Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark

I've tweeted quite a bit about the road to Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark. How my tickets were cancelled and my seats move to progressively worse locations. How Ticketmaster told me they were excited about the "great seats" they had for me at the December 26 performance, only to discover they were not just bad, but obstructed view. (And a decent usher who moved us to perhaps the best seats in the house.) But I finally got to see Spiderman, and now I get to add my thoughts to the bizzilion others on the web.

The technical difficulties that have made headlines were largely absent. A brief pause during the first act and another during the second act finale actually added a bit of excitement to the proceedings.

Long story short: Pretty much every aspect of Spiderman needs work. The technical effects are exciting, but mostly occur in the first act. The second act, particularly the finale needs a technical marvel to compare to the first act finale. The book and score are passable, but certainly not yet rising to Broadway quality.

Act I is stronger in some key ways. The story is more fully developed and, as noted, has the high-flying technical marvels we've been promised. But overall it feels derivative. This is partly due to the fact that it's an origin story, so anyone who's seen the first film pretty much knows what;s going to happen. The opening seems pulled from Lion King, and a key musical performance repeats the choreography from Across the Universe. Julie Taymor's work is about discovery, but telling an all too familiar story in such a mundane fashion simply doesn't work.

Act II focuses on Arachne, a Taymor creation rooted in Greek mythology, and an original story. While it's ultimately more satisfying and creative, it's also muddled and underdeveloped. It begins with an ill-conceived, ripped-from-Aida fashion show of Spiderman villains. It leads to a finale that lacks energy, comprehension and techno feats. And the big reveals, like Mary Jane finding out that Peter Parker is Spiderman, happen off stage. But at least it feels original throughout.

The flying effects are generally exciting, but the web-spinning effects are mostly absent and uninspiring.

The music by Bono and The Edge is not particularly memorable. The one song that works well, The Boy Falls From the Sky, is a solid second act number. But the music is not really theatrical.

Patrick Page and T.V. Carpio (subbing for the now department Natalie Mendoza) are given the meatiest roles and make for interesting villains. Reeve Carney and Jennifer Damiano are in excellent voice, but in rather thankless roles. The production makes no secret of the fact that multiple actors are playing Spiderman, and the unfortunate effect is that there's no fully developed character.

Julie Taymor is on video discussing the fact that Spiderman is part musical, part cirque, park rock concert. But ultimately it's still a musical that doesn't know what it wants to be. With five weeks of previews left, there are certainly opportunities to make substantial improvements. And Taymor is always up for a challenge.

Wicked Update

I had a chance to see Wicked again last weekend. It's been a few years since I last saw it, but two friends needed to see it. It's holding up well. The producers have made a few modifications to the Broadway production, so it feels mostly indistinguishable from the two touring companies I've seen.

Mandy Gonzales stepped into the role of Elphaba only last week, and Katie Rose Clarke continues her long run in the bubble. Both are just fine and make the roles their own. Gonzales is a bit less intense than previous Elphies, and Clarke has this Ann Reinking/Zooey Deschanel thing going that works well.

The production is still slick, with very strong supporting performances by Rondi Reed (Morrible) and Alex Brightman (Boq). It also feels fresh, which was great to see.

Wicked still remains a show that is better than it should be. It is far greater than the sum of its parts, which is good because the parts aren't all that great. But the lapses in story, the weak lyrics, and the only tangential connection to the Maguire novel disappear into a wonderful time at the theater.

My iPad is Here!

Two excellent reviews sum up my thoughts about the iPad. Check out USAToday and MacWorld for well-written, thorough reviews of the iPad. And check out Gizmodo for all-around excellent coverage of the device.

What would I add? Ever since the rumors started flying around almost a year ago about the entry of Apple into the tablet/netbook market, I have been anxiously awaiting this day. I own a netbook (and a laptop and iPhone), but have never found it to be as functional as I'd like. That is due, in very large part, to the inefficiency of XP as netbook system software. Apple is rarely first on the scene, but Steve Jobs is good at transforming the marketplace. The iPod was not the first mp3 music player and the iPhone was not the first smartphone. But both have changed the way we listen to music and communicate. Jobs has always done a better job of making devices that complement my lifestyle, rather than dictate it.

So, I was giddy and cautious when the iPad announcement came in January. It looked beautiful. It seemed to do amazing things. It was also missing key features and was going to run the closed iPhone/app-store model OS. The reviews referenced above discuss this well.

