Observations Along The Road... at Dreamwidth

What, you were expecting Wicked?

Nah, Bob Dylan has been a much more pervasive influence in my life, from my brother playing Peter, Paul, and Mary on his guitar, to my uncle playing folk music. In fact, if you look at my music collection, you’ll two primary genres: folk music, of all varieties, and cast albums.

True, we were deeply disappointed in the Bob Dylan musical, Girl From The North Country, but we shall not speak of that anymore. This was not Girl From The North Country.  That was a depressing mess. This was a wonderful motion picture.

And because it was a motion picture, I don’t have the burden of detailing everything about the story or the cast. I can just point you to IMDB, and give you my impressions.

First: The story. This is the period of Dylan with which I am most familiar. Not only from the Dylan-lore, but from the stories told by his contemporaries whom I still listen to and see: Noel Paul Stookey, Tom Paxton, and others. The movie captures the Greenwich Village folk scene, and most of the people I expected to see, and name drops most of them. I knew who Albert Grossman was before he even showed up. I knew the names and the music: Pete Seeger, Leadbelly, Odetta, and others. The movie had that authentic feel, and the characterizations seemed spot on. Of PP&M, they really only emphasized Peter Yarrow’s role (and, alas, Yarrow is on his last days right now, dealing with bladder cancer); you had two glimpses of Mary and I think only one of Noel Paul.

I knew some of Dylan’s story from that time, but not all of it. I know that the Suzie character is a composite, but I didn’t know about his relationship with Joan Baez. I was disappointed that some of the folks I expected to see weren’t mentioned (or at least name-dropped), but perhaps they were coming in as he was moving out of the folk world (I’m thinking in particular of folks like Tom Paxton or Mississippi John Hurt). Other folks we might have heard from were more on the traditional folk side or slightly before Dylan’s time (the Weavers and the Limeliters would be good examples there). I originally had Dave Von Ronk on the list, but it turns out the character was in the movie.  I didn’t recognize Norbert Leo Butz as Alan Lomax (and both Noel Paul and Mary’s performers were uncredited, and only Noel Paul’s made it to IMDB).

But the story held my attention and was interesting.

The performances were spot on. Timothée Chalamet was remarkable. I saw him on Colbert, and he mentioned he had been working on this role for five years, and all the music was live-sung. I’m super impressed with him, first with his great job on Wonka, and now this. He is an extremely talented young man, a very strong musician, and he captured Dylan’s voice and mannerisms well. Ed Norton was also extremely strong as Pete Seeger, and he captured the character as I knew him well. Nick Pupo looked like the young Peter Yarrow, but didn’t quite have the same voice. Monica Barbaro was a strong Joan Baez; again, she nailed the voice. Boyd Holbrook was a bit of a caricature of Johnny Cash: he had the voice, but not the depth. But that wasn’t critical to the movie.

Should you go see this: If you like folk music, yes. I was thinking about this in relationship to other early folk stories: 2003’s A Mighty Wind and 2013’s Inside Llewyn Davis. The latter two are fictionalized, but do a good job of presenting the folk scene. This comes closer to presenting it as it was. I think, of the three, this might be the best.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Because I Have Known You, ... | "A Complete Unknown" by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

Over the weekend, I read an interesting article in the LA Times about how studios are currently shuffling leadership around as they attempt to adjust to the declining revenues of films in theatres. The explanation that was given was that the business model of the film industry is changing. The only “successful” movies on the big screen are the blockbuster tentpoles; the previous mid-market movies just are not succeeding in the theatres (although they do well on the smaller screen). The other “success” are the very low budget movies, but it is easy to make money on those with a modest success.

Well, duh.

This is a clear demonstration of being careful what you wish for, combined with not understanding the market. First, we have been pushing the quality of televisions up and up. We had HD, and UHD, and 4K, and even more. So for stories that are more slice of life, non-special effects, stories, why do I need to go to the theatre to see them. Further, I think filmmakers and actors are discovering that the 2-3 hour movie is limiting, and a story can be told with more depth of character as a 10 episode limited miniseries (which is also why you’re seeing more sequelitis).

So what will succeed?

Blockbusters work for a number of reasons: first, you need the big screen for the spectacle, the sound, and most importantly, the shared experience. If you are watching something where the mood of the audience will feed into the reaction, it works better when you watch surrounded by people.

What else? One word: Live.

Broadway musicals are growing because the live experience is different every time, it is a shared experience, and it is something that cannot be duplicated in the living room. “Live on Film”, such as the limited one-or-two time broadcasts of shows, can also be successful because of the limits. Live is why professional sports remain successful: the shared live experience is unique, and time sensitive.

Could this be why many big name studies have gotten into the Broadway show business?

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

As you may recall, I’ve been trying to predict shows that will be going on tour. One show I’ve really been interested in is Allegiance (FB), the Broadway musical that George Takei (FB) has been involved with about the Japanese Internment during WWII. The trade papers said a tour would materialize; but the show’s website doesn’t indicate one. I’ve always expected that a tour, if it materialized, would show up at the Ahmanson Theatre (FB) — or that the Ahmanson, recognizing the Japanese community in Los Angeles, might mount a local production. But the Ahmanson hasn’t announced their season yet, and the good folks behind the Broadway show felt the message was important enough to rebroadcast the musical. You see, these producers did something very intelligent. They recorded the musical about a month after it opened, and arranged to have it broadcast around the country, one time, a number of months after it closed. Through my various Broadway RSS and other feeds, I learned that they were arranging a rebroadcast this weekend — and so to hedge my bets in case it didn’t materialize on the stage, I got tickets.

What I didn’t realize, of course, was the significance of the day of the rebroadcast. Today is the 75th anniversary of the signing of the order that sent Japanese Americans to the internment camps. It is also in a time where there is an intense fear that a segment of our current population is dangerous just because of their religion, even when that segment are longtime American citizens. That makes the message of this show even more timely. Franklin Roosevelt, who was the President who signed the order, said the only thing we had to fear was fear itself. Then he gave into the fear, put US citizens into internment camps, tore away their livelihoods and homes, and regarded them as suspicious just because of their looks or their origins. It was wrong. It was unconstitutional. It was unthinkable. It must never never never happen again. And yet…. we have a large segment of our population living in fear of people because of their looks, their religion or their origin.

I’m an Engineer, but I have a confession to make. A good, compelling story does make my eyes water. Many deep Broadway shows do that — I love theatre because of its ability to tell a story and draw out the emotion. By the end of Allegiance, my jaw was quivering and I was find it hard to hold it together. That is a measure of how powerful this story is; how important it is to tell it. I can’t say to go see the show at your local theatre — alas Allegiance closed after a very short run on Broadway for whatever reason (well, the critics hated it, but what do they know). I can say to friend Allegiance‘s Facebook page so that you can find out if they ever broadcast it again. I can say you must encourage local theatres to do it, but I’m not sure it is licensed yet. We can clamor for a small tour, or push the Ahmanson or East/West to mount it. But I personally feel that this is something that must be seen, and that the critics often have problems with dark, different, and difficult material, only to appreciate it later. Remember: they hate Carrie when it first came out; now it is a great parable about bullying.

I left Allegiance appreciating the power of theatre. That is a good thing.

I guess I should tell you the story of Allegiance, which has a book by Marc Acito (FB),  Jay Kuo (FB), and Lorenzo Thione (FB), and music and lyrics by Jay Kuo (FB). According to Wikipedia, the genesis of the show was a chance meeting in the fall of 2008 of George Takei and his husband, Brad, who were seated next to Jay Kuo and Lorenzo Thione. They met again at another show, had some conversations, and this led to the notion of a musical based roughly on George’s experiences as a child in the internment camps.  I’ll also note you can find a more detailed version on the show webpage or wikipedia. In short, the show tells the story of the Kimura family from Salinas: the grandfather (Ojii-chan), the father (Tatsuo Kimura), and the two children: Sam and Kei. It starts with Sam, who is a WWII veteran, learning that his sister Kei has died. This opens us into the story and how the rift between them was created. We see the family running a farm and having an American life, and then the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. In short order, based on an agreement between the government and the Japanese American Citizens League, led by Mike Masaoka, internment orders go out, and Japanese on the Pacific coast are ordered to camps. The Kimura family has to sell all but what they can carry, and they are taken by force to a camp, Heart Mountain, in the wilds of Wyoming. We learn of life in the camp through a series of scenes, and get to meet two characters in particular: Lt. Hannah Campbell, a nurse at the camp, and Frankie Suzuki, another internee at the camp. Campbell is drawn to Sammy; Frankie to Kei. As time passes, the JACL convinces the government to let Japanese Americans serve in the armed force, in a segregated unit, for suicide missions. A questionnaire goes out that includes loyalty questions so that only loyal Japanese Americans can serve. Tatsuo refuses to answer yes to those questions, and gets hauled away to Tule Mountain. Sammy volunteers to serve (against his father’s wishes), and goes on to be one of the few survivors from that batallion. Frankie, on the other hand, resists; when drafted, he organizes resistance in the camp and is arrested. The creates the wedge that drives the story to its conclusion. I’ll let you read the synopsis for more, but you get the drift.

