Marc Bolan and T. Rex sang of “the children of the revolution” and it is precisely the mid-seventies lives of these British children that Todd Haynes sets out to portray in his 1998 film “Velvet Goldmine”. The glam rock era prefigured the punks and it was a time, similar to today, in which image was everything. The influence of glam rockers such as the aforementioned T. Rex, Slade, the band and early David Bowie can be seen in pop stars of today such as Lady Gaga. “Velvet Goldmine” is a fascinating and exceedingly well-produced film that serves as an adequate introductory course in glam rock; but in the end, the film fails to fully congeal into an entirely successful in part because of its sometimes awkward flashback narrative structure.
Not even the most vitriolic critic could find fault with Haynes’ cast, many of who have gone on and achieved much greater success since their roles in “Velvet Goldmine”. Christian Bale plays Arthur Stuart, a newspaper reporter and obsessive fan of the pop star Brian Slade (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), whose “murder” opens the film. Brian Slade appears to be a composite of Ziggy Stardust-era Bowie and Roxy Music’s Bryan Ferry, also taking his last name from another glam rock band. Ewan McGregor plays Kurt Wild, the Iggy Pop surrogate while Eddie Izzard and Toni Collette play supporting roles.
The performances are uniformly excellent and clearly show that the actors have studied many of the pop stars that they emulated. In particular, Rhys-Meyers brilliantly captures the coke-addled nature of the seventies pop star. He pays a homage to David Bowie’s televised performance of “Starman” when Slade pretends to fellate his guitarist in mid-song. McGregor also makes a more than passable Iggy Pop and manages to capture the unique, yet extremely self-destructive charisma and mythos that surrounds the ‘Godfather of Punk’. His miming to the Stooges’ classic “TV Eye” is very realistic although there seems to be little historical grounding in the bisexuality of the singer or for really much of the film itself. The film claims to be a historical document of a time period and of a music scene, though there seems to be a great deal of flippancy regarding the historicity of the film’s characters to their possible real-life counterparts.
Haynes does an excellent job of recapturing the atmosphere of seventies glam in the mise-en-scene and set design within the film. One particularly striking scene that shows Haynes’ attention to detail is the one in the Sombrero Club where during Slade’s star-making performance, at a table in the back, men are shown in the back speaking Polari. Polari was the underground homosexual slang spoken by Londoners, commonly during the sixties and seventies.
Another delightful touch was his addition of a female playing the New York Dolls “Personality Crisis,” as this was a song originally done by a New York band of lecherously heterosexual men who wore female dress on stage. The film is filled with allusions and references to pop-culture trivia and it can be a fun game to attempt to spot them. It’s a shame that the film sometimes becomes so muddled up in being visually attractive and outrageous, that the story sometimes becomes bogged down. Yet the film stands as a remarkable encapsulation of the ethos of the glam scene and the ripples that still emanate from it.
The film also stands with the larger body of Haynes’ work as yet another exploration of the artifice that is constant within popular culture. His later film “Far from Heaven” explored what was beneath the surface of the seemingly staid 1950’s home and using the films and style of Douglas Sirk as his guide, Haynes manages to find the beating heart that exists within the seemingly histrionic heart of melodrama. Like “Velvet Goldmine”, the fluidity of sexuality is also important and both of the main characters engage in same-sex relations. This fluidity is not necessarily something that came about in the 1990’s but has been in culture for decades and in the mainstream, however, blatant or hidden.
Another film by Haynes “I’m Not There” engages Bob Dylan, who may not challenge sexual conformity but does challenge the audience’s perception of who he really is. Haynes’ even took the almost unheard of step of having Dylan portrayed by actors of different ages, genders and races in different portions of his life and overall the film, like “Velvet Goldmine” succeeds in being an impressionistic look at a fundamental part of the popular culture. “I’m Not There” also features a plethora of Dylan covers by those who were influenced by the artists, much as “Velvet Goldmine” utilizes covers by Placebo and a band including some of the members of Radiohead. These movies shows an artist who is accumulating a body of work which refuses to bound by traditional narrative rules but which is clearly influenced by them, returns to the sources and then subverts them for his own artistic muse. Hopefully, the future holds another great one.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Process Writing
When I decided to take a class where I would essentially be writing reviews about art, I was both apprehensive and excited. This was something that I cared about but also something that I was going to find out, how good I was and how much it would take to improve. I am naturally critical by nature and I’ve always felt, probably arrogantly, that I was often able to discern meanings and find themes that many other people seemed to miss and I thought that this would able to adequately help me in this class.
