Documentary from the actress-director, in which she explores her own family history.
It had long been a running joke at the Polley dinner table that Sarah looked less their father than any of her siblings, and when Sarah finally hears of the rumors that her actress mother (now deceased) may have had an affair with a co-star while out of town with a play, she decides to investigate.
And that's really all you should know about the story going in. There are surprises, unexpected revelations, delightful punchlines, complicated characters, and beautiful moments of painful honesty as the truth unfolds. It's a marvelous story, and Polley tells it in creative and entertaining style.
It will be interesting to see whether the Motion Picture Academy's Documentary branch chooses to nominate this for an Oscar; there are some storytelling choices that might have purists questioning whether this is really a documentary at all. I think that would be excessive quibbling; the movie certainly deserves a nomination.
July 24, 2013
MOVIES: Mud (Jeff Nichols, 2013)
In a small Arkansas town, Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and his friend Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) set out for a small island in the river, where Neck has discovered a boat stuck up in a tree. The boys are surprised to find a man living in the boat. He is Mud (Matthew McConaughey), and he says that he is there to try and rescue his true love, Juniper (Reese Witherspoon), from her family, who disapprove of their relationship.
And he asks for the boys' help. Ellis is at the age where girls are just starting to become interesting, and his views of love are still romantically idealized, so he's delighted to get involved. Needless to say, the course of true love is not going to run smooth, and once you throw in his parents relationship struggles and his own fumbling attempts to impress an older girl, Ellis is headed for some painful disillusionment.
The re-creation of Matthew McConaughey as an actor to be taken seriously continues here; he's learned to calibrate his drawl with remarkable precision, and he's got it cranked all the way up here. Mud knows exactly how to manipulate Ellis to get what he wants, and you can see the gears turning behind McConaughey's eyes as he schemes and connives.
As good as he is, though, it's Tye Sheridan who most impresses here. It's a beautifully subtle performance, and not an easy one. There's an intense confrontation late in the movie, in which Ellis calls Mud out on his deception and cruelty; it's a scene that could have gone horribly wrong in so many ways, and would have in the hands of most young actors. But Sheridan plays it impeccably, and the moment is heartbreaking.
Mud is not quite at the level of Nichols' previous film, Take Shelter, but it's a darned good movie.
And he asks for the boys' help. Ellis is at the age where girls are just starting to become interesting, and his views of love are still romantically idealized, so he's delighted to get involved. Needless to say, the course of true love is not going to run smooth, and once you throw in his parents relationship struggles and his own fumbling attempts to impress an older girl, Ellis is headed for some painful disillusionment.
The re-creation of Matthew McConaughey as an actor to be taken seriously continues here; he's learned to calibrate his drawl with remarkable precision, and he's got it cranked all the way up here. Mud knows exactly how to manipulate Ellis to get what he wants, and you can see the gears turning behind McConaughey's eyes as he schemes and connives.
As good as he is, though, it's Tye Sheridan who most impresses here. It's a beautifully subtle performance, and not an easy one. There's an intense confrontation late in the movie, in which Ellis calls Mud out on his deception and cruelty; it's a scene that could have gone horribly wrong in so many ways, and would have in the hands of most young actors. But Sheridan plays it impeccably, and the moment is heartbreaking.
Mud is not quite at the level of Nichols' previous film, Take Shelter, but it's a darned good movie.
Labels:
Movies
July 21, 2013
MOVIES: I'm So Excited (Pedro Almodovar, 2013)
An attempt at broad farce that has a few good moments, but never quite finds a consistent tone.
We're on a Peninsula Air flight to Mexico, but there's a problem in the landing gear, and the plane is stuck circling Toledo (Spain, not Ohio) waiting for a runway to be cleared. The passengers in economy are all asleep (having been drugged by the flight crew, who don't want to deal with them), and the first class stewards are trying to maintain calm among their half-dozen passengers. But since they're a group of ditzy, emotional queens, calm doesn't come naturally to them. (The gay stereotyping in this movie is unusually cheap and insulting for Almodovar.)
There are moments when the dialogue snaps with the energy of the best screwball comedies, but too often, mostly when we're spending time on the passengers' backstories, things slow way down and get far too draggy. And the tone of light fun is completely destroyed with a scene in which one of those drugged passengers in coach is raped while passed out.
The movie is reportedly meant as allegorical commentary on the economic situation in Spain, and I suppose I would understand the significance of certain things if I were up on my European economic crises, but I don't think understanding the allegory would help to make the movie any funnier.
Worthwhile only for Almodovar completists, I'm afraid.
We're on a Peninsula Air flight to Mexico, but there's a problem in the landing gear, and the plane is stuck circling Toledo (Spain, not Ohio) waiting for a runway to be cleared. The passengers in economy are all asleep (having been drugged by the flight crew, who don't want to deal with them), and the first class stewards are trying to maintain calm among their half-dozen passengers. But since they're a group of ditzy, emotional queens, calm doesn't come naturally to them. (The gay stereotyping in this movie is unusually cheap and insulting for Almodovar.)
There are moments when the dialogue snaps with the energy of the best screwball comedies, but too often, mostly when we're spending time on the passengers' backstories, things slow way down and get far too draggy. And the tone of light fun is completely destroyed with a scene in which one of those drugged passengers in coach is raped while passed out.
The movie is reportedly meant as allegorical commentary on the economic situation in Spain, and I suppose I would understand the significance of certain things if I were up on my European economic crises, but I don't think understanding the allegory would help to make the movie any funnier.
Worthwhile only for Almodovar completists, I'm afraid.
Labels:
Movies
MOVIES: Much Ado About Nothing (Joss Whedon, 2013)
The biggest problems with Whedon's modern-dress version of Much Ado About Nothing are inherent to the play. The humiliation of Hero, and Claudio's eagerness to believe the accusations against her, are always hard to swallow, though Fran Kranz as Claudio certainly sells the hell out of the wedding scene. And even Nathan Fillion and Tom Lenk cannot make the bumbling malaprops of Dogberry and Verges funny. (And why has Fillion been styled and dressed to look 50 pounds overweight?)
Whedon does make one directorial/interpretive choice that doesn't quite work. The film opens with a short wordless flashback to a one-night stand between Beatrice and Benedick, which is meant to give context to their constant bickering, but it also has the effect of making it even harder to sell the idea that Hero would be utterly disgraced as a Ruined Woman for having had a one-night stand of her own.
Speaking of Hero, newcomer Jillian Morghese is out of her depth in this company of actors. And blasphemy though it may be, I have never been fond of Alexis Denisof; he looks like a starving rodent and his reedy voice is like nails on a chalkboard to me. His performance is good and he certainly delivers the language clearly, but I longed for an actor with a more resonant voice and powerful presence in the role.
The rest of the cast is superb -- Amy Acker, Reed Diamond, Clark Gregg, Fran Kranz, Sean Maher -- and I'd single out Acker's Beatrice for particular praise; her "O, that I were a man" is ferocious. Whedon has skillfully edited the play to a manageable length. One of the play's more racist lines has been altered; another has been left intact, but with a nice directorial touch that draws attention to how awful it is.
Whedon also wrote the music, which is mostly unobtrusively nondescript, though his setting of "Sign No More" is very pretty.
