The title could be offensive to certain people, and I apologise for that. I just thought it was clever, because my Mum went to see Wicked for the second time yesterday and Wicked is infamous for its fan girls. It's also a parody (if that's the right word) of the song "Don't feed the plants" from Little Shop of Horrors, which also has a cult following.
I guess this post is really about seeing shows repeatedly. This is something that I've never really done. I've seen We Will Rock You twice, the second time being for a friend's birthday, and also Beauty and the Beast, the second time being for a school trip, but other than that I have only seen each show once. I know several people who see certain shows again and again until they are well into double figures. I can understand this to an extent, even though I've never done it myself.
No two performances are ever the same. This is a fact. Performers may hit different notes, perform better on some days, and of course accidents do happen. Then there are special performances such as cast changes, the chance to say goodbye to perfomers that one paticularly admires.
Then there are the performers themselves. I have several performers which I love and admire, Kerry Ellis, Ruthie Henshall and Katie Rowley-Jones to name but a few. I think I am different from most performer fans in that I'll see them once in a paticular show and treasure that memory, whereas others will keep on going back to relive the moment.
Understudies. I have a friend who repeatedly sees Avenue Q, finding out the days when certain actors will be off and their role played by their understudy, presumably to compare the two and again, to see a different performance or interpretation of the role.
I suppose there is also the love of the show itself. This seems paticularly true of classics such as Les Misérables.
So why have I never seen a show more than once, aside from the two exceptions mentioned above?
I suppose the main reason for this is my age. Not only am I not yet able to travel to London alone, which would allow me to go for dayseats and visit Tkts to obtain cheaper revisits, and also not to have to make someone else come and see the show again, but I have only really been a real theatregoer for just over a year. In this time I have managed to see quite an impressive amount of shows, but there is still so much that I haven't seen that I would rather see different things than go and see the same thing again. With age, the time will come when I do go and see things again, but for now I would rather go and see new things.
I've seen 25 different musicals on the stage. Just scrolling through the list, I thought it would be interesting to list the ones that I would see again, and why:
Chicago
This was my introduction to Bob Fosse, and really what made me first start thinking about a career in the theatre. I would definitely see this again because there are so many different ways that the lead characters could be interpreted/played, and I just love the music. As a matter of fact, I'm listening to it now. Ruthie Henshall is currently playing Roxie Hart in London, and I had to fight the urge inside myself to go again just to see her. It's just over thirteen months since I first saw the show, and although I would dearly have loved to see Ruthie, I am almost certain that I'll have another opportunity to see her on stage one day. I will definitely go and see Chicago again before the London production closes, though.
Sunset Boulevard
I was moved through an emotional whirlwind by last year's revival, directed by Craig Revel-Horwood. I have never liked an Andrew Lloyd-Webber musical as much as this, I usually listen once then get bored, but with Sunset I always go back for more. The character of Norma Desmond still fascinates me, and it was the first time that I'd seen an actor-musician show. I would definitely see Sunset again, and am looking forward to the almost inevitable revival, probably in ten years time, whether it is an actor-musician show or not.
Avenue Q
I am addicted to the cast recording, and almost know it off by heart. It resonates with me so powerfully, and made me a fan of Julie Atherton. It was so original, offbeat and humourous. I would definitely go, considering the show has now moved for the second time, to the Wyndham's, so it would not only be a different cast, but also a different theatre.
Les Misérables
I think in five years time, if the show is still running, which it most probably will be, I would go and see this again. Even though the musical is nearly perfect, I didn't love it as much as I've loved other things, but it still amazed me, and I think when I've nearly forgotten the staging, I would probably go and see this again. I also now look on it differently, having read the novel.
Rent
The amateur production we saw was quite possibly the best amateur production of anything that I've ever seen. If there was a production of this within 100 miles of my home, I would be there immediately. The story is just wonderful, and I find the ending so uplifting. I can't stop myself from listening to the cast recording, reading the script and living the lives of the bohemians.
Annie Get Your Gun
The Young Vic production was a great update to the classic musical. I'd really like to see a different interpretation, perhaps more intune with the original production. I also love Irving Berlin's score.
Blood Brothers
For the same reasons as Les Miz, except for the bit about the novel. I would also be interested in seeing a different actress play Mrs. Johnston. I'm also curious as to whether I would have less of an emotional reaction the second time around. Either way, the show is marvellous and different to almost every other musical I can think of.
I would also go and see (in the future) different revivals of Sweet Charity and La Cage aux Folles, though I think it would be difficult to top the Menier productions.
Other than that, I don't think I would go and see any other shows I have seen for a second time, with the possible exception of a performer I really like being cast. This, for me, reflects the nature of theatre - the creation of a special moment for the audience, which is different each night.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Steven Spielberg's goddaughter
Who knew she could act until 2009? Up until Grey Gardens, the wonderful made for TV movie based on a true story, Drew Barrymore had gone from cute child star to troubled teenager, and had emerged from this as another formulaic actress who did comedies. And romantic comedies.
I'd seen her in E.T, I'd seen her in The Wedding Singer (which is probably Adam Sandler's best film, but let's not get sidetracked), and I'd suffered through Charlie's Angels. All her other films weren't what I would usually watch, so I never considered following her career, like I do with other actors and actresses, until now.
I decided to watch Grey Gardens when it was aired in the UK over Christmas, not only because Drew had received an Emmy for her performance and dozens of rave reviews online, but also because I vaguely recall listening to the cast album of the Broadway musical adaptation. I watched it, and I was blown away. Her performance was fantastic, moving and poignant in every way. Suddenly, in my mind, Drew was an actress.
