Monday, March 30, 2009

GODSPELL AS Oatmeal

I thought choosing a fractal image for my Godspell review: after all I have tons of rainbow-hued images that would be PERFECT for a show like this. Then I saw the Cal Baptist University production of the show and was confronted with something entirely unexpected--a “bland” frankly “oatmeal” version of the play--and I had to re-think my idea. In the end I picked Sungold as today’s fractal: like the show it’s pretty (if a bit bland) and the colors reminded me of the cast. NOW--on with the review!
-
I’ve had a soft spot in my heart for Godspell. Back when I was a sophomore in High School Concert Choir got the music ahead of the Madrigals (which was quite a coup for us): our Director Jacqueline Keltz decided to give a concretized version of the whole show. I was even given a featured part (singing On The Willows--my first time performing on stage). Later I actually made it into a production of the show in our lcoal communithy theater. I’ve seen the show done by professionals (the first National Tour--which should give you a clue to my age) and community groups alike. Since moving to the I.E. Robyn and I have been looking to explore the local theater scene so when we got a chance to go with a group from our Church we jumped at the chance. I had high hopes for the show: what I got was 2 ½ hours of whole grain oatmeal.
-
Godspell is a bare-bones show so there’s lots of room for artistic interpretation. The original productions featured clownish costumes and makeup in rainbow colors and a playground/junkyard set. but that seems to have changed over time. (I saw a production done all in shades of black.gray and white--which was just weird to me.) This production had a nice junkyard-y set and the cast all wore khaki pants and white t-shirts. The set was great and the cast fully utilized it to good effect but I wasn’t impressed with the costumes: the similar garb made it hard for me to tell the players with a scorecard. (Had I been a “real” reviewer I’d have come in with a tape recorder or notepad (and I’d have paid much closer attention to everything). However, being only an “ordinary” audience member I’ll have to rely on the program and my memory.
-
The show started a little late and got even later because the school’s Director of Theater Krista Jo Miller gave us a rather overlong introduction. Personally I’m of the “brevity is the soul of wit” school where introductions are concerned. We get notes in the Program so Directors can let us know about their “process” but most of the audience just wants to see the show. This production replaced the sung “Philosophers’ Battle” (a difficult, muddy mess to sing) with a “Philosophers Battle Rap” that was just as much a muddy mess--and went on WAY too long. At least it let me know that this was going to be a heavy-handed production. This part was done in low, blue light with the cast done up as homeless (or maybe street) people until John the Baptist (played by Kevin Strehlow). His Prepare Ye The Way Of The Lord was either way “over” sung or massively overmiced. (There was a lot of microphone trouble in Act One that really made the show suffer.) For me it sapped a lot of the energy of Act One. BTW--Kevin vanished from the show after God Save The People--not to be seen again 'til final bows.
-
I wondered why the Director chose to split the part of John the Baptist and Judas. Traditionally both characters are played by the same Actor. Did she want to give more people in her program a chance to be on stage or did she want to MAKE SURE the audience didn’t confuse the two roles? Considering the rest of the show I think it was the second. Either way it was an “interesting” directorial choice.
-
Joseph Mayers turned his “emotional” amplifier up to Eleven (notice the This Is Spinal Tap reference). Everything was done out at full volume acting and singing: he had some trouble in his lower register. (I don’t know if he’s a high tenor who can’t hit those notes or the microphone bugaboo got him too.)
-
Chad Collins as Judas (a particularly thankless task in this production) was another one who suffered horribly from back micing. His part of the All For The Best duet could barely be heard. Sadly he seriously blew his lines during the betrayal scene which pulled me right out of the action. (I think maybe he might have gotten overcome by the emotionality of the role.)
-
I wish I could give those playing the Disciples proper credit but there were too many people who looked and dressed to similarly for me to distinguish individuals. There wasn’t a bad voice in the cast and most of them were literally willing to throw themselves into their roles. (I wonder how many bruises and back aches this cast had at the end of the show.) The topical references were perfect (loved the “Lazarus” bit and the tale of the Good Samaritan.) Also the homage to Stomp during We Beseech Thee was sheer genius and spectacularly executed. Kudos to all of you. A special note to Michael Mason: he gave an American Idol-worthy rendition of All Good Gifts (the most musically difficult song in the show.) His rendition was soulful and original. Good job! Congrats also to the small but effective pit pand (who were actually on stage so I suppose technically they weren’t a “pit” band.)
-
It wouldn’t be a baronial review without a few minor quibbles: there wasn’t an ounce of subtlety in the show. Every song (with the exception of All Good Gifts) was sung full out and every emotion was completely over the top. A bit more musical and emotional variation would have been appreciated. Likewise anything remotely racy or suggestive was removed from the show and I found that a bit sad. (Still, it being a production at a Baptist college I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised.) This production is safe for the youngest child but
-
In the end I left the theater feeling like I’d consumed a giant bowl of oatmeal. It was tan and white and kind of heavy but nourishing. For me though every time I eat oatmeal I find myself a bit less than fully satisfied: I wish I had more--I just don’t know what. I felt the same about this show.
-
FINAL GRADE: B

