Christmas Carol
in its original Klingon.
THE MYSTERIOUS CONDUCTOR
1 day ago
Showing posts with label theater. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theater. Show all posts
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Business bonus points
Last night I was at the Varsity Theater over in Dinkytown. Behind the bar were two signs:
Bottled water: $1.50
Ear plugs: $1
Just as I'm in the midst of a series of papers on occupational hearing loss for PubH 6020 ... perhaps I'll mention it in my next paper. At least if I decide to go back there for a concert, I won't need to worry about having my own ear plugs. I'm curious to know whether or not the employees there have to wear them during shows?
Bottled water: $1.50
Ear plugs: $1
Just as I'm in the midst of a series of papers on occupational hearing loss for PubH 6020 ... perhaps I'll mention it in my next paper. At least if I decide to go back there for a concert, I won't need to worry about having my own ear plugs. I'm curious to know whether or not the employees there have to wear them during shows?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Exit Stage Righteous
On the BBC World News (I found it in print on the Daily Mail)
ringing cell phones, crinkling candy wrappers, whispers, coughs ... the straw that broke this camel's back was a group of giggling teenaged students attending Arthur Miller's A View from the Bridge, (which The Author & I went to see this Winter). The lead actor simply stopped the play, the house lights went up, and an ultimatum was issued: The play must go on ... but you're outta here
Had I been their teacher, I would have been mortified.
ringing cell phones, crinkling candy wrappers, whispers, coughs ... the straw that broke this camel's back was a group of giggling teenaged students attending Arthur Miller's A View from the Bridge, (which The Author & I went to see this Winter). The lead actor simply stopped the play, the house lights went up, and an ultimatum was issued: The play must go on ... but you're outta here
Had I been their teacher, I would have been mortified.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Dysfunctionality, USA
I have never seen any production by Arthur Miller. The Crucible, Death of a Salesman, All My Sons, nope. Haven't even seen the movies made of of all 3 of these.
Friday I corrected this literary deficiency and went to see A View From the Bridge, courtesy of a friend's extra ticket. We managed to miss the first scene courtesy of my bad directions. Set in early 19-something Brooklyn, this is the story of an Italian-American family (uncle-aunt-niece) who take in a couple of illegal immigrant cousins (married & single brothers) from the Old Country and the ensuing drama.
If this is what Miller's work is like, I'm surprised no one has done research to determine if there's an association between watching his work and an increased suicide rate. I guess the fact I was just morose, rather than seeking oblivion from the misery and futility of life, is due to the acting quality one normally finds at the Gutherie Theater.
Perhaps it was the initial "I wandered into the set of All In The Family" feeling, but I spent the first act wondering what god-awful thing was going to happen. The blatantly obvious foreshadowing in Scene 1 of some neighborhood guy ratting out illegal workers to the INS was so blatant that perhaps it was intended to leave me wondering 'when is he going to rat out these fellows' throughout the next 90 minutes? (BTW "submarines" must be an archaic antecedent to "wet backs").
Another surprise was the realization that the initial production date was 1955. I'm subsequently left unsurprised that the House Committee of UnAmerican Activities thought he was an undesirable character. The attitudes of the main character, Eddie, were unsurprising and perfectly acceptable for the 50s. Gays weren't exactly a widely embraced sector of American society; suspicion of illegal workers marrying just for their citizenship papers persists today. But, the final confrontation with his feelings for his neice, and his method for demonstrating the unworthiness of another man's affections for her was shocking. I just can't come to grips with that having been done in 1955. I suppose if it managed to shock me in 2008, it is a credit to the playwright's ability to draw me in to the play's setting, rather than my own.
The Actor playing Eddie was the picture perfect image of a 40s blue-collar archetype. I can see where Archie Bunker came from. The woman playing the 18 year old niece was an annoying version of the all-too-often-seen character which must be advertised as 'bouncy enthusiastic dotting daughter who is required to bouncily skip around the stage at all times'. Good lord, almighty - who in their right mind wants an actress to behave like this? Have you actually seen anyone over the age of 6 walk around the house like this? Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road ain't got nothing on this chick. If this was supposed to underscore her non-adult behavior towards her uncle, being his 'little girl', it failed and simply annoyed me. There must be other ways to convey this.