Whip It (2009) was her directorial debut. It's finally been released in the UK, so I went to the cinema with my Mum to see it yesterday. I was a bit concerned, because it looked like a stereotypical teen-comedy, but after talking to many people who had been surprised by it and reading some very good reviews I decided to give it a chance. It also helped that the cast included Ellen Page, who in my opinion is one of the best young actresses working in film, and Kristen Wiig, who I recently noticed in Adventureland (2009) and on Saturday Night Live.
I really loved the film, and thought it was one of the best teen comedies I have ever seen. My Mum enjoyed it a lot too, which shows it's apeal was not just limited to the teenage market. The script was clever and each of the characters were written sassily with plenty of good one-liners, so each character had a chance to "get some laughs" and shows their own personalities.
So, what was the film actually about? It was about roller derby, an old American sport which has just been given a new lease of life. Well, that was what the film suggested, I'm not trying to generalise all American towns here. Bliss (Ellen Page's character) lived with her mother, father and younger sister. Her mother is obsessed with beauty pageants and wants Bliss and her sister to achieve what she never could, so thus enters them for as many as possible. Whilst Bliss' sister loves this, Bliss isn't so keen, even dying her hair blue as a dare in attempt to liven up a dull pageant. One day she spots an advert for a roller derby, and decides to go with her best friend, Pash, to watch. They are both enthralled by it, and after the game Bliss meets two of the girls from the team who suggest she tries out. She does, and gets on the team. Now Bliss has discovered this new talent, a whole new life evolves for her as the team, who were on a losing streak, begin to win with her help. New friends, including a boyfriend, follow, but this is at the expense of her former life....
Sounds average, doesn't it? But it wasn't. The energertic and fresh performances of the cast coupled with the excitement of the roller derby moved the story along quickly and ensured that we were never bored, Ellen gave a great performance as Bliss, and really carried the film. Drew, as well as directing, played one of the roller girls, called Smashlee Simpson. She was rarely on the screen, and her character was bit mad, but it was still a good performance. Kristen Wiig's character was almost a split personality, and the way she played her made me fall in love with the motherly side of her character. Jimmy Fallon was incredibly entertaining, I had had no idea that he acted before the film.
Drew's first feature as a director was really good. The camera angles were really good in capturing the action, and the setting of the film perfect. It took what she's been acting in for the mpast couple of decades to an amazing, original new level, which makes me wonder why, if she has managed to do this, she didn't choose to act in better quality films before? It seems that she is following in the footsteps of her godfather after all.
Overall, Whip It was a great film to see and be entertained by. Dear John, across the corridor, was sold out. Sadly, only about a quarter of our cinema was full, which was a shame because Whip It was probably a lot better and original than Dear John...
I'd seen her in E.T, I'd seen her in The Wedding Singer (which is probably Adam Sandler's best film, but let's not get sidetracked), and I'd suffered through Charlie's Angels. All her other films weren't what I would usually watch, so I never considered following her career, like I do with other actors and actresses, until now.
I decided to watch Grey Gardens when it was aired in the UK over Christmas, not only because Drew had received an Emmy for her performance and dozens of rave reviews online, but also because I vaguely recall listening to the cast album of the Broadway musical adaptation. I watched it, and I was blown away. Her performance was fantastic, moving and poignant in every way. Suddenly, in my mind, Drew was an actress.
Whip It (2009) was her directorial debut. It's finally been released in the UK, so I went to the cinema with my Mum to see it yesterday. I was a bit concerned, because it looked like a stereotypical teen-comedy, but after talking to many people who had been surprised by it and reading some very good reviews I decided to give it a chance. It also helped that the cast included Ellen Page, who in my opinion is one of the best young actresses working in film, and Kristen Wiig, who I recently noticed in Adventureland (2009) and on Saturday Night Live.
I really loved the film, and thought it was one of the best teen comedies I have ever seen. My Mum enjoyed it a lot too, which shows it's apeal was not just limited to the teenage market. The script was clever and each of the characters were written sassily with plenty of good one-liners, so each character had a chance to "get some laughs" and shows their own personalities.
So, what was the film actually about? It was about roller derby, an old American sport which has just been given a new lease of life. Well, that was what the film suggested, I'm not trying to generalise all American towns here. Bliss (Ellen Page's character) lived with her mother, father and younger sister. Her mother is obsessed with beauty pageants and wants Bliss and her sister to achieve what she never could, so thus enters them for as many as possible. Whilst Bliss' sister loves this, Bliss isn't so keen, even dying her hair blue as a dare in attempt to liven up a dull pageant. One day she spots an advert for a roller derby, and decides to go with her best friend, Pash, to watch. They are both enthralled by it, and after the game Bliss meets two of the girls from the team who suggest she tries out. She does, and gets on the team. Now Bliss has discovered this new talent, a whole new life evolves for her as the team, who were on a losing streak, begin to win with her help. New friends, including a boyfriend, follow, but this is at the expense of her former life....
Sounds average, doesn't it? But it wasn't. The energertic and fresh performances of the cast coupled with the excitement of the roller derby moved the story along quickly and ensured that we were never bored, Ellen gave a great performance as Bliss, and really carried the film. Drew, as well as directing, played one of the roller girls, called Smashlee Simpson. She was rarely on the screen, and her character was bit mad, but it was still a good performance. Kristen Wiig's character was almost a split personality, and the way she played her made me fall in love with the motherly side of her character. Jimmy Fallon was incredibly entertaining, I had had no idea that he acted before the film.
Drew's first feature as a director was really good. The camera angles were really good in capturing the action, and the setting of the film perfect. It took what she's been acting in for the mpast couple of decades to an amazing, original new level, which makes me wonder why, if she has managed to do this, she didn't choose to act in better quality films before? It seems that she is following in the footsteps of her godfather after all.
Overall, Whip It was a great film to see and be entertained by. Dear John, across the corridor, was sold out. Sadly, only about a quarter of our cinema was full, which was a shame because Whip It was probably a lot better and original than Dear John...
Sunday, 4 April 2010
Share the love....
