Sondheim's Flop Once Again Rolling Along, Smoother Than Ever

http://theater.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/theater/reviews/sondheims-merrily-we-roll-along-in-encores-staging.html?pagewanted=2

This article "Time Traveling with Old Friends" by Ben Brantley was a review of the "Encores" revival of "Merrily We Roll Along," a show that in the original production ran for 16 performances. His 2nd biggest Broadway flop, next to "Anyone Can Whistle." In February, "Encores" revived it for a limited 2-week run. "Encores" is group that revives old shows for limited runs often to save a flawed show. The show is about three friends, Mary, Charley, and Frank. It is mainly centered around Frank. Frank is a hit Broadway composer who has become cold and greedy over time. Charley is his best friend, who writes the lyrics to his music. Charley is frustrated with Frank because of Franks greed. Mary is their best friend, a alcoholic writer, who holds them all together and is in love with Frank as she sees him go through marriage, divorce and another marriage. The experimental part of "Merrily" is that it is told backwards. Starting at Frank's party where they are all successful but Mary is drunk, Frank is secretly unhappy and Charley isn't even there because he and Frank hate each other. Then it goes through scenes going backwards in time to when the trio met. It is famous for songs like "Our Time" and "Not a Day Goes By."

The reviewer is saying that "Merrily We Roll Along" is desperately flawed, the show itself and this production, but has things in it making it worth trying to save. He compares "Merrily" to "many a problem child, to possess both glorious potential and a heartbreaking tendency to sabotage itself." He means that it is like a "problem child"in that it has possibilities but often ends up badly, it's own material "sabotaging" itself. He later explains that "Mr. Sondheim’s book writers have never been able to match the textured subtlety of his music, and the disparity is especially glaring in 'Merrily.'" He is saying that the dialogue in "Merrily" just can't keep up with Sondheim's complex lyrics. He quotes lines from the show like "Is Frank the only person in the world who doesn’t know you’re in love with him?" Which isn't a awful line, though very cheesy. Compared to songs with complex, conflicting emotions "Franklin Shepard Inc" and "Rich and Happy" the book looks lame.

I agree with Ben Brantely on somethings but not on others. I agree about the book not meeting the music's standards. I don't agree with his comments on casting. Having seen the show I think that the three main characters are incredibly complex due to the music and plot. However Ben Brantely thinks that Frank is a stereo-type producer. I think that "Merrily" can be confusing at times but Lin-Manuel Miranda, creator of "In the Heights" who played Charley had the best version of "Franklin Shepard Inc" I have ever seen. Personally my biggest complaints were that the 1st act was a bit confusing and that the set was distracting in the overture, the song "Merrily We Roll Along" and now and then through out the show so I couldn't fully enjoy everything. The beauty of Sondheim's music will always draw theater people back to "Merrily" despite it's flaws. "Our Time" and "Not a Day Goes By" are just too beautiful to pass up.

"Luka" A Nothing Broken, Nothing Thrown Child

http://www.lyricstime.com/suzanne-vega-my-name-is-luca-lyrics.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZt7J0iaUD0

The song "Luka" by Suzanne Vega is about a child named Luca who is abused by his parents. He is talking to his downstairs neighbor begging him/her to leave Luca alone about it. It is told in the 1st person. I think Suzanne Vega is saying children who are abused might not want you to say anything about them being abused but that makes it all the more important to speak up.

"Luka" has lyrics with images of violence said in a very "I'm-fine-mind-your-own-business" almost positive sort of way. The speaker says "Yes I think I'm okay/ walked into the door again/ if you ask that's what I'll say/ and it's not your business anyway/ I'd guess I'd like to be alone/ nothing broken nothing thrown". The first two lines shown in denial but that he is obviously hurt if he has to make the excuse that he walked into the door. The next two lines show that that is not the real story because he says that "walked into the door" is what he'll say. However that implys that that is just what he is saying, but he thinks it's not the neighbors business. Then Luka says that he wants to be alone and that he didn't break anything and nothing was thrown at him. If he has to say that nothing was thrown at him then that means someone has done something to make the neighbor think that. This makes me think that things have been thrown at Luka before, but Luka is saying it isn't that bad this time because nothing was thrown or broken. The music is a bit upbeat with a catchy melody. This is a metaphor for Luka trying to make things at home seem happy and upbeat when with the violent lyrics they are obviously not.

