Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Review - Our Lady of 121st Street

Well, life has seriously gotten in the way of everything lately.  My tablet died, which means I can only blog from my office, and two of the shows I was supposed to see last week got postponed.  I guess it's a good thing, except then there was the long holiday weekend in-between, so now I have to make my brain work harder to remember things.  This could be a challenge; I have a feeling this will be a short post, so please bear with me...


You all, I am absolutely sure, remember that I love the Signature Theatre.  I love their mission, I love their productions.  I saw, and loved, last season's production of Stephen Adly Guirgis' Jesus Hopped the 'A' Train (remind yourself of my review HERE) and I also enjoyed his Pulitzer Prize-winning Between Riverside and Crazy (review is HERE).  I just find him to be a powerful writer, with an amazing facility for dialogue and characterizations.  I don't know the people he writes about and I love getting to know them over the course of his plays.  When Signature announced the second show in Guirgis' residency, a revival of his 2003 play Our Lady of 121st Street, I pounced.  Of course I pounced.



photo credit: Sara Krulwich
Our Lady of 121st Street starts with a bang - we're in a funeral parlor and we discover that the body that was supposed to be in the casket has been stolen.  Our attention is grabbed immediately, by that fact, and by the fact that the character who is the most upset by this is also lacking pants.  Who would steal a body AND a pair of pants?  It's an intriguing and pretty hilarious opening.  The twists and turns and people we meet along the way are just grand as well.

I spent two very happy hours in the company of the amazing cast.  The play is actually less about the plot (or the resolution to the mystery of the missing corpse and pants) and more about the people and the connection each person has to the others.  And the right, and wrong, ways that humans respond to adversity.  Lovely stuff.  It's truly amazing to me how quickly I can get to know and love each of the characters Guirgis writes about - the world-weary detective hiding tragic secrets, to the spitfire/spurned ex-wife, to the brothers who are connected in maybe too many ways, to the random woman with seemingly no connection to everyone else.  But, really, each and every character is expertly drawn and expertly acted.  They all made me laugh and they certainly all made me cry.


Standouts for me, though, were the scenes in the confessional, between the maybe-over-it-all priest and the ne'er do well who is trying to cram 30 years of confessions into one afternoon.  These scenes were hysterically funny, but also so real and true, they hurt.  SO well done.  Though, I do have to admit, I was bothered by one thing: the priest is disabled, in a wheelchair after losing his legs.  The actor, however, was not disabled - how do I know that?  Because he came out for curtain call, standing proud.  You all know how this frustrates me.  This is not a criticism of the actor, he was lovely, but I have to say I was again disappointed by the choice to not cast a disabled actor.  How can we turn the tide on this?  I wish I knew.

Our Lady of 121st Street has been extended a couple of times and I highly recommend you go see it.  Stephen Adly Guirgis is one of our most accomplished writers and I absolutely cannot wait to see what he brings us next.  And Signature has assembled a crackerjack group of actors who do justice to this wonderful writing - thumbs way up from me.

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Preview Thoughts on The Beast in the Jungle

Composer John Kander has given so much to the world and to American musical theater - I'm just a big fan.  The Scottsboro Boys is one of my most favorite recent musicals, so when a new collaboration between Kander and director Susan Stroman was announced, I bought a ticket immediately.  I went to an early preview last night, so I'll only offer a few thoughts.

Described as a "dance play," The Beast in the Jungle is inspired by a Henry James novella and is the story of John Marcher, a no-longer-young-man who has been haunted for many years by a 'beast.'  We find out, through flashbacks, what the beast means to John and what he has run from for many years.  Peter Friedman plays the older John Marcher, Tony Yazbeck plays the young Marcher in the flashbacks, and former ABT ballerina Irina Dvorovenko plays the other pivotal character, May.  