In case you weren't able to guess by the title, I went to see Hair yesterday evening. Before I write the review, I just want to say that it was one of the funnest, most enjoyable experiences that I have ever had at the theatre, and I would recommend it to anyone who loves going to the theatre. It was unlike anything that I have ever seen before.
Last night's performance was only the third preview, but pretty much the whole of the original Broadway revival cast had come over to London, so they were really tight anyway, unlike some previews of other shows. It was the first time that I have ever seen a Broadway cast, having never been to New York. It wasn't really much different from seeing a UK cast, but they all seemed really at home in their roles and it was probably one of the most talented ensembles that I've ever seen.
I didn't really know much about the show beforehand. I had received the cast recording for my birthday, and listened to it, but I hadn't really paid much attention when I listened to it. Overall, Act Two was better than Act One because more of the plot was centred in Act Two. Act One seemed to be mainly about introducting the characters and the era. The plot was quite thin compared to some other musicals, but the characters were developed quite well. I really enjoyed the music and it fit really well with the show, helping to move the story along and keep the audience interested. There were only a few ballads, which worked really well and seemed to come at exactly the right moments.
The set was great. It was very simple and allowed the orchestra/band to be on stage, something which always adds to the atmosphere of the show. The set mainly consisted of a large steel frame of staircases at the back to allow the cast to go up there. There were also steps which lead up to the dress circle, and of course steps that lead down into the stalls.
The audience interaction added to the atmosphere and the experience of the show. Even though I sat towards the end of row E, I didn't experience any of this, although it seems all the people sitting around me did. At the end of the show, I was the fifth person to run up onto the stage though. The dance party was so fun, I just wish Gavin had stayed on the stage and not run up to the dress circle.
Diane Paulus directed the piece very well, especially the sensitive moments. She made such good use of the stage, which looked massive compared to how small it seemed when Avenue Q was on at the Gielgud. The choreography, by Karole Armitage, was amazing, it really captured the mood of each scene and allowed all the tribe members to be individuals. The cast as a whole also had such amazing levels of energy and never stopped throughout the whole show.
Onto the cast. Gavin Creel was great as Claude. I saw him play Bert in Mary Poppins a couple of years ago, one of the first West End shows that I ever saw. I really enjoyed his performance then, but he managed to give an even better performance as Claude. He did the sensitive scenes really well, and managed to show many sides of Claude's character. Overall, he probably gave the best acting performance out of the whole cast.
Will Swenson played off Gavin very well, although was a little scary as Berger at times. His comic timing was great, although he was panting in a very strange manner at times. Allison Case stood out as Crissy, in what was quite a small role. The rest of the principals were also very good, and as said before it was probably the best ensemble that I've ever seen in a show.
Overall, Hair was an amazing experience and it was wonderful to have the chance to see something from Broadway. I didn't paticularly love the show, but more the amazing experience and atmosphere that was created in the theatre. Recommended.
Note:
I have given up giving shows star ratings, except for shows which I would give 5 stars too, because it became too difficult to differentiate between 3 stars and 4 stars and to do it with the shows relative to each other. I still only have three 5 star shows:
Sunset Boulevard (June 2009)
Forbidden Broadway (July 2009)
Blood Brothers (February 2010)
Last night's performance was only the third preview, but pretty much the whole of the original Broadway revival cast had come over to London, so they were really tight anyway, unlike some previews of other shows. It was the first time that I have ever seen a Broadway cast, having never been to New York. It wasn't really much different from seeing a UK cast, but they all seemed really at home in their roles and it was probably one of the most talented ensembles that I've ever seen.
I didn't really know much about the show beforehand. I had received the cast recording for my birthday, and listened to it, but I hadn't really paid much attention when I listened to it. Overall, Act Two was better than Act One because more of the plot was centred in Act Two. Act One seemed to be mainly about introducting the characters and the era. The plot was quite thin compared to some other musicals, but the characters were developed quite well. I really enjoyed the music and it fit really well with the show, helping to move the story along and keep the audience interested. There were only a few ballads, which worked really well and seemed to come at exactly the right moments.
The set was great. It was very simple and allowed the orchestra/band to be on stage, something which always adds to the atmosphere of the show. The set mainly consisted of a large steel frame of staircases at the back to allow the cast to go up there. There were also steps which lead up to the dress circle, and of course steps that lead down into the stalls.
The audience interaction added to the atmosphere and the experience of the show. Even though I sat towards the end of row E, I didn't experience any of this, although it seems all the people sitting around me did. At the end of the show, I was the fifth person to run up onto the stage though. The dance party was so fun, I just wish Gavin had stayed on the stage and not run up to the dress circle.
Diane Paulus directed the piece very well, especially the sensitive moments. She made such good use of the stage, which looked massive compared to how small it seemed when Avenue Q was on at the Gielgud. The choreography, by Karole Armitage, was amazing, it really captured the mood of each scene and allowed all the tribe members to be individuals. The cast as a whole also had such amazing levels of energy and never stopped throughout the whole show.
Onto the cast. Gavin Creel was great as Claude. I saw him play Bert in Mary Poppins a couple of years ago, one of the first West End shows that I ever saw. I really enjoyed his performance then, but he managed to give an even better performance as Claude. He did the sensitive scenes really well, and managed to show many sides of Claude's character. Overall, he probably gave the best acting performance out of the whole cast.
Will Swenson played off Gavin very well, although was a little scary as Berger at times. His comic timing was great, although he was panting in a very strange manner at times. Allison Case stood out as Crissy, in what was quite a small role. The rest of the principals were also very good, and as said before it was probably the best ensemble that I've ever seen in a show.
Overall, Hair was an amazing experience and it was wonderful to have the chance to see something from Broadway. I didn't paticularly love the show, but more the amazing experience and atmosphere that was created in the theatre. Recommended.