Given we’re in the era of identifying “fake news”, I’ll note that Wikipedia relates that the show does conflate experiences across different camps for dramatic effect, and adds a bit more military oversight than existed at Heart Mountain.

At this point in a writeup, I’d normally move into a discussion of the direction and performance. But this was a broadcast of a Broadway show, and I’d like to digress to explore that for a graph or two. Going in, I was torn. Recording a Broadway show can have some distinct advantages: it can preserve a performance for posterity; it can also make a show available in many places where this level of theater does not occur — and thus can spread the word about the power of theatre. On the other hand, it could supplant the live production, result in the undercompensation of the actors performing in the recording, and deny work to actors who might work in the local versions of the show. Coming out, I had a different view: the recording allowed on to see the performances up close and personal, in a way that wouldn’t be possible even from the orchestra seats. But it also disconnected the audience from the “big picture”; you never got the scope of the breadth of the stage or the grandeur of the choreography and movement.  The audience feedback was also very different, due to the awareness that there were no actors on stage. Unlike a show, where there is constant applause and feedback, this audience was silent, even at the end. Audience reaction is vital not only for the show but for other audience members, and I felt the different. I also felt the difference with the lack of an intermission and a playbill. In the end, I think seeing the broadcast only made me want to see it live even more.

Next: The Theatre. We saw this at the AMC Promenade theatre in Woodland Hills, which is one of the few survivors in a dying mall. The original auditorium had significant projection problems (double images) that they couldn’t correct before the show. They moved us to a different auditorium (same size, but different arrangement), which created some seating confusion but fixed most projection problems. There was still the problem of bleed-over bass from the auditorium next to us, and there was a sound synchronization problem during much of the first act. Some of this was beyond the theatre’s control, and despite the problems, they managed it well (plus they gave us passes as compensation for the problems). I think we’ll try them again. I’ll note that our show was sold out (130-some-odd seats).

Now, on to the performances, under the direction of Stafford Arima (FB). As you can tell, I was moved and astounded by all the lead performers — the projection allowed us to see things up close that we might never see from the audience. As it is hard to single them out (especially without a Playbill — if you want the Broadway experience, Fathom Events (FB) you should provide that!), let me just start by listing the leads:  George Takei (FB) [Sam Kimura (older), Ojii-chan]; Telly Leung (FB) [Sammy Kimura]; Lea Salonga (FB) [Kei Kimura]; Katie Rose Clarke  [Hannah Campbell]; Michael K. Lee  (FB) [Frankie Suzuki]; Christòpheren Nomura (FB) [Tatsuo Kimura]; and Greg Watanabe (FB) [Mike Masaoka]. With respect to their performances, I was particularly taken with the facial expressions of both Clarke and Salonga, who were just spectacular. I’d only seen Takei perform where everyone else has seen him before, and his performance here just blew me away. He was wasted at the navagation console :-). I’m always impressed by Salonga’s voice, but both Leung and Lee did great jobs as well. All and all, spectacular performances.

In small roles and ensemble parts were: Aaron J. Albano (FB) [Tom Maruyama, Ensemble]; Marcus Choi (FB) [Johnny Goto, Ensemble]; Janelle Toyomi Dote (FB) [Mrs. Maruyama, Executor, Ensemble]; Dan Horn (FB) [Recruiting Officer, Private Evans, Big Band Singer, The Victory Trio, Ensemble]; Darren Lee (FB) [Dr. Tanaka, Ben Masaoka, Ensemble]; Kevin Munhall [Federal Agent, Private Knight, Tule Lake Guard, The Victory Trio, Ensemble]; Rumi Oyama (FB) [Mrs. Tanaka; Ensemble]; Shea Renne [Betsy Tanaka, Ensemble]; Momoko Sugai (FB) [Peggy Maruyama, Ensemble]; Autumn Ogawa [Ensemble]; Elena Wang (FB) [Nan Goto, Ensemble]; Scott Watanabe (FB) [Mr. Maruyama, Ensemble]; Cary Tedder [Ensemble]; and Scott Wise (FB) [Grocer, Director Dillon, Photographer, The Victory Trio, Ensemble].  With the way this was filmed, it was harder to single out particular ensemble members and smaller characters, but I enjoyed the characters overall. Particularly notable was the actress playing the older Japanese woman — I’m guessing it was Rumi Oyama, but it could have been Janelle Dote.

I am not listing the standbys, understudies, and swings as I normally do, because the show has closed and we had the cast on the film. You can find the full list here, together with the list of musicians.

The choreography was by Andrew Palermo (FB), who did an excellent job. I particularly enjoyed not only the large dance numbers but the Japanese movement as well. The movement during the Hiroshima scene was particularly chilling. The Playbill page does not give credit for the musical direction or the conducting. Orchestrations were by Lynne Shankel. Check the Playbill page for information on the dance captains, assistant dance captains, and all the associate and assistant choreographers and directors.

One disadvantage of the theatrical projection is that one cannot get the full impact of the scenic design and other production aspects. Yet another reason to go see it live. In general, the scenic design and projections worked well to establish a sense of place; given the broadcast aspects, it was hard to get a sense of sound and lights. Costumes, makeup, and hair was excellent. Here are the production credits: Donyale Werle [Scenic Design]; Alejo Vietti (FB) [Costume Design]; Howell Binkley (FB) [Lighting Design]; Darrel Maloney [Projection Design]; Kai Harada [Sound Designer]; Charles G. LaPointe [Wig and Hair Design]; Joe Dulude II [Make-up Design];  Peter Wolf  [Production Stage Manager]; and Brian Bogin [Stage Manager].

One last closing note: The production was also notable for the attention to casting asians in asian roles. I’ve commented on this before with shows like Waterfall and The King and I. I still bemoan the fact that there were sufficient Japanese actors to be able to cast closer to role-appropriate (a common problem), and I also bemoan the fact that many asian actors can only find roles in things like this, or onsie-twosie in shows. We need to remember that unless the story requires a particular ethnicity, cast color and race blind.

For the theatrical credits, I must turn to IMDB, so look here for all the cinematography credits and such.

We can only hope that Fathom Events (FB) broadcasts this again.

🎩 🎩 🎩

Ob. Disclaimer: I am not a trained theatre (or music) critic; I am, however, a regular theatre and music audience member. I’ve been attending live theatre and concerts in Los Angeles since 1972; I’ve been writing up my thoughts on theatre (and the shows I see) since 2004. I do not have theatre training (I’m a computer security specialist), but have learned a lot about theatre over my many years of attending theatre and talking to talented professionals. I pay for all my tickets unless otherwise noted. I am not compensated by anyone for doing these writeups in any way, shape, or form. I currently subscribe at Cabrillo Music Theatre (FB), the  Hollywood Pantages (FB), Actors Co-op (FB), the Chromolume Theatre (FB) in the West Adams district, and a mini-subscription at the Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC) (FB). Through my theatre attendance I have made friends with cast, crew, and producers, but I do strive to not let those relationships color my writing (with one exception: when writing up children’s production, I focus on the positive — one gains nothing except bad karma by raking a child over the coals).  I believe in telling you about the shows I see to help you form your opinion; it is up to you to determine the weight you give my writeups.