I ordered my iPad at 8:32 on March 12, two minutes after it went on sale. And I tracked it from China on March 30, got very concerned when I saw that it was still in Louisville at 4:22 yesterday morning, a happily greeted the UPS guy at 10:17 when it was delivered.

Do I love it? Oh yeah. And even some of my more skeptical friends who've now played with it are crowing. Is it a game changer. No! But I'm pretty sure it will be. Remember, the first iPod wasn't, and neither was the first iPhone. But the second generations were revolutionary.

Put the iPad into the hands of a 3-year old. She'll be able to use it. Put it into the hands of my mother. She'll be able to use it. The ease of the iPad comes two ways. Set up is beyond simple: download latest itunes, plug in. Within ten minutes of doing this I was off listening to music, watching Up and sending tweets and email.

The iPad is insanely simple to use, too. Why? because you need to know nothing about the operating system. The OS truly operates in the background. Now, I do understand that the downside of this is that everything goes through the iTunes Store and the ability for creativity is within a range and under the control of Apple. But there's so much potential.

The other thing the iPad does is separate consumption for creation. Laptops have largely brought those things together in hugely effective ways. This has, among other things, transformed student learning. But I digress. I'm not too concerned at the moment. Ultimately this will change, and I've been hugely impressed with the day-of-release apps available for the iPad.

For the record, I'm very disappointed in the opening of the iBookstore. I had a list of 6 books that would be my first ebook experience. None of them was available on opening day. My first book? Dorian Gray. Free!

When I travel with my netbook, I often bring my laptop. I can easily see myself traveling sans laptop with just the iPad and my wireless keyboard.

People are still figuring out how they'll use their iPads. Me, too. But, except when I needed to multitask, I have been able to function easily with just my iPad over the last 24 hours.

And it is quite simply a gorgeous piece of equipment.

The Donkey Show

Got to see The Donkey Show at Oberon in Boston (American Repertory Theater) last night. Thoughts later, but here are some pics so you can get an impression of how joyful and fun the show is.

Let the Wild Rumpus Start

Where the Wild Things Are is Spike Jonze's near perfect adaptation of Maurice Sendak's dark children's book. Jonze has created a work beautifully inspired by Sendak's book and yet uniquely his own vision. The film is an emotional rollercoaster that is breathtaking in its beauty and yet grounded in the realities of childhood.

From the frenetic opening scenes in which Max (Max Records) is a bundle of energy bounding around the house, Jonze captures the energy and loneliness of Max's life. These brief scenes of a regular dysfunctional every-family become the references for Max's adventure on the island of the Wild Things.

The film transcends the sum of its parts, and what incredible parts Jonze has assembled. In Max, Jonze has found the perfect lead. Records has such a range of emotion and expressiveness, he seduces you within the first moments of the film. It's an expression of such nuance that he barely moves a muscle when his teacher says the sun is going to die, and yet the horror he's feeling is devastatingly shared. Records is supported by great voice work from James Gandolfini, Chris Cooper, Lauren Ambrose, Forest Whitaker, and, particularly, Paul Dano and Catherine O'Hara. Catherine Keener is also fine as Max's mom.

The creative elements are equally important and equally fine. The cinematography and art directions are simply breathtaking. Max's home is 20009-real, and the island seems to flow perfectly from Max's mind, or the mind of any lonely child relying on his imagination to combat that loneliness.

Karen O and Carter Burwell provide a score that also supports the film. The music is essential to the effectiveness of the film. Jonze always foregrounds the score, giving it a dramatic level of importance.

This is not an uplifting children's tale. Where the Wild Things Are is dark, haunting and glorious. Max is "exercising" his demons. We experience the film through the wide eyes of a child but with the knowing perspective of an adult. That makes for a serious, layered experience in which not a frame, a note or a line is wasted.

Oh, how I loved this film. Let the wild rumpus start!

Taking Woodstock

Taking Woodstock is Ang Lee's loving portrait of the 1969 music festival in Bethel, NY. Based on Elliot Tiber's memoir of the same name, the film follows Elliot over the summer preceding the "3 days of peace and music."