I soon was finding myself challenged by the 500-word limit. ‘It’s too many words to write about this, I don’t care’. ‘I have 1500 words, how do I cut this stuff out?’ These frustrations began to lessen and lessen, especially once I finished the “Velvet Goldmine” review. I began to feel that I had gotten a better handle on how to fashion a review. There can be a formula but it doesn’t have to be formulaic and you can easily bring your own personality to bear on your work. In the beginning, I didn’t know if I would be able to adequately bring my own personal stamp to bear on my essays and to engage with other people’s work myself but reading my classmate’s reviews in the workshops and re-reading my own work, I soon found out that I was wrong. I had been clearly and sometimes, obviously, showing my own personal views and that our reviews were very different and highlighted different aspects of things such as “Crazy Heart” or the Oscars, that we all reviewed.
Writing for this course helped me to gain confidence in my own authorial voice and my own writing. Before the course, I had really viewed myself as too strong of a writer but upon the completion of it, I feel that maybe I am not half bad. I’ve never been one to revise what I have written or really to sit around and brainstorm before I write. I usually just sit down and have a stream of logorrhea. This class forced me to sit down, face my work and revise and it has done wonders for my reviews. With my final project, especially, I couldn’t just churn something out but rather had to keep looking at it and going over my sentences. ‘Should I take this out?’ ‘Does this fit with my argument?’ ‘Is Morrissey important?’ This skill will follow me and perhaps I should have taken this class earlier rather than waiting for my senior year. I hope to continue this type of work in a possible career, as soon as this summer and this class might have set me on the path to success.
I soon was finding myself challenged by the 500-word limit. ‘It’s too many words to write about this, I don’t care’. ‘I have 1500 words, how do I cut this stuff out?’ These frustrations began to lessen and lessen, especially once I finished the “Velvet Goldmine” review. I began to feel that I had gotten a better handle on how to fashion a review. There can be a formula but it doesn’t have to be formulaic and you can easily bring your own personality to bear on your work. In the beginning, I didn’t know if I would be able to adequately bring my own personal stamp to bear on my essays and to engage with other people’s work myself but reading my classmate’s reviews in the workshops and re-reading my own work, I soon found out that I was wrong. I had been clearly and sometimes, obviously, showing my own personal views and that our reviews were very different and highlighted different aspects of things such as “Crazy Heart” or the Oscars, that we all reviewed.
Writing for this course helped me to gain confidence in my own authorial voice and my own writing. Before the course, I had really viewed myself as too strong of a writer but upon the completion of it, I feel that maybe I am not half bad. I’ve never been one to revise what I have written or really to sit around and brainstorm before I write. I usually just sit down and have a stream of logorrhea. This class forced me to sit down, face my work and revise and it has done wonders for my reviews. With my final project, especially, I couldn’t just churn something out but rather had to keep looking at it and going over my sentences. ‘Should I take this out?’ ‘Does this fit with my argument?’ ‘Is Morrissey important?’ This skill will follow me and perhaps I should have taken this class earlier rather than waiting for my senior year. I hope to continue this type of work in a possible career, as soon as this summer and this class might have set me on the path to success.
Morrissey: Final Paper
Half a Person
The mainstream music scene of the 1980’s was dominated by heavily produced acts that seemed to take excess to an entirely new level. The advent of MTV and vast entertainment monoliths such as Madonna and Michael Jackson also dominated the attention of the public and monopolized the press. It was into this image-obsessed world that a gladiola waving, introvert from Manchester hit the pop scene straight from living on “the dole”, sequestered in his room, writing, reading and listening to music. As lead singer of the Smiths, Morrissey helped usher in the age of “indie” music and college rock that has proved to be extraordinarily influential to this day. Morrissey in particular broke from the rock hero frontman archetype that had been popularized by Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones; instead of preening and strutting, Morrissey wailed and flailed around as if he were in a torment.
Even Morrissey’s influences were different than most in pop. Instead of looking back to American bluesmen, his American influences were James Dean and Patti Smith. Also important as influences were Oscar Wilde and the kitchen-sink dramas of the 1960’s that were prevalent on the British stage and in film. In fact, in one of the Smiths’ songs, “Cemetery Gates” on their masterpiece The Queen is Dead, Morrissey sings “Keats and Yeats are on your side, but you lose because Wilde is on mine”. This namedropping of poets was not part of the rock tradition, especially poets who were not seen as romantic, outlaw figures like Arthur Rimbaud or Francois Villon who had earlier influenced Bob Dylan and John Lennon.