Upcoming Shows: The last weekend in February brings Finding Neverland at the Hollywood Pantages (FB). March quiets down a bit — at least as currently scheduled — with the MRJ Man of the Year dinner,  Fun Home at the Ahmanson Theatre (FB) at the beginning of the month, Martha, a one-woman play on the life of Martha Graham (a good preparation for our May VPAC show of her dance group), at the Whitefire Theatre (FB) in the middle, and An American in Paris at the Hollywood Pantages (FB) at the end of the month. April starts with Cats Paw at Actors Co-op (FB) and a concert with Tom Paxton and the DonJuans at McCabes Guitar Shop (FB) (shifting Cats Paws to an afternoon matinee that day). The next day brings the Colburn Orchestra at the Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC) (FB). The next weekend is currently open (and will likely stay that way). Mid-April brings Doc Severinsen and his Big Band at Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC) (FB) on April 13, followed by Animaniacs Live at the La Mirada Performing Arts Center (FB) over the weekend. That will be followed on the penultimate weekend of April with Sister Act at Cabrillo Music Theatre (FB). Lastly, looking to May, the schedule shows that it starts with My Bodyguard at the Hollywood Pantages (FB) the first weekend. It continues with Martha Graham Dance and American Music at the Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC) (FB). The third weekend brings the last show of the Actors Co-op (FB) season, Lucky Stiff, at Actors Co-op (FB). May concludes with Hello Again at the Chromolume Theatre (FB). As for June? Three words: Hollywood Fringe Festival (FB). That, barring something spectacular cropping up, should be the first half of 2017.

As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Better-Lemons, Musicals in LA, @ This Stage, Footlights, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411 or that are sent to me by publicists or the venues themselves. Note: Lastly, want to know how to attend lots of live stuff affordably? Take a look at my post on How to attend Live Theatre on a Budget.

P.S.: Mostly so I can find it later, here’s my predictions of what will go on tour and where they will end up. The Hollywood Pantages (FB) announced their 2017-2018 season (which was the rest of 2018, after Hamilton took over the last 5 months of 2017) on February 7th. You can find my reaction to it here. Now we just need to see what the Ahmanson Theatre (FB) will do.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

As is our holiday tradition, we went to go see a movie on Christmas. Our daughter was joining us, so we had to find something acceptable to all three of our. The first choice, Hidden Figures, was not yet in general release as was only at the overpriced Arclight theatres. We ended up seeing Jackie at the Laemmle Town Center in Encino.

Jackie tells the story of Jacqueline Kennedy right around the time of the assassination of her husband, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, framed by a reporter supposedly interviewing her about her last days in the White House.

I found the story…. ponderous. You didn’t learn that much about her, you didn’t learn that much about him, you didn’t learn that much about the Johnsons, you only briefly saw the kids reactions. In fact, the entire movie seemed to be watching Jackie’s reaction to all of this, wondering what her legacy would be, and planning the President’s funeral.

There needed to be more. There needed to be insight — real insight — into their relationship. We know the very early days of Jackie from Grey Gardens. We know her end as a recluse widow of Aristotle Onassis. But who and what was the real woman? That we don’t see. Portman’s Jackie is stiff and cold; one wonders what the President saw in her other than glamour.

This is not to say I didn’t like the movie — it was good. It just wasn’t one I’d go out of the way to see again.

It did raise a few interesting questions, such as the whole White House transition. Having to pack and move out in the middle of grief — just the whole transition process of packing your family in the White House environment — is fascinating. However, this was only touched upon, not explored in depth.

We did discuss afterwards who was the first Presidential wife to really re-embrace a political and active role. The first, of course, we Eleanor Roosevelt. But after that? Bess Truman? Mamie Eisenhower? Jackie Kennedy? Lady Bird Johnson? Pat Nixon? Betty Ford? Rosayln Carter? Nancy Reagan? Barbara Bush? Hillary Clinton? Laura Bush? Michelle Obama?

I think the only ones who really had that identity absent their husbands, post Eleanor, were Hillary and Michelle. The rest were more minor causes. Where will Melania fit in the pantheon of First Ladies? Will she embrace or shy away from the role? Hard to say.

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Is history what you believe it to be? If you honestly believe that history happened a particular way, does that make it true? Is it acceptable to always slant history a certain way to support a particular argument? Do the facts define history, irrespective of what anyone says history to be?

Sounds like some questions relevant to this political silly season of 2016. Is it?

There was a man who said that particular historical events never happened. He said that others happened in a particular way that supported his view of reality. This man quoted numerous historical sources, and interpreted the evidence in such a way as to build a case to support his views and his arguments. Never mind that the facts and historians across the globe said otherwise. He truly believed that what everyone else knew as reality never happened, and was so ensconced in that belief that he could not see the facts.

However, there was a courageous woman who took him — and other similar believers on. She she called him out for his lies and his falsification. She believed that facts define what is true, not opinion, and a confluence of the facts is irrefutable evidence.

Again, sounds like someone this presidential year.

But the man in question didn’t like being called out for his lies and falsifications. He felt it was hurting his reputation, and was impacting his ability to conduct business deals. He wanted to take her down; he took this personally. He sued her for libel in court, and forced her to prove that he was lying.

Again, sounds familiar if you saw Sunday night’s debate. Only I’m not talking about Decision 2016. The man in question is David Irving (and no, I’m not linking to his website),  and the woman in question is Dr. Deborah Lipstadt, the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies at Emory University. The trial did happen: Irving sued Lipstadt in British Court for Libel, based on her writings about Irving in her book “Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory“. Lipstadt subsequently wrote a book about her experiences with the trial, “History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier” (recently rereleased). This book was adapted into a screenplay, which is hitting the big screens this month as “Denial“.

Now, back when I was in college, I knew Dr. Lipstadt. I was a Math/Computer Science major, and we had this requirement called the Breadth Requirement. This meant we had to take courses out of our area in order to graduation. I discovered Jewish Studies was an option for Humanities. Dr. Lipstadt, who was a professor at UCLA in the Jewish Studies Department at the time, taught a number of Jewish Studies courses. As a result, I took a number of courses from her on subjects such as Zionism and Antisemitism (turning in papers printed via nroff on the Diablo 1620 in the CS Department). I’ve been in touch with her off and on since then. When Dr. Lipstadt began to talk about this movie on her Facebook wall, my interest was piqued. I was just coming off two years as president of my synagogue men’s club, and I thought this would be a great event. So I found a date, coordinated a meeting, and picked up a copy of the book so I could prepare some discussion questions. Yesterday afternoon I lead a group of 19 down to the AMC Woodland Hills for the afternoon showing.

The movie tells essentially the story that is in the book: the setup of the conflict, receipt of the lawsuit, preparation of the case, the trial, and the aftermath. It is in many ways an extreme condensation of the book — the book covers the preparation for the trial in extreme detail (and you can see all that detail at the Holocaust Denial on Trial website, which has add the details and the trial transcipts, among other resources), and provides details for almost every day of the trial. Yet such condensation is required in the process of making the film. For those seeing the film, there is one important fact noted in the republished book’s foreward: Every word in the trial scenes is verbatim. The screenwriters did not modify those words, because to do so would be to go against the spirit of the movie.

Looking at the movie as a movie, I thought it was very good (and so did everyone else in my group). It provided sufficient context to the book, presented the discovery in an engaging way, and captured the conflicts of the trial — and the difficulties that Dr. Lipstadt faced in having to stay quiet — well. It provided just enough information on the British legal system for American viewers to understand the context. As a live theatre goer, I noticed the cinematography, and I thought it did a very good job of building the mood, especially in the scenes related to Auschwitz. It wasn’t maudlin; it didn’t well on the specifics and the cruelties of the Holocaust. The focus was the trial.

However, as I watched the movie (with the book fresh in my head), I couldn’t help but notice what was missing. The movie gave the impression that the trial was centered around Auschwitz and Irving’s claims thereabout. The discovery process of the case was much more extensive, looking at all of Irving’s writings and the historical areas they covered. When in the movie they enter the courtroom and see rows and rows of binders on the walls, those aren’t just Irving’s diaries. Those are all of the material that was discovered for the trial. The screenwriter also omitted a number of critical aspects of British court (likely for the sake of time and story): that all materials discovered are shared, and that there are to be no “surprises” during the trial. Further, it didn’t note that if Irving lost the trial, he became financial responsible for all of Dr. Lipstadt’s court costs. It also didn’t note the questions related to Penguin UK’s involvement in the trial.