I can only describe Taking Woodstock as a docudrama on ecstasy. There is such love and affection for the subject. Lee loves the music (though there should be more of it); he loves the sex and the lack of inhibition (and there's a good amount of it. He even loves the drugs (except for the brown acid, of course). The result is a film that is completely seductive, as long as you go along for the trip and let yourself be seduced.

The film is populated with dozens of people, as you might expect, and it's amazing to see such a strong impact from actors in the tiniest of roles (many uncredited). Demitri Martin is excellent as Tiber. Ultimately, it's his journey we're following, and his transformation over the summer of 1969 is beautiful and oh so subtle. Martin gives a nuanced performance that is both quirky and deep.

Imelda Staunton and Henry Goodman are breathtaking as Elliot's parents, Jake and Sonia. While nothing about these characters would scream "subtle," the performances are incredibly nuances. These three get the bulk of the screen time, but it's not that the myriad of other characters simply provide a context. The large cast is critical to the feelings that wash over you throughout the film. They are all Elliot's spirit guides.

Jonathan Groff is so seductive as promoter Michael Lane, his sensuality alone seems to bring the concert off (and kept my heart beating faster for the entire film). Nothing rattles. Emile Hirsch plays Viet Nam veteran Billy. Half crazed and half transformed, when Billy yells, "I love this hill!" tears welled up in my eyes. And it's the tiniest of moments, easy to miss. Liev Schreiber, Paul Dano and Kelli Garner all make indelible impressions in brief moments.

The film is a powerful and emotional journey, but not a perfect one. The massive undertaking means that characters disappear. Groff disappears for far too long. His sensuality is needed in the final acts. Conversely, Mamie Gummer takes far too long to register, though her final scene is wonderful. And the journey is a personal one. The film won't resonate strongly with everyone.

The biggest problem with the film is that it contains no concert material. The music from the concert is always heard in the distance, and Elliot never quite makes it. This is a problem because it's so obviously missing.

Certain events can change the trajectory of our lives. The lasting interest in Woodstock 40 years out is that it changed the trajectory of so many lives. It's quite intimate and beautiful to see Elliot become comfortable in his own skin, to come to peace with who he is during this summer of love.

It's also relevant today. There's something going on in our culture now that makes Hair the most successful revival of the Broadway season and Taking Woodstock so powerful. Maybe the age of peace and love is returning in some trippy form. At Woodstock, half a million people came to share, care for and love one another. The myth may have overpowered the fact even before the concert ever took place, but it showed us that we're all connected and that's a lesson really worth remembering.

Next to Normal

Oh yes, Alice Ripley deserved the Tony Award for Best Actress. She expresses a vulnerability and range of emotion rarely required in a performance. Next to Normal is the journey of Diana, a woman with severe and longstanding mental health issues. It's a study of the effect on her family.

The brilliance of Next to Normal is absolutely in the acting. Besides Ripley's riveting performance, Jennifer Damiano and J. Robert Spencer are exceptional as daughter and husband respectively, coping with Diana's delusions, suspecting they're the cause and, particularly in Natalie's (Damiano) case, afraid she's next. Kyle Dean Massey is also very strong as Diana's son Gabe, as is Louis Hobson as her therapist.

But in many ways, it's the work of Adam Chandler-Berat that stands out. As Natalie's boyfriend Henry, he's the outsider. He's us. Chandler-Berat doesn't get to play the wide range of emotion everyone else does. He captures the boyishness and innocence that any high school nerd/stoner might have for his first girl crush. But Henry is much more than that. As the person who must handle Natalie's own panic about becoming her mother, he is loyal and committed to supporting her. He is also recreating the father, a subtlety Chandler-Berat brings to his nuanced performance.

A new musical with a contemporary score is always welcome when it's done well, and Next to Normal certainly is. It breaks some new ground, though there are certainly moments in the score that evoke the similarly themed Falsettoland. In Falsettoland it was AIDS, here it's mental health. The point of both is that even amidst great tragedy, life goes on. We go on. Brian Yorkey and Tom Kitt capture this beautifully and painfully.

With all this greatness, why didn't I love Next to Normal? Well, because I was constantly distracted by the very weak staging of Michael Greif. Greif uses a three level set that is so deep, most seats have an obstructed view. Sit too close and you miss most of what's on the third level and much of what's on the second (that was me). Sit too far and you can't see the third level. A week later and my neck still hurts. (I remember a time when productions disclosed that you were purchasing seats with an obstructed view.) Greif has directed his actors well, but he's put them on a set that does things because it's Broadway and not because the play demands it. But mostly, he puts them on a set that leaves you saying over and over again, "dammit, i wonder what's happening."