Another thing that sets Morrissey apart from the typical rock icon is how his musical career was preceded by his avid fandom. This may seem odd to the reader but Morrissey took his fandom beyond many others as he wrote books about his favorite B-movie actors, James Dean and the band that he says influenced him more than any other, the New York Dolls. Throughout his career, Morrissey’s passion for the New York Dolls has remained constant and he even helped them to reunite in 2004 and become a vital band yet again. He has never been shy about hiding his influences and likely knowingly patterns himself after Wilde’s remark that “Talent borrows, genius steals”. He also has been extremely critical of those who he does not like, including at times the Cure, the Rolling Stones, Elton John and conservatives. This makes for very interesting and often controversial press and this outspokenness helps to cement his outsider status.
The title of the Smiths’ sophomore album Meat is Murder clearly shows another theme of Morrissey’s, which is staunch vegetarianism. This was a very provocative stand for the band to take and it did not shy away at all from making it, as in the first record, Morrissey wrote a song about the infamous Moors Murders titled “Suffer Little Children” which many critics misinterpreted as a mockery of the dead. Misinterpretation is something that Morrissey has dealt with throughout his career as he has been accused of everything from racism to conservatism and his sexuality has been debated through most of his career event though he usually maintained that he is celibate and even a “Representative of the fourth sex”. Morrissey’s sexuality is something that can be debated adamantly without a consensus ever being reached as many of his lyrics and statements on the subject contradict each other. In songs such as “William, It was Really Nothing”, Morrissey even takes the odd step of lyrically portraying himself as a friend advising his buddy not to marry a girl, which is not the usual fodder for a two-minute pop song. Though it must be said that Morrissey has never played the game much as everyone does. In 2006, he stated that he would not include Canada in his then tour as the country allows seal hunting, which as a vegetarian, he is vehemently against.
After the break-up of the Smiths, most critics and listeners expected Johnny Marr, the brilliantly melodic guitarist of the band to go on to having the lengthy career while Morrissey would fade away into obscurity but from his first single, the glistening “Suedehead”, it became clear that Morrissey would not be going anywhere soon and since then, he has had a productive and mostly brilliant solo career. He has had his fair share of detractors, who disparage him when he changes or who bemoan him for not subverting his sound and he took a seven year absence from his recording career but since he has been back, he has been more prominent than ever and has taken his position as an elder statesman of alternative rock and British rock in general. Since his ‘comeback’ in 2004 with You are the Quarry, his detractors no longer summarily dismiss him but Morrissey now finds himself held responsible for the legions of critically despised emo bands that littered the musical landscape of the noughties. Entertainers from all over the world proclaim his influence and the influential British music magazine NME even declared Morrissey to be the greatest musical artist of all time, which, while probably hyperbolic, does show the esteem that he is held in today. Songs such as “Please, Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want” or “Every Day is Like Sunday” are now covered by indie bands or included in movie soundtracks. Indeed, Morrissey has even become to some people a figure akin to Paul McCartney or Bob Dylan: a symbol of when rock music was grander and when rock music could really, truly mean something.
What served to bring back Morrissey’s popularity? The answer seems to lie in the sheer fact the generation who grew with the advent of college radio of which The Smiths were one of the beacons. Morrissey has his music, and just as importantly, his personality, handed down like secret knowledge from generation to generation. Though he has never had the monolithic popularity of The Beatles, like them, Morrissey provides music that is universal and filled with truth. The Smiths managed to be so of their time while also managing to be anachronistic with their references to kitchen-sink drama and Wilde references. Perhaps the most fascinating group of Morrissey devotees has been the Latino gang culture of Southern California. This is a fixation that has not been particularly studied yet but has been remarked on, as they have become, perhaps, his most devoted fans. Maybe they have found within the work of this working-class, willfully asexual lad from Manchester, the mix of bravado, sensitivity and self-aggrandizement. Either way, observing those attending a Morrissey concert today can be seen as something akin to a transformative religious experience for many of them. It cannot be said that his fans lack loyalty to the man.
Morrissey’s vitality shows no sign of waning and he has become something of an “Indie Godfather”. An endearing facet of his career sees him continuing to release physical singles, even though so much of music has moved to the digital realm and he continues to save many of his best songs for b-sides. While his most groundbreaking work was done while he was in The Smiths, his presence continues to be very strongly felt upon the music scene and reflected in music, that he with his usual contrariness often decries. As the man once sang “The more you ignore me, the closer I get” and a music industry that tried very dearly to ignore him for many years, has found that their efforts were clearly in vain.