With respect to the trial itself, there were numerous areas that, again, were condensed out for the sake of the cinematic demonstration. There were numerous aspects of Auschwitz that were hinted at in the movie, but were much more extensive during the trial, such as the ramp to the “delousing room” and the specifics of why Leichter’s analysis of the concrete was flawed. There were aspects of the construction of the facilities. Then there were other areas that were omitted entirely, such as Irving’s claims about the Eastern Front and the massacres of Jews there.

Again, I understand the cinematic need for the omissions. There was one omission that was more problematic to me. A key emphasis of the book is the notion of confluence of history — the notion that factual history arises from facts from multiple sources and multiple datapoints all pointing to the same conclusion. This was Irving’s fatal flaw: he drew facts from one or two sources, interpreting them as he would, and ignoring numerous other sources that contradicted him. That’s not what a historian does. Once examines as many sources as possible, and where the facts lead you are the truth. This notion of confluence of history is extremely important this election season; just this weekend we had a candidate claiming that a particular behavior wasn’t representative, when the confluence of facts pointed to the opposite conclusion. This same candidate identified a few examples about their opponent and claimed it demonstrated a significant pattern when, again, that conclusion wasn’t supported by a confluence of the facts.

However, the movie did leave the audience with an extremely important point, which was also the moral (so to speak) of the book: History is not just what we say it is. One cannot say: this is how I honestly remember things, this is what I believe, and therefore it is true. Having honest antisemitic beliefs, and believing that the Holocaust never happened does not change the reality that it happened. That is such an important point to make this fall, where we have entire political parties insisting that history happened one particular way to support their point of view, completely ignoring the fact that the confluence of the evidence says otherwise.

The performances in the movie were uniformly strong. Timothy Spall, who to me was Wormwood from Harry Potter but whom others recall better as Churchill in The Kings Speech, does innocent evil so well. Rachel Weitz did a great job becoming Dr. Lipstadt — she got the vocal mannerisms down well, although her look didn’t quite fit my memory. The performance was excellent. Tom Wilkinson was strong as Richard Rampton, the lead Barrister on the case, with great support from Andrew Scott as Anthony Julius, the lead solicitor.

This being a movie, I’m not going to list all the credits as I do with a theatre production; you can see them all on the IMDB page.

Note that the underlying topic of the movie: antisemitism (always, as Dr. Lipstadt taught, written without the hyphen), is still far too prevalent. You’ll see it in comments on the book and on the movie. You’re seeing it in this political campaign, from the memes retweeted by the Trump campaign (Pepe the Frog was recently designed as a hate symbol by the ADL, and there was Trump’s earlier tweet) to the most recent debate, with the repeated references to Sydney Blumenthal. These are what are called “dog whistles” — silent signals that most people don’t recognize, but that white nationalists pick up to indicate messages to them. The denial of history — the bending of facts to make a particular point — is so timely this political season.

One other interesting comparison. One incident show in the movie, which was related in the book as well, concerns how Irving demonstrated he was not a racist. Quoting from the book:

Irving assured the reporter, Kate Kelland, that he could demonstrate he was not a racist by the fact that his “domestic staff” had included a Barbadian, a Punjabi, a Sri Lankan, and a Pakistani. They were “all very attractive girls with very nice breasts”.

Shades of a certain presidential candidates and comments made on a bus.

“Denial” is a movie I strongly recommend to all. It is in limited release now, expanding some on October 14, and going nationwide on October 22. See it. Learn from it. Get the book and visit the website and learn more.

* * *

Ob. Disclaimer: I am not a trained theatre critic; I am, however, a regular theatre audience member. I’ve been attending live theatre and concerts in Los Angeles since 1972; I’ve been writing up my thoughts on theatre (and the shows I see) since 2004. I do not have theatre training (I’m a computer security specialist), but have learned a lot about theatre over my many years of attending theatre and talking to talented professionals. I pay for all my tickets unless otherwise noted. I am not compensated by anyone for doing these writeups in any way, shape, or form. I currently subscribe at Cabrillo Music Theatre (FB), the  Hollywood Pantages (FB), Actors Co-op (FB), the Chromolume Theatre (FB) in the West Adams district, and a mini-subscription at the Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC) (FB).  The Chromolume 2017 season looks particularly good: Zanna Don’t (Tim Acito, January 13 – February 5), Hello Again (Michael John LaChiusa, May 5- May 28), and Pacific Overtures (Stephen Sondheim, September 15 – October 8) — all for only $60). Past subscriptions have included  The Colony Theatre (FB) (which went dormant in 2016), and Repertory East Playhouse (“REP”) (FB) in Newhall (which entered radio silence in 2016). Through my theatre attendance I have made friends with cast, crew, and producers, but I do strive to not let those relationships color my writing (with one exception: when writing up children’s production, I focus on the positive — one gains nothing except bad karma by raking a child over the coals).  I believe in telling you about the shows I see to help you form your opinion; it is up to you to determine the weight you give my writeups.

Upcoming Shows:  Next weekend has yet another VPAC event: An Evening with Kelli O’Hara on Friday, as well as tickets for Evita at Cabrillo Music Theatre (FB) on Saturday. The following weekend brings Turn of the Screw at Actors Co-op (FB) on October 22 and the new Tumbleweed Festival (FB) on October 23. The last weekend of October brings Linden Waddell’s Hello Again, The Songs of Allen Sherman at Temple Ahavat Shalom (a joint fundraiser for MoTAS and Sisterhood).

Interrupting this recap for a word from a sponsor: Linden Waddell’s Hello Again, The Songs of Allen Sherman at Temple Ahavat Shalom is open to the community, and is a joint fundraiser for MoTAS and Sisterhood. Please tell your friends about it. I’m Past President of MoTAS, and I really want this to be a success. Click on the flyer to the right for more information. It should be a really funny night.

Oh, and if that wasn’t enough, October is also the North Hollywood Fringe Festival (FB), although I doubt if we’ll have time for any shows. November will bring Hedwig and the Angry Inch at  the Hollywood Pantages (FB); a Day Out With Thomas at Orange Empire Railway Museum (FB) [excuse me, “Southern California Railway Museum”]; the Nottingham Festival (FB); and possibly Little Women at the Chance Theatre (FB) in Anaheim. We still have some open weekends in there I may book. We close out the year, in December, with the CSUN Jazz Band at the Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC), Amalie at the Ahmanson Theatre (FB), The King and I at the Hollywood Pantages (FB); an unspecified movie on Christmas day; and a return to our New Years Eve Gaming Party.

As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Bitter-Lemons, Musicals in LA, @ This Stage, Footlights, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411 or that are sent to me by publicists or the venues themselves. Note: Although we can’t make it, I also recommend the 10th Anniversary Production of The Brain from Planet X at LACC. See here for the Indiegogo. Lastly, want to know how to attend lots of live stuff affordably? Take a look at my post on How to attend Live Theatre on a Budget.

Share/Bookmark

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

If you haven’t figured it out by now, I normally go to live theater, even though I live in the movie capital of the world. But that’s not meant to imply I never go to the movies, and one of the few days that I reliably opt to watch a projected image is on Christmas Day, where tradition — if not the Talmud — demands that I see a movie and eat Chinese food.

When I do see a movie, I like to ask myself whether this is a cinematic story. For example, take Star Wars (which I plan to see in the upcoming week). That’s something that clearly must be a movie: it cannot be told in its form effectively on the live stage, and even with the growth in screen sizes, it requires that shared experience and large screen. I also find myself observing those things that make film different from stage: the cinematography, the emphasis on movement and visual storytelling (as an example of this,  I was listening to The Producers Perspective podcast episode with Stephen Schwartz, where he noted that whereas people can just stand in one place and sing on stage, on film all songs require motion — be it motion of the singer or of the camera). I truly like my movies to be something that requires the movie treatment — something that gains from the big screen, the audience, and the shared experience.