I think that Suzanne Vega brings up a issue that is not given enough attention and puts it in a digestible way. Issues like this are often put in a depressing way. Suzanne Vega's song became popular because it, like similar songs such as  "Pumped Up Kicks" are songs people want to sing along to and doing so think about issues when they may not have otherwise. I remember when I was little, like 7, my mom would listen to this song because she loves songs with deep lyrics and I would listen and hum the song for days after words. I listened to it again recently and looked at the lyrics and started wondering about the fun song I hummed in 2nd grade.

Romeo's Forgotten Rosaline

*I wrote this on my other blog for fun when we started reading Romeo and Juliet/saw the movie, this was not homework but I figured I would share it since we were talking about whether or not Romeo was in love today,*

Romeo and Juliet. One of the most iconic love stories ever. Romeo and Juliet's tragic young death for love. Yet I think of Rosaline. Rosaline, the girl Romeo had been oh-so heart-broken for right untill the second he saw Juliet. He only thought of Rosaline but with one look at Juliet, Rosaline was forgotten. Not that Rosaline cares, she didn't have feelings for Romeo.

Did he really love Rosaline? And if he didn't really love Rosaline, did he truly love Juliet? If he didn't die, and Juliet had died, or left him, would he have forgotten Juliet so quickly with one look at another beautiful girl? I mean after all, he is about my age. Can there be "true love" at 13? Not even I believe that. Heart-break but not true love. Not that the heart-break doesn't hurt because if it didn't then Romeo and Juliet wouldn't have died. But that brings me back to did he love Juliet, and if he didn't why did he die? Do we have the illusion of being madly in love, or am I wrong and we do fall madly in love?

But I think Romeo just falls in and out of love easily and is just as easily heart-broken. Dramatic. He means no harm, he thinks he is in love, and maybe he is.

Since I Couldn't Find Meaning in the "Sunday in the Park with George" Painting

Okay, I couldn't find any meaning or anything in that painting from "Sunday i the Park with George"(I picture the painter as Mandy Patinkin and only know him as "George)

 This painting is "The Train" by Romare Bearden (American, 1911-1988.) What I find most interesting about this painting is that only 2 people have a body, one is a child and the other holding the child doesn't seem to have legs. The child barely has a face. They are all African American. All of the people seem very crowded and the background seems to be falling apart. However the background reminds me of ancient ruins in Greece or Rome, like it was once very beautiful and proud. They are all wearing what appears to be very traditional scarfs around there heads, something not from American culture.

I think that the people barely have bodies because they are shown disabled literally when these people may be disabled figuratively like being very poor or having few opportunities for things such as a education. I think that the background symbolizes that these people were once strong and powerful but have fallen, like the ancient Greeks.  You could say that when Africans were taken for slavery by the Europeans and US colonys that they were being taken over like Ancient Greeks. It's like they are on a modern train (seeing as the painting is named "The Train") but with the head-scarves are also in Africa. The train means that they are moving somewhere. I think they are moving into the future.

I think he is trying to say that the present hasn't changed that much from the past and that if we don't do anything the next generations will share our fate and our ancestors fate. 

Well Its Awards Season, Here Is My Nomination

I nominate Gaby's post for all-star mentor because I liked that it was a thoughtful "Hunger Games" post that was deeper into hunger games then just things like government corruption. That is all a major part of "Hunger Games" but it is also has characters with emotions, who have human feelings. I didn't think too much of the idea of "owing" in "Hunger Games" but now that i think about it, it is a major part in the book, like how Katiniss always feels she owes Peeta and Thresh feels he owes Katniss. Even through the cruelty of the games there is still people trying to do what they think is morally correct.

FINAL HUNGER GAMES POST-Owing People

 

 

Idina Menzel's vs. Gregory Maguire's Witch of the West

So I am re-reading "Wicked" by Gregory Maguire. I read it awhile ago after seeing the musical "Wicked." I didn't really get the book when I read it, I was 9. Though I appreciate both (okay the musical is kind of overrated but its not a bad show) re-reading it, I'm a little shocked by the differences between them. At the core they are the same. A story of the "Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West," as in the Wizard of Oz. Elphaba is born green because of a mysterious drink her mother drank while she was pregnant, her father favors her sister and Elphaba goes to Shiz University mostly for her sister, where she meets Galinda. Most of the similarities end there.  