The mainstream music scene of the 1980’s was dominated by heavily produced acts that seemed to take excess to an entirely new level. The advent of MTV and vast entertainment monoliths such as Madonna and Michael Jackson also dominated the attention of the public and monopolized the press. It was into this image-obsessed world that a gladiola waving, introvert from Manchester hit the pop scene straight from living on “the dole”, sequestered in his room, writing, reading and listening to music. As lead singer of the Smiths, Morrissey helped usher in the age of “indie” music and college rock that has proved to be extraordinarily influential to this day. Morrissey in particular broke from the rock hero frontman archetype that had been popularized by Mick Jagger of the Rolling Stones; instead of preening and strutting, Morrissey wailed and flailed around as if he were in a torment.
Even Morrissey’s influences were different than most in pop. Instead of looking back to American bluesmen, his American influences were James Dean and Patti Smith. Also important as influences were Oscar Wilde and the kitchen-sink dramas of the 1960’s that were prevalent on the British stage and in film. In fact, in one of the Smiths’ songs, “Cemetery Gates” on their masterpiece The Queen is Dead, Morrissey sings “Keats and Yeats are on your side, but you lose because Wilde is on mine”. This namedropping of poets was not part of the rock tradition, especially poets who were not seen as romantic, outlaw figures like Arthur Rimbaud or Francois Villon who had earlier influenced Bob Dylan and John Lennon.
Another thing that sets Morrissey apart from the typical rock icon is how his musical career was preceded by his avid fandom. This may seem odd to the reader but Morrissey took his fandom beyond many others as he wrote books about his favorite B-movie actors, James Dean and the band that he says influenced him more than any other, the New York Dolls. Throughout his career, Morrissey’s passion for the New York Dolls has remained constant and he even helped them to reunite in 2004 and become a vital band yet again. He has never been shy about hiding his influences and likely knowingly patterns himself after Wilde’s remark that “Talent borrows, genius steals”. He also has been extremely critical of those who he does not like, including at times the Cure, the Rolling Stones, Elton John and conservatives. This makes for very interesting and often controversial press and this outspokenness helps to cement his outsider status.
The title of the Smiths’ sophomore album Meat is Murder clearly shows another theme of Morrissey’s, which is staunch vegetarianism. This was a very provocative stand for the band to take and it did not shy away at all from making it, as in the first record, Morrissey wrote a song about the infamous Moors Murders titled “Suffer Little Children” which many critics misinterpreted as a mockery of the dead. Misinterpretation is something that Morrissey has dealt with throughout his career as he has been accused of everything from racism to conservatism and his sexuality has been debated through most of his career event though he usually maintained that he is celibate and even a “Representative of the fourth sex”. Morrissey’s sexuality is something that can be debated adamantly without a consensus ever being reached as many of his lyrics and statements on the subject contradict each other. In songs such as “William, It was Really Nothing”, Morrissey even takes the odd step of lyrically portraying himself as a friend advising his buddy not to marry a girl, which is not the usual fodder for a two-minute pop song. Though it must be said that Morrissey has never played the game much as everyone does. In 2006, he stated that he would not include Canada in his then tour as the country allows seal hunting, which as a vegetarian, he is vehemently against.
After the break-up of the Smiths, most critics and listeners expected Johnny Marr, the brilliantly melodic guitarist of the band to go on to having the lengthy career while Morrissey would fade away into obscurity but from his first single, the glistening “Suedehead”, it became clear that Morrissey would not be going anywhere soon and since then, he has had a productive and mostly brilliant solo career. He has had his fair share of detractors, who disparage him when he changes or who bemoan him for not subverting his sound and he took a seven year absence from his recording career but since he has been back, he has been more prominent than ever and has taken his position as an elder statesman of alternative rock and British rock in general. Since his ‘comeback’ in 2004 with You are the Quarry, his detractors no longer summarily dismiss him but Morrissey now finds himself held responsible for the legions of critically despised emo bands that littered the musical landscape of the noughties. Entertainers from all over the world proclaim his influence and the influential British music magazine NME even declared Morrissey to be the greatest musical artist of all time, which, while probably hyperbolic, does show the esteem that he is held in today. Songs such as “Please, Please, Please, Please Let Me Get What I Want” or “Every Day is Like Sunday” are now covered by indie bands or included in movie soundtracks. Indeed, Morrissey has even become to some people a figure akin to Paul McCartney or Bob Dylan: a symbol of when rock music was grander and when rock music could really, truly mean something.
What served to bring back Morrissey’s popularity? The answer seems to lie in the sheer fact the generation who grew with the advent of college radio of which The Smiths were one of the beacons. Morrissey has his music, and just as importantly, his personality, handed down like secret knowledge from generation to generation. Though he has never had the monolithic popularity of The Beatles, like them, Morrissey provides music that is universal and filled with truth. The Smiths managed to be so of their time while also managing to be anachronistic with their references to kitchen-sink drama and Wilde references. Perhaps the most fascinating group of Morrissey devotees has been the Latino gang culture of Southern California. This is a fixation that has not been particularly studied yet but has been remarked on, as they have become, perhaps, his most devoted fans. Maybe they have found within the work of this working-class, willfully asexual lad from Manchester, the mix of bravado, sensitivity and self-aggrandizement. Either way, observing those attending a Morrissey concert today can be seen as something akin to a transformative religious experience for many of them. It cannot be said that his fans lack loyalty to the man.