I’ll note that I’m likely unique in this view — witness the popular success of movies that are then adaptable and adapted for the stage, and the number of stage shows that get adapted for the cinema. However, I think there is something special from the stage, where the actors and the audience can create a feedback system that amplifies the energy. I’ll note that you can go see live theatre for what it costs to see a movie — that’s certainly true for yesterday’s show, where tickets were up to $12.50 and a large popcorn to $8.75. Learn about Goldstar.Com, and the ability to get half-price tickets, and you’ll never look back.

Independent of my love of theater, yesterday was Christmas. Christmas tradition demands a movie, not live theater. Looking at the selection in the theaters (and wanting to put off the crush around Star Wars), we settled on The Big Short, a comedy about the financial meltdown, directed by Adam McKay (FB), and starring Christian Bale (FB), Steve Carell (FB), Ryan Gosling (FB), Brad Pitt (FB), Hamish Linklater (FB), and many others. Why? The buzz on the movie had been good, and I was growing to be more impressed with McKay’s work from his new podcast on Gimlet, Surprisingly Awesome. McKay does that podcast with Adam Davidson (FB), who he made when Davidson consulted on The Big Short. Davidson was brought in as a consultant because of his experience as co-founder of Planet Money, an excellent podcast from NPR that figures out how to explain complex financial things in an understandable way.  In their new podcast, the two team up to, through entertaining explanation, change things that seem dull into something interested. Basically, their new podcast is the Planet Money approach applied to something broader than economics.

But The Big Short was about economics. In particular, it was about the environment leading up to the financial meltdown in 2008 — a meltdown that helped provide the final push to put the Obama administration into office. I already had a good understanding of this meltdown thanks to Toxie, the Toxic Asset bought by the Planet Money team to explain the financial meltdown (later the subject of a This American Life episode). Toxie was a tool to get to the podcast/radio audience: by looking into what it took to buy one of the toxic bonds (collateral debt obligations), PM could look at the mortgages in the bonds, how those bonds were constructed, and how their game brought down the housing market. But short of an animated movie, Toxie would not work well on the screen.

Enter Michael Lewis (FB). Lewis wrote a book on the financial crisis called The Big Short. This book provided a character-driven true story about the crisis, starting in the feeder markets: the bond and real estate derivative markets where new types of securities are invented to maximize profits irrespective of the costs to society. In a manner similar to the play Enron, the story illustrates how greed overcame common sense; how a desire to Make More Money created blinders to where the system was failing — or, more properly, being propped up with supports made of paper. Character driven stories. This is something that works well on the screen.

Enter McCoy and Charles Randolph. They worked with Lewis, and consultants such as Davidson, to adapt this to the screen. The result, at least to my eyes, was a Planet Money episode writ large: a two-hour retelling of the rise and fall of the housing market told in such a way as to make the story interesting. This included translating what were apparently footnotes in the book providing exposition of complex terms into asides by unrelated actors explaining complex terms in understandable ways (for example, Richard Thaler and Selena Gomez explaining collateralized debt obligations). This struck me as very Planet Money way of telling the story. There were also points in the story where the character doing the narration turned and spoke to the audience. But that’s also very Planet Money-like.

The end product had the feel of a documentary. Other than the asides and recognizing one actor (Linklater — yes, I didn’t recognize Brad Pitt), it did not feel like a reenactment. It felt like it was a narrated version of real life. I guess that is a testament to the direction and the quality of the actors that they were believable.

So, let’s go back to my original questions. Why is this a movie? Does it deserve to be on the big screen?

First, I think we can dismiss the cinematography. On a lot of movies, I find myself “seeing” the cinematography. Although we all see the results of the cinematography, it shouldn’t be obvious — just like we shouldn’t be able to tell there was a sound engineer or a lighting designer. On The Big Short, the cinematography was the documentary shaky cam work we see on things like Modern Family, which I normally hate. But given the documentary feel of this movie, it worked here. Further, it didn’t stand out as obvious cinematography.

Second, could this have been told on stage? I don’t think so. It wasn’t super-dependent on special effects, but the manner of the story construction didn’t fit with the linear deep story of the stage. There were too many places, too many asides, and the nature of the character story just wouldn’t work.

Third, did it need the big screen? Here’s where I think the movie did fail. The story didn’t require the big screen to tell the story in the manner of a Star Wars or Harry Potter. It would work just fine on a smaller screen. However, I think it did benefit from the audience — in that shared pain is lessened. Watching this alone at home could be very painful, especially for those sucked into it. Watching it in the theater shares the pain.

What I don’t know is the impact of the pain. The movie makes clear that the financial meltdown occurred because of a greed for more and more money. It showed how that administration of the time — the Republican administration of George Bush — likely knew the problem but didn’t want to suffer the popularity loss that would stem by slowing the economic growth. They were lax on regulation and let banks proceed unchecked in their excesses. When things failed, they bailed out their buddies. As this movie comes out, we’re entering into the election year of 2016. Is this movie bad news for the Republican candidates — emphasizing their desire to make money at the expense of the lower economic classes? What might be the impact of this on Trump, whose name is synonymous with money and privilege? Or will the people, in the words of 1776, be more interested in protecting the possibility that they might be rich to avoid the reality of facing the fact that they are poor?

Overall, I walked out liking this movie a great bit. It changed something that was very complex into something understandable. It had remarkable performance — remarkable in their realism. Will this movie win “gold” at the Oscars because of it? That I can’t answer — it might have too much of a documentary feel for Academy Voters to see the performances as performances. It certainly isn’t the classic dramatic story that seems to win, but it also isn’t the popcorn-checking action adventure.

Whatever the gold status, I think it is worth seeing.

Ob. Disclaimer: I am not a trained theatre critic; I am, however, a regular theatre audience member. I’ve been attending live theatre in Los Angeles since 1972; I’ve been writing up my thoughts on theatre (and the shows I see) since 2004. I do not have theatre training (I’m a computer security specialist), but have learned a lot about theatre over my many years of attending theatre and talking to talented professionals. I pay for all my tickets unless otherwise noted. I am not compensated by anyone for doing these writeups in any way, shape, or form. I subscribe at three theatres:  REP East (FB), The Colony Theatre (FB), and Cabrillo Music Theatre (FB). Through my theatre attendance I have made friends with cast, crew, and producers, but I do strive to not let those relationships color my writing (with one exception: when writing up children’s production, I focus on the positive — one gains nothing except bad karma by raking a child over the coals).  I believe in telling you about the shows I see to help you form your opinion; it is up to you to determine the weight you give my writeups.

Upcoming Shows: There may be one more movie in December: Star Wars VII, sometime during the week. In terms of theatre, this last weekend of December has “The Bridges of Madison County” at the Ahmanson Theatre (FB), and Nunsense at Crown City Theatre (FB). The new year, 2016, starts with “Louis and Keeley – Live at the Sahara” at The Geffen Playhouse (FB) on January 2nd. This is followed by “Bullets Over Broadway” at the Pantages (FB) on January 9; “That Lovin’ Feelin’” at The Group Rep (FB) on January 16; “Stomp” at the Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC) (FB)  on January 24; and “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” at Cabrillo Music Theatre (FB) on January 30. There is also the open question of whether there will be Repertory East Playhouse (“the REP”) (FB) 2016 season, and when it will start.  However, given there has been no announcement, I feel safe booking all weekends in January  (I’ll note that if there is no REP season, I’ll likely subscribe at Group Rep — call it the Law of Conservation of REP). There is currently nothing on the schedule for February, except for February 28, when we are seeing The Band of the Royal Marines and the Pipes, Drums, and Highland Dancers of the Scots Guards at the Valley Performing Arts Center (VPAC) (FB). March brings “Another Roll of the Dice” at The Colony Theatre (FB), and has two potential dates on hold for “A Gentleman’s Guide to Love and Murder” at the Ahmanson Theatre (FB) (pending Hottix). I expect to be filling out February as December goes on.  As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Bitter-Lemons, and Musicals in LA, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411 or that are sent to me by publicists or the venues themselves.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Last year, my reviewing didn’t start with a traditional theatre show;  it started with a Moonie and Broon concert at The Colony Theatre (FB). This year, again, the reviewing for the year doesn’t start with theatre; it starts with a Broadway musical now on the big screen: the new Disney production of Stephen Sondheim‘s Into the Woods (FB).  Remember: This will be where most people learn about this show, and what they believe this show to be; consider this sobering statistic: more people have seen Into the Woods in the movie theatre than have seen either Broadway production combined. Further, I’m willing to bet that by the time the film finishes its run, more people will have seen it on the screen than have seen any theatrical production: Broadway, regional, or amateur. Remember when people believed the theatrical The Sound of Music was the authentic version over the stage version. We’re gonna see the same thing here folks.