Whedon does make one directorial/interpretive choice that doesn't quite work. The film opens with a short wordless flashback to a one-night stand between Beatrice and Benedick, which is meant to give context to their constant bickering, but it also has the effect of making it even harder to sell the idea that Hero would be utterly disgraced as a Ruined Woman for having had a one-night stand of her own.
Speaking of Hero, newcomer Jillian Morghese is out of her depth in this company of actors. And blasphemy though it may be, I have never been fond of Alexis Denisof; he looks like a starving rodent and his reedy voice is like nails on a chalkboard to me. His performance is good and he certainly delivers the language clearly, but I longed for an actor with a more resonant voice and powerful presence in the role.
The rest of the cast is superb -- Amy Acker, Reed Diamond, Clark Gregg, Fran Kranz, Sean Maher -- and I'd single out Acker's Beatrice for particular praise; her "O, that I were a man" is ferocious. Whedon has skillfully edited the play to a manageable length. One of the play's more racist lines has been altered; another has been left intact, but with a nice directorial touch that draws attention to how awful it is.
Whedon also wrote the music, which is mostly unobtrusively nondescript, though his setting of "Sign No More" is very pretty.
Labels:
Movies
May 28, 2013
BOOKS: Red Planet Blues, Robert J. Sawyer (2013)
Robert J. Sawyer is one of our best science fiction writers, and here he tackles one of the genre's bigger challenges -- the SF/mystery hybrid.
The challenge with mixing the two, I think, has to do with reader expectations. SF readers, enjoy -- and yes, this is a rather broad generalization -- the surprise of new gadgets, gizmos, concepts, technology. They'll let an author get away with introducing something entirely new six pages from the end of the book if it makes for an exciting finish. Mystery writers, to make an equally broad generalization, want to feel that they have a fair chance to solve the puzzle, which means that they're going to be annoyed if the solution depends on some unknown bit of technobabble that show up at the very end of the book.
Sawyer's solution to this dilemma is to introduce only one major big new idea for his mystery readers to deal with (and by SF standards, it's neither a very big nor a very new idea). That idea is "transfers," artificial bodies into which human minds can be transferred for enhanced beauty, strength, vision -- whatever they think might be helpful; the original human body is destroyed immediately after transfer so that there's only one copy of any given person at any given time.
And throughout the early chapters of the novel, Sawyers explores the possible complications and ramifications of transfers in a crime-solving context, so that by the time we reach the climax, the reader has been given all the necessary information to stay one step ahead of the detective.
He is Alex Lomax, the only private eye in the Martian city of New Klondike, who Sawyer completists will recognize from the novella "Identity Theft." An altered version of that story makes up roughly the first quarter of Red Planet Blues; it's been fleshed out with additional characters and details to set up the plot for the rest of the novel.
That plot centers on the search for the great mother lode of Martian fossils, the location of which was kept a secret by its discoverers. All of the things you love about private eye novels are here -- cops, both honest and corrupt; beautiful dames, naive and worldly; the local powerbroker who knows where the bodies are buried (often literally). They're set against an appealing Martian backdrop; New Klondike sits under a large dome, and spacesuits are required to venture outside (unless you're a transfer, and don't actually need oxygen).
Sawyer's prose, as ever, is crisp and clean; his ideas are interesting; and his characters are a bit more fully developed than is the norm for either SF or private eye fiction. Red Planet Blues is a breezy entertainment that should please fans of both genres.
The challenge with mixing the two, I think, has to do with reader expectations. SF readers, enjoy -- and yes, this is a rather broad generalization -- the surprise of new gadgets, gizmos, concepts, technology. They'll let an author get away with introducing something entirely new six pages from the end of the book if it makes for an exciting finish. Mystery writers, to make an equally broad generalization, want to feel that they have a fair chance to solve the puzzle, which means that they're going to be annoyed if the solution depends on some unknown bit of technobabble that show up at the very end of the book.
Sawyer's solution to this dilemma is to introduce only one major big new idea for his mystery readers to deal with (and by SF standards, it's neither a very big nor a very new idea). That idea is "transfers," artificial bodies into which human minds can be transferred for enhanced beauty, strength, vision -- whatever they think might be helpful; the original human body is destroyed immediately after transfer so that there's only one copy of any given person at any given time.
And throughout the early chapters of the novel, Sawyers explores the possible complications and ramifications of transfers in a crime-solving context, so that by the time we reach the climax, the reader has been given all the necessary information to stay one step ahead of the detective.
He is Alex Lomax, the only private eye in the Martian city of New Klondike, who Sawyer completists will recognize from the novella "Identity Theft." An altered version of that story makes up roughly the first quarter of Red Planet Blues; it's been fleshed out with additional characters and details to set up the plot for the rest of the novel.
That plot centers on the search for the great mother lode of Martian fossils, the location of which was kept a secret by its discoverers. All of the things you love about private eye novels are here -- cops, both honest and corrupt; beautiful dames, naive and worldly; the local powerbroker who knows where the bodies are buried (often literally). They're set against an appealing Martian backdrop; New Klondike sits under a large dome, and spacesuits are required to venture outside (unless you're a transfer, and don't actually need oxygen).
Sawyer's prose, as ever, is crisp and clean; his ideas are interesting; and his characters are a bit more fully developed than is the norm for either SF or private eye fiction. Red Planet Blues is a breezy entertainment that should please fans of both genres.
Labels:
Books
May 25, 2013
MOVIES: Star Trek Into Darkness (J.J. Abrams, 2013)
WARNING: It is virtually impossible to talk about this movie without giving away some character information that some may find spoiler-ish. I don't happen to think it is, and I'm not going to say anything more about the actual story than I ever do, but for those who are obsessively sensitive about such things, there's your warning.
The smartest thing J.J. Abrams did in the first installment of his Star Trek Babies reboot series was to establish that we were no longer in the timeline of the original; history changed, and we've moved into a parallel timeline. That gave him the freedom to tell new stories and introduce new characters without being tied to the oppressive "but that contradicts something that Chekov said in episode 12 of season 3" nonsense that Trek fans can be prone to. So what does Abrams do for Trek Babies 2? He decides to give us his riff on the most memorable villain (and movie) in Trek history.
Yup, Khan is back (played by Benedict Cumberbatch), and the movie opens by essentially putting him in the role of Osama bin Laden. There's a terrorist attack, and we want to capture and punish Khan, who is hiding out on the Klingon homeworld (standing in for Pakistan). We're not at war with the Klingons, but relations aren't good -- some say war is inevitable -- and we certainly don't trust them enough to ask for their help in capturing Khan, so Kirk and crew are sent on a Top Secret mission to get the guy.
And once Kirk and Khan meet, the movie turns into a series of riffs on scenes and bits of dialogue from The Wrath of Khan, given spins and twists and reversals that will no doubt have the most devoted Trek fans deliriously happy and pleased with their own cleverness at recognizing all of them, but don't seem likely to be terribly interesting to series newcomers. We're not really being asked to respond to what's happening on screen, but to our memories of what's happened in earlier versions of Trek. It's a "newbies need not apply" movie; fortunately, the box office suggests that there are enough fans that Abrams can keep rehashing old stories and foes in future movies. (Next up: Kirk Meets the Borg!)