Morrissey’s vitality shows no sign of waning and he has become something of an “Indie Godfather”. An endearing facet of his career sees him continuing to release physical singles, even though so much of music has moved to the digital realm and he continues to save many of his best songs for b-sides. While his most groundbreaking work was done while he was in The Smiths, his presence continues to be very strongly felt upon the music scene and reflected in music, that he with his usual contrariness often decries. As the man once sang “The more you ignore me, the closer I get” and a music industry that tried very dearly to ignore him for many years, has found that their efforts were clearly in vain.
Crazy Heart
Loving Her was Easier…
One of America’s most under appreciated actors has long been Jeff Bridges. Born into a Hollywood family that included his father Lloyd and brother Beau, Bridges has fashioned a long and eccentric career that has seen classic films such as 1971’s “The Last Picture Show”, 1991’s “The Fisher King”, 1996’s “The Mirror has Two Faces” and 1998’s “The Big Lebowski”. These pictures along with many others have shown Bridges to be an exceedingly naturalistic actor and someone who can be called upon to realistically play real men, not some Gary Cooper or John Wayne type who is larger than life. 2009’s “Crazy Heart” fits perfectly into this mold and sees Bridges essaying the role of the faded country star Bad Blake.
“Crazy Heart” is a modest character study that manages to be an extremely pleasurable and lovingly presented film about the redemption of a fallen star in the booze-fueled and often cutthroat world of country music. Bad Blake, the fallen star, is widely recognized as one of country’s great talents but because of bad luck and alcoholism, he is now relegated to playing bowling alleys and playing with local bands of teenagers who idolize him but soon learn that he can’t be counted on during the show. Bad also has to deal with the lingering baggage left over from the departure of his former guitarist Tommy Sweet, who has become the new pop-country sensation and who is providing Bad with the chance to be back in the spotlight as his opening act.
Along the way, Bad enters into a May-December romance with a single mom Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who interviewed him. Bad sees with Jean and her son, a chance to rectify some of the wrongs that he made in the past and he tries to act as a father figure with the boy, though his alcohol inevitably causes his failure. He also tries to get in contact with his son from a previous relationship, which doesn’t get too far either but because of Jean’s love and support, he is able to find redemption and get back on the right track. Indeed, redemption is as much of country music as booze and trucks and this film adequately portrays that both in its plot and in the realistic country songs composed by the noted producer T-Bone Burnett. There is also a great turn by the legendary Robert Duvall as a bartender who helps Bad through rehab.
The character of Bad appears to be based on such classic country outlaws as Kris Kristofferson and Waylon Jennings and he does share many of the same characteristics as these singer-songwriters. “Crazy Heart” makes no attempt to say anything new but rather proudly carries on the tradition of films such as “Tender Mercies” and “Coal Miner’s Daughter” which sought to reflect the music they involve in the direct and poetic simplicity of their telling. The film affirms the archetype of the hard life lived on the road but does so without resorting to cliché and anchored by Bridges’ performance becomes a film that will stick with the viewer.
One of America’s most under appreciated actors has long been Jeff Bridges. Born into a Hollywood family that included his father Lloyd and brother Beau, Bridges has fashioned a long and eccentric career that has seen classic films such as 1971’s “The Last Picture Show”, 1991’s “The Fisher King”, 1996’s “The Mirror has Two Faces” and 1998’s “The Big Lebowski”. These pictures along with many others have shown Bridges to be an exceedingly naturalistic actor and someone who can be called upon to realistically play real men, not some Gary Cooper or John Wayne type who is larger than life. 2009’s “Crazy Heart” fits perfectly into this mold and sees Bridges essaying the role of the faded country star Bad Blake.
“Crazy Heart” is a modest character study that manages to be an extremely pleasurable and lovingly presented film about the redemption of a fallen star in the booze-fueled and often cutthroat world of country music. Bad Blake, the fallen star, is widely recognized as one of country’s great talents but because of bad luck and alcoholism, he is now relegated to playing bowling alleys and playing with local bands of teenagers who idolize him but soon learn that he can’t be counted on during the show. Bad also has to deal with the lingering baggage left over from the departure of his former guitarist Tommy Sweet, who has become the new pop-country sensation and who is providing Bad with the chance to be back in the spotlight as his opening act.