We’re in luck, however. I’m relatively familiar with the stage version of Into the Woods. In addition to wearing out the original (Bernadette Peters) and revival (Vanessa Williams) cast albums, I saw the original when it was on tour at the Center Theatre Group in 1989 (with Cleo Lane and Charlotte Rae), and I’ve seen at least one intimate theatre revival of the show. I’m pleased to say that the movie was reasonably faithful to the original. There were no songs added, no major changes to the story, and there were no major rearrangements. There were, to my ears, at least three songs cut out or changed in some way: the Finale to Act I/Act II opener was combined and reworked (“Ever After”/”So Happy” — “Ever After” became and instrumental and the two were reworked into “Back Into The Woods”), “No More” was transitioned into an instrumental score, and the reprise of “Agony” was cut.  Some characters were toned down — in particular, the pedopheliac nature of the Wolf; some deaths were softened or elided (Jack’s mother’s death was less violent; and Rapunzel’s unmentioned); some characters eliminated (the Narrator, Cinderella’s father). But the basic story and the message didn’t change. Further, a lot of the changes that had been discussed — in particular, eliminating the affair between the Baker’s Wife and the Prince, remained. Sondheim reportedly wrote two new songs for the movie… both of which were cut. In fact, other than the cut of the reprise of Agony, most of the changes were more on the level of cinematic adaptation and keeping the flow going (for example, you don’t need the act break when there isn’t an intermission). Wikipedia has a good summary of the changes. Alas, the changes do cut my favorite advice from the movie: “The closer to the family, the closer to the wine” (as well as all the advice in the closing song of Act I).

Cinematically, the movie was beautiful. This is where the real difference from the stage is apparent. On the stage you have to imagine much of the woods, much of the place, much of the magic. The scope is also further away: you can have multiple characters in multiple places all singing the same song at the same time. Cinema is much more “in the face”: you are seeing the actors through a close, not broad view. You don’t see multiple things happening at once (at least with this director); you have rapid cuts back and forth. It gives a different effect. Cinema can also amp the special effects — no where is this better seen than in the Witch’s transformation or the behavior of the magic beans. In general, the movie works.

I say “in general”, however, because one scene stuck out like a sore thumb: “On the Steps of the Palace”. The song is geared to Cinderella actually being stuck on the steps. When she steps out of the shoes and dances around, the context is lost. I can understand the cinematic effect desired, but she should have been stuck until she realized she could leave the shoes.

As from that, the movie was beautiful and engrossing. However, parents, just because this is about fairy tales does not mean it is appropriate for the little ones. Sondheim’s music is much too complex, and the movie much too long, for them to sit and be quiet. Further, the second half is quite dark. I say this especially to the folks at our screening who decided to bring a gaggle of 10 year olds who couldn’t behave to the show.

For the most part, the performances were excellent. You can find the full cast list on the IMDB page. Meryl Streep proved she is a triple threat: her singing performance was excellent and equaled her acting. The other principals were also strong: Emily Blunt as the Bakers Wife, James Corden as the Baker, Anna Kendrick as Cinderella, etc. My only real casting complaint was with Daniel Huttlestone as Jack. His accent was so heavy and so out of place I kept expecting him to sing “Consider Yourself” from Oliver!. The soundtrack overall was great, and complements the stage soundtracks (especially with great orchestrations and clear enunciations of Sondheim’s complex lyrics).

This is, to my knowledge, the sixth Sondheim musical to be filmed (including two where he only did the lyrics): West Side Story, Gypsy, A Funny Thing Happened On The Way to the Forum, A Little Night Music, Sweeney Todd, and this film. I think this film does Sondheim well.

[ETA: Whoops. I forgot to write up the previews. Now to correct that error]

Previews:

• Jupiter Ascending. A science-fiction adventure about the people who seeded the Earth trying to take it back. Didn’t grab me.
• The Longest Ride.  The lives of two couples intertwine after a car crash. Although it has Alan Alda in it, I don’t think it is worth the big screen surcharge.
• Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2. On the one hand, this looks like an Oceans 11 type caper to rob Vegas casinos. Unfortunately, it is Mall Cop, meaning sophomoric humor. This will be great on HBO.
• Cinderella. A live-action version of the classic story; unknown if they will do it as the Disney version with songs (as it is from Disney), but I doubt it. More the Cruella or Maleficent treatment, I suspect. Potentially interesting.
• Tomorrowland. Let’s see if we can find more in Disneyland to turn into a movie — after all, it worked for Pirates, but didn’t for Haunted Mansion. This time, let’s do an entire land. What’s next? Jungle Cruise? Not interested.

[/ETA]

Ob. Disclaimer: I am not a trained theatre movie critic; I am, however, a regular theatre audience. I’ve been attending live theatre in Los Angeles since 1972; I’ve been writing up my thoughts on theatre (and the shows I see) since 2004. I do not have theatre training (I’m a computer security specialist), but have learned a lot about theatre over my many years of attending theatre and talking to talented professionals. I pay for all my tickets unless otherwise noted. I believe in telling you about the shows I see to help you form your opinion; it is up to you to determine the weight you give my writeups.

Upcoming Shows: Next weekend brings two shows: “Serial Killer Barbie: The Musical” (FB) at the No Ho Arts Center on Friday January 9 and “An Evening with Groucho” at AJU with Frank Ferrente at American Jewish University on Sun January 11. The third weekend of January starts the Rep season with “Avenue Q” at REP East (FB) on Sat January 17. The fourth weekend of January brings an interesting mashup: Pulp Shakespeare (or Bard Fiction) at Theatre Asylum (FB) — this show is described as  “Ever wonder what Quentin Tarantino’s masterpiece PULP FICTION would be like reimagined by the immortal William Shakespeare?”. The last weekend of January concludes with the Cantors Concert on Sat January 31 at Temple Ahavat Shalom, and I’m potentially looking for another show for Sunday. February and March pick up even more, with “The Threepenny Opera” at A Noise Within (FB) on February 15, a hold for “Loch Ness” at the Chance Theatre (FB)  on February 21, “The Road to Appomattox” at The Colony Theatre (FB) on February 28, the MRJ Man of the Year dinner on March 7, “Carrie: The Musical” at La Mirada Theatre for the Performing Arts (FB) on March 14, a hold for “Drowsy Chaperone” at CSUN on Friday March 20, “Doubt” at REP East (FB) on Saturday March 21, “Newsies” at the Pantages (FB) on March 28, followed by Pesach and the Renaissance Faire on April 11. Additionally, there’s a Marcy and Zina concert at Pepperdine on Tuesday, February 3; alas, as it is a weeknight, I may not make it. As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Bitter-Lemons, and Musicals in LA, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

As you might have figured out by now, I’m a live theatre person. However, I do occasionally go to the movies, and one of those “movie days” is always Christmas Day. This year, after some back and forth on the particular movie, I settled on “The Imitation Game“, a bio-pic about Alan Turing (my wife vetoed “Into the Woods“, which I may see the first weekend of January; she went to go see “Night at the Museum 3“).

Alan Turing is an interesting, and quite tragic, fellow. Most folks in the computer science world know of Turing: the most prestigious award in the computing field is named after him (the ACM Turing Award), anyone studying computability theory learned of the Turing Machine, and anyone dealing with artificial intelligence knows of the Turing Test. Dayenu – that would have been enough. A smaller number of people may know of Turing’s real contribution: he was one of the people behind the breaking of the German Enigma code machine — an effort that quite probably led to the Allied victory against the Germans in WWII (and, ancillarily, one of the reasons that the Unix crypt utility is insecure, as it is based on the Enigma algorithms).  As an aside, I’ll note that those who really want to study Turing might look at the online Turing archive, a large web collection of digital facsimiles of original documents by Turing and other pioneers of computing.