The story is told in three parts, in three different flashbacks, each at least 20 years apart, and there is narration, but mostly the story is played out through dance.  Each important moment in the lives of these characters is portrayed through dance and the gorgeous music throughout by John Kander.  There is also a lot of rather experimental features in the production, utilizing lighting, puppets and costume pieces in very unique ways.


photo credit: Carol Rosegg
This is one of the most ravishing shows to look at I've ever seen - the lighting designer, Ben Stanton, has done some miraculous work here, making the small Vineyard stage look expansive and universal.  I also really enjoyed the interesting fabric manipulations and puppets used; once I got myself out of my 'naturalistic' brain space, I felt free to just sit back and let this completely unique piece wash over me.

Tony Yazbeck and Irina Dvorovenko are beautifully expressive dancers and can say more with their movement through space than through mere words.  So much so that I rather wished they didn't speak at all and let all the narration come from Peter Friedman's older character looking back.  But I totally get why that's not really an option.  But I found their dances together to be sublime.  A lot of the choreography was done by the ensemble of six terrific women and I enjoyed how they were utilized throughout.  

I really enjoyed The Beast in the Jungle and found its utter uniqueness to be fascinating.  I will also say that I found the character John Marcher to be a narcissist and played the victim a little too much, but by the end of the piece, I was quite moved.  And, yes, I had a sudden realization about my life.  It's been a while since I've had one, so there's always that.  Hearing more beautiful and theatrical music by John Kander is always a treat and the dancing was grand to see from so close (I was in the second row - poor Tony Yazbeck seemed to be drowning in sweat, that's how close I was).  I'll be interested to see how this piece is received when it opens next week (I think).  I found it to be totally unlike anything I've seen, but I know that some people don't find that a plus.  Good thing I do.  👩

Friday, May 18, 2018

ABT 2018 - Giselle

The wonderful day of days finally arrived - the start of ballet season!  Whee!  It's one of my favorite days of the year.  I don't know why it almost always has to rain, though, on my first ABT day; maybe somebody-up-there thinks I shouldn't have complete and perfect happiness, just in case.  Who knows?  I took the day off work yesterday, because I was supposed to have a couple of doctor appointments and I scheduled myself to see the matinee at the Met - I had to rearrange my subscription tickets a couple of times already and, to be honest, the matinee cast was the only one I was keen to see.  I'm glad I made the switch and I'm glad I took the whole day - those doctor appointments had to be rescheduled, so it was nice to just center my life around ballet!  

My first ballet of the season was one of my favorites (as you probably well know): Giselle.  It's just goopy, romantic, filled with gorgeous dance, and well, it features the spirits of scorned single women forcing lying men to dance to their deaths.  So there is always that.  I've reviewed ABT's Giselle a lot over the years - you can take a look at a few HEREHERE, and HERE.  You'll notice that in at least one of those reviews, I mention the soloist Sarah Lane and how I was looking forward to her dancing the lead someday.  Well, that day has finally arrived, which is why I selected that matinee performance.  Sarah Lane has been an outstanding soloist for many seasons and she was finally promoted at the end of the last season to principal.  I want to take advantage and see her in as many lead roles as possible.  I was thrilled to start with Giselle.

Actually, I was happy to see new people dance in nearly every role (well, new to the role for me, they may have done them before, but I just haven't seen them do it before).  I've long enjoyed Daniil Simkin and I hadn't seen him dance Albrecht before, so that was a treat, as was seeing my ABT MVP Roman Zhurbin as the prince, and new principal Christine Shevchenko as Myrta, head Wili.  Oh, and I was happy to see youngsters Catherine Hurlin and Gabe Stone Shayer dance the peasant pas de deux.  I thought the production was fantastic and each performer really put their heart and soul into things.