Along the way, Bad enters into a May-December romance with a single mom Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who interviewed him. Bad sees with Jean and her son, a chance to rectify some of the wrongs that he made in the past and he tries to act as a father figure with the boy, though his alcohol inevitably causes his failure. He also tries to get in contact with his son from a previous relationship, which doesn’t get too far either but because of Jean’s love and support, he is able to find redemption and get back on the right track. Indeed, redemption is as much of country music as booze and trucks and this film adequately portrays that both in its plot and in the realistic country songs composed by the noted producer T-Bone Burnett. There is also a great turn by the legendary Robert Duvall as a bartender who helps Bad through rehab.
The character of Bad appears to be based on such classic country outlaws as Kris Kristofferson and Waylon Jennings and he does share many of the same characteristics as these singer-songwriters. “Crazy Heart” makes no attempt to say anything new but rather proudly carries on the tradition of films such as “Tender Mercies” and “Coal Miner’s Daughter” which sought to reflect the music they involve in the direct and poetic simplicity of their telling. The film affirms the archetype of the hard life lived on the road but does so without resorting to cliché and anchored by Bridges’ performance becomes a film that will stick with the viewer.
Oscars
Oscars: Still Useful or Not?
What a shame. Has there been a more disappointing Oscar ceremony than the 82nd Academy Awards? To start off, there were no great surprises as “The Hurt Locker” nabbed six awards and dominated the monolithic “Avatar”. Indeed, a female director (Kathryn Bigelow) finally won the Academy’s top prize, but even that had been spoiled by her near sweep of many of the run-up awards, especially the Director’s Guild of America, which nearly guarantees victory. One could easily be forgiven for forgetting, however, that “The Hurt Locker” was the biggest winning movie of the night as most of the jokes seem to refer to “Avatar” which cast a large shadow over the ceremony.
Jeff Bridges (“Crazy Heart”) and Sandra Bullock (“The Blind Side”) each won their respective lead acting awards as did Christophe Waltz (“Inglourious Basterds”) and Mo’Nique (“Precious”) which were also no surprise.
What was a surprise at this year’s Academy Awards was the sheer lack of star power. A few of the usual war-horses: Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand, were trotted out but where were the big stars? Yes, George Clooney and Meryl Streep were there and nearly omnipresent but they were nominated. There were no signs of megastars such as Clint Eastwood, Tom Cruise or Nicole Kidman and what is an award show without a number of camera pans to the darkly bespectacled leering visage of Jack Nicholson? Instead, the viewers and the audience were treated to the renowned thespians Miley Cyrus and Taylor Lautner. In what kind of world, would Taylor Lautner ever be able to make his own trip up to that podium? This could be just a bit premature as only a year ago, many would have said the same about this year’s Best Actress.
A particularly egregious oversight was in the tributes that were included within the Oscar ceremony. The Academy Awards could see fit to include stars who had worked with the nominees before, however, tenuously, to give cloying, self-congraulating praise that was given more time than the actual candidates’ speeches. Interesting. Also interesting was the fact that the producers could see fit to include a seemingly interminable, though lovely, interpretative dance instead of performing the nominated songs. It didn’t seem to particularly cut time out of the ceremony. Another grievous error was in the embarrassment of granting Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman honorary Oscars but then allowing them, only to awkwardly stand and wave. Lauren Bacall has more husky gravitas in a sneeze than a thousand Miley Cyrus’ combined. Also, yes, John Hughes’ movies are quite beloved by a certain generation and he was a good director but was the extended tribute to him really necessary? “His children” standing on the stage was a visual and aesthetic catastrophe, especially when (and not to denigrate Mr. Hughes) but geniuses of the cinema such as the director Eric Rohmer or the writer Horton Foote were relegated to a difficult to see montage. Also, while James Taylor covering the Beatles during this, may have been a cute touch for Beatlemaniacs who remember that Taylor received his start when George Harrison and Paul McCartney signed him to Apple Records, it really added nothing to the montage.
Lastly, let us not forget the hosts, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. This was particular disappointing as Martin had twice hosted the Oscars before in 2001 and 2003. Frankly, this combination was a failure. Baldwin had no sense of comic timing and their routine stank of stale vaudeville. Two hosts was clearly a failed experiment and this award show shows that the Academy clearly has to go back to the drawing board if they are to make the Awards both classy and hip.