Note:
I have given up giving shows star ratings, except for shows which I would give 5 stars too, because it became too difficult to differentiate between 3 stars and 4 stars and to do it with the shows relative to each other. I still only have three 5 star shows:
Sunset Boulevard (June 2009)
Forbidden Broadway (July 2009)
Blood Brothers (February 2010)
Saturday, 6 March 2010
Oscar Night...
...and for the second year in a row I won't be able to watch the Oscars, due to them only being shown on Sky Movies which we don't happen to have. Not that I'm complaining, because I have loads to do today and it's my birthday tomorow, so all of my family are coming over this evening and I wouldn't have the time to watch it anyway. I'm not really as excited as I was last year though - in comparison to 2008, 2009 was such a boring year for film.
I haven't seen many of the films nominated. I haven't seen Avatar, purely because there's always been something else I'd rather see. Due to complete lack of updates to this blog recently, I think I've seen three films since:
Precious - I saw this yesterday, after reading the book it's based upon all in one day last week. It was such a good adaptation and piece of directing - it really drew out how I imagined Precious' character from the book. Although it was a bit slower than I imagined, it was still really good. All the acting performances were great, especially Gabourey Sidibe in the title role, and Mo'nique as her mother. I also quite enjoyed Mariah Carey's role, having never seen her act before.
The Lovely Bones - Another adaptation from a book, which was so disapointing. Jackson left out so many significant elements from the book, such as the development of Ruth's character and the mother's affair. It's not as if he is shy about making long films, after all he did direct all three of the Lord of the Rings films, so it was a mystery why he did this. Other than that, the performances were all good, but not really enough to save the film.
Invictus - I really admire Clint Eastwood, and this film was no excpetion. Although it's probably my least favourite of his films that I've watched so far, it was still a really good, informative piece that drew two true stories together really well. Morgan Freeman gave such a good performance, and Matt Damon's performance was enjoyable, even though it's a little bit weak for an Oscar nomination.
So, other than that the only Oscar-type films for this year I've seen so far are Up, An Education, Julie and Julia, Coco Before Chanel and Cheri, the latter two which haven't received any awards attention, but which definitely should have done. So here are my basic winners so far:
Best Picture - Up
Best Actor - Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Best Actress - Michelle Pfeiffer - Cheri
Best Supporting Actor - Alfred Molina - An Education
Best Supporting Actress - Rosamund Pike - An Education
Best Director - Lee Daniels - Precious
Best Adapted Screenplay - An Education
Best Original Screenplay - Up
Quite an original line up, I think... Of course, all will become aparent tonight at the ceremony. On a side note, I'm really looking forward to Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin hosting!
I haven't seen many of the films nominated. I haven't seen Avatar, purely because there's always been something else I'd rather see. Due to complete lack of updates to this blog recently, I think I've seen three films since:
Precious - I saw this yesterday, after reading the book it's based upon all in one day last week. It was such a good adaptation and piece of directing - it really drew out how I imagined Precious' character from the book. Although it was a bit slower than I imagined, it was still really good. All the acting performances were great, especially Gabourey Sidibe in the title role, and Mo'nique as her mother. I also quite enjoyed Mariah Carey's role, having never seen her act before.
The Lovely Bones - Another adaptation from a book, which was so disapointing. Jackson left out so many significant elements from the book, such as the development of Ruth's character and the mother's affair. It's not as if he is shy about making long films, after all he did direct all three of the Lord of the Rings films, so it was a mystery why he did this. Other than that, the performances were all good, but not really enough to save the film.
Invictus - I really admire Clint Eastwood, and this film was no excpetion. Although it's probably my least favourite of his films that I've watched so far, it was still a really good, informative piece that drew two true stories together really well. Morgan Freeman gave such a good performance, and Matt Damon's performance was enjoyable, even though it's a little bit weak for an Oscar nomination.
So, other than that the only Oscar-type films for this year I've seen so far are Up, An Education, Julie and Julia, Coco Before Chanel and Cheri, the latter two which haven't received any awards attention, but which definitely should have done. So here are my basic winners so far:
Best Picture - Up
Best Actor - Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Best Actress - Michelle Pfeiffer - Cheri
Best Supporting Actor - Alfred Molina - An Education
Best Supporting Actress - Rosamund Pike - An Education
Best Director - Lee Daniels - Precious
Best Adapted Screenplay - An Education
Best Original Screenplay - Up
Quite an original line up, I think... Of course, all will become aparent tonight at the ceremony. On a side note, I'm really looking forward to Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin hosting!
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Oscar Nominations
So, the Oscar nominations were announced today. Last year I was so excited for this day and for the ceremony itself, but this year I actually didn't even know that it was today until my Mum casually mentioned that there had been a small item about it on the news. This is probably because, compared to 2008, 2009 was a boring year for film. No one really cares, least of all the media, about Meryl vs. Sandra, unlike last year when every day there was at least one article about Kate vs. Everyone Else.
I'll have to confess that I've seen very few 2009 films. As a matter of fact, I've seen 17 2009 films. Before I cringe at this, though, I'll just remind myself that last year I had seen even less at this point, mainly due to the fact that I was fourteen and the majority of the films were rated 15.
Best Picture 2009. Well we're back to the old format, with 10 nominations instead of five. Aparently AMPAS decided to reinstate this old rule because they felt they were alienating the average cinema-goer by just having five nominations. To be honest, with the exception of Up and Avatar, which would most probably have been nominated even if there were still only five nominations, the other 8 are very much the usual type of Oscar-bait films, so this has really failed on all levels, as many would say the Oscars do in general. Personally, I'm rooting for anything except for Avatar to win, not because I dislike James Cameron but because Avatar didn't really have a story. If Up were to win it would be a first for this category. I rather enjoyed Up, as a matter of fact, and would be happy for it to win - the message was actually remarkably powerful. I haven't seen any of the other films except for An Education, which I thought was fantastic, and a British film come to that.