The performances from the central crew are both good and bad, and precisely in the same ways as they were good and bad in Abrams' first movie. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are delightful as Kirk and Spock, and their emotional bond is so obvious and so deep that Spock's romance with Uhura (Zoe Saldana) can't help but seem puny and uninvolving by comparison. Anton Yelchin's Chekov is still not much more than a bad accent; Simon Pegg is still playing Scotty as a clownish buffoon. Karl Urban's McCoy is significantly better than in the first movie; he's playing the character's abrasive exasperation at a more realistic level. And John Cho as Sulu is given a bit more to do this time, and handles his big scenes very nicely.
The casting of Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan is baffling. He's a fine actor, and though he isn't given much of interest to do in the movie, he does it well. But these are supposed to be the characters from the original series; certainly the members of the Enterprise crew have been cast to resemble the TV actors as much as possible, both physically and temperamentally. But Cumberbatch stepping into a role orginally played by Ricardo Montalban? Makes no sense, physically or vocally (the accent alone sinks it) and the break between this timeline and the original is recent enough that this Khan really should be just a younger version of Montalban's.
So mixed feelings here, I suppose. If you know the series well enough to catch all of the in-jokes and references, you may well love this; if you're relatively new to the Star Trek world, it may be mildly entertaining, but you're going to sit through it with the nagging feeling that you're missing something. Most frustrating of all is what this movie tells us about Abrams' (and the studio's) vision for the new series. What could have been an opportunity to boldly go where these characters have not gone before appears likely instead to be nothing more than an ongoing greatest hits medley.
The smartest thing J.J. Abrams did in the first installment of his Star Trek Babies reboot series was to establish that we were no longer in the timeline of the original; history changed, and we've moved into a parallel timeline. That gave him the freedom to tell new stories and introduce new characters without being tied to the oppressive "but that contradicts something that Chekov said in episode 12 of season 3" nonsense that Trek fans can be prone to. So what does Abrams do for Trek Babies 2? He decides to give us his riff on the most memorable villain (and movie) in Trek history.
Yup, Khan is back (played by Benedict Cumberbatch), and the movie opens by essentially putting him in the role of Osama bin Laden. There's a terrorist attack, and we want to capture and punish Khan, who is hiding out on the Klingon homeworld (standing in for Pakistan). We're not at war with the Klingons, but relations aren't good -- some say war is inevitable -- and we certainly don't trust them enough to ask for their help in capturing Khan, so Kirk and crew are sent on a Top Secret mission to get the guy.
And once Kirk and Khan meet, the movie turns into a series of riffs on scenes and bits of dialogue from The Wrath of Khan, given spins and twists and reversals that will no doubt have the most devoted Trek fans deliriously happy and pleased with their own cleverness at recognizing all of them, but don't seem likely to be terribly interesting to series newcomers. We're not really being asked to respond to what's happening on screen, but to our memories of what's happened in earlier versions of Trek. It's a "newbies need not apply" movie; fortunately, the box office suggests that there are enough fans that Abrams can keep rehashing old stories and foes in future movies. (Next up: Kirk Meets the Borg!)
The performances from the central crew are both good and bad, and precisely in the same ways as they were good and bad in Abrams' first movie. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are delightful as Kirk and Spock, and their emotional bond is so obvious and so deep that Spock's romance with Uhura (Zoe Saldana) can't help but seem puny and uninvolving by comparison. Anton Yelchin's Chekov is still not much more than a bad accent; Simon Pegg is still playing Scotty as a clownish buffoon. Karl Urban's McCoy is significantly better than in the first movie; he's playing the character's abrasive exasperation at a more realistic level. And John Cho as Sulu is given a bit more to do this time, and handles his big scenes very nicely.
The casting of Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan is baffling. He's a fine actor, and though he isn't given much of interest to do in the movie, he does it well. But these are supposed to be the characters from the original series; certainly the members of the Enterprise crew have been cast to resemble the TV actors as much as possible, both physically and temperamentally. But Cumberbatch stepping into a role orginally played by Ricardo Montalban? Makes no sense, physically or vocally (the accent alone sinks it) and the break between this timeline and the original is recent enough that this Khan really should be just a younger version of Montalban's.
So mixed feelings here, I suppose. If you know the series well enough to catch all of the in-jokes and references, you may well love this; if you're relatively new to the Star Trek world, it may be mildly entertaining, but you're going to sit through it with the nagging feeling that you're missing something. Most frustrating of all is what this movie tells us about Abrams' (and the studio's) vision for the new series. What could have been an opportunity to boldly go where these characters have not gone before appears likely instead to be nothing more than an ongoing greatest hits medley.
Labels:
Movies
May 15, 2013
TV: American Idol 2013: the finale!
It's Candice vs. Kree, in an Idol final that feels a bit lopsided going in, but also promises to be one of the most entertaining in years; I'd happily take either of these finalists over any winner the show has given us since Carrie Underwood.
Three rounds tonight: a song chosen by Idol creator Simon Fuller, the winner's first single, and a repeat of a favorite performance from earlier in the season.
The rundown:
Kree, "Angel" -- I appreciate that she didn't try to turn the song into a belt-fest, letting it stay the low key song that it is. The challenge, though, is that you still have to fiind a way to hold the audience's attention even without the big notes and the flashy technique to show off, and Kree didn't quite figure out how to do that. Quiet can be riveting; this was just sleepy.
Candice, "Chasing Pavements" -- Not a terribly interesting song, and the little ending tag (I assume the record ends with a fadeout) was a bit too sleazy Vegas lounge. She worked it as well as she could, but you can't make tapioca very interesting no matter what you do to it.
Round One to Candice, but not by a lot, and neither was anything to write home about.
Kree, "All Cried Out" -- The song suits Kree well, and it's a pleasantly serviceable country tune, which is a nice change from the usual Inspirational Anthems. It seems tailored to show off the strong belt she has in her upper register; however, even though the notes aren't all that high, Kree sounds strained as she goes for them, and she's not always quite getting to them. That's unusual for her, and I'd bet it's just a mark of exhaustion and stress.
Candice, "I Am Beautiful" -- It strikes me that no one ever sings a song with the message "I Am X" unless there might be some reason to doubt the singer's X-ness. You wouldn't hear Elton John singing "I Am Gay," or Marvin Gaye singing "I Am Black." And so there is something just a little unpleasant about assigning a song called "I Am Beautiful" to the woman who's not a size 2. And even beyond that, Candice projects such confidence that it feels off to hear her singing in the voice of a woman who takes such comfort in the fact that "he says" she is beautiful. She knows that already, dammit, and doesn't need anyone to tell her so. As for the performance, it's fine, though I'm not sure the song is as instantly commercial within her market as Kree's would be in hers.
Round Two to Candice, by a somewhat wider margin than Round One. But we still haven't seen anything exciting from either singer.
Kree, "Up On the Mountain (MLK Song)" -- Very good. She's slightly drowned out by the band and chorus at one point, but she sounds better than she has all night. Still not hearing the spark of magic you'd hope to hear at least once from an Idol champion on finale night, though; it's a solid performance, but it's not a thrilling one. And that, I think, is an apt summation for Kree's season. She's been a consistently solid performer, but she's never had that moment that makes you sit up with chills and say "oh, my" (It's been many weeks since we heard her do this song, but I think her earlier performance of it was better than this one, and the closest she's ever come to giving us that "oh, my" moment.)