The general unwashed public, however, knows little of Turing and little of cryptography. There have been plays and movies portraying Turing before: most notably Breaking the Code, a 1986 play by Hugh Whitmore that was later turned into a movie starring Derek Jacobi. Most of the portrayals focus on attempting to reconcile Turing’s cryptographic work with the secret that seemingly led to his death: his homosexuality.

All this Turing talk is because the latest attempt to explore Turing’s life is the movie The Imitation Game, based on the book “Alan Turing: The Enigma” by Andrew Hodges (who runs a detailed website on Turing and his life), adapted for the stage by Graham Moore. As with any entertainment writeup, we need to look from three areas: the story, the performances, and the technical.

The screenplay for The Imitation Game does a good job of telling a version of the story of Turing’s life. It certainly goes in deeper and provides more details than Breaking the Code did. It uses a framing device of an early 1950s burglary at Turing’s house to have Turing telling his story to the police, who ultimately uncover his homosexuality and prosecute him for it. The film keeps jumping back and forth in time between the 1950s police station, the war years at Bletchly Park, and Turing’s early years in Boarding School.

The problem, of course, is that this isn’t quite the truth. Films rarely are: they simplify facts in some areas, amplify facts in other areas, and create fictional peoples and stories in still other areas. This story does that in spades — while researching this writeup I found a good summary of the historical inaccuracies in the film. There are a number of key ones, with the most glaring being the fact that Turing was never accused of espionage, and never worked with the individual identified as the actual spy in the film. It also over-amplifies the relationship with Joan Clarke, under-emphasizes the other cryptography work that Turing did, and neglects to mention the fact that multiple machines were built. It also tends to under emphasize Turing’s death from cyanide poisoning, although they hint of it at the beginning of the movie. Turing’s life story is interesting enough — read the Wiki page to get a good idea of it — but the screenwriter chose to change it. Ah, Hollywood. Note that I have no idea if Hodges’ original book makes the same errors, but I’m inclined to doubt it.

“But besides that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?” — If we set aside the historical inaccuracies (that is, we accept this fictional version as the story to be told), the progression works reasonably well. The jumping back and forth in time is not confusing, and the way the story introduces and builds the characters works well. The play also throws out some good quotes, most notably “it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine.” This quote is one of those wonderful inspirational lines that may goad people to get involved with science and engineering — this is a good thing.

The story also highlights a major dilemma the folks at Bletchly Park faced: they couldn’t let the Germans know they had broken the code; if they did, the Germans would change the code. Thus, they had to let some people die in order to save others. This was perhaps the most interesting question at the heart of the story. However, it is dispatched relatively quickly and doesn’t demonstrate the likely large moral debate that occurred.

The performances in the film were excellent. I’m not going to list the entire cast as I do with a play; there’s IMDB for that.  I will note that Benedict Cumberbach portrays Turing well, although it is unclear how much of the Aspergers mannerisms and stutter were an invention of the screenwriter. Keira Knightly does a good job with Joan Clarke, a fellow cryptographer and one-time fiancee of Turing. From what I’ve read of Clarke, I don’t think the role was written accurately portrays the character; however, Knightly does a good job with the role as written.

Let’s turn now to the technical side. If this were a stage show, I’d be talking about sound, lighting, and sets. Most of those just blend into the story in film; what film brings to the fore is the cinematic aspects. This film did a very nice job of establishing place and time through a mix of new sequences illustrating wartime England and grainy stock footage of bombings and such. Bletchly Park also seemed to be portrayed well, although I cannot compare it to the real thing. The good thing (to me) is that there were very few points where I became aware of the cinematographer trying to do tricks with the camera to create emphasis or mood.

Overall, I found the film quite enjoyable and worth what I paid for it. Whether it was a story that deserved the “big screen” treatment is less clear — the story would likely have worked on the small screen as well. Alas, there were few truly “need the big screen” movies out that our group could agree were worth seeing. I am disturbed by the historical inaccuracies — not because the screenwriter chose to put them in, but because this will likely be the version of the story that the unschooled will take away as Turing’s story.

Preview Notes: We have the following five movies previewed:

• A Most Violent Year. A crime drama seemingly about a trucking company and the mob in Jersey. The story just didn’t catch my interest.
• Black Sea. An adverture hunt to recover the gold from a sunken U-boat, with the spoils being evenly split. Of course, with an even split, you need only to reduce the number of people to increase your share… Not interested.
• Chappie. A movie about a sentient police robot, and how he learns of his sentience. Appears to be an interesting story  about AI. It was interesting to see this paired with a story about Turing; one wonders if the robot would pass the Turing test. Potentially worth seeing.
• Paddington. Why, you might ask, would a children’s comedy be placed in this movie. Of course, the answer is that Turing was born in Paddington. The movie itself looks quite well done and cute, and may be worth seeing.
• Woman In Gold. A movie about a quest to recover artowrk stolen by the Nazis. This looked to be a very interesting story, well acted. Might be worth seeing.

Upcoming Shows: There is one more show in December for me: A Christmas Carol, as interpreted by Zombie Joe’s Underground (FB) on December 28. January is filling up. The first weekend of January there’s no interesting live theatre, so I may go see the new “Into the Woods” movie. The following weekend brings two shows: “Serial Killer Barbie: The Musical” (FB) at the No Ho Arts Center on Friday January 9 and “An Evening with Groucho” at AJU with Frank Ferrente at American Jewish University on Sun January 11. The next weekend starts the Rep season with “Avenue Q” at REP East (FB) on Sat Sanuary 17. The following weekend is currently open (but I’m looking). January may conclude with the Cantors Concert on Sat January 31 at Temple Ahavat Shalom. February and March pick up even more, with “The Threepenny Opera” at A Noise Within (FB) on February 15, a hold for “Loch Ness” at the Chance Theatre (FB)  on February 21, “The Road to Appomattox” at The Colony Theatre (FB) on February 28, the MRJ Man of the Year dinner on March 7, “Carrie: The Musical” at La Mirada Theatre for the Performing Arts (FB) on March 14, a hold for “Drowsy Chaperone” at CSUN on Friday March 20, “Doubt” at REP East (FB) on Saturday March 21, “Newsies” at the Pantages (FB) on March 28, followed by Pesach and the Renaissance Faire on April 11. As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Bitter-Lemons, and Musicals in LA, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

In the comments for my write-up of “Inside Llewyn Davis”, Peter Reiher made an interesting statement in response to my opinion that there were some films that were better for the small screen (television), and some that were better in the cinema:

Honestly, though, I find almost all films play better on the big screen than the small, even little B movies like old noir films. On the other hand, there are clearly properties that work on stage live and don’t work on film very well.

This got me thinking about the differences between the three venues: stage (“theatre”), the big screen (“theater”), and the small screen (television).

First, let’s look at budget and reach. Take a really expensive musical — Spiderman: Turn off the Dark. This musical cost $75M, not counting the cost of each show. It’s reach is much much smaller — for the most recent week, 12,755 people over 9 performances, averaging about $94 a ticket, for a gross of $1.2M.  Much of that gross goes to the weekly salaries and theatre rental; it certainly hasn’t returned a profit to its investors. Let’s compare this to the movie: Spiderman 3 cost $258M to make. On the other hand, it has brought in a lifetime gross, foreign and domestic, of $890M. Furthermore, the main movies costs are upfront on the production end as opposed to theater rental; for the stage (especially musicals), it is the ongoing costs (salaries for actors and musicians) that are a big factor. The small screen is similar on the cost side with large upfront production costs; the income side is different as it depends on advertisers and redistribution fees. The main point I’m getting at here is the reach: both cinema and television have an audience overall that numbers in the multiple-millions, who are seeing the exact same product that was filmed. Live theatre has a much smaller reach (only a truly long-running production will be seen by an audience numbering in the millions, and each performance is different). As a result, the amortization of the upfront cost is vastly different, and this is reflected in the different nature of the final product.