Next to Normal was never the immersive experience it needed to be. I tried to justify the distractions by crediting Greif with some intentionality (it certainly is "alienation" well deployed), but in the end it stripped the play of it's most powerful emotion. Very good, yes. Great, not really.

Hair Redux

One of the most anxiety producing moments at a Broadway theater is opening your Playbill and having one of the "At this performance the role of..." slips fall out. It's worse when a whole slew of them flutter out. Friday's performance of Hair was a first among the hundreds of Broadway shows I've seen. Six, including Claude, Berger, Hud and Crissy. Compounding this, I was taking a friend to his first Broadway show, and we had picked this performance specifically because it was before Gavin Creel's scheduled vacation (which was announced as starting today). An inauspicious start. (I've seen some great performances by understudies, and the Toronto Wicked but the Broadway In the Heights left me feeling kind of ripped off.)

And, indeed, the show was different. Both Jay Armstrong Johnson (Claude) and Steel Burkhardt (Berger) gave strong performances. The show was missing some of it's crispness (a missed cue here, a mic problem there), but if any show can accommodate these glitches, it's Hair. The emotional core of the show was perfectly intact. The vibe among Claude, Berger and Sheila (Cassie Levy) had a tenderness not apparent in my last visit to the show. Perhaps it's Will Swenson's harsher take on Berger, or perhaps it was Cassie Levy having pity on the understudies. Whatever. It worked, and it worked well.

In my earlier review of Hair, I noted that at the end of a successful production you should be feeling three things simultaneously: sadness that the production is coming to an end, grief at the death of a major character, and elation for having just experienced Hair. In this regard, the Friday night cast did not disappoint.

The run has been good to others, too. John Moauro was terrific. While his role is smaller than many, he struck the right note in every scene. His face showed the joy, the grief, the agony and the stoned giddiness of each moment.

Saycon Sengbloh also had a great night, with a profound "Abie Baby" and great smaller moments throughout the night.

The afterparty was great. The night was wonderful. The audience was intense. And my friend? Well, he'll be going to more Broadway shows, and now he crushes on both Gavin and Jay. Peace!

WTF, WTF, WTFy, Fy, F?

The most surprising thing about Jerry Springer: the Opera is that you actually feel for the guests who are sharing their "Guilty Secrets" in this through-sung cultural study. Like the show on which it's based, the show finds new ways to shock with each succeeding scene, and it's so filled with obscenity-laced speeches I haven't been able to tweet my favorite lines. Set to operatic voices and musical theater themes heightens the absurdity and the hilarity. It also adds a level of cultural criticism that makes for a brilliant work and a particularly brilliant production.

The first act plays out as a somewhat typical episode of Jerry Springer with a number of soliloquies--or arias--that give a more rounded (though still funny and intended to shock) portrait of Jerry's guest. These moments humanize the guests, which is something the TV show is not all that concerned with. At times is does feel a little derivative (Is there much difference between the dancing KKK and dancing Nazi's in The Producers?) The second act, "Jerry Springer in Hell" takes place in, well, hell. Satan is having family dysfunction issues with Jesus and God, and Jerry is the person to help them work it out.

The second act rises and falls on whether you can accept that Jerry might be having a little crisis of conscience of his own. I've always found the second act to be less rich than the first, but Springer in Hell is still a great ride. I'm always left with the sense that the creators, Richard Thomas and Stewart Lee--are a little too satisfied with themselves.

It's the second act, of course, that brings out the protesters. Thomas has always seemed a little disingenuous when he says that they're criticizing something they haven't seen...and if they only would they'd understand. True, they'd understand that the show takes on issues of faith in over-the-top ways. But they'd also see Jesus hanging out in a glorified diaper, God having his own crisis of faith, and the audience chanting "Jesus is gay." etc. This is not a show for the devout and probably not one for the young.

But these are quibbles in an otherwise amazing production. The intimacy of the Roberts Studio Theater at the Boston Center for the Arts is perfect for this production--a large-scale show in an intimate setting. This is a rare treat. A small section of the real audience is seated on stage and mixes with the Springer audience in a way that enhances that intimacy.

