(Rochester's Eastman Theatre, 21 October 2008)
The Orchestra, the Jane Austen, and her characters mingle on the stage as they re-create a story of romantic misunderstanding with a happy ending. A touch of honesty and confidence is added to the production by the actors who carry and peep into black folders containing the dialogue. The characters need little introduction and there is not much of it in the play---or at any rate not much compared to the steady development of the characters in the book.
The forte of the production is not dramatic acting but rather the musical numbers. The numbers get better as the play progresses, but there is no tune and no refrain that linger in one's memory after the curtain drops. (In this respect, the score resembles a typical opera.) The portrayal of the main characters (but not the musical score) is visibly inspired by the film Pride and Prejudice (2005).
The script would have benefited from a more-than-sketchy development of Jane Austen's character. Ideally, the play would have three stories running in parallel. In one story, Jane Austen contemplates rewriting the novel as she re-evaluates it in the light of her life's experiences. Thus, the second story line is the plot in Pride and Prejudice. The third story line is Jane Austen's memories of her own encounters with men that have shaped views on romantic love and the writing of the Pride and Prejudice. Does Jane Austen identify herself more with Elizabeth Bennet or Jane Bennett? Was Mr Darcy's character a man in her life or was he the man who never was? Or, perhaps, Darcy's character corresponds most closely to Jane Austen's self?
This appears to be solid if raw production; it can make it to the Broadway.
21 October 2008
13 September 2008
Elegy (2008)
The story follows a familiar pattern discernible in recent cinema. A woman with an "inner life," and a man, who is quite superficial, makes mistakes, often does not realise that he makes them, and when he does realise he does not have the courage to fix them.
The message of the film is not to shy from experimenting as life is complicated so it is hard to get it right the first time around. Furthermore, if an experiment fails, it can often be fixed. And listen.
With the exception of the Penelope Cruz's character, other characters appear misplaced. In particular, they are not good enough to earn the lives that they lead. Ben Kingsley's character, a professor of literature, is not brilliant enough for a university professor. His conversations do not betray the sophistication that the story ascribes to him. Ditto his friend, the poet. Ditto his long-term lover, perhaps. Such sketchiness is acceptable in Woody Allen's work, where it is a part of the fable. In this film, in contrast, it is a flaw.
The message of the film is not to shy from experimenting as life is complicated so it is hard to get it right the first time around. Furthermore, if an experiment fails, it can often be fixed. And listen.
With the exception of the Penelope Cruz's character, other characters appear misplaced. In particular, they are not good enough to earn the lives that they lead. Ben Kingsley's character, a professor of literature, is not brilliant enough for a university professor. His conversations do not betray the sophistication that the story ascribes to him. Ditto his friend, the poet. Ditto his long-term lover, perhaps. Such sketchiness is acceptable in Woody Allen's work, where it is a part of the fable. In this film, in contrast, it is a flaw.
30 August 2008
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Whereas saying it is all about sex would be to unnecessarily narrow the statement, acknowledging that it is all about love is perhaps an accurate description of the essence of art. Love is also the essence of good life as good life is a form of art in that good life transcends derivative and common, and accentuates innovative and universal traits of an individual's character. Being the ultimate project in life, it is important to get love right. It is unlikely that it comes out right from the first attempt and one should treasure all the signals about what is right for one and what is wrong, whichever form these signals take. Generating these signals involves taking risks and being creative, which are the subjects of this Woody Allen's picture.
Mr Allen's pictures are better when he engages European actors, who are typically better trained than American ones; this training is an asset given the minimal direction that Mr Allen gives. The film is well done. It is not polished; but its roughness cannot be mistaken for sloppiness.
Mr Allen's pictures are better when he engages European actors, who are typically better trained than American ones; this training is an asset given the minimal direction that Mr Allen gives. The film is well done. It is not polished; but its roughness cannot be mistaken for sloppiness.
6 August 2008
Roman Holiday (1953)
The picture is better than one may have expected. Gregory Peck's minimalist manner is derivative of Cary Grant's manner. Nonetheless, Mr Peck's version is executed well. Audrey Hepburn is charming, but not debilitatingly so as in the Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961). Her performance is more mature, less grotesque here than in some of her later pictures. Miss Hepburn's performance in the first scene after she returns home is impeccable.
25 July 2008
What's Up, Doc? (1972)
Like a musical, a screwball comedy---whenever it comes out well---is inspirational. It emphasises the artificiality of a boundary between a dream and reality. "What's Up, Doc?" has come out well enough.
Women Impressionists: Berthe Morisot, Mary Cassatt, Eva Gonzalès, Marie Bracquemond
(Legion of Honor, 21 June 2008--21 September 2008)
The lack of the sexual appeal of the paintings' subjects leaves a void in the subjects' character. There is something in the look and the poise of women when painted by men that suggests mystery, strength, youth---that sexually charges the women in the paintings. Not so in the paintings by the women impressionists. Instead, the look is blank, the back is slouched. The women in the paintings are exposed, void of the idealisation typically conferred upon them by the hand of a male painter. What is left?