I haven't seen any of the performances nominated for best actor, mainly because of the ridiculous and somewhat pointless delay between US and UK release dates, but I would love Colin Firth to win, simply because this is probably a career definining performance for him and so different to what he normally does. If he doesn't win now, he'll probably never even be nominated again.
Best actress is always my favourite category. As a certified Meryl Streep lover I would love Meryl to win her third Oscar, of which she is most certainly overdue. The problem is, whilst it was extremely enjoyable, Meryl's performance in Julie and Julia was not really a great performance. Good, but not great. I don't want Meryl to win when there were better performances. Which brings me to Carey Mulligan, the new face of British cinema. Such a great, relatable performance in An Education, which could have so easily gone unnoticed. I'm not a Helen Mirren fan (The Queen....I swear I saw a different film to everyone else?), and I have yet to see Sandra or Gabourey's performances, the latter of which I'm really looking forward to, but at the moment I really want Carey to win. The trouble is, I can see another Keira Knightley situation, whereby she was nominated young and for a breakout performance, but denied a win until the Academy could reward her for an even better performance later in life. It would all have been so much simpler is Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated...her performance in Cheri was outstanding.
I can't wait to see all the performances in the supporting categories, of which I have only seen Pénélope Cruz's in Nine so far. Whilst I think Marion Cottilard for the same film also deserved a nomination, I paticularly admire Stanley Tucci and Vera Farmiga's acting, so am looking forward to their performances in paticular. They are both underrated performers so it's wonderful to see them gain recognition.
Finally, to the best director category. Personally, I think the Academy will go one of two ways. They will either give the Oscar to Kathryn Bigelow, who is not only the most deserving candidate but would also be the first woman to win the award, or to her ex-husband James Cameron, who is not a deserving candidate. Tarantino's nomination is a surprise to say the least, the release date of Inglorious Basterds was long before awards season. I can't even see it for two and a bit years because it's an 18, just like I still haven't seen Taken from last year. I don't see either Jason Reitman, as much as I admire his quirkiness, or Lee Daniels taking the award, although there is always a surprise to be had.
Overall, the Oscars are dismissed by many as one huge love fest for a few heavy weights in the industry. They may be based mainly on politics, reviews and buzz, and of course many deserving foreign, independent and even some mainstream films are overlooked every year, but it is difficult to deny that more often than not some of the best achievements in cinema are indeed rewarded. Me, I just love making my own Oscar nominations, which will be done as soon as possible.
I'll have to confess that I've seen very few 2009 films. As a matter of fact, I've seen 17 2009 films. Before I cringe at this, though, I'll just remind myself that last year I had seen even less at this point, mainly due to the fact that I was fourteen and the majority of the films were rated 15.
Best Picture 2009. Well we're back to the old format, with 10 nominations instead of five. Aparently AMPAS decided to reinstate this old rule because they felt they were alienating the average cinema-goer by just having five nominations. To be honest, with the exception of Up and Avatar, which would most probably have been nominated even if there were still only five nominations, the other 8 are very much the usual type of Oscar-bait films, so this has really failed on all levels, as many would say the Oscars do in general. Personally, I'm rooting for anything except for Avatar to win, not because I dislike James Cameron but because Avatar didn't really have a story. If Up were to win it would be a first for this category. I rather enjoyed Up, as a matter of fact, and would be happy for it to win - the message was actually remarkably powerful. I haven't seen any of the other films except for An Education, which I thought was fantastic, and a British film come to that.
I haven't seen any of the performances nominated for best actor, mainly because of the ridiculous and somewhat pointless delay between US and UK release dates, but I would love Colin Firth to win, simply because this is probably a career definining performance for him and so different to what he normally does. If he doesn't win now, he'll probably never even be nominated again.
Best actress is always my favourite category. As a certified Meryl Streep lover I would love Meryl to win her third Oscar, of which she is most certainly overdue. The problem is, whilst it was extremely enjoyable, Meryl's performance in Julie and Julia was not really a great performance. Good, but not great. I don't want Meryl to win when there were better performances. Which brings me to Carey Mulligan, the new face of British cinema. Such a great, relatable performance in An Education, which could have so easily gone unnoticed. I'm not a Helen Mirren fan (The Queen....I swear I saw a different film to everyone else?), and I have yet to see Sandra or Gabourey's performances, the latter of which I'm really looking forward to, but at the moment I really want Carey to win. The trouble is, I can see another Keira Knightley situation, whereby she was nominated young and for a breakout performance, but denied a win until the Academy could reward her for an even better performance later in life. It would all have been so much simpler is Michelle Pfeiffer was nominated...her performance in Cheri was outstanding.
I can't wait to see all the performances in the supporting categories, of which I have only seen Pénélope Cruz's in Nine so far. Whilst I think Marion Cottilard for the same film also deserved a nomination, I paticularly admire Stanley Tucci and Vera Farmiga's acting, so am looking forward to their performances in paticular. They are both underrated performers so it's wonderful to see them gain recognition.
Finally, to the best director category. Personally, I think the Academy will go one of two ways. They will either give the Oscar to Kathryn Bigelow, who is not only the most deserving candidate but would also be the first woman to win the award, or to her ex-husband James Cameron, who is not a deserving candidate. Tarantino's nomination is a surprise to say the least, the release date of Inglorious Basterds was long before awards season. I can't even see it for two and a bit years because it's an 18, just like I still haven't seen Taken from last year. I don't see either Jason Reitman, as much as I admire his quirkiness, or Lee Daniels taking the award, although there is always a surprise to be had.
Overall, the Oscars are dismissed by many as one huge love fest for a few heavy weights in the industry. They may be based mainly on politics, reviews and buzz, and of course many deserving foreign, independent and even some mainstream films are overlooked every year, but it is difficult to deny that more often than not some of the best achievements in cinema are indeed rewarded. Me, I just love making my own Oscar nominations, which will be done as soon as possible.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
Return to the Menier...