Candice, "I (Who Have Nothing)" -- Oh, my. That's what I'm talking about. That's as close to flawless as you get on Idol, and it ought to be the decisive knockout punch.
Round Three to Candice, by a landslide.
Which means that with three wins in three rounds (and, in my opinion, season-long dominance), Candice should be the easy winner. But as we learned from Kree's surprising survival over Amber last week, you cannot underestimate the strength of the Idol country audience, and I will not be surprised at all if Kree wins.
Three rounds tonight: a song chosen by Idol creator Simon Fuller, the winner's first single, and a repeat of a favorite performance from earlier in the season.
The rundown:
Kree, "Angel" -- I appreciate that she didn't try to turn the song into a belt-fest, letting it stay the low key song that it is. The challenge, though, is that you still have to fiind a way to hold the audience's attention even without the big notes and the flashy technique to show off, and Kree didn't quite figure out how to do that. Quiet can be riveting; this was just sleepy.
Candice, "Chasing Pavements" -- Not a terribly interesting song, and the little ending tag (I assume the record ends with a fadeout) was a bit too sleazy Vegas lounge. She worked it as well as she could, but you can't make tapioca very interesting no matter what you do to it.
Round One to Candice, but not by a lot, and neither was anything to write home about.
Kree, "All Cried Out" -- The song suits Kree well, and it's a pleasantly serviceable country tune, which is a nice change from the usual Inspirational Anthems. It seems tailored to show off the strong belt she has in her upper register; however, even though the notes aren't all that high, Kree sounds strained as she goes for them, and she's not always quite getting to them. That's unusual for her, and I'd bet it's just a mark of exhaustion and stress.
Candice, "I Am Beautiful" -- It strikes me that no one ever sings a song with the message "I Am X" unless there might be some reason to doubt the singer's X-ness. You wouldn't hear Elton John singing "I Am Gay," or Marvin Gaye singing "I Am Black." And so there is something just a little unpleasant about assigning a song called "I Am Beautiful" to the woman who's not a size 2. And even beyond that, Candice projects such confidence that it feels off to hear her singing in the voice of a woman who takes such comfort in the fact that "he says" she is beautiful. She knows that already, dammit, and doesn't need anyone to tell her so. As for the performance, it's fine, though I'm not sure the song is as instantly commercial within her market as Kree's would be in hers.
Round Two to Candice, by a somewhat wider margin than Round One. But we still haven't seen anything exciting from either singer.
Kree, "Up On the Mountain (MLK Song)" -- Very good. She's slightly drowned out by the band and chorus at one point, but she sounds better than she has all night. Still not hearing the spark of magic you'd hope to hear at least once from an Idol champion on finale night, though; it's a solid performance, but it's not a thrilling one. And that, I think, is an apt summation for Kree's season. She's been a consistently solid performer, but she's never had that moment that makes you sit up with chills and say "oh, my" (It's been many weeks since we heard her do this song, but I think her earlier performance of it was better than this one, and the closest she's ever come to giving us that "oh, my" moment.)
Candice, "I (Who Have Nothing)" -- Oh, my. That's what I'm talking about. That's as close to flawless as you get on Idol, and it ought to be the decisive knockout punch.
Round Three to Candice, by a landslide.
Which means that with three wins in three rounds (and, in my opinion, season-long dominance), Candice should be the easy winner. But as we learned from Kree's surprising survival over Amber last week, you cannot underestimate the strength of the Idol country audience, and I will not be surprised at all if Kree wins.
TV: American Idol 2013: year-end awards
You lucky folks on the east coast are watching the final even as I type, but it's still a couple of hours away here in California, which means I've got just enough time to slip in the annual end-of-year awards for the best and the worst of the season. As always, only performances from the Top 10 on are considered.
Best performance: Candice, "Lovesong"
Runner-up: none
Worst performance: Lazaro, "Close to You"
Runner-up: the rest of the Lazaro Arbos songbook, really, but in the interest of sharing the wealth, we'll give it to Burnell, "You Give Love a Bad Name"
Voted off too soon: Burnell
Runner-up: Curtis
(though it should be noted both of these are much smaller offenses than we get in most years; with one glaring exception, Idol voters pretty much got it right this year)
Lasted too long: Lazaro (and there's our glaring exception)
Runner-up: none
Most disappointing: Burnell. At this point in the show's history, there's no excuse for not knowing what probable theme nights are likely to trip you up, and not having something prepared for them.
Most pleasant surprise: Candice. Sure, it was obvious from the beginning that she was good, but she kept getting better, spinning gold from unlikely straw ("Straight Up"? Really?) and singing songs you'd never have expected from her ("Come Together," for instance). At this point, it's clear that she's one of the two or three best singers Idol has ever produced.
Best performance: Candice, "Lovesong"
Runner-up: none
Worst performance: Lazaro, "Close to You"
Runner-up: the rest of the Lazaro Arbos songbook, really, but in the interest of sharing the wealth, we'll give it to Burnell, "You Give Love a Bad Name"
Voted off too soon: Burnell
Runner-up: Curtis
(though it should be noted both of these are much smaller offenses than we get in most years; with one glaring exception, Idol voters pretty much got it right this year)
Lasted too long: Lazaro (and there's our glaring exception)
Runner-up: none
Most disappointing: Burnell. At this point in the show's history, there's no excuse for not knowing what probable theme nights are likely to trip you up, and not having something prepared for them.
Most pleasant surprise: Candice. Sure, it was obvious from the beginning that she was good, but she kept getting better, spinning gold from unlikely straw ("Straight Up"? Really?) and singing songs you'd never have expected from her ("Come Together," for instance). At this point, it's clear that she's one of the two or three best singers Idol has ever produced.
May 12, 2013
MUSIC: Sacred and Profane, May 12
Rebecca Petra Naomi Seaman, conductor
The program:
S&P is a chorus of about 2 dozen singers, and while their website doesn't say for sure, I believe they are entirely an unpaid group. They specialize in a cappella music, and while their repertoire does include some acknowledged standards, they lean to the unusual.
This program was called "Music of Transcendence: Songs from the North," and includes music from all five Scandinavian countries. (I had thought there were four, but apparently Iceland is now frequently included in the group.) The only piece on the program that I'd heard before (and that only in recordings) was the group of Shakespeare songs by Mäntyjärvi, which S&P delivered in fine style. They had great fun with the great swooping notes, frenzied chanting, and foot-stomping in "Double, double," and their "Full fathom five" had just the right eerie atmosphere. Perhaps it's just a side effect of the relative familiarity, but I thought it was the highlight of the concert.