Acting aside - I find I'm generally not great at assessing the merits of actors in any meaningful way beyond 'I like it' - the framework within which the action occurs was really nice. The theater is big enough to allow a complex set to be built. This provided plenty of space without needing to have a huge footprint. The little details, especially how the secondary sets were moved in/out were nice. E.g. a group of longshoremen bring in a huge crate, open it, and voila! the desk for an office scene is left on the stage's skirt. The primary set of the family's house remained intact, while the other scenes were set around the skirts of the stage, allowing the home life of the typical dysfunctional American family to remain the center point of the story, keeping it in view the whole time.
Right after the set design, as the best part of the show was Rudolpho, the single brother who - of course - falls madly in love with the family's niece at first sight. Perhaps he was remarkable simply by dint of not being some stereotype. He flung himself into the part with the same enthusiastic un-self-consciousness that one expects from the character himself.
I have no set recommendation scale for plays, as I do for movies. So, "would I recommend it?" Yes, I would. Although it's not a 'drop everything and go see it if you can'.
Hmmm... I suppose I need a scale for theater ...
Worth the price of tickets & babysitter: go see it!
If there's an afternoon matinee ...
Well, if someone else has an extra ticket ...
You need to balance your checkbook, don't you?
Friday I corrected this literary deficiency and went to see A View From the Bridge, courtesy of a friend's extra ticket. We managed to miss the first scene courtesy of my bad directions. Set in early 19-something Brooklyn, this is the story of an Italian-American family (uncle-aunt-niece) who take in a couple of illegal immigrant cousins (married & single brothers) from the Old Country and the ensuing drama.
If this is what Miller's work is like, I'm surprised no one has done research to determine if there's an association between watching his work and an increased suicide rate. I guess the fact I was just morose, rather than seeking oblivion from the misery and futility of life, is due to the acting quality one normally finds at the Gutherie Theater.
Perhaps it was the initial "I wandered into the set of All In The Family" feeling, but I spent the first act wondering what god-awful thing was going to happen. The blatantly obvious foreshadowing in Scene 1 of some neighborhood guy ratting out illegal workers to the INS was so blatant that perhaps it was intended to leave me wondering 'when is he going to rat out these fellows' throughout the next 90 minutes? (BTW "submarines" must be an archaic antecedent to "wet backs").
Another surprise was the realization that the initial production date was 1955. I'm subsequently left unsurprised that the House Committee of UnAmerican Activities thought he was an undesirable character. The attitudes of the main character, Eddie, were unsurprising and perfectly acceptable for the 50s. Gays weren't exactly a widely embraced sector of American society; suspicion of illegal workers marrying just for their citizenship papers persists today. But, the final confrontation with his feelings for his neice, and his method for demonstrating the unworthiness of another man's affections for her was shocking. I just can't come to grips with that having been done in 1955. I suppose if it managed to shock me in 2008, it is a credit to the playwright's ability to draw me in to the play's setting, rather than my own.
The Actor playing Eddie was the picture perfect image of a 40s blue-collar archetype. I can see where Archie Bunker came from. The woman playing the 18 year old niece was an annoying version of the all-too-often-seen character which must be advertised as 'bouncy enthusiastic dotting daughter who is required to bouncily skip around the stage at all times'. Good lord, almighty - who in their right mind wants an actress to behave like this? Have you actually seen anyone over the age of 6 walk around the house like this? Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road ain't got nothing on this chick. If this was supposed to underscore her non-adult behavior towards her uncle, being his 'little girl', it failed and simply annoyed me. There must be other ways to convey this.
Acting aside - I find I'm generally not great at assessing the merits of actors in any meaningful way beyond 'I like it' - the framework within which the action occurs was really nice. The theater is big enough to allow a complex set to be built. This provided plenty of space without needing to have a huge footprint. The little details, especially how the secondary sets were moved in/out were nice. E.g. a group of longshoremen bring in a huge crate, open it, and voila! the desk for an office scene is left on the stage's skirt. The primary set of the family's house remained intact, while the other scenes were set around the skirts of the stage, allowing the home life of the typical dysfunctional American family to remain the center point of the story, keeping it in view the whole time.
Right after the set design, as the best part of the show was Rudolpho, the single brother who - of course - falls madly in love with the family's niece at first sight. Perhaps he was remarkable simply by dint of not being some stereotype. He flung himself into the part with the same enthusiastic un-self-consciousness that one expects from the character himself.
I have no set recommendation scale for plays, as I do for movies. So, "would I recommend it?" Yes, I would. Although it's not a 'drop everything and go see it if you can'.
Hmmm... I suppose I need a scale for theater ...
Worth the price of tickets & babysitter: go see it!