Here is my review for Sweet Charity, which I saw today. It's a really great, enjoyable show, and I couldn't recommend it more. In the end I gave it four out of five stars:
I love the Menier Chocolate Factory. As a matter of fact, I think it’s my favourite theatre. It’s just so quirky, and the other audience members are so friendly that it almost doesn’t matter that you’re seated practically on top of one another. The seating is the only thing I would change about the Menier. The problem is, after about an hour one’s bottom always goes to sleep due to the hard, wooden benches with about 2mm of foam on them. Luckily, Act One was an hour and twenty minutes, and Act Two slightly shorter than that, so my bum wasn’t numb for too long today. Nice benches are the ones at the Young Vic.
I had been to the Menier once before prior to Sweet Charity. This was for Forbidden Broadway, which captured my imagination and was the first show to ever really make me laugh. So when the Menier’s Christmas musical was announced, I decided that I would go and see it. I saw Little Shop of Horrors on tour, La Cage aux Folles in the West End, and totally missed seeing A Little Night Music before it left for Broadway (with hindsight I would have hotfooted it down to the Garrick). This time I, though, I thought I would go and see a Menier musical before it transferred.
We sat in the front row. This was great, there was extra legroom and every single wrinkle was visible on the actors’ faces. It felt as though I was really involved in the show, and not just a spectator from afar, which I loved. It also got me thinking of how amazing La Cage must have been at the Menier. It would have been like being in the actual club. Maybe that was the inspiration....
Anyway. Sweet Charity was originally performed on Broadway in 1966 and swiftly adapted into a film starring the wonderful Shirley Maclaine. I had tried to watch the film last night, before going to the show, but the DVD decided to stop working after 40 minutes. Annoyances of this aside, I can say that from what I saw the film was adapted remarkably accurately from the show, with many of the lines identical. In this respect I’m glad that I actually didn’t finish watching the film, else it would have been like when I saw We Will Rock You for the second time and I knew all the jokes.
Cy Coleman composed Sweet Charity. The only other musical he composed that I have heard of is Barnum, which I have never even listened to. Of course almost everyone is familiar with the song Hey Big Spender, but other than that I was clueless about the score. It had never occurred to me to listen to Coleman’s work before. I can say that I really enjoyed the score; it was magnificently composed and fit the era exceptionally well. The book, by Neil Simon, kept the story moving at a good pace, although the ending did drag a little. The jokes were funny, and there were many quotable lines. Who knew that “Up yours” came from Sweet Charity?
I was nervous about seeing another production directed by Matthew White. I didn’t really like his interpretation of Little Shop of Horrors. The comedic element was absolutely fantastic, but he failed to evoke any empathy towards the characters and the whole thing felt like a bad attempt at a child’s cartoon. I have to say, though, his direction of Sweet Charity was great. The actors were given plenty to do, often exaggerated which really suited the piece, and although many of the characters came across as clichéd and one sided that was what the piece called for, in its basic form.
For me, Stephen Mear’s choreography was exceptional. Sweet Charity was originally choreographed by Bob Fosse, who was well ahead of his time when he was working. From Chicago to Cabaret, Fosse’s unique style is always evident. Mear managed to include several of his trademarks, but also modernised it in a way and made it suit the space perfectly.
The lighting design was good, though a little too obvious in places. I thought the set design was perfect, not too much and not too little. Even though the stage at the Menier is very small height was still used in an interesting way, although some of the scene changes seemed to take a little too long.
Tamzin Outhwaite in the title role was a complete surprise. I had heard her name before and read numerous interviews with her, but had never seen her acting in anything. I was pleasantly surprised by her comedic timing, her constant energy and her good vocals. She handled the breakdown capably, but didn’t really make me feel anything, although it was a good performance and my attention was drawn to her whenever she was on stage. Tamzin has actually just come back from a week or so off because of illness, which shows how strong and professional she is – you would never have known from her performance.
Tiffany Graves was good as Helene, even better than when I saw her as Velma Kelly in Chicago. I really want to see her in a role that doesn’t involve playing some kind of dancer who is quite bitchy, though. I really want to see how she would handle a character that the audience is supposed to feel empathy for.
Josefina Gabrielle was great playing both Nickie and Ursula, making the two roles completely different and delivering a consistent performance throughout. Aside from Tamzin, she really stood out from the rest of the cast. Quite a task really, because the whole ensemble were fantastic, always full of energy and handling numerous costume/character changes with ease.
Finally, Mark Umbers was hilarious as Charity’s numerous love interests. I actually didn’t realise that he played all of them until I looked in the programme on the way home.
Overall, Sweet Charity is deserving of a West End transfer, although the atmosphere of the Menier made it a really great, natural setting for the show. I preferred it to the Young Vic revival of Annie Get Your Gun, because even though the story and direction of Annie Get Your Gun were better, and the casts of both shows were about the same, the overall design and appeal of Sweet Charity is far greater.
I love the Menier Chocolate Factory. As a matter of fact, I think it’s my favourite theatre. It’s just so quirky, and the other audience members are so friendly that it almost doesn’t matter that you’re seated practically on top of one another. The seating is the only thing I would change about the Menier. The problem is, after about an hour one’s bottom always goes to sleep due to the hard, wooden benches with about 2mm of foam on them. Luckily, Act One was an hour and twenty minutes, and Act Two slightly shorter than that, so my bum wasn’t numb for too long today. Nice benches are the ones at the Young Vic.