Sarah Lane was gorgeous as Giselle, all lightness and air in the first act, with a big heart and bigger jumps.  Her leaps are lovely and her footwork is crisp and fast.  The rapport between her and Simkin as Albrecht was so evident, even from the balcony (and I'm so mad at myself for forgetting my camera and my binoculars; I'm a dope).  She was shy, but in love, and he didn't seem to be just fooling around with a peasant girl, but really in love.  So much in love that he forgot his obligations.  When the royalty came back and caught him there, he had to turn away in shame.  And Lane's mad scene was chilling - she stood so still for quite a long time and then was a different girl.  I also enjoyed Kelley Potter as Giselle's mother - her miming of what could happen to Giselle was very scary.

photo credit: Erin Baiano
Act II was also gorgeous - Shevchenko was a cold and masterful Myrta.  At first, I thought, oh, she's too young, she doesn't take the stage, but she scared the bejesus out of me in the scenes where Hilarion and Albrecht were dancing to the death.  And when she stalked over to Giselle, to try to intimidate her into letting Albrecht die, it was great.  Lane and Simkin were also divine - so weightless and spiritlike.  They were gorgeous - the bit where he lifts her as if she skims the ground was beautiful.  And the moment where she dropped the flowers on him to prove she was really there - sublime.  Alexei Agoudine as Hilarion was terrific in his death dance and the corps de ballet playing the Wilis were in sync and ethereal.  All in all, it was a grand and glorious start to the ballet season.  I can't wait to see all of these dancers do these roles (and all the others!) again!  I have a feeling this season is going to be one of the best!

Thursday, May 17, 2018

The Busy-ness Continues...

I am seriously in awards-season-mania at the moment.  I'm just seeing things left and right, which is great.  I'm very fortunate to have friends who will take me to things, so I haven't had to make myself broke to see so much.  I have Off-Broadway things coming up, and happily, ballet season has started!  So there will be a lot to report!  In fact, this will probably be a long post, so perhaps I'll only offer highlights, because my brain is quite scrambled at the moment with so much art floating around in it.

Last Saturday afternoon, I went out to the Brooklyn Academy of Music to see another production of Long Day's Journey Into Night, starring Jeremy Irons and Lesley Manville.  I've had this ticket seemingly forever and it was grand to finally get there.  I'm a fan of Jeremy Irons from WAY back - I've only seen him on stage once, though, in a dreadful show that I can barely remember.  So when I got the email from BAM offering a ticket discount, I pounced.  Of course, BAM's idea of a discount is not very cheap, so I guess I'm extra-grateful for all the free stuff I've been able to enjoy lately, because Long Day's Journey, and then my tasty dinner after, were not terribly inexpensive.


It's only been a few years since I last saw Long Day's Journey Into Night - I was treated to a matinee of the last Broadway revival with Jessica Lange and Gabriel Byrne by a handsome Tony voter boss.  You can remind yourselves of my thoughts on that one HERE.  I wish I had more of a photographic memory - I wish I could remember more clearly the production with Vanessa Redgrave and Brian Dennehy.  All I remember is that I adored it, but not really the specifics of why I adored it.  Oh well.  

I very much enjoyed this production - I thought Lesley Manville was simply stunning and I thought Jeremy Irons was wonderful as well.  I also greatly enjoyed Matthew Beard as Edmund - when I looked at his bio, I saw that he had been in the last Broadway revival of David Hare's Skylight and I liked him very much in that as well.  It was nice to see him again.  I thought he found the fatalistic qualities of Edmund, yet still the youthful hope that exists somewhere inside him.  He didn't have much of a rapport with the actor playing Jamie, though, and I found that actor altogether too contemporary and affected.  The effect of the final scene between the brothers was completely stunted by the affectations of the actor playing Jamie - I didn't believe him at all, so that almost made the end of the play unsatisfying, but Lesley Manville came back on stage and her final monologue was scary and beautiful.

photo credit: Sara Krulwich
I thought she found so many layers to Mary - the self-loathing, the fear, the mania.  When she would burst out with a criticism of one of her men, you could see her automatic revulsion of herself.  And she was heartbreaking in trying to keep herself from going up those stairs.  Jeremy Irons was a wonderful counterpoint to her - he tried to keep up the facade and bravado, with the vainglorious actor peeking through.  But it was devastating to watch his realization that Mary had succumbed to her addiction again.  And Irons and Manville had a touching physical chemistry as well.  This production really showed the love/hate relationships between each member of the family and I liked that aspect of it.

