoyable enough, even without having seen the first one (which is lost somewhere in my Netflix queue); it helped that I was in an easily amused mood. And really, any movie that has that much slapping of Ben Stiller is at least somewhat worthwhile. Of course, it also had huge plot holes (proximity to the tablet is what causes the objects to come to life, yes?), most of which I could ignore. I couldn't stop my horrified reaction to what they were doing to the museums, though. So much destruction! I can't even think about it without shuddering.

But what really annoyed me is the depiction of Stiller's character, Larry. Since the first movie, he's become a successful inventor, complete with infomercials (win!). Naturally, this is a bad thing. You can tell because he only makes it back to the museum every couple of months, answers his phone a lot, and an assistant says that he'll have to cancel his daughter's birthday to help prepare for a big presentation (though Larry goes off to work on it by himself). Obviously he has sold out and is now without joy. Because being successful is bad, kids. I'm certainly not one to condone working insane hours (she says, in the midst of spending a good chunk of the holiday doing work), but starting a successful is not a bad thing. I'm sure there are people who are happy being night watchmen at museums, and quite possibly Larry is one of these people, but the message left an overall bad taste in my mouth.

On the other hand, the movie did have Amy Adams. She can do no wrong. Love! In fact, let's all feel better by watching her sing "That's How You Know" in Enchanted:

NPH FTW!

You know, I didn't think it could get better than Hugh Jackman hosting the Tonys. I was wrong. This year's host is...wait for it...

Neil Patrick Harris. Epic win.

This is going to legendary.

Running behind

So at some point, I'll post something. Maybe about a couple of books I read! Or some plays I've seen! Or the end of the tv season!

You'll just have to wait and see. Perhaps at some point I'll have time to post. That'd be nice. I imagine it'd be therapeutic to get those thoughts out of my head--like how Dumbledore used the Pensieve. Alas, tonight it is not meant to be.

Biblical years: The showdown

I just finished reading My Jesus Year, about an Orthodox Jew who spends a year going to Christian churches and trying to experience Christianity to help him be a better Jew. Fittingly enough, I read The Year of Living Biblically, about an atheist who spends a year living by all the rules found in the Bible (Old and New Testaments). It was interesting reading them back-to-back the way that I did; similar topics, theoretically similar writing styles. Except that I liked YoLB much more than MJY.

I found Jacobs's journey in YoLB much more interesting and relatable than Cohen's in MJY. For one thing, it seemed that Jacobs actually had a journey. As he went through the motions of doing what the Bible said, it actually sunk in (to a certain extent). It was easy to see him start to appreciate taking time to pray, and the benefits of being grateful. By the end of the book, he had grown from the person he was at the beginning.

The same can't be said of Cohen in MJY. He states that he's a rebellious Orthodox Jew, but absolutely nothing about his behavior illustrates this. He still follows the Orthodox laws. His biggest rebellion seems to be that he's interested in seeing what goes on in a church. It's frustrating, because there's a lot about this that could be interesting. He talks a lot about his mother's death when he was a teenager and how this affected his faith at the time...but we jump from that to him in the present, in a different religious mindset. How did this happen? I have no idea. And while he claims that he's trying to understand Christianity, what's actually included in the book shows no indication of it. The episodes included involve him experiencing the most extreme ends of Christianity--snake handling, mega-churches and revivals in stadiums, that sort of thing.

At the beginning of the book, he's at a more typical service and gets upset that the minister is preaching Old Testament passages; he's upset because that's the Jewish part of the Bible, and this Christian minister has no right to interpret it, particularly to interpret it differently than Talmudic scholars. But toward the end of the book, he's in another mainstream Protestant service and says that Christian interpretation of the Old Testament no longer bother him. Why not? Because he's just become immune to it, after experiencing it for a year? Did his perspective actually change? I have no idea!

But really, it boils down to him wanting to experience Christianity without ever even trying to believe in Jesus as the Son of God. Now, I'm not saying that he should convert, but it left a bad taste in my mouth when he wound up not being particularly moved by Christmas, even after admitting appreciating the midnight service--to me, the most moving, spiritual part of the holiday. Well, of course he's left cold by Christmas! He knows it's a material holiday and while he acknowledges that there is a spiritual component...he just kind of ignores it.

Plus, he tries to be funny, but he tries in a way that's obvious. Jacobs's writing is more easy, more naturally amusing. When Cohen includes a line that's humorous, the effort is obvious.

It just bums me out because I think Cohen's book had so much potential. It just totally didn't live up to it. The Year of Living Biblically, though, is totally worth the time. And while My Jesus Year has some interesting, thought-provoking moments, they're just too few and far between to make it worth your while.

(I'd also recommend Bill Wood's review of My Jesus Year on Amazon. Reading it after writing this entry, I find myself thinking, "Yes, exactly!")