The cast is uniformly excellent. Michael Fennimore does a superb job channeling Jerry, and Ariana Valdes and Joelle Lurie are particularly strong in a variety of roles. Even those with the smallest roles have moments in which they stand out.

I have owned the recording of Jerry Spring: The Opera for some years. I've always felt a gap in my arts education because I hadn't seen a production of it. Now, I have, and I can't imagine a more solid production.

Note: It would be nice, SpeakEasy if you'd allow us to embed your video and images in our blogs. This time I'll give you a shout-out and point directly to your site. But let's be more social networking friendly.

The Reply to My Twitter Manifesto

If you haven't read my original Twitter Manifesto, I'd appreciate it if you read this before you watch this:



Even though I spend way too much time defending Twitter, I still have a sense of humor about the whole thing.

My Day on Twitter

People don't understand Twitter. More specifically, people don't understand why I like Twitter. So, I thought I would spend a little time making my case for this odd little service with no business plan that forces you to articulate a thought in 140 characters (or fewer).

I follow 23 Twitter feeds. Tonight I have 64 people following my 140-character words of wisdom and inspiration. About half of the feeds I follow arrive via text message on my phone, so I'm always up to date. I have my device setting to off for the other half, and I tend to read them all at once later in the day.

The information I get from Twitter is sometimes immediately useful, sometimes quite insightful, regularly bemusing. All of this is mixed with those posts the haters like most to point to, the mundane. But it's the mundane that creates a full portrait of the people we follow on Twitter. Those 140 characters add up to something rich.

So, here are just some of the things I've learned from Twitter in the last 24 hours:

I started the day off with a tweet from @mwesch thatled me to videos he's linked to for his visions of the future class. Very cool to see what AT&T and Apple were anticipating in the early 1990s:





One of the comments on the "What Would You Do?" Apple ad was "end gay people." That got a couple more tweets going and a link to this (which I also posted on my Twitter feed and Facebook page):



A little later Wesch also gave us a shout-out for the final project of one of his students. And they say the Internet is all fluff:



Students are doing brilliant work, and it's out there for all of us to see, not just for the teacher. This is a fundamental shift to higher education (well, education generally), and a very positive one.

Meanwhile, back at my Twitter feeds...

My colleague @Holden is wrapping up one position before he starts another (and let me just say how thrilled I am about that. This was his first tweet of the day:

holden Going through old emails, looking for anything of use to my successor. And it all looks so much like, well, you get thrown in and you swim.

And the folks @Passing_Strange (one of the best theater experiences in my life) tweet great lines from the show a couple of times a day. Life changing? No, but how awesome it is to be reminded of a life-changing experience a couple of times a day.

And then this little exchange had me smiling forever. It's funny, but it's also kind of quirky brilliant.

KeenanBlogger loves that you can ask questions on twitter and SOMEONE out there will answer. hehe i'm just gonna start asking stuff that is so easy

KeenanBlogger to find out on my own but I'm too lazy to do. What's the weather like outside my apt in Chicago, zipcode 60601?
about 9 hours ago from web

KeenanBlogger HA! Thanks @JarviMac, @soulofayoungman, @stewartyu! hmmm now if only I could figure out what color underwear I should wear...
about 9 hours ago from web

KeenanBlogger Blue it is @sashanks323! OMG Twitter is so the new magic 8 ball
about 9 hours ago from web

KeenanBlogger RT @jilltwiss, Twitter followers once told me how to tell if my arm was broken (using a tuning fork, to boot). And that's a HARD question.
about 9 hours ago from web

Twitter is the new magic 8 ball. Andrew Keenan Bolger, you may recall (but probably not) is my current reigning blogger of the year. He pukes creativity and wit, all with a strong social consciousness.

Then there was Hair. My day got off to a pretty nice start when I received a tweet from Hair on Broadway that the revival cast recording will drop on iTunes on May 26. Let the sun shine in!!

And if that weren't enough, later in the day I got a tweet alerting me to Hair Radio. This is a media player that plays songs from the 60s and from every cast recording of Hair. I've heard "Eyes Look Your Last" from the British Company, "What a Piece of Work is Man" from the film, and lots from the original broadway cast.

I learned a few things about people I'm interested in. And a few bizarre things. Really Bizarre!