I was very happy to made the trek to Brooklyn on a rainy Saturday afternoon to see Long Day's Journey Into Night (and then to Boqueria afterwards for a delicious tapas dinner).  Monday afternoon, I was grateful to go with a Tony voter boss to see a special matinee of the Broadway revival of Carousel.  I've never actually seen a production of Carousel, though I've of course seen the movie over the years.  I listen to the cast album of the 1994 London revival a lot, since the music is so gorgeous, so I was grateful to be able to see the show.

I left rather unsatisfied.  I knew that the show was problematic, of course, but figured the glorious music and plentiful dancing would get me through.  Well, the music was glorious the show was beautifully sung, and there was a lot of gorgeous dancing (I was happy to recognize dancers from ABT and NYCB), but the lead performances seemed tentative to me (at least in their scene work, not in their songs), as if they know the show is problematic, too, and if they just sort of skate around the problems, no one will notice.  I noticed.

even the Playbill forgets Julie
The opening "Carousel Waltz" is simply to die for - when the carousel seemingly falls from the sky, it's a glorious image and I was ever so happy.  What an opening!  But then the rest happened.  Anytime someone opened their mouth to speak, the words were just so uncomfortable.  And I think this particular production did nothing to either address the discomfort or do something about it.  So it sort of just laid there.  I never really thought of Julie Jordan as a supporting character before, but she really is here, with Billy's arc and redemption (yikes) as the main story, but since Julie is so diluted, there's no transcendent love story to cheer.  I don't know, maybe I'm just too worn out by years of men telling the stories of women and they tell us to just deal with it.  But there was no redemption for me, no happy ending.  How much more interesting could this show have been if interpreted by a women?  I don't know.  There was beautiful music to keep me there, though, and I guess I'm glad I saw it.  I'm grateful to my Tony voter boss for taking me.  I'll be seeing the third Tony-nominated musical revival next week and I'm already wondering what my response to THAT one will be.

Tuesday night, I went down to New York Theater Workshop with a handsome friend who was treating me to the Caryl Churchill play Light Shining in Buckinghamshire.  I will admit I did no research on this play, I had no idea what the reviews were like, I didn't know what it was about, I just went in completely blindly, because, hello, Caryl Churchill.  This play was written in the 1970s, but it is certainly timely now, with the talk of revolution and rebellion of the masses and how government can screw things up.  

Light Shining in Buckinghamshire takes play in the 1600s, dealing with England post-Reformation and Oliver Cromwell and other pieces of history where I am woefully ignorant.  The end of the first act is a recreation of the Putney Debates, discussions between 'radical groups' and Parliament to try to set up a more equitable society.  This was some heavy, smart, intellectual, occasionally dry, stuff.  I may have been occasionally confused and/or distracted, but I was never bored.  But in the interest of full disclosure, a full third of the audience left at intermission.  I've never seen a second act with so many empty seats that had been full in the first...

Beautifully acted, designed, and directed (oh, and the cast is completely diverse, in age, gender, race, and ability, which was fantastic and how things should always be), Light Shining in Buckinghamshire is not easy, but there is much that is shockingly timely and totally worthwhile there.  And, I'm sorry, a long and occasionally dry play by Caryl Churchill is much better than a lot of what's out there.  Being treated, as an audience member, as someone who has a brain is a rare delight.  I may not have been able to use my brain to its full capacity throughout the play, but I'm appreciative that Caryl acknowledges, with all her plays, that I have one.


Friday, May 11, 2018

A Very Busy Week - Nights Three and Four

Yikes, this week is still going strong and it's Friday!  I have a matinee tomorrow, Sunday off (thank heavens!), then a special matinee on Monday, an Off-Broadway performance on Tuesday, a ballet matinee on Wednesday, and another Off-Broadway performance on Thursday!  I should've called this a Very Busy Fortnight instead!  I am going to be exhausted, but most of these things have been free (I'm very grateful to friends who invite me to be their plus-one), so how can I say no?!  And I've enjoyed everything so far, so hopefully that trend will continue.