Just turn to your bosom buddy...

I was sad to see that Bea Arthur passed away; I didn't even realize she was sick! Of course, she was 86, so it's not like she was a spring chicken. Still, it's quite sad. And while a lot of people will gush over her turn on The Golden Girls, I'd like to give a nod to her stage work. I had the Mame cast recording on record (well, my parents did...), and she was made of awesome. Behold:



(Even with bonus Brian Stokes Mitchell at the very beginning!)

Just the way I am

I was flipping around tonight and found the last half hour of Bridget Jones's Diary. Man, I love that movie. But now all I want to do is watch Colin Firth movies.

...That is all.

Holiday celebrations, Barb-style

I was out the door this morning and heading to my car when I realized that I didn't have my Jesus Christ Superstar CD with me. I paused for a moment, wondering whether I should go back inside to get it...and totally did. Easter is one of the holidays I use musical theater to celebrate--the other is Independence Day. I always listen to Superstar when I drive up to Baltimore to spend the day with my family, and I try to watch 1776 every July 4. I mean, it's fun to think of history as musical theater, right? (If you want further thoughts on the 2000 production of Superstar, you can check out some entries from April 2001.)

In that spirit, here are a couple of my favorite parts of those productions. (My favorite part of 1776 is actually right after the independence vote passes, when Adams just says, "It is done." But I couldn't find that online.)

Chasing Lauren Weisberger

I just finished Everyone Worth Knowing and Chasing Harry Winston, both by Lauren Weisberger, who also wrote The Devil Wears Prada (which I read ages ago). I didn't really pay attention to which was written first, but wound up unwittingly reading them in chronologic order.

In DWP (and The Nanny Diaries), I got annoyed with the lead character for putting up with a lot of crap at work and just whining--not doing anything about it. There's still a bit of that in EWK, but it's not nearly as bad as it could be. The lead character in EWK, Bette, winds up at a PR firm, where her job involves a lot of partying. And while some of the people she works with are a bit much, it's nothing like DWP. Plus, she seems to enjoy (at least, certain aspects of) her job, and is good at it.

One thing I really appreciated is that a lot of the times, Weisberger didn't go for the easy wacky situation. Bette would be given an assignment when she clearly didn't feel prepared...and then the book skips ahead a bit. That assignment? Went fine. Not a big deal. Almost like real life. Huh! A lot of the story felt fairly organic.

Which was totally not the case in CHW, which is about three best friends (Adriana, Emmy, and Leigh) as they approach 30. And, as a 30-year-old, I just could not relate to these people at all. It was hard to see how these three women were even friends, and if Adriana had any likable qualities, I don't know what they were. I mean, pretty much any time Emmy or Leigh had good news, Adriana got annoyed and had to get the spotlight back on herself. It would probably help the story if we got actual scenes of Leigh and her love interest, too, so maybe that we'd see it was love, not lust. And I'm not sure about Emmy's story, the moral of which I think is that to loosen up and find love, she had to have sex with a bunch of random men.

I also got thrown off by some of the references. For EWK, it really has to be placed at a certain time--Bette works in PR, she needs celebrities at parties, so there's a definite time for that book. But in CHW, one of the characters rides in a limo past Bear Stearns and makes some comment about it, and I was like, "Wow." I also wasn't thrilled with a bit where one of the characters praises Something Borrowed and Something Blue (which I've mentioned a bit before). Now, I have no idea whether Weisberger knows Emily Giffin, but it still bothered me a bit. Solidarity and all that is fine, I just felt like she maybe laid it on a bit thick.

Anyway, I recommend Everyone Worth Knowing, but suggest skipping Chasing Harry Winston...though they're both pretty quick and easy reads. CHW isn't the worst book ever written--which some of the Amazon reviews would have you think--but there are definitely better ways to spend your time.

Craigslist: Not just for residents!

There was a really good story in the Post on Sunday about the actors who are in the touring companies of shows. It's a life I cannot even imagine--constantly being in new places, having empty days. It's nice to hear that DC is a good town to play, but I never even thought about some of the intricacies. I mean, they rent apartments! I guess I just imagined they'd stay in hotels? I bet they do in some places; a lot of cities, shows are only there for a week. But maybe even there, the company (and crew) rents an apartment. Or stay at, say, a Residence Inn. I didn't really think about it, but I guess I thought that someone with the show coordinated where everyone stayed. It's weird to think about per diems and stuff with shows. Worlds colliding, I guess.

I do remember seeing the blog of a cast member of...Avenue Q? Putnam County Spelling Bee? (I saw the two of these within weeks of each other a couple years back.) The show was in town during Halloween, and some cast members went into Georgetown for the night. It was another interesting glimpse into that life. It's probably not what people think of when they imagine being an actor...and though it does sound cool, for me, it would get real old real quick.