Monday, March 9, 2009

Should YOU Watch "Watchmen"?

What kind of an image could I pick for a review of Watchmen? I didn’t have anything with “watch” in the title and nothing else seemed to be quite right. In the end I settled on Tendrils: like the movie it’s a dark, twisted vision with many layers and a lot going on in a relatively simple frame. Dunno if you will agree but that’s why I chose this picture. Now--on with the review!
-
Watchmen began life as a twelve-issue comic book “limited series” by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Since then it has been named the “most influential comic book series” of all times--and even made it onto several “best books” lists of major critical organizations--something no other comic has come close to. It was inevitable that Hollywood would come calling but many fans said Watchmen couldn’t be filmed. Enter Zack Snyder (who brought 300 from page to screen) who managed to create a movie that fans of the series would truly love. Too bad nobody else will…
-
Anyone reading this review will probably already now the plot so there’s no point in rehashing it here except to say this: one major point was changed from the source material: I didn’t have a problem with said change (guess I’m not a big enough fan of the Watchmen) but it did bother some serious fans who demand loyalty to the source material. What IS import is this: the look of the graphics have been transferred to the screen almost word-for-word, shot-for-shot. And much of the dialog and action have made their way directly from page to screen. (Good for the comic fans but for action fans--since it makes the movie run almost three hours and it‘ gets awfully talky and slow a few times.)
-
Here’s what non-series fans need to know: the movie has an amazing look, seamlessly melding computer animation and “live” shots into a cinematic triumph. The movie deserves to be seen (once) on the big screen for the FX alone. History buffs will love playing “spot the real people” in cameos of historical and cultural figures who actually existed in 1985 (Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger are the to most frequently seen). The impersonations go from “OK” to pretty good--but I never felt that I was actually seeing the real people. (Nixon in particular looked like a wax doll but maybe that was a conceit of the Art Director.) Jackie Earl Haley goes for a “Dark Knight” growly delivery but it works: he was born to play the part of Rorschach. Frankly I’m of the opinion he deserves an Oscar nomination for the work but I doubt he’ll get it. Billy Crudup (owner of one of the world’s most unfortunate last names) spends much of the movie playing John Osterman/Dr. Manhattan on one note--but that’s what he’s supposed to do. Worse, he spends most of the movie covered by digital effects but Crudup makes us feel something when we watch his performance. Perennial nice guy Actor Jeffrey Dean Morgan gets down and dirty as Edward Blake/The Commedian--a maniac with no redeeming social qualities: he gets killed off in the first five minutes of the movie but keeps popping back in via flashbacks--and you never like him. Patrick Wilson does better with his story arc as Dan Dreiberg/Nite Owl but Malin Akeman (Laurie Jupiter/Silk Specter II).
-
How can I describe Matthew Goode as Ozymandias/Adrian Veidt? The first thing that pops into my mind is “unrelentingly awful.” I’d call his villainous performance “hissable”--but it ain’t that fun. Sadly, Goode plays the entire movie like he’s on Prozac--or maybe something stronger. You want to cheer when he gets his in the end but you just--don’t care. Yes, he really was THAT bad, If Watchmen has a fatal flaw this performance is it. Weirdly enough, he’s the only one who gets a major costume make-over from the series (but judging by how “comic book-y” it looks, I’m not surprised.)
-
Action fans will likely find the movie too long and talky (even though there are some seriously good fight scenes) and the philosophical points made so eloquently in the graphic novel come off sounding a little hokey here. There is plenty of violence (graphic in the movie sense not the novel) and plenty of sex as well (including digital full-frontal male nudity). This is not a movie for the faint-of-heart and it is DEFINITELY not for children. Fans of cinema might want to see Watchmen more than once as will fans of the series--but the general movie-watching public will probably stay away in droves. (I predict a huge drop off in business next week.)
-
FINAL GRADE(S)
For Watchmen Fans: A
For the general public: C+

For me: B-