Next, let’s think about the experience. Live theatre depends on the audience reaction. When we saw “Humor Abuse“, it was noted that every performance is different because the actors play on the audience. Theatre permits a certain amount of reaction and variance. This is what makes live theatre unique and special. The energy of the audience is reflected by the actors back into the performance. The cinema also depends on the audience reaction, but in a different way. In the cinema, the audience reaction doesn’t affect the filmed behavior of the actors. They are completely oblivious and draw no energy from it (in fact, it is hard for them to even draw energy from the character’s arc, as the stories are not necessarily filmed sequentially). However, the audience itself draws energy from the audience: comedies are funnier when people around you are laughing. Peter noted this in his comments when he said:

Comedies almost invariably work better in social settings than alone. Having other people to laugh with you amplifies the fun of a good comedy. Laugh tracks for sitcoms are meant to fool you into thinking that there’s an audience around, after all, and that’s why many TV comedies are filmed in front of a live audience.

So, given that, why do dramas and action adventures work better in the theater? I think one reason is the screen size — large screens immerse you in the drama and make you feel as if you are there. Television is more detached. There is also the audience reaction of gasps and such (as well as screams) that amplify the emotions.

So given all of this, what works best on the small screen? I’d opine that it would be stories that aren’t worth immersing yourself in — certainly reality television, news, and small-scale episodic stories. I still believe that some movies just aren’t worth the big screen effort — the shared humor may be such that audience amplification isn’t required, or the story may just not be worth the large treatment.

I’d be curious about your thoughts on this subject. What do you see as the differences between theatre, theater, and TV, and do you think there are types of production best for each? Are there movies you see that you go: that didn’t belong on the big screen?

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

Market research firms for movies hate me. They call regularly, and ask what movies I’ve seen. I tell them I don’t go to the movies; I go to live theatre. They usually hang up at that point. But I do go to the movies — I always go on Christmas Day, and perhaps one or two other times  during the year. Yesterday was Christmas. Guess where I was, and what I had for dinner :-).

The movie we chose for yesterday was “Saving Mr. Banks“, from Walt Disney Pictures, directed by John Lee Hancock. I chose this movie for a number of reasons: first, it was getting good buzz from people I respect on that side of the story, such as Floyd Norman, who worked with Walt himself (his blog, if you’re into animation, is a must read). It was also getting excellent reviews. Most importantly: it was an interesting story: How did Walk Disney get the reclusive P. L. Travers to give permission to make the musical “Mary Poppins” (which in many ways was a groundbreaking film achievement, especially in the mixing of live action and animation). I have read some of the original Mary Poppins books, and have (of course) seen both the movie and the musical (which was impacted by the movie — and this story — in many ways).

“Saving Mr. Banks” stars Tom Hanks as Walt Disney and Emma Thompson as P. L. Travers.  It tells the story of the negotiation between Disney and Travers for the rights to make the movie “Mary Poppins“, as well as the story of how Travers was involved with the shaping of the final product. It also tells, through flashbacks, Travers’ childhood story and how that influenced the Mary Poppins story. Ferrett Steinmetz over on Livejournal had an insightful observation on this conflict: What made it interesting was that it wasn’t the expected conflict between corporate behemoth and artist fighting for the rights. Instead, it was a conflict between two artists who wanted to tell and protect the story that they loved, but each was seeing the story differently. They could move ahead only once they agreed on what the story was.

Discovering this agreement is where the flashbacks came in. These demonstrated how the characters in the story mapped to people in P.L. Travers (Helen Goff)’s life — in particular, how Mr. Banks was a mirror for Travers Goff, her father. Understanding that relationship — and the similar relationship between Disney and his father — was the key to the story.

Is the story presented true? From my understanding, it mostly is. I have no idea the truth of the flashback sequences and the extent to which Goff’s childhood influenced her writing as P. L. Travers. Given how she reacted to children (she never had any of her own, although she adopted), she may have been aiming the story more as an allegory for adults than amusement for children. I do know that certain elements of the portrayal of Disney were whitewashed a little — in particular, the Disney organization specifically requested that Walt never be shown inhaling cigarettes.

More importantly, the movie whitewashed Travers reaction at the end. One walked out feeling that she accepted Walt’s final product. In the end, she really didn’t — she tolerated what was done to the story, but completely rejected the combination of animation and live action. She wanted no cutesy animation in the story. As a result of this, she refused additional rights to Disney for movie adaption; further, when she permitted Cameron Mackintosh to make the stage version, she stipulated that no Americans were to be involved with the creative side (and this is why the Sherman Brothers, who were both still alive at the time, had no involvement with the development of the new songs in the stage “Mary Poppins”).

The movie didn’t touch on one thing I have always heard about the movie “Mary Poppins” and its music: that Walt Disney considered the song “Feed the Birds” to be the heart and soul of the movie. “Saving Mr. Banks” makes it appear as if that soul was found in “Let’s Go Fly a Kite”, a redemption song for Mr. Banks. It’s an interesting question about which is more the heart of the movie.

When I go see movies, I note the things that make the movie special. I think this was a story that wouldn’t work as well on stage (but I could be wrong). This was something that benefited from its period. It also had some excellent cinematography and special effects — I particularly noticed this in the transactions between “present day” and the flashbacks. I also noted the attention to detail in the historical Southern California sequences: the sequences on Laurel Canyon, the sequences at Disneyland, the sequences at the Chinese. I understand they did redressing of the current sites, which makes this even more remarkable. I also appreciated the historical LAX, which was in the period when the “new” LAX had just opened.

I’m not going to list all the credits for the movie — you can find them on IMDB. I will say that both Tom Hanks and Emma Thompsen gave excellent and believable performances, as did all the other leads. With film, you find that the actors focus on the performance; the joy of performing that one sees in a stage performer just does not come across.

Previews: Of course, what is a movie without previews. Here’s what was previewed and my thoughts:

• Muppets Most Wanted. Another in the new Muppet series of movies, this time pitting a bad Kermit vs. a good Kermit. A possibility because my wife loves the Muppets, but I want to see the reviews first.
• Million Dollar Arm. Another Disney movie — this time about recruiting Indian baseball players. Innocuous, but not something that would draw me to the theatre.
• Divergent. A science fiction movie based on a young adult novel. It didn’t particularly grab me.
• Son of God. A movie version of the life of Jesus. I don’t think I’m the audience they are going for, but I’m sure it will play well in the heartland.

[Ob. Disclaimer: I am not a trained critic; I am, however, a regular audience. I've been attending live theatre in Los Angeles since 1972; I've been writing up my thoughts on theatre (and the shows I see) since 2004. I do not have theatre training (I'm a computer security specialist), but have learned a lot about theatre over my many years of attending theatre and talking to talented professionals. I pay for all my tickets unless otherwise noted. I believe in telling you about the shows I see to help you form your opinion; it is up to you to determine the weight you give my writeups.]

Upcoming Theatre and Concerts:  All that remains in 2014 is one more movie: I’m seeing “Inside Llewyn Davis”  on Sunday, December 29. Looking into January: Our first ticketed performance is a concert performance of MooNie and Broon (FB) at The Colony Theatre (FB) on January 11. The first scheduled theatre is on January 18: “Mom’s Gift” at The Group Rep at the Lonny Chapman Theatre (FB) in North Hollywood. The following weekend, January 25, brings the first show of the REP East (FB) 10th season: “I Love You, You’re Perfect, Now Change“ (which we last saw at REP in 2006). February 1 may also bring “Vanya and Sonya and Masha and Spike” at the Mark Taper Forum, depending on Hottix availability (alternate dates are 2/2 and 2/9). February 8 will bring “Forever Plaid” at Cabrillo Music Theatre (FB). The following weekend, February 15, is being held for Lysistrata Jones at The Chance Theatre (FB) in Anaheim. The last weekend of February, February 22, is currently being held for Sutton Foster at the Broad Stage (FB) in Santa Monica (if I can find discount tickets). March brings “Sex and Education” at The Colony Theatre (FB) on March 8, and “Biloxi Blues” at REP East (FB) on March 29. It may also bring “Harmony” at The Ahmanson Theatre (FB) on March 22. The end of the month (actually April 5) bring “In The Heights” at Cabrillo Music Theatre (FB). As always, I’m keeping my eyes open for interesting productions mentioned on sites such as Bitter-Lemons, Musicals in LA and LA Stage Times, as well as productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)