So, this is my Twitter manifesto. I like it! People who blog about how useless it is, especially when they haven't studied it or even used it, especially when they're academics, just haven't given it a serious look. Sure, we're still waiting for a business model. Sure, there are moments where I think, "I can't believe that cost me 15 cents." But I have had such a rich experience and appreciate all the tweets my buds have sent over the last months.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Briefly, Wolverine is a decent summer flck. The first of the origins series features Hugh Jackman as an early (pre-Civil War) mutant with claws. Fast forward through all the wars since then and Logan is now a little unstable. Naturally, that means the next step is to pump him full of atomantium and make him indestructible. There are too many moments that defy any sort of logic, but overall Wolverine has some cool special effects and an engaging story.

Mary Stuart

I have been privileged over the years to see performances that changed my world. To be honored in the company of talent so extraordinary that you're slightly different when you leave the theater. The first time I realized that was possible was when I saw Kate Nelligan in Plenty in 1983. More recently, Janet McTeer's Nora in the 1997 revival of A Doll's House.

Both McTeer and Harriet Walter give life-altering performances in the revival of Schiller's Mary Stuart. I hunger for those moments where the moment is so powerful you forget to breathe. (See last year's review of Passing Strange.) Individually and together, McTeer and Walter give any number of those moments.

In Peter Oswald's adaptation and Phyllida Lloyd's stark production of Schiller's 1800 work, everything seems designed to put the two queens (McTeer is the Stuart and Walter is Elizabeth I) front and center. The queens, in Elizabethan dress, are surrounded by men in modern suits. Set pieces are minimal. Even the structure of the play supports this acting tour de force. Each queen gets a major scene in the first act. In the second, they get a lone scene together and final individual scenes.

There's no scenery chewing here. This is powerful stuff and not for the feint of heart. One must live and one must die.

It's so easy to focus on such stirring performances, that one might overlook the power of the play and the phenomenal production. Even simple theatrical tricks stir (ah, the wonderment of theater). In Act I Elizabeth casts shadows on the back wall that make her seem forty feet tall. Mary casts a human-size shadow if she cast one at all. The second act rain storm (not ruining anything here) is more powerful for how it ends than for how it begins, though it's the latter that gets the round of applause. Simple things with huge effect.

The play, for all its simplicity of structure, is layered and complex. These two women have more in common than they are different. They are surrounded by men and their destinies have been set in motion by men. They have developed the stubborness of men that will lead to their downfalls.

That Elizabeth survives (nothing ruined here, either) does not make her triumphant. History makes this clear, but that knowledge is not necessary to the play. Elizabeth's final, defeated moment after Mary's death is compelling in its own right. Haunting.

There is much to be learned from Mary Stuart. From the actresses and from the play.

Hair

Before I get into my review of Hair, I would just like to say that it is my conviction that the weekend of April 24 was joyful, meaningful and so very special. A friend said it was "sublime". I saw two extraordinary shows, two fine exhibits at the Modern, and had two wonderful meals with friends and two intimate meals with my, hmmm, husband. Talk about recharging your batteries!

I have seen many productions of Hair over the years. All of them were fun, but only one was transcendental--until last Saturday. A perfect production of Hair (though Hair is not a perfect musical can be determined in a single, tiny moment of feelings. As the the tribe sings the first note of "Let the Sunshine In" your body must be walking in space and firmly planted in the harsh reality of the moment. Your heart must have extraordinary joy, tremendous grief, and this bittersweet recognition that the show is coming to an end. Almost all productions will give you a moment of joy. After all, these are the songs of our lives and the greatest hits of the 60's.

In the amazing production of Hair currently at the Hirschfeld those moments come together so eloquently and poignantly that you can truly have a transcendental experience without mind-altering chemical assistance.

Everything that leads up to this moment is pitch perfect. The music, the choreography, the vision, the love!

The emotional heft of Hair is in the performances. But the cast, with the exception of Berger, Claude and Sheila, is given only brief moments to present a full character. But they do. In Diane Paulis's vision, the members of the tribe are all over the place all the time, and somehow it feels that every character is richly developed. The connection is powerful.

Will Swenson (Berger), Gavin Creel (Claude) and Caissie Levy (Sheila) form the core of the tribe. They bring a complexity to the performance that isn't usually there. When Sheila is wounded by Berger's callousness, she asks "How can people be so heartless?" ("Easy to be Hard") The irony of the song is that she's doing the same to Claude. Hair is filled with these multidimensional moments.