If there's an afternoon matinee ...
Well, if someone else has an extra ticket ...
You need to balance your checkbook, don't you?
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Happy but not too
The TV actress said she would "happily" take a pay cut if it meant more people could afford to see her on stage.
I notice that nowhere does it say "she happily volunteered to do this for the Proletariat at minimum wage".
"Oh, la, it's so horrible making a living wage. Sure, I would work for less, if I had to. Oh, sorry, got to go, my Blackberry is calling me. We'll chat later about my pay ..."
What crap.
This self-congratulatory blather is more elitist than "give me £50 for a ticket." I've never paid that much for one. Not even the Phantom of the Opera production in Toronto. She's totally living in a financial disconnect with reality.
Sure, I know that theater tickets go for $100 (£50), which is probably cheap in some locations. I've seen great theater in Lansing & East Lansing. Paying $100 presumes that I want to go see some big-name production. Because I, as a connesieur of theater couldn't possibly be bored with the mundane production of Laundry and Bourbon by some Lansing theater group. And the production of Jesus Christ Superstar at Lansing Community College couldn't possibly have been better than the off-Broadway production in the big professional auditorium, could it? [well, parts were] Even the Stratford Shakespeare Festival, which is big-time, only charged $45 or $50 for great seats. I think we paid $30 for good ones.
And then she - and the rest of the throw $100 at a theater ticket crowd - can go pat themselves on the back for being One Of the People when they deign to visit one of the little theaters with such quaint productions.
It's not the price of a ticket. I don't care if you pay $250. I suppose it's possible that I might drop a hundred dollars for one, but I really can't imagine doing so. To see the Red Wings in the playoffs at The Joe? Hell, yes, I'd pay $100. But no one is expecting Chris Osgood to suddenly say "I'd take a pay cut if it meant making hockey more accessible".
It's the self-righteous superiority of "well, I would ..." Who the hell wants to make lower wages? I'm not taking a pay cut so that some company can make workplace safety "more accessible" and "less elitist". I'm sure KAS isn't going to take a pay cut so that some movie studio can make their tickets more accessible. By what? "I'll pay him $7.25/hr, and then we can charge $8.99999999999999999999999, rather than $9?"
The only people who prattle on about "elitistism" are either the elitists themselves, who don't want to be painted as such, or run-down disenfranchised marxists who are pissed that capitalism seems to work.
I notice that nowhere does it say "she happily volunteered to do this for the Proletariat at minimum wage".
"Oh, la, it's so horrible making a living wage. Sure, I would work for less, if I had to. Oh, sorry, got to go, my Blackberry is calling me. We'll chat later about my pay ..."
What crap.
This self-congratulatory blather is more elitist than "give me £50 for a ticket." I've never paid that much for one. Not even the Phantom of the Opera production in Toronto. She's totally living in a financial disconnect with reality.
Sure, I know that theater tickets go for $100 (£50), which is probably cheap in some locations. I've seen great theater in Lansing & East Lansing. Paying $100 presumes that I want to go see some big-name production. Because I, as a connesieur of theater couldn't possibly be bored with the mundane production of Laundry and Bourbon by some Lansing theater group. And the production of Jesus Christ Superstar at Lansing Community College couldn't possibly have been better than the off-Broadway production in the big professional auditorium, could it? [well, parts were] Even the Stratford Shakespeare Festival, which is big-time, only charged $45 or $50 for great seats. I think we paid $30 for good ones.
And then she - and the rest of the throw $100 at a theater ticket crowd - can go pat themselves on the back for being One Of the People when they deign to visit one of the little theaters with such quaint productions.
It's not the price of a ticket. I don't care if you pay $250. I suppose it's possible that I might drop a hundred dollars for one, but I really can't imagine doing so. To see the Red Wings in the playoffs at The Joe? Hell, yes, I'd pay $100. But no one is expecting Chris Osgood to suddenly say "I'd take a pay cut if it meant making hockey more accessible".
It's the self-righteous superiority of "well, I would ..." Who the hell wants to make lower wages? I'm not taking a pay cut so that some company can make workplace safety "more accessible" and "less elitist". I'm sure KAS isn't going to take a pay cut so that some movie studio can make their tickets more accessible. By what? "I'll pay him $7.25/hr, and then we can charge $8.99999999999999999999999, rather than $9?"
The only people who prattle on about "elitistism" are either the elitists themselves, who don't want to be painted as such, or run-down disenfranchised marxists who are pissed that capitalism seems to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