Wednesday night, I went to a reading of Kia Corthron's new play, Slingshot, at Rattlestick Playwrights Theater, as part of their F*cking Good Plays Festival.  Since it was a reading of a new play, all I will say is that it's filled with Kia's usual brilliant dialogue and characterizations, it's about a topic I've never considered before, and I'm hoping someone produces it soon so I can see a full production.  If you see that title on someone's upcoming season, check it out.

Last night, a friend took me out, as a belated birthday treat, to see The Rebecca Luker Songbook at Symphony Space.  I love Rebecca Luker - I actually saw her in Phantom of the Opera many years ago and hearing her sing in The Secret Garden was one of the joys of my theater-going past.  Her soprano truly shimmers and I'm always glad to see her name on a cast list.  Here is the description of the evening from Symphony Space's website:  "This unique concert features three-time Tony Award-nominee Rebecca Luker (Fun Home, Mary Poppins, The Music Man), one of Broadway's most revered and versatile stars, in a dazzling collection of world-premiere songs written especially for her by such esteemed composers as Jeff Blumenkrantz, John Bucchino, Sam Davis, Stephen Flaherty, Peter Foley, Jenny Giering, Michael Heitzman and Ilene Reid, Stephen Hoffman, Caleb Hoyer, Henry Krieger, Steve Marzullo, Georgia Stitt, and Joseph Thalken. The evening will be music directed by Joseph Thalken."

In a few words, this concert was simply spectacular!  Rebecca Luker is such a warm, wonderful presence and her voice is just sublime.  I have several recordings featuring her and I never tire of listening to her sing.  The songs (22 in all) were mainly songs set to poems, though there was at least one song that wasn't.  All of the songs were truly gorgeous, and Luker brought a different feel to each.  I know a few of the composers who wrote these songs for her and I was just delighted at all of their contributions.  I can't put my hands on my program from last night, darn it, but off the top of my head, I remember that Georgia Stitt set a gorgeous Christina Rossetti poem, Jenny Giering brought a Langston Hughes poem to beautiful life, Stephen Flaherty stunned with an Edna St. Vincent Millay poem and Heitzman & Reid wrote an hysterically funny song about how sopranos aren't funny especially for Luker.  Well, all the songs were written for her, but this one was an original (not based on a poem), so it seemed especially personal.  And oh so funny.  It maybe got the biggest hand of the night.

But, really, every song was terrific and if they had been selling a recording in the lobby after the concert, I would've bought it (and if I didn't mention your song, it's because I forget your poet, but I loved what you did regardless!).  She mentioned that she has another 60+ songs available to her, so she may do a follow-up concert and she hopes to maybe record some someday.  I hope she is able to, because original songs by contemporary songwriters are some of my very favorite things.  This concert was yet another installment in my very busy fortnight and it was a wonderful (and unexpected) delight.

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

A Very Busy Week - Night Two

So...I actually had a really cheap ticket to another event last night, but when a Tony-voter pal emailed me with a last minute offer to join him at a Broadway show, I admit I jumped at the chance.  I figured I would probably never get to see the show any other way, since it's doing so well at the box office (and won't be on TDF for years), so I gave my really cheap ticket to one of our interns and went with my Tony-voter pal to Frozen.

You may remember that it took me a long time to get to the Frozen movie, but I loved it when I finally saw it (you can remind yourself of my review HERE, and I'm laughing at myself and my last line in that post right now).  I'm glad I didn't have to wait so long to get to the Broadway show.  Of course, I should offer my usual caveat that since I know and love some of the creative team, I was probably predisposed to enjoy myself (especially since I loved the film).  You won't be surprised to hear I had a grand time.