The other name that intrigued me was Leifs, who I've heard about on many occasions, but whose music I've never had the chance to hear. He is almost always described as Iceland's greatest classical composer; given how little music we hear from Iceland, I was curious to learn whether that was a significant achievement, or something more akin to being the most sophisticated guy in Bugtussle. His Requiem is a short piece -- none of the individual pieces on this program were more than 7 or 8 minutes long, I don't think -- and he uses none of the traditional Latin text, opting instead for selections from Icelandic folk poetry. It's focused on the sad, serene mystery of death, with none of the fist-shaking anger we sometimes get in Requiems. It's not really enough exposure to his music to decide whether he's a genuinely world-class figure, but he's certainly more than Mr. Bugtussle.
The men and women of the chorus each had a chance to shine on their own. The men were at their strongest of the day in Béen's Sköna maj, an arrangement of a traditional tune that is a standard part of Swedish spring festivals; it comes across as a cross between glee club and barbershop, Swedish style.
The women's solo moment came with Rehnqvist's The Raven Himself Is Hoarse, a setting of one of Shakespeare's monologues for Lady Macbeth. It was an intense and fully committed performance that called for the women to sing in their highest and lowest registers, often to deliberately unattractive effect. The program notes say that Rehnqvist is a favorite composer of S&P; based on the two pieces we heard to today, I can't quite see the appeal.
I was more taken with the Sixten, a setting of John 14:27 written in memory of the victims of a 2011 terrorist attack in Norway. The music and the text are very much in tension -- you've never heard so troubling a setting of "let not your heart be troubled" -- but it's a lovely piece, and the choir handled the difficult dissonance very well.
Intonation is, in general, one of Sacred and Profane's strengths; I suppose if a chorus is devoted entirely to a cappella music, it had better be. Their balance and blend are also quite good. And while I can't speak to the accuracy of their Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, or Swedish, I can say that they were at least in agreement about which sounds they wanted to make. And when they were singing in English, their enunciation was excellent; I found myself having to glance at the program for text in those moments where the word choice had gotten particularly Biblical or Shakespearean.
Were these absolutely ideal performances? No, probably not. But the problems that Sacred and Profane has are the problems you'd expect from a very good chorus that's working to become a superb one. Entrances were occasionally somewhat tentative, particularly from the men (it is always harder to find good male singers than female). The sopranos tended to be shrill in their highest register, and the overall sound is notably less rich and solid when singing quietly. (At full volume, though, the chorus is capable of a beautiful, robust tone.)
But when a chorus is offering programs this unusual and challenging, those quibbles seem even more quibble-y. To hear this music at all is a marvelous opportunity; to hear it sung this well is a spectacular one.
The program:
- Henrik Ødegaard: Bruremarsj (Wedding March), from Fem slåtter (Five folk songs)
- Edvard Grieg: selections from Fire Salmer (Four Psalms): Hva est du dog skon; Guds son har grort meg fri; I himmelen
- Peter Erasmus Lange-Müller: Tre Madonnasange (Three Madonna Songs): Ave maris stella; Madonna over Bolgerne; Salve Regina
- Jón Leifs: Requiem
- Jaakko Mäntyjärvi: Four Shakespeare Songs: Come away, death; Lullaby; Double, double, toil and trouble; Full fathom five
- Lars Magnus Béen: Sköna maj, välkommen (Fair May, welcome)
- Fredrik Sixten: Peace
- Karin Rehnqvist: The Raven Himself Is Hoarse
- Rehnqvist: I varje bit bröd (In every bit of bread)
S&P is a chorus of about 2 dozen singers, and while their website doesn't say for sure, I believe they are entirely an unpaid group. They specialize in a cappella music, and while their repertoire does include some acknowledged standards, they lean to the unusual.
This program was called "Music of Transcendence: Songs from the North," and includes music from all five Scandinavian countries. (I had thought there were four, but apparently Iceland is now frequently included in the group.) The only piece on the program that I'd heard before (and that only in recordings) was the group of Shakespeare songs by Mäntyjärvi, which S&P delivered in fine style. They had great fun with the great swooping notes, frenzied chanting, and foot-stomping in "Double, double," and their "Full fathom five" had just the right eerie atmosphere. Perhaps it's just a side effect of the relative familiarity, but I thought it was the highlight of the concert.
The other name that intrigued me was Leifs, who I've heard about on many occasions, but whose music I've never had the chance to hear. He is almost always described as Iceland's greatest classical composer; given how little music we hear from Iceland, I was curious to learn whether that was a significant achievement, or something more akin to being the most sophisticated guy in Bugtussle. His Requiem is a short piece -- none of the individual pieces on this program were more than 7 or 8 minutes long, I don't think -- and he uses none of the traditional Latin text, opting instead for selections from Icelandic folk poetry. It's focused on the sad, serene mystery of death, with none of the fist-shaking anger we sometimes get in Requiems. It's not really enough exposure to his music to decide whether he's a genuinely world-class figure, but he's certainly more than Mr. Bugtussle.
The men and women of the chorus each had a chance to shine on their own. The men were at their strongest of the day in Béen's Sköna maj, an arrangement of a traditional tune that is a standard part of Swedish spring festivals; it comes across as a cross between glee club and barbershop, Swedish style.
The women's solo moment came with Rehnqvist's The Raven Himself Is Hoarse, a setting of one of Shakespeare's monologues for Lady Macbeth. It was an intense and fully committed performance that called for the women to sing in their highest and lowest registers, often to deliberately unattractive effect. The program notes say that Rehnqvist is a favorite composer of S&P; based on the two pieces we heard to today, I can't quite see the appeal.
I was more taken with the Sixten, a setting of John 14:27 written in memory of the victims of a 2011 terrorist attack in Norway. The music and the text are very much in tension -- you've never heard so troubling a setting of "let not your heart be troubled" -- but it's a lovely piece, and the choir handled the difficult dissonance very well.
Intonation is, in general, one of Sacred and Profane's strengths; I suppose if a chorus is devoted entirely to a cappella music, it had better be. Their balance and blend are also quite good. And while I can't speak to the accuracy of their Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, or Swedish, I can say that they were at least in agreement about which sounds they wanted to make. And when they were singing in English, their enunciation was excellent; I found myself having to glance at the program for text in those moments where the word choice had gotten particularly Biblical or Shakespearean.
Were these absolutely ideal performances? No, probably not. But the problems that Sacred and Profane has are the problems you'd expect from a very good chorus that's working to become a superb one. Entrances were occasionally somewhat tentative, particularly from the men (it is always harder to find good male singers than female). The sopranos tended to be shrill in their highest register, and the overall sound is notably less rich and solid when singing quietly. (At full volume, though, the chorus is capable of a beautiful, robust tone.)
But when a chorus is offering programs this unusual and challenging, those quibbles seem even more quibble-y. To hear this music at all is a marvelous opportunity; to hear it sung this well is a spectacular one.
Labels:
Music
May 10, 2013
MOVIES: The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann, 2013)
Let's start with the obvious question: I have read the book, but not since high school, so this will not be the place for a point-by-point comparison or a list of all the ways in which Luhrmann has changed things. And even if the book were fresh in my mind, those things wouldn't interest me much, because this is a movie, and it should be judged on its own merits, on whether it succeeds or fails as a movie.