What a shame. Has there been a more disappointing Oscar ceremony than the 82nd Academy Awards? To start off, there were no great surprises as “The Hurt Locker” nabbed six awards and dominated the monolithic “Avatar”. Indeed, a female director (Kathryn Bigelow) finally won the Academy’s top prize, but even that had been spoiled by her near sweep of many of the run-up awards, especially the Director’s Guild of America, which nearly guarantees victory. One could easily be forgiven for forgetting, however, that “The Hurt Locker” was the biggest winning movie of the night as most of the jokes seem to refer to “Avatar” which cast a large shadow over the ceremony.
Jeff Bridges (“Crazy Heart”) and Sandra Bullock (“The Blind Side”) each won their respective lead acting awards as did Christophe Waltz (“Inglourious Basterds”) and Mo’Nique (“Precious”) which were also no surprise.
What was a surprise at this year’s Academy Awards was the sheer lack of star power. A few of the usual war-horses: Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand, were trotted out but where were the big stars? Yes, George Clooney and Meryl Streep were there and nearly omnipresent but they were nominated. There were no signs of megastars such as Clint Eastwood, Tom Cruise or Nicole Kidman and what is an award show without a number of camera pans to the darkly bespectacled leering visage of Jack Nicholson? Instead, the viewers and the audience were treated to the renowned thespians Miley Cyrus and Taylor Lautner. In what kind of world, would Taylor Lautner ever be able to make his own trip up to that podium? This could be just a bit premature as only a year ago, many would have said the same about this year’s Best Actress.
A particularly egregious oversight was in the tributes that were included within the Oscar ceremony. The Academy Awards could see fit to include stars who had worked with the nominees before, however, tenuously, to give cloying, self-congraulating praise that was given more time than the actual candidates’ speeches. Interesting. Also interesting was the fact that the producers could see fit to include a seemingly interminable, though lovely, interpretative dance instead of performing the nominated songs. It didn’t seem to particularly cut time out of the ceremony. Another grievous error was in the embarrassment of granting Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman honorary Oscars but then allowing them, only to awkwardly stand and wave. Lauren Bacall has more husky gravitas in a sneeze than a thousand Miley Cyrus’ combined. Also, yes, John Hughes’ movies are quite beloved by a certain generation and he was a good director but was the extended tribute to him really necessary? “His children” standing on the stage was a visual and aesthetic catastrophe, especially when (and not to denigrate Mr. Hughes) but geniuses of the cinema such as the director Eric Rohmer or the writer Horton Foote were relegated to a difficult to see montage. Also, while James Taylor covering the Beatles during this, may have been a cute touch for Beatlemaniacs who remember that Taylor received his start when George Harrison and Paul McCartney signed him to Apple Records, it really added nothing to the montage.
Lastly, let us not forget the hosts, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. This was particular disappointing as Martin had twice hosted the Oscars before in 2001 and 2003. Frankly, this combination was a failure. Baldwin had no sense of comic timing and their routine stank of stale vaudeville. Two hosts was clearly a failed experiment and this award show shows that the Academy clearly has to go back to the drawing board if they are to make the Awards both classy and hip.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Live Performance Review
No self-respecting theatre company can resist performing Shakespeare at least once a year and over the past weekend the University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre, & Dance hosted a production of William Shakespeare’s classic problem play All’s Well That Ends Well. This is one of the Bard’s lesser-known works (as much as any of Shakespeare’s plays can be considered less known) and Michigan decided to stage the drama entirely with musical theatre students as opposed to the more traditional dramatic actors. This was a fascinating decision but also one that seemed to also reflect the depths that were sometimes left unplumbed by the actors at times. Michigan also decided to move the setting of the play up to the 1950’s which was a very inspired choice and which showed the versatility of Shakespeare’s drama.
The plot of All’s Well That Ends Well revolves around the love of Helena, a lady-in-waiting to the dowager Countess of Roussillon for the Count Bertram who initially rejects her and thusly, she is forced to resort to trickery and deception to gain his love. Indeed, the character of Helena is very much in line with the long list of Shakespearean women, in both comedy and tragedy, who are very proactive and push forward the actions of the play, which was not the case in much of the drama produced during the playwright’s time. This characteristic helps keep the play relevant to the modern audience and was something that the production illustrated, showing the centrality of women to the medieval court.
The modernized dress was a success as the director seemed to be aiming to emulate the popular 1950’s style that he inundated popular culture lately and seen in the television show Mad Men and films such as Far from Heaven. The court was transformed into what seemed like a large sitting room in a 1950’s style home. The actual text was not changed and remained in the original Shakespearean blank verse. The actors managed to often catch the musical nature of the text but also just as often, were unable to provide the dramatic heft that was sometimes required by the situation. Tyler Jones, who played Bertram, was able to capture the mercurial nature of the Count and also imbued his lines with the type of nobility that would benefit his status. He managed to portray Bertrand, who in reading the text seems quite worthless, as someone that Helena would reasonably want to pursue. Laura Reed did not do as successfully in her portrayal of Helena, the major character of the play and she seemed to often be struggling to present a multifaceted presentation of the character as someone other than a desperate woman. She also did not really portray the character as someone with a goal but rather someone who just seemed to be flailing away at whatever she could find.