I'd read some of the reviews of the Broadway production and I guess I could've gone into the theater last night with lowered expectations (though I don't think so), but I truly had a great time.  Our seats were great, we were behind adorable kids who loved the show, my Tony-voter pal had a free drink ticket so I got to have a cocktail throughout the second act, and the rest of the audience was just eating everything up.  I had a smile on my face most of the night, except for the times I was crying.  Again, I loved seeing a story about strong women who are able to save themselves, through their own hearts and minds.  Having said all that, I do acknowledge that there are a few rough spots, in my opinion, that happened in the transfer from film to stage.

photo credit: Deen van Meer
The rough spots certainly do not include the cast - everyone was really fantastic.  I was the tiniest bit disappointed at the pre-show announcement that we would be seeing the standby Anna, but I thought she was spectacular.  Just so joyful and effervescent and filled with emotion.  She was fantastic and her name is going on my "see in anything" list.  But, really, everyone was excellent.  There was terrific singing, dancing and lots of heart. 


photo credit: Sara Krulwich
The animated film had seven songs and the stage musical has maybe triple that number.  I thought the new songs were really terrific, especially the opening number of the second act, "Hygge," which was tons of fun after the excitement of the first act finale/intermission.  The new songs for Elsa were really good and really smart, since her character is mostly trying to conceal and hide herself, so these songs opened her up to us.  I liked the duets for Anna and Kristoff, to flesh out their relationship, and I thought Kristoff's "Lullaby" was gorgeous (as was he, but that's another story).  I liked the tweaks to the top of the story, too, where the parents really react badly to their daughter's 'ability' and their reaction informs the rest of Elsa's and Anna's lives.

So...rough spots.  For me, of course.  I'm no expert on direction, but I feel as if the directing of Frozen was a little...um...stately.  I think it could've used a little more whimsy or oomph or a lighter touch or something, since the show itself deals with magic and unexplainable things.  And talking snowmen, hello.  I mean, the show moved well, the pace was good and everything was crystal clear, but I guess I thought there would be more magic.  Some of the special effects were take-your-breath-away magical and some just weren't.  Sometimes you could see the big Disney budget on that stage and sometimes it felt a little cheap.  I don't know.  The rest of the physical production was first-rate, especially the lighting.

cocktail
"Let It Go" has been moved to the end of the first act and even though I understand, intellectually, the necessity in doing that, I thought it hurt the show a bit dramaturgically.  Suddenly, after the big crisis where Elsa freezes the town and she runs away to the mountain, then maybe twenty minutes go by when we don't see her at all, because we have to wait for the song, and there are four other songs before it.  The context of the song in the film is terrifically moving and here it's not quite as moving.  At least not in the same way, though the number itself is spectacularly staged and very exciting.  And, again, I intellectually understand why Elsa had to go so far upstage to sing part of the song (so she could be in the right spot for an amazing special effect, I'm guessing), still, having her all the way upstage instead of down and sharing in our face made me tilt my head.  Oh, and the PG13 costumes of the "Hidden Folk" who take the place of the rocks who turn into trolls in the movie made me blink, too.  Though everyone looked really good in those costumes.

It seems silly to quibble about a production I enjoyed so much, but I guess I do feel that the show could've soared even higher.  Though, if it had, the audience may have spontaneously combusted, because they LOVED it!  Even filled with kids, it was a great house, quiet and respectful during the performance, eager and excited during the applause and curtain call.  For once, they made a fun evening even better.

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

A Very Busy Week - Night One

I have a really busy week ahead, with Broadway, readings, concerts, and Jeremy Irons all over the place.  I also need to head up to Lincoln Center to exchange my first ballet ticket of the season (ballet season starts next week, WAHOOOO!), but that's another story.  I don't know why everything needs to converge into the next few weeks, but my goodness, I'm going to be busy for the foreseeable future.  Last night got me off to a fantastic start.

I went with a young work chum to the latest installment of the 92 Street Y's Lyrics and Lyricists programs - if you've read my blog before, you already know that I am the hugest fan of Lynn Ahrens, lyricist extraordinaire.  Well, also of Lynn Ahrens, human being extraordinare, but her lyric-writing was what was being feted last night.  I've been looking forward to this evening for a long time and it did not disappoint in the least.  In fact, it exceeded my very high expectations by leaps and bounds!