I had been to the Menier once before prior to Sweet Charity. This was for Forbidden Broadway, which captured my imagination and was the first show to ever really make me laugh. So when the Menier’s Christmas musical was announced, I decided that I would go and see it. I saw Little Shop of Horrors on tour, La Cage aux Folles in the West End, and totally missed seeing A Little Night Music before it left for Broadway (with hindsight I would have hotfooted it down to the Garrick). This time I, though, I thought I would go and see a Menier musical before it transferred.
We sat in the front row. This was great, there was extra legroom and every single wrinkle was visible on the actors’ faces. It felt as though I was really involved in the show, and not just a spectator from afar, which I loved. It also got me thinking of how amazing La Cage must have been at the Menier. It would have been like being in the actual club. Maybe that was the inspiration....
Anyway. Sweet Charity was originally performed on Broadway in 1966 and swiftly adapted into a film starring the wonderful Shirley Maclaine. I had tried to watch the film last night, before going to the show, but the DVD decided to stop working after 40 minutes. Annoyances of this aside, I can say that from what I saw the film was adapted remarkably accurately from the show, with many of the lines identical. In this respect I’m glad that I actually didn’t finish watching the film, else it would have been like when I saw We Will Rock You for the second time and I knew all the jokes.
Cy Coleman composed Sweet Charity. The only other musical he composed that I have heard of is Barnum, which I have never even listened to. Of course almost everyone is familiar with the song Hey Big Spender, but other than that I was clueless about the score. It had never occurred to me to listen to Coleman’s work before. I can say that I really enjoyed the score; it was magnificently composed and fit the era exceptionally well. The book, by Neil Simon, kept the story moving at a good pace, although the ending did drag a little. The jokes were funny, and there were many quotable lines. Who knew that “Up yours” came from Sweet Charity?
I was nervous about seeing another production directed by Matthew White. I didn’t really like his interpretation of Little Shop of Horrors. The comedic element was absolutely fantastic, but he failed to evoke any empathy towards the characters and the whole thing felt like a bad attempt at a child’s cartoon. I have to say, though, his direction of Sweet Charity was great. The actors were given plenty to do, often exaggerated which really suited the piece, and although many of the characters came across as clichéd and one sided that was what the piece called for, in its basic form.
For me, Stephen Mear’s choreography was exceptional. Sweet Charity was originally choreographed by Bob Fosse, who was well ahead of his time when he was working. From Chicago to Cabaret, Fosse’s unique style is always evident. Mear managed to include several of his trademarks, but also modernised it in a way and made it suit the space perfectly.
The lighting design was good, though a little too obvious in places. I thought the set design was perfect, not too much and not too little. Even though the stage at the Menier is very small height was still used in an interesting way, although some of the scene changes seemed to take a little too long.
Tamzin Outhwaite in the title role was a complete surprise. I had heard her name before and read numerous interviews with her, but had never seen her acting in anything. I was pleasantly surprised by her comedic timing, her constant energy and her good vocals. She handled the breakdown capably, but didn’t really make me feel anything, although it was a good performance and my attention was drawn to her whenever she was on stage. Tamzin has actually just come back from a week or so off because of illness, which shows how strong and professional she is – you would never have known from her performance.
Tiffany Graves was good as Helene, even better than when I saw her as Velma Kelly in Chicago. I really want to see her in a role that doesn’t involve playing some kind of dancer who is quite bitchy, though. I really want to see how she would handle a character that the audience is supposed to feel empathy for.
Josefina Gabrielle was great playing both Nickie and Ursula, making the two roles completely different and delivering a consistent performance throughout. Aside from Tamzin, she really stood out from the rest of the cast. Quite a task really, because the whole ensemble were fantastic, always full of energy and handling numerous costume/character changes with ease.
Finally, Mark Umbers was hilarious as Charity’s numerous love interests. I actually didn’t realise that he played all of them until I looked in the programme on the way home.
Overall, Sweet Charity is deserving of a West End transfer, although the atmosphere of the Menier made it a really great, natural setting for the show. I preferred it to the Young Vic revival of Annie Get Your Gun, because even though the story and direction of Annie Get Your Gun were better, and the casts of both shows were about the same, the overall design and appeal of Sweet Charity is far greater.
Monday, 25 January 2010
Deutsche Filme, Teil 1
To say that I am bad at speaking German is an understatement. It's frustrating how much German I can understand, but how I can say so little in comparison. Since I discovered my love of Spanish cinema (well, mainly Pedro Almodovar) despite not knowing a word of Spanish, I decided that it was time to watch a German film.
I saw Let The Right One In, a Swedish horror film, in June, and instantly realised that it was one of my top films of 2008/2009. It was absolutely amazing, and just took the horror/vampire genre to a whole new level. So I was hoping that German films would offer the same originality and flair, and be able to go where Hollywood has long since stopped venturing. By this, I mean originality.
Anyway. The film I watched was called Lola Rennt and released in 1998. Every exam paper, text book and teaching resource seems to talk about Lola Rennt, in the way that all the French resources talk about Amélie (brilliant film by the way, I gave it at least 90/100).
When I started watching Lola Rennt (The English title is: Run Lola Run) I had no idea what to expect. At first it seemed like an average action film with not much of a story/meaning to anything. But then Lola was shot. I thought it was the end of the film, then realised that it had only been on for twenty minutes. Then the second perspective of the story started, and I realised what was going on.
As the film continued, I thought the story developed really well and managed to give all the characters a proper personality. It was mainly because of this that the film was engaging the whole way through. The story was very clever, although I had to concentrate hard to follow what was going on at some points. There was also a very good use of cartoons to represent certain things, similar to in Berlin, Berlin, a German TV series that I've watched a couple of episodes of.
For a film that came out in 1998, the special effects were quite good, especially because I'm assuming that it was made on a relatively low budget. From what I could deduce from the subtitles (English subtitling is so much slower for German films than French or Spanish because the sentences are longer), the script was good, and I thought the director handled the story very well, though the camera angles were not the best. The film is set in East Germany, so it was interesting to see the effects of the Berlin Wall even after it had been destroyed.