This production of All’s Well That Ends Well was a mixed bag though it certainly deserves applauds for its attempt to bring a different perspective to the well-worn drama. The musical theatre cast did not necessarily live up to expectations but Tyler Jones’ acting and the costumes helped the show to leave a few memorable impressions and the night was not entirely a waste.
The plot of All’s Well That Ends Well revolves around the love of Helena, a lady-in-waiting to the dowager Countess of Roussillon for the Count Bertram who initially rejects her and thusly, she is forced to resort to trickery and deception to gain his love. Indeed, the character of Helena is very much in line with the long list of Shakespearean women, in both comedy and tragedy, who are very proactive and push forward the actions of the play, which was not the case in much of the drama produced during the playwright’s time. This characteristic helps keep the play relevant to the modern audience and was something that the production illustrated, showing the centrality of women to the medieval court.
The modernized dress was a success as the director seemed to be aiming to emulate the popular 1950’s style that he inundated popular culture lately and seen in the television show Mad Men and films such as Far from Heaven. The court was transformed into what seemed like a large sitting room in a 1950’s style home. The actual text was not changed and remained in the original Shakespearean blank verse. The actors managed to often catch the musical nature of the text but also just as often, were unable to provide the dramatic heft that was sometimes required by the situation. Tyler Jones, who played Bertram, was able to capture the mercurial nature of the Count and also imbued his lines with the type of nobility that would benefit his status. He managed to portray Bertrand, who in reading the text seems quite worthless, as someone that Helena would reasonably want to pursue. Laura Reed did not do as successfully in her portrayal of Helena, the major character of the play and she seemed to often be struggling to present a multifaceted presentation of the character as someone other than a desperate woman. She also did not really portray the character as someone with a goal but rather someone who just seemed to be flailing away at whatever she could find.
This production of All’s Well That Ends Well was a mixed bag though it certainly deserves applauds for its attempt to bring a different perspective to the well-worn drama. The musical theatre cast did not necessarily live up to expectations but Tyler Jones’ acting and the costumes helped the show to leave a few memorable impressions and the night was not entirely a waste.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Final Paper Prompt
I was thinking of doing the critical profile personality piece for my final paper and I thought that a really fascinating person to do it on would be Morrissey. In the past few years, Morrissey has become exceedingly relevant again and has since himself become perhaps more popular, at least in the States, than he has even been in his career and he has also continued to be in the news for his often highly controversial and highly quotable statements. His visibility has also been raised by all the bands that have cropped in the wake of the Smiths and which profess their undying love for the man and his music; these bands are at the cutting edge of music today and they have brought even more wide renown to the formerly “Cult” singer.
I have been a big fan of Morrissey for a long time and feel that he is a unique figure in popular culture in the way that he has synthesized his influences, from as disparate sources as Oscar Wilde and Richard Burton, and made them into something new. He is especially irregular when considered in the framework of modern popular music where most male singers do not croon as he often does, especially in his late work, nor do they write from third-gender standpoints or from such a seemingly “blues-oblivious” viewpoint. He also is a singer who continues to be visible through regular album releases and tours with a good amount of drama always surrounding him though he also manages a great mystique about him, especially in regards to his sexuality and private life.
A few sources:
Goddard, Simon. Mozipedia: The Encyclopaedia of "Morrissey" and the "Smiths". Sheffield: Ebury Press, 2009.
Woods, Paul. Morrissey in Conversation: The Essential Interviews. London: Plexus Publishing, 2007
I have been a big fan of Morrissey for a long time and feel that he is a unique figure in popular culture in the way that he has synthesized his influences, from as disparate sources as Oscar Wilde and Richard Burton, and made them into something new. He is especially irregular when considered in the framework of modern popular music where most male singers do not croon as he often does, especially in his late work, nor do they write from third-gender standpoints or from such a seemingly “blues-oblivious” viewpoint. He also is a singer who continues to be visible through regular album releases and tours with a good amount of drama always surrounding him though he also manages a great mystique about him, especially in regards to his sexuality and private life.
A few sources:
Goddard, Simon. Mozipedia: The Encyclopaedia of "Morrissey" and the "Smiths". Sheffield: Ebury Press, 2009.
Woods, Paul. Morrissey in Conversation: The Essential Interviews. London: Plexus Publishing, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