For some reason, I didn't realize that Lynn would be on stage for most of the show, narrating her life in lyrics, as it were.  She offered anecdotes about her career, craft tips for writing lyrics, and very personal stories about her highs and lows in the business.  She was fantastic, as always.  She's charming and delightful, funny and authentic, and oh so smart.  I just loved spending so much time with her onstage.  The cast of the show was equally terrific - each performer got to shine in solos and group numbers and they were all simply glorious.

photo credit: Stephen Sorokoff
All of Lynn's shows with Stephen Flaherty are deeply human stories filled with empathy and understanding.  Even hearing songs out-of-context was a moving experience - one of my very favorite theater songs is "Larger Than Life" from My Favorite Year, it never fails to move me.  The yearning, so perfectly executed in words and music, is just palpable.  Add to the wonder of that song a stellar performance (by Brandon Uranowitz) and you have a showstopper.  But, really, most of the songs were showstoppers, even the snippets of Lynn's wonderful pieces from Schoolhouse Rock.  That little tv program taught me so much - I remember, as a kid, watching cartoons on Saturday mornings and praying it was a Schoolhouse Rock day (they didn't air every week, at first).  The joy I felt, and still feel, when I hear those songs is absolutely transporting.

I loved the section where Lynn presented first drafts of songs and hearing the evolution of lyrics and even the recycling of a tune from one show to another was so great.  Really, everything was great.  The Ragtime medley - sublime.  The Seussical section - heartbreaking.  And Lynn's lead-in into "Man in the Mirror" from A Man of No Importance was so beautifully done; I've seen the show several times and I heard the song in a whole new way.  If I was a tad disappointed that Dessa Rose was under-represented, oh well.  When you've written so many glorious shows (and songs), I guess you can't include them all!  Oh, and I don't want to forget to mention that Jason Danieley, one of my very favorite performers, directed the evening with grace and smarts.  And as a special treat, Stephen Flaherty came onstage to accompany Nikki Renee Daniels on "Back to Before" from Ragtime.  Magical.  It was just a fantastic night all around, even if my seat neighbor had no idea who Lynn Ahrens is.  After I got done telling her about how wonderfully talented (and just plain wonderful) Lynn is, and then after she heard all those amazing songs, that woman is now one of Lynn's biggest fans.  As well she should be.  She can get in line behind the rest of us.


Friday, May 4, 2018

Thoughts on a Film Screening and More

One of my terribly handsome gentleman friends generously invited me to accompany him to a screening of the new movie Anything, featuring a post-film talkback.  Well, I love my terribly handsome gentleman friend, I love free movies and I love talkbacks, so count me in!  I had a vague memory of a controversy surrounding Anything, so I figured seeing the film in a screening situation would be best.  When I looked at the cast list and the film's taglines, I suddenly remembered the controversy...

According to the invite email, "Anything is an unconventional romance about Early, a heartbroken widower who relocates to Los Angeles to be with family after his wife’s sudden death. Asserting his independence, Early moves to Hollywood where he meets next door neighbor, Freda, a transgender sex worker. Forming a relationship that is at once unexpected and inevitable, they give each other much-needed trust, respect, and more. Starring John Carroll Lynch, Matt Bomer, and Maura Tierney."

That's a pretty good summary of the film, actually.  It has some lovely sections (the scene where Lynch's character is reading letters from his late wife is superb), its championing of building a family in unexpected places and of acceptance is lovely and John Carroll Lynch is spectacular.  There's not a lot of dialogue at the beginning of the film, but Lynch beautifully shows us the grief and despair this man is going through.  He has quite an arc and portrayed this gent honestly and with great feeling.  I did find the opening of the film to be rather meandering, though, and although intellectually I could imagine that because this man's life had become unmoored, the film wanted to use unformed scenes and dialogue to relay that, I also became impatient for something concrete.  When Maura Tireney arrived, there was the anchor I was looking for.  She is also spectacular as a prickly, complicated, loving, exasperated woman, trying to balance her fears with her compassion.  Lynch and Tierney had a wonderful rapport as brother and sister - you could see the years of struggle and adoration between them.  I loved their relationship.