Sometimes the woman's look is blank; sometimes it betrays an emotion: motherly affection (almost a duty), boredom, or longing for the unknown. Does this reflect the limited range of a late ninetieth century woman deprived of education, a woman whose main occupation is a "visitor", a "mother", or a virgin in waiting for a husband? Or is the flatness of women's characters due to the shallow perceptions and abilities of the artists? Probably a little of both can be held responsible.
The femininity of male painters' female subjects does not subtract from the character of the subjects. The femininity accentuates this character. A man is liable to idealise a woman, if only for evolutionary reasons. This idealisation is not limited to the physical. Instead, the physical idealisation often present in paintings serves to accentuate the emotional and intellectual idealisation---if it fails to do so, it becomes pornography.
The exhibition by women impressionists is a valuable study in the way women see women. Not surprisingly, however, the spectacle is surpassed by the way talented men see women and the way women would like to be seen.
The lack of the sexual appeal of the paintings' subjects leaves a void in the subjects' character. There is something in the look and the poise of women when painted by men that suggests mystery, strength, youth---that sexually charges the women in the paintings. Not so in the paintings by the women impressionists. Instead, the look is blank, the back is slouched. The women in the paintings are exposed, void of the idealisation typically conferred upon them by the hand of a male painter. What is left?
Sometimes the woman's look is blank; sometimes it betrays an emotion: motherly affection (almost a duty), boredom, or longing for the unknown. Does this reflect the limited range of a late ninetieth century woman deprived of education, a woman whose main occupation is a "visitor", a "mother", or a virgin in waiting for a husband? Or is the flatness of women's characters due to the shallow perceptions and abilities of the artists? Probably a little of both can be held responsible.
The femininity of male painters' female subjects does not subtract from the character of the subjects. The femininity accentuates this character. A man is liable to idealise a woman, if only for evolutionary reasons. This idealisation is not limited to the physical. Instead, the physical idealisation often present in paintings serves to accentuate the emotional and intellectual idealisation---if it fails to do so, it becomes pornography.
The exhibition by women impressionists is a valuable study in the way women see women. Not surprisingly, however, the spectacle is surpassed by the way talented men see women and the way women would like to be seen.
19 July 2008
Doubt---a parable
(Theatre Works, 19 July 2008)
The entire play is less than the sum of the scenes that it contains. The grotesque fallibility of characters prevents the play from raising moral dilemmas that linger after the curtain drops. To the credit of the actors, however, the grotesque characters are not accompanied by grotesque performances.
Sister James (Kristin Stokes) is prepared to compromise her knowledge of the truth in order to please others and especially be pleased by others. Sister Aloysius (Kimberly King) values the perceived safety of her pupils above their happiness; she also values her mental routines above her happiness. Infantile Father Brendan Flynn (Cassidy Brown) lacks confidence in himself and constantly seeks approval. By the end of the play, everyone, including the prosecutor Sister Aloysius and the plaintiff Father Flynn, are consumed by "doubt," which gives the rise to the title of the play.
Does the hierarchical authority of the church, the "certainties" of religion , and the unconditional approval of god disproportionately attract people who lack self-confidence? the kind of people who populate the play?
The play is at its best if perceived as a series of sketches. The scene with Mrs Muller (Tamiyka White) is a potent one. Not blinded by the black-and-white simplicity often sought for in religion, she is a consequentialist. She realises that most situations in life involve trade-offs. This conflict between consequentialist and deontological views could have constituted a core conflict in the play. Short of changing the subject of the play, removing the ending in which Sister Aloysius suffers from the pangs of doubt would have made the narrative less didactic and left some food for thought for the audience.
The entire play is less than the sum of the scenes that it contains. The grotesque fallibility of characters prevents the play from raising moral dilemmas that linger after the curtain drops. To the credit of the actors, however, the grotesque characters are not accompanied by grotesque performances.
Sister James (Kristin Stokes) is prepared to compromise her knowledge of the truth in order to please others and especially be pleased by others. Sister Aloysius (Kimberly King) values the perceived safety of her pupils above their happiness; she also values her mental routines above her happiness. Infantile Father Brendan Flynn (Cassidy Brown) lacks confidence in himself and constantly seeks approval. By the end of the play, everyone, including the prosecutor Sister Aloysius and the plaintiff Father Flynn, are consumed by "doubt," which gives the rise to the title of the play.
Does the hierarchical authority of the church, the "certainties" of religion , and the unconditional approval of god disproportionately attract people who lack self-confidence? the kind of people who populate the play?
The play is at its best if perceived as a series of sketches. The scene with Mrs Muller (Tamiyka White) is a potent one. Not blinded by the black-and-white simplicity often sought for in religion, she is a consequentialist. She realises that most situations in life involve trade-offs. This conflict between consequentialist and deontological views could have constituted a core conflict in the play. Short of changing the subject of the play, removing the ending in which Sister Aloysius suffers from the pangs of doubt would have made the narrative less didactic and left some food for thought for the audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