That said, The Great Gatsby is a novel whose reputation is based largely on Fitzgerald's prose, and so it's notable that Luhrmann's most obvious major change allows him to get more of that prose into the movie. Luhrmann has added a framing story which finds Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) in a sanitarium, recovering from some sort of breakdown (the doctor's notes list his symptoms as insomnia and "morbid alcoholism"); his doctor encourages him to write about his memories as a way of exorcising them, and we hear large chunks of Nick's story (which is, of course, Fitzgerald's novel) as voice-over narration.
That story centers on Nick's cousin, Daisy (Carey Mulligan), and his neighbor, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gatsby is a mysterious member of the nouveau riche; no one is quite sure where he (or his money) came from. Daisy lives across the bay with her old-money husband, Tom (Australian actor Joel Edgerton, doing an American accent that is an unfortunate blend of Ernest Hemingway and Foghorn Leghorn). Gatsby throws spectacular weekend parties, at which anyone who's anyone simply must be seen.
Those parties are a fine example of both what's good and what's bad about the movie. They are, as you'd expect from Luhrmann, visually spectacular, and the use of anachronistic music helps to make that excitement feel new and of the moment, and to make Gatsby's world seem like a place that is entirely alien to Nick. (The fact that most of the music comes from the modern R&B/hip-hop world only emphasizes Nick's disconnection, because Tobey Maguire is among the leading contenders for the crown of Whitest Man in Show Biz.) But for all the energy and visual excitement, the parties aren't enticing. You sense that people have shown up because doing so is socially obligatory, not because they're having any fun.
The other visuals of the movie are also marvelous (costumes and production design are both by Catherine Martin). One thing that period movies often get wrong is that everything looks old, a bit drab and faded, as if the period has been re-created with objects that actually are that old; even if the movie's in color, everything is tinged with sepia. Martin and Luhrmann don't make that mistake; they remember that these characters are wealthy, and that everything they own will be new and bright and shiny.
(I should mention that the movie is in 3-D. I can't do 3-D because of vision issues, so I can't offer any useful commentary on that aspect. It did seem to me, though, more so than most 3-D movies, that the technology often makes the actors look slightly creepy and puppet-like.)
The strongest scenes in the movie are not the noisy party scenes, though; they're the quieter character moments, particularly from DiCaprio. He does lovely work in a scene where he's nervously anticipating his reunion with Daisy, and the explosion of anger that marks his final confrontation with Tom is chilling. He's also (finally!) beginning to age into a mature masculinity; he's a handsome man in this movie instead of the pretty boy he was for so long.
And because the movie's stronger when it's actually telling the story, rather than when it tries to dazzle us, I think you're likely to enjoy the movie more as it goes along. The opening, when we're being teased with the parties and the glitz and the mystery of Gatsby, is far less interesting than the last 45 minutes or so, when the truth about these characters and their relationships is finally revealed.
That said, The Great Gatsby is a novel whose reputation is based largely on Fitzgerald's prose, and so it's notable that Luhrmann's most obvious major change allows him to get more of that prose into the movie. Luhrmann has added a framing story which finds Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) in a sanitarium, recovering from some sort of breakdown (the doctor's notes list his symptoms as insomnia and "morbid alcoholism"); his doctor encourages him to write about his memories as a way of exorcising them, and we hear large chunks of Nick's story (which is, of course, Fitzgerald's novel) as voice-over narration.
That story centers on Nick's cousin, Daisy (Carey Mulligan), and his neighbor, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio). Gatsby is a mysterious member of the nouveau riche; no one is quite sure where he (or his money) came from. Daisy lives across the bay with her old-money husband, Tom (Australian actor Joel Edgerton, doing an American accent that is an unfortunate blend of Ernest Hemingway and Foghorn Leghorn). Gatsby throws spectacular weekend parties, at which anyone who's anyone simply must be seen.
Those parties are a fine example of both what's good and what's bad about the movie. They are, as you'd expect from Luhrmann, visually spectacular, and the use of anachronistic music helps to make that excitement feel new and of the moment, and to make Gatsby's world seem like a place that is entirely alien to Nick. (The fact that most of the music comes from the modern R&B/hip-hop world only emphasizes Nick's disconnection, because Tobey Maguire is among the leading contenders for the crown of Whitest Man in Show Biz.) But for all the energy and visual excitement, the parties aren't enticing. You sense that people have shown up because doing so is socially obligatory, not because they're having any fun.
The other visuals of the movie are also marvelous (costumes and production design are both by Catherine Martin). One thing that period movies often get wrong is that everything looks old, a bit drab and faded, as if the period has been re-created with objects that actually are that old; even if the movie's in color, everything is tinged with sepia. Martin and Luhrmann don't make that mistake; they remember that these characters are wealthy, and that everything they own will be new and bright and shiny.
(I should mention that the movie is in 3-D. I can't do 3-D because of vision issues, so I can't offer any useful commentary on that aspect. It did seem to me, though, more so than most 3-D movies, that the technology often makes the actors look slightly creepy and puppet-like.)
The strongest scenes in the movie are not the noisy party scenes, though; they're the quieter character moments, particularly from DiCaprio. He does lovely work in a scene where he's nervously anticipating his reunion with Daisy, and the explosion of anger that marks his final confrontation with Tom is chilling. He's also (finally!) beginning to age into a mature masculinity; he's a handsome man in this movie instead of the pretty boy he was for so long.
And because the movie's stronger when it's actually telling the story, rather than when it tries to dazzle us, I think you're likely to enjoy the movie more as it goes along. The opening, when we're being teased with the parties and the glitz and the mystery of Gatsby, is far less interesting than the last 45 minutes or so, when the truth about these characters and their relationships is finally revealed.
Labels:
Movies
May 08, 2013
TV: American Idol 2013: Choices (Jimmy Iovine / Judges / Producers)
It's the final three, which (as we were repeatedly reminded last week) means hometown visits, during which each singer is "surprised" with a message declaring what song the judges have assigned them. The producers and Jimmy Iovine also get to choose songs, giving us three songs apiece. As always on choice night, I wish that we were still getting choices from the reanimated corpse of Clive Davis, whose choices were always the smartest and most interesting. Ah well, let's see what we get from Jimmy and the gang, shall we?
The rundown:
Round One: Jimmy's choice
Kree, "Fuckin' Perfect" -- Or "Perfect," as it's identified by Idol. Pink doesn't seem a good choice for Kree (but then, Jimmy's seemed rather hostile to her in previous weeks, so maybe it's deliberate). The song's vaguely inspirational lyrics, which boil down to "yay, you!," are bland enough to be reshaped into any genre, though, and Kree gives us a mildly country flavored version. It's competently pleasant, but not really Top Three caliber.
Candice, "One" -- Loved the first verse and chorus all to bits. Subtle, understated, tasteful, restrained singing. Then the drums kick in, and it's just another bit of belting to be heard over the band. It's a nicely performed bit of belting, to be sure, and I'd rather listen to this again than the U2 original. Again, though, Jimmy is choosing songs far outside the singers' wheelhouses.
Angie, "Sorry Seems To Be the Hardest Word" -- This is certainly the most suitable choice Jimmy's made; the song is right in Angie's sweet spot (and I'm rather surprised that she's chosen not to do it at the piano). It's a fine performance, though some of the highest notes ("it's a sad, sad situation") get a bit screechy.
For Round One: Angie, Candice, Kree. But Jimmy's song selections had as much to do with Angie's relative success in the round as the singers' talent did.