I also loved the relationship between Tierney's character, her husband and her son.  I thought the son was one of the most original and interesting characters in the movie.  Maybe because I miss my nephew so much, I'm always looking for authentic representations of teenaged boys.  This kid wasn't a wisecracking mini-adult, nor was he a whiny entitled jerk, but just a nice, honest, and multi-faceted kid.  I liked the writing and the portrayal of this character very much.  I also liked that the actor playing Tierney's husband was in a wheelchair.  There was no backstory, no mention, that's just who he was.  We need more of that in the movies - disabled people are a part of our world and goshdarnit, let's see them!  So we got (I feel) authenticity with the kid and with a disabled actor playing a character whose disability was not a main plot point.  What was missing?

Oh.  Right.  The elephant in the room, of course, is Matt Bomer and his portrayal of Freda, a transgender sex worker (using the studio's description from above).  Sigh.  OK first, 'Freda, a transgender sex worker'?  She couldn't have been 'Freda, temp worker in a casting office'?  Or 'Freda, frequent movie extra'?  Or just 'Freda'?  Sigh.  Also, Matt Bomer is a very nice actor and a very attractive man and he seems like a good person and a real ally.  BUT.  I just couldn't wrap my brain around his portrayal of Freda.  I resisted it throughout the movie.  I feel he did a respectable job and seemed to honestly care about his portrayal, but he was still a cis man playing a transgender woman.  How much more powerful and authentic could this film have been if it had been brave enough to cast a transgender actress in the role?  Wait, it shouldn't be brave to do the right thing.

I have several friends who are transgender and I couldn't help thinking about them as I watched the film.  One friend said on Facebook (after seeing Anything's trailer) and then clarified more for me later: "The issue here is that casting cis men as trans women perpetuates violence against trans women who are literally, statistically, the population most vulnerable to violence in this country, and much of that violence is based on the stereotype that trans women, at the end of the day, are just men in dresses. So then, when mainstream media portrays us as such, it reinforces the world view that perpetuates violence against our community. And the fact that there will be people out there who think that this is a legitimate representation of a trans woman is really really damaging and upsetting."  Another quote I saw on Twitter was also on point:  “Every time a cis man gets applauded for bravely portraying a transgender woman on screen, every time he picks up an award for it while sporting a tuxedo, we’re reinforcing the belief that at the end of the day, a trans woman is still really a man."  I understand all of the financial reasons for casting a popular, bankable actor with a following, I do, and I understand that it's called 'acting' for a reason, BUT.  When you're doing a film that purports to be a tribute to the LGBTQ community and was written by someone wanting to shed light on an oppressed community, shouldn't you listen to said oppressed community when you're making the film?  The powers-that-be disappoint me.  We still have so much work to do.

They did address this issue at the talkback.  One of the executive producers is transgender and she spoke with great respect and affection for the filmmakers and for Bomer.  But that didn't completely resolve the issue for me.  I guess that could just be me.  Maybe for some audience members, seeing some representation is better than seeing no representation at all.  The power of authenticity, though.  It makes such a difference.  Again, maybe that's just me.  But what my friends said to me after I asked them questions haunts me.

Oh, and ok, more about that talkback.  I guess it put me in a bad mood from the start - the moderator worked my last nerve and I almost stood up twice and shouted "You did NOT just say that!"  He said something that seemed derogatory to me about plays turned into movies and then he said something about "how refreshing it was to see a middle-aged white guy portrayed on screen in a...delicate way."  I mean, COME ON.  Did he REALLY say that out loud?!?!  ARGHHHHHH!  Poor middle-aged white guys, when are they going to get a break in the movies?!?!?!  Ugh.  Thankfully, my terribly handsome gentleman friend went out for drinks with me afterwards so I could vent.  And so we could then laugh about so many other things (and so we could chat with the adorable Irish bartenders while enjoying our cocktails).  I'm grateful he invited me to the movie and that I got to spend time with him (I love him a lot), and I did enjoy some of the aspects of Anything, but I really do feel it's such a missed opportunity and can be sending a wrong message.