The book is about human rights (Animals versus animals,) religion, (the Time Dragon versus the old religion) and mostly the true meaning of evil (Elphaba.) Is Elphaba born evil or out casted by others and becomes evil. Is she really evil at all? I think the point is (like the musical) that she isn't evil at all. Or at least wasn't born that way. In the musical she is never evil, just severely misjudged because of her skin color. This makes it a great family musical. Reading the book now, I don't think that she was meant to be so clearly not evil. She becomes so, she wasn't really born that way. She wasn't a perfect baby but everything she did in her childhood wasn't her fault. She was born severely different from others. Later when she is at Shiz University she is polite and quiet but hated. If all people were green and had strange qualities like being born with sharp teeth, it wouldn't be strange and no one would care. In the musical this message of people being mean to others because of there differences portrays it in the common way of the outcast main character being the hero. Showing that people who are different are really not that different from us so we shouldn't be mean to them. Not a bad way to tell a theme but actually not all that original. The book instead shows us that strange people aren't born evil because they are strange but will become evil if we hate them for no other reason then they are strange. Both have the theme of acceptance but in different ways, and the story is original in that it is a different view on "The Wizard of Oz," but the way the theme is shown in a more  fresh, original way in the book.

However, seeing Elphaba become evil is much more harsh then then seeing her be unfairly judged. You could say that it is more touching seeing her basically lose her mind but I think that no matter how skillfully written, it's harder to read about a evil main character then a relatable one. Though it was a risky choice on Gregory Maguire's part and he did it well so I respect him for that. It can be very harsh and inappropriate so I also respect the musical for being able to turn it in to a musical. I don't think I could have or would have even thought of it. I mean they changed quite a bit of it but they still did it and even if I did change the book I still wouldn't have been able to make it a musical, much less a successful one. So I also respect that.

Hungry for Hunger Games, Catching Sleep with Catching Fire.

 *SPOILER ALERT*
(by the way this is not for the hunger games book club)

Harsh title for this post, I know. Anyway, I am towards the end of "Catching Fire" by Suzanne Collins. As much as I loved "Hunger Games," I can't seem to get my head around "Catching Fire." I'm not totally certain why but I think it is for a few reasons though they are more or less related. "Catching Fire" just doesn't keep me as interested as "Hunger Games." In "Hunger Games" the constant danger of the games is fresh and raw making it powerful. Especially in moments when the mood changes suddenly like when Rue dies. This makes Suzanne Collins ideas about government and our society captivating and maybe not easy to digest but digestible. In "Catching Fire" the mood is always the same. There is almost a kind of constant adrenaline. Which makes books exciting, but when every moment is full of this adrenaline every single moments the moments are empty.

Katniss has grown-up and isn't afraid to die. In fact she is certain she will die. It's like knowing how the book will end. We know she will die, though I think some sort of plot twist would allow her and Peeta to live. None the less the certainty, even if it is false, of how the book will end also makes the book less exciting. This isn't to say that she is certain about everything, in fact she is barely sure of anything. However she has decided she will die.

I also found her very cold and bitter. She says things about day dreaming about killing President Snow. I mean she has every right to but that doesn't make her more like-able.  When acting I have often been told never to "play bitter" because the audience wants to like the character. If they don't like the character they don't care about what happens to them and the play is boring because the audience doesn't care. I think this is very true here. 

For whatever reason one moment stood out.  At a feast there are hundreds of different foods to eat and Katniss and Peeta are full very quickly. Only to find out that most people eat as much as they want because they eat, drink a something that is designed to make them throw-up, then they throw-up and start over again.  This sickens Peeta and Katniss because they grew up starving and watching people starve so it seems cruel to waste food. This may have stood out because it is very clear and understandable as to why it is cruel and why people do it because it is easily relatable to every one individually. It is thought-provoking with out making me frightened (or trying to do so.)

The idea with dystopia is to show the future to reflect on the present. I think that the obvious way to do that is to scare people about who we are. That isn't necessary. Maybe a little of the book can be frightening but when the entire book is like that we are no longer frightened and no longer care. Things can be thought provoking with out giving us night mares.