Round Two: Judges' choice
Candice, "Next to Me" -- It's a catchy little song, and it suits Candice fairly well. It's not her finest performance, but it's cheerful and entertaining, and it could almost convince you that the song has more substance than it does.
("Now entering Beverly," says Angie during her home-visit video piece, and we few who know and adore the music of John Forster go into quiet giggling fits.)
Angie, "Try" -- A good choice for Angie. It shows off her wide range, both in volume and pitch. I like her better in the verses -- quieter and lower in pitch -- than in the choruses, which are too bellowed, but I do admire the clarity of her upper register, and how high she can go without having to slip into a falsetto/head voice. And she does seem more comfortable than she ever has away from the piano.
Kree, "Here Comes Goodbye" -- Another unkind choice for Kree. (One might almost think that someone was really rooting for a Candice/Angie final.) Yeah, it's country, but it's firmly at the pop end of today's country spectrum, and Kree is far more comfortable with the more traditional style. It's not a terrible performance; it's just never a very interesting one.
(A side note: While romantic loss and the loss of one's parents are very different things, there's still something disturbing about the judges picking this song for Kree. And from their post-song comments, it's clear that they chose the song fully intending to take emotional advantage of the resonance that her personal loss would bring to it.)
For Round Two: Candice, Angie, Kree. But there was nothing here to be very enthusiastic about.
Round Three: Producers' choice
Angie, "Maybe" -- She's overpowering the son with a "look, Ma, I got tonsils!" assault. It's all power, all the time, and the lack of tonal variety would be wearying, even if it weren't a bad fit for the song. (Who would have thought that her worst performance of the night would be the one she does at the piano?)
Kree, "Better Dig Two" -- I don't know if the problem is in the original version of the song, or in this arrangement, but there's a serious mismatch between the lyric and the music. The words are about someone who loves her husband so much that she doesn't want to go on living without him; the music is a not very melodic burst of anger. And try though she might, Kree can't reconcile the contradiction; there's no coherent point to the song. (And another song about dead loved ones? Really? The emotional vampirism is bordering on the sadistic.)
Candice, "Somewhere" -- Oh my. Yes. All the prizes for Candice, please.
For Round Three: Candice, Angie, Kree.
For the night: Candice, Angie, Kree. Song choices were so much harsher for Kree than for the other singers that even I find it hard to believe it wasn't deliberate, and I am not given to conspiracy theories.
For the season: Candice, Angie, Kree. The second-place battle is ridiculously close, taking the season as a whole, and if you wanted to argue that Kree should be ahead of Angie, I wouldn't put up much of a fuss.
Let's send home: But it'll be Kree going home, largely because of tonight's ridiculously unbalanced song choices, but because Angie has momentum on her side. Her best moments have come later in the season; Kree's best moments came early, and she's faded in recent weeks.
The rundown:
Round One: Jimmy's choice
Kree, "Fuckin' Perfect" -- Or "Perfect," as it's identified by Idol. Pink doesn't seem a good choice for Kree (but then, Jimmy's seemed rather hostile to her in previous weeks, so maybe it's deliberate). The song's vaguely inspirational lyrics, which boil down to "yay, you!," are bland enough to be reshaped into any genre, though, and Kree gives us a mildly country flavored version. It's competently pleasant, but not really Top Three caliber.
Candice, "One" -- Loved the first verse and chorus all to bits. Subtle, understated, tasteful, restrained singing. Then the drums kick in, and it's just another bit of belting to be heard over the band. It's a nicely performed bit of belting, to be sure, and I'd rather listen to this again than the U2 original. Again, though, Jimmy is choosing songs far outside the singers' wheelhouses.
Angie, "Sorry Seems To Be the Hardest Word" -- This is certainly the most suitable choice Jimmy's made; the song is right in Angie's sweet spot (and I'm rather surprised that she's chosen not to do it at the piano). It's a fine performance, though some of the highest notes ("it's a sad, sad situation") get a bit screechy.
For Round One: Angie, Candice, Kree. But Jimmy's song selections had as much to do with Angie's relative success in the round as the singers' talent did.
Round Two: Judges' choice
Candice, "Next to Me" -- It's a catchy little song, and it suits Candice fairly well. It's not her finest performance, but it's cheerful and entertaining, and it could almost convince you that the song has more substance than it does.
("Now entering Beverly," says Angie during her home-visit video piece, and we few who know and adore the music of John Forster go into quiet giggling fits.)
Angie, "Try" -- A good choice for Angie. It shows off her wide range, both in volume and pitch. I like her better in the verses -- quieter and lower in pitch -- than in the choruses, which are too bellowed, but I do admire the clarity of her upper register, and how high she can go without having to slip into a falsetto/head voice. And she does seem more comfortable than she ever has away from the piano.
Kree, "Here Comes Goodbye" -- Another unkind choice for Kree. (One might almost think that someone was really rooting for a Candice/Angie final.) Yeah, it's country, but it's firmly at the pop end of today's country spectrum, and Kree is far more comfortable with the more traditional style. It's not a terrible performance; it's just never a very interesting one.
(A side note: While romantic loss and the loss of one's parents are very different things, there's still something disturbing about the judges picking this song for Kree. And from their post-song comments, it's clear that they chose the song fully intending to take emotional advantage of the resonance that her personal loss would bring to it.)
For Round Two: Candice, Angie, Kree. But there was nothing here to be very enthusiastic about.
Round Three: Producers' choice
Angie, "Maybe" -- She's overpowering the son with a "look, Ma, I got tonsils!" assault. It's all power, all the time, and the lack of tonal variety would be wearying, even if it weren't a bad fit for the song. (Who would have thought that her worst performance of the night would be the one she does at the piano?)
Kree, "Better Dig Two" -- I don't know if the problem is in the original version of the song, or in this arrangement, but there's a serious mismatch between the lyric and the music. The words are about someone who loves her husband so much that she doesn't want to go on living without him; the music is a not very melodic burst of anger. And try though she might, Kree can't reconcile the contradiction; there's no coherent point to the song. (And another song about dead loved ones? Really? The emotional vampirism is bordering on the sadistic.)
Candice, "Somewhere" -- Oh my. Yes. All the prizes for Candice, please.
For Round Three: Candice, Angie, Kree.
For the night: Candice, Angie, Kree. Song choices were so much harsher for Kree than for the other singers that even I find it hard to believe it wasn't deliberate, and I am not given to conspiracy theories.
For the season: Candice, Angie, Kree. The second-place battle is ridiculously close, taking the season as a whole, and if you wanted to argue that Kree should be ahead of Angie, I wouldn't put up much of a fuss.
Let's send home: But it'll be Kree going home, largely because of tonight's ridiculously unbalanced song choices, but because Angie has momentum on her side. Her best moments have come later in the season; Kree's best moments came early, and she's faded in recent weeks.
May 01, 2013
TV: American Idol 2013: Now & Then
The final four are back for a second week, which makes it all the more baffling that the judges chose not to save Janelle on the final night they could have used the save. We'd have gotten the final five twice, instead of the final four twice, which isn't a big difference, really. Janelle would probably still have gone home in fifth, but she'd have gotten to sing one more time. (And given some of the awful song selections last week, who knows? She might have hung around for another week.)