I really liked Franka Potente's portrayal of Lola. She managed to be sexy in a subtle way, not so it hindered her acting, very much in the way of Angelina Jolie. I thought it was a performance with depth and many layers to it. Manni, her boyfriend, was played by Moritz Bleibtreu. Annoyingly, I don't have any other examples to compare their work to, but his performance was a bit boring right up until the last scene. Then it was awesome.
Although the film was ignored by the Oscars, I think that it definitely deserved some recognition, in the same way that Let The Right One In did.
I've just finished watching Love Actually (or Tasachlich....Liebe) in German. I'd seen it three times before in English, which is unusual for me because I never usually like romantic comedies enough to endure them, I mean watch them, for a second time. However, in the way I like Bridget Jones, I am actually rather fond of Love Actually. As a maker of romantic comedies, Richard Curtis is far superior to his peers, and never fails to deliver a clever script, great cast and a concept that is as original as it can be.
I've never watched a film with dubbing before. I elected to set the language to German and to refrain from using the English subtitles to see how I would cope with no English whatsoever. I don't really want to admit this, but after only watching it three times previously I found that I know pretty much all of the script, so could decipher most of the lines fairly quickly and accurately. Watching a film with dubbing is not an experience I want to repeat, I'd rather have subtitles, because the voices didn't really match the emotions or the accents of the characters, hindering the portrayals a bit.
So....Love, Actually. I really like Hugh Grant as an actor. He may not be the best actor in the world, but he is always witty and charming, sort of an acquired taste. Everytime I see Liam Neeson I am reminded that I need to watch Schindler's List - his performance in Love Actually is great, so in the male equivalent of Sophie's Choice he must be as good as Meryl. If not better.
I also love Emma Thompson, and find her performance to be the truest of the all in this film. Generally, the rest of the ensemble cast are all good, although I do find Bill Nighy's outfits a tad offputting to say the least.
Sometimes you just need a little bit of feelgood. Not very often, though. I still prefer independent, arthouse films and biopics above all. I really want to find some more great German films now. I'm really looking forward to seeing Die Weisse Band (The White Ribbon).
Tchuss!
I saw Let The Right One In, a Swedish horror film, in June, and instantly realised that it was one of my top films of 2008/2009. It was absolutely amazing, and just took the horror/vampire genre to a whole new level. So I was hoping that German films would offer the same originality and flair, and be able to go where Hollywood has long since stopped venturing. By this, I mean originality.
Anyway. The film I watched was called Lola Rennt and released in 1998. Every exam paper, text book and teaching resource seems to talk about Lola Rennt, in the way that all the French resources talk about Amélie (brilliant film by the way, I gave it at least 90/100).
When I started watching Lola Rennt (The English title is: Run Lola Run) I had no idea what to expect. At first it seemed like an average action film with not much of a story/meaning to anything. But then Lola was shot. I thought it was the end of the film, then realised that it had only been on for twenty minutes. Then the second perspective of the story started, and I realised what was going on.
As the film continued, I thought the story developed really well and managed to give all the characters a proper personality. It was mainly because of this that the film was engaging the whole way through. The story was very clever, although I had to concentrate hard to follow what was going on at some points. There was also a very good use of cartoons to represent certain things, similar to in Berlin, Berlin, a German TV series that I've watched a couple of episodes of.
For a film that came out in 1998, the special effects were quite good, especially because I'm assuming that it was made on a relatively low budget. From what I could deduce from the subtitles (English subtitling is so much slower for German films than French or Spanish because the sentences are longer), the script was good, and I thought the director handled the story very well, though the camera angles were not the best. The film is set in East Germany, so it was interesting to see the effects of the Berlin Wall even after it had been destroyed.
I really liked Franka Potente's portrayal of Lola. She managed to be sexy in a subtle way, not so it hindered her acting, very much in the way of Angelina Jolie. I thought it was a performance with depth and many layers to it. Manni, her boyfriend, was played by Moritz Bleibtreu. Annoyingly, I don't have any other examples to compare their work to, but his performance was a bit boring right up until the last scene. Then it was awesome.
Although the film was ignored by the Oscars, I think that it definitely deserved some recognition, in the same way that Let The Right One In did.
I've just finished watching Love Actually (or Tasachlich....Liebe) in German. I'd seen it three times before in English, which is unusual for me because I never usually like romantic comedies enough to endure them, I mean watch them, for a second time. However, in the way I like Bridget Jones, I am actually rather fond of Love Actually. As a maker of romantic comedies, Richard Curtis is far superior to his peers, and never fails to deliver a clever script, great cast and a concept that is as original as it can be.
I've never watched a film with dubbing before. I elected to set the language to German and to refrain from using the English subtitles to see how I would cope with no English whatsoever. I don't really want to admit this, but after only watching it three times previously I found that I know pretty much all of the script, so could decipher most of the lines fairly quickly and accurately. Watching a film with dubbing is not an experience I want to repeat, I'd rather have subtitles, because the voices didn't really match the emotions or the accents of the characters, hindering the portrayals a bit.
So....Love, Actually. I really like Hugh Grant as an actor. He may not be the best actor in the world, but he is always witty and charming, sort of an acquired taste. Everytime I see Liam Neeson I am reminded that I need to watch Schindler's List - his performance in Love Actually is great, so in the male equivalent of Sophie's Choice he must be as good as Meryl. If not better.
I also love Emma Thompson, and find her performance to be the truest of the all in this film. Generally, the rest of the ensemble cast are all good, although I do find Bill Nighy's outfits a tad offputting to say the least.
Sometimes you just need a little bit of feelgood. Not very often, though. I still prefer independent, arthouse films and biopics above all. I really want to find some more great German films now. I'm really looking forward to seeing Die Weisse Band (The White Ribbon).
Tchuss!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)