The supporting members of the tribe all make the most of their moments, never a dull moment and rarely a weak one.

The problem with most productions of Hair over the last 30 years since it first left New York is that they de-emphasize the sex and the drugs for a regional, suburban audience. Not here! Free love is back. Berger and Claude connect just as erotically as each does with Sheila. The pairings in the choreography are gender neutral and emotionally powerful.

Hair is raw, joyous and heart-wrenching. The rest is silence. The rest is silence....

(By the way, for a groovy online experience, check out Hair on Broadway.

State of Play

I'm a big fan of the British television series, State of Play, upon which the film is based. The film largely quotes the plot elements of the series, but a 2.5-hour distillation of a 6-hour miniseries won't allow for much more than that. The result is a slightly better than mediocre film that's a little too muddled and complex to be successful.

The film moves the location from London to Washington, D.C., but the key elements of a congressman (Ben Affleck) caught in a sex scandal while investigating an energy company. Think Gary Hart meets Halliburton, if you're not too old or too young for those references. The catalyst for the plot is the death of Congressman Steve Collins' assistant. The subsequent investigation by reporters from the Washington Globe (Russell Crow and Heather McAdams) drives the plot.

The film has a timely feel. The fading state of newspapers and the public feeling about war profiteers gives State of Play some emotional heft. Making McAdams' character a political gossip blogger feels a little cheap, however.

The acting is ho hum until quite late when Jason Bateman and Jeff Daniels get a bit of screen time. Helen Mirren is largely wasted as the newspaper editor of the Globe.

State of Play has enough plot twists to keep it interesting, but it never rises much beyond that.

Duplicity

Since the Bourne films, Tony Gilroy has apparently lost interest in telling a linear story. Michael Clayton left people befuddled well into the third act, and his latest, Duplicity is about the same. Events happen that seem to make no sense, but a flashback 15 or 45 minutes later makes things sensical.

The star driven Duplicity works surprisingly well. Julia Roberts and Clive Owen are alternately perplexing, infuriating and fascinating. The question of trust--or lack thereof--hangs like a thick fog over the entire film. This adds intrigue to the mix, and Roberts and Owen are particularly adept the banter that Gilroy has crafted for them.

Make no mistake, this is a star vehicle. But the supporting performances--especially Kathleen Chalfant, Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti--are what elevate the film above typical mid-winter toss offs.

The story is consistently engaging even though it's late into the film before you have a sense of what's going on. It's also clear from the audience reaction that it clicks at different times for different people and even then not always accurately.

Michael Clayton was dark and complex. Duplicity plays more like a variation on a theme: part romcom, part corporate thriller, part J. Roberts star vehicle. But it works well.

Mel on the Reader

I saw The Reader finally, and it's still tormenting me. I think it's a good film with excellence in it. Of course, Kate Winslet is truly extraordinary and deserving of the Oscar she received. But in my view, David Kross gives an even more exceptional performance as 15- to 21- year old Michael Berg that makes the first two-thirds of the film far stronger than the last third, in which Ralph Fiennes gives a competent performance as the older Michael. The last act is saved more by a wonderful performance by Lena Olin than by a satisfying conclusion.

The Reader has multiple complexities that make it hard to either digest or weigh its point of view. There's the affair between a 15-year-old boy and a 30+-year old Hannah. There's the subsequent discovery that Hannah was a guard at Auschwitz. There's the trial, in which the antagonism and set-up from her co-defendents leads one to sympathize with Hannah. There are no easy questions or answers here.

In the end, though, the film is more perplexing than thoughtful. By the time Michael connects the dots to discover a critical piece of information about Hannah's life, his feelings have been buried so deep the film seems aimless. This creates an almost impossible task for Fiennes.

Dissertations will probably be written on the affair between Hannah and Michael. Is the affair another manifestation of her inhumanity? Is it as simple as a first-love for a boy with a women who has put her past behind her? Is it a tribute to the beauty and power of sex? Certainly, it is beautiful. Both Winslet and Kross are beautiful and generally naked and in bed for a good chunk of the film.

David Hare and Stephen Daldry did fine work with The Hours, but as troubling and complex as The Reader is, it misses.

TV Updates

My travel schedule and competing demands for Thursday night television (damn you Fox for moving Bones to Thursdays resulted in a DVR full of shows I hadn't been able to attend to. Now that Burn Notice and The Closer have ended their seasons, I had an opportunity to do a few catch-up marathons. Here are some thoughts.

Kyle XY
I'm okay that this series has ended its run. I enjoyed it (a guilty pleasure, to be sure). I saw every episode. But this season seemed to reinforce the idea that the writers had run out of ideas. Instead of intrigue and action, we got teen angst that came across only as irritating and inauthentic.

A word on the last episode. Clearly it was designed to be a season cliffhanger rather than a series ender. But ABC Family might have given us a few more minutes of closure. If the show actually had a following, people would be screaming about the crappiest series finale ever.

Desperate Housewives

Marc Cherry has used some of the most creative ideas to revitalize this series. His trouble seems to be sustaining it over a season. This season remains lots of fun, but it's largely unmemorable. The death of Edie this week might revitalize once again and take us to an exciting season finish. I'm still recording on my DVR.

Grey's Anatomy

It just keeps getting worse and worse and worse. I couldn't take it, so it's all gone from the DVR, it's no longer recording, and I just couldn't take most of the cast any longer. The likables are minor and the dislikables rule. Buh Bye!

Law and Order

This has always been a DVR show for me. I like it, but I tend to watch it when nothing else is on. The cast shifts have been good, and the writing remains strong. The formula is a bit tired, but the election for DA has added a bit of sass to the proceedings. I'm still recording on my DVR

Saturday Night Live

The election episodes were amazing, and the January 10 episode with Neil Patrick Harris rates among the best ever. But SNL is definitely a show to record. You need to be able to skip through the endless commercials and the 50 percent of sketches that are unbearable to watch. But the one's that connect are terrific.

Ugly Betty

The best of the lot at the moment, Ugly Betty has simply gotten better and better. I was a quiet fan through the first couple of seasons, but the current season ranks as its best and one of the best on the air this year. I watched eight episodes in a row, and felt it hit a wrong note only once. The characters have evolved in ways completely consistent with their histories. Betty has a boyfriend who clicks (and who I hope stays for awhile). Occasionally, the show has given Justin his own episodes, and it's time to do that again. The guest stars (Bernadette Peters, Christine Baranski) fit perfectly. I'm glad to reconnect right as the show goes on extended hiatus, but I'll be there when it returns in a couple months. Must Watch TV!

And before I go, a word about Better of Ted. It will take me a few episodes to determine whether this is one of the most inspired shows since Wonderfalls or totally stupid. My initial reaction to the pilot, which I'm about to watch for the third time, is the former. Stay tuned.

Cindy's Bus Tour

Here's a quick video of my bus tour of Savannah last month. It's narrated by Cindy, our driver and a true Georgia woman with an amazing accent.

Watchmental

After seeing some of the violence and reading some of the reviews, I was hesitant to see Watchmen. I despised 300, so Zack Snyder wasn't a draw. I'm not a fanboy of Alan Moore's graphic novel. But hey, not much is opening until May and it's on the IMAX. If you're going to really appreciate the violence in a movie, it should be on a screen five stories high.

That said, although the film is fundamentally flawed, it has much to recommend. The 3 hours definitely feel like 3 hours, but this is due to a considerable amount of time devoted to the backstory of each of the Watchmen before the plot kicks into full gear. The art direction is stellar in its own right, and it does a fine job of referencing the style of the novel. The story is dark and compelling, a worthy adaptation.

The violence is, in fact, over the top. Like 300, the violence in Watchmen is mostly stylized. It is also gory and intense. And in all honesty, as much as I was dreading it, the violence largely works. Largely. Snyder is not above a little gratuitous violence.

The soundtrack was, for me, the films biggest misfire. Watchmen, for the two of you who don't know, is sent during Richard Nixon's fourth term in the mid-1980's. The cold war is at its peak, and superheroes are hardly tolerated. Watchmen creates an alternate reality, but Dylan and Simon and Garfunkle seem out of place. And the backstory on Dr. Manhattan, the one superhero with super powers, is accompanied by various moments from Philip Glass's score for Koyaanisqatsi.

Watchmen is not getting its just due from the critics, but judging from the sold-out show I attended and the huge lines as I left, people are showing up. Not everyone is liking it--it's hardly likable--but its leading to some great discussions about the nature of heroism, the darkness of our times, and humankind's salvation.