In any event, it's the final four again, for Now & Then night, when each singer gives us a 2013 hit and a song from the Great American Songbook. And we're even trotting out a celebrity mentor for the first time in many weeks, with Harry Connick Jr. on hand to provide advice.
The rundown:
Angie, "Diamonds" -- Pretty enough, though there is one very loud, very high note on which she falls short of the actual pitch. But like most Rihanna songs (heck, most of today's pop), the production is more interesting than the song itself, and with the production stripped down to a minimum, there's not much left to hold our attention.
Amber, "Just Give Me a Reason" -- Not a great effort. She's frequently drowned out by the band; when she can be heard, her enunciation is unusually mushy; and she's chosen a key in which she can't hit the low notes. And she seems nervous and uncomfortable; still struggling to remember the words, maybe?
Candice, "When I Was Your Man" -- Candice is helped by the fact that this is a somewhat better song than the others we've heard tonight. But she doesn't really need that help. She's just flat out a better singer than the other three, by a wide margin. This isn't her most exciting or interesting performance, but it's easily the best of the night so far.
Kree, 'See You Again" -- I'm not sure what was missing from that, but all the time Kree was belting the big notes and getting a pained "I'm feeling something, really" look on her face, I was being distracted by the cute guy playing the guitar next to her, which is a measure of how dull that was, because as much as I like a cute guy, I am not that shallow.
For Round One: Candice, Angie, Kree, Amber.
Angie, "Someone to Watch Over Me" -- The opening was quite nice, but then she turned on the Full Angie, and if ever a song shouldn't be belted with a big, confident smile, it's this one. It's about longing and desperation and the fear of being alone. She made a lovely sound; it just had no connection to the emotional content of the song.
Amber, "My Funny Valentine" -- Very good. She ran out of breath on the note before that final little riff, and I think there were more unnecessary runs and frills than when she sang this in the semifinal rounds, but the song suits her voice and range extremely well.
Candice, "You've Changed" -- That was showier and brassier than it needed to be, but unlike Angie's performance, the emotional content was appropriate to the song; the volume became an expression of anger, loss, and frustration.
Kree, "Stormy Weather" -- Certainly an improvement over her first round, though like everyone else, it was overly embellished and too big. (I am firmly in the Harry Connick camp when it comes to singing these songs simply, as written.) But given that these are young 21st-century singers, utterly at sea without the crutch of their ruffles and flourishes, that was about as good as could be hoped for.
For Round Two: Candice, Kree, Amber, Angie.
For the night: Candice, Kree, Amber, Angie.
For the season: Candice, Amber, Angie, Kree.
Let's send home: As I said last week, as long as it's not Candice, I don't much care. And given that last week's votes are being added in to this week's results, and we know that Candice and Amber were the bottom two last week, I think it's a tough week to predict. Angie had a bad week, but may have enough of a cushion from last week to survive. I think it'll be Amber going home, but I have no confidence in that prediction.
In any event, it's the final four again, for Now & Then night, when each singer gives us a 2013 hit and a song from the Great American Songbook. And we're even trotting out a celebrity mentor for the first time in many weeks, with Harry Connick Jr. on hand to provide advice.
The rundown:
Angie, "Diamonds" -- Pretty enough, though there is one very loud, very high note on which she falls short of the actual pitch. But like most Rihanna songs (heck, most of today's pop), the production is more interesting than the song itself, and with the production stripped down to a minimum, there's not much left to hold our attention.
Amber, "Just Give Me a Reason" -- Not a great effort. She's frequently drowned out by the band; when she can be heard, her enunciation is unusually mushy; and she's chosen a key in which she can't hit the low notes. And she seems nervous and uncomfortable; still struggling to remember the words, maybe?
Candice, "When I Was Your Man" -- Candice is helped by the fact that this is a somewhat better song than the others we've heard tonight. But she doesn't really need that help. She's just flat out a better singer than the other three, by a wide margin. This isn't her most exciting or interesting performance, but it's easily the best of the night so far.
Kree, 'See You Again" -- I'm not sure what was missing from that, but all the time Kree was belting the big notes and getting a pained "I'm feeling something, really" look on her face, I was being distracted by the cute guy playing the guitar next to her, which is a measure of how dull that was, because as much as I like a cute guy, I am not that shallow.
For Round One: Candice, Angie, Kree, Amber.
Angie, "Someone to Watch Over Me" -- The opening was quite nice, but then she turned on the Full Angie, and if ever a song shouldn't be belted with a big, confident smile, it's this one. It's about longing and desperation and the fear of being alone. She made a lovely sound; it just had no connection to the emotional content of the song.
Amber, "My Funny Valentine" -- Very good. She ran out of breath on the note before that final little riff, and I think there were more unnecessary runs and frills than when she sang this in the semifinal rounds, but the song suits her voice and range extremely well.
Candice, "You've Changed" -- That was showier and brassier than it needed to be, but unlike Angie's performance, the emotional content was appropriate to the song; the volume became an expression of anger, loss, and frustration.
Kree, "Stormy Weather" -- Certainly an improvement over her first round, though like everyone else, it was overly embellished and too big. (I am firmly in the Harry Connick camp when it comes to singing these songs simply, as written.) But given that these are young 21st-century singers, utterly at sea without the crutch of their ruffles and flourishes, that was about as good as could be hoped for.
For Round Two: Candice, Kree, Amber, Angie.
For the night: Candice, Kree, Amber, Angie.
For the season: Candice, Amber, Angie, Kree.
Let's send home: As I said last week, as long as it's not Candice, I don't much care. And given that last week's votes are being added in to this week's results, and we know that Candice and Amber were the bottom two last week, I think it's a tough week to predict. Angie had a bad week, but may have enough of a cushion from last week to survive. I think it'll be Amber going home, but I have no confidence in that prediction.
April 24, 2013
TV: American Idol 2013: Contestant's Choice / One Hit Wonders
For those inclined to keep track of these things in terms of gender, this is the second all-female final four that Idol has had, and there's never been an all-male final four. More important, though, it is by a long shot the most talented final four ever, and none of the remaining contestants would be an embarrassing winner. (Which isn't to say that I don't have my favorites, of course.) And with a competition as close as this, there's no room for error.
And since the first round tonight is free choice for the singers, there's not much excuse for it, either. And even the second round -- One Hit Wonders, a new theme for the show -- offers enough choices that no one's being forced into a style that doesn't suit them.
So, theoretically, it should be a good night. Let's see, shall we?
The rundown:
Amber, "The Power of Love" -- The opening verse is weak; when you're the only sound being heard and we still can't tell what you're saying, you're in trouble. But once Amber hits the verse and gets to belt with no subtlety whatsoever (and what could be a better Celine homage than that?), her voice sounds fine. At this point, though, "fine" may not be enough. And the arrangement, which is rather more sluggish than the original, isn't helping.
Candice, "Find Your Love" -- I don't know that Idol has ever had a contestant whose song choices are as consistently unexpected as Candice's, and she has a knack for finding something interesting even in a fairly blah song like this. I think I could set my iPod on Shuffle and give her the first twelve songs that came up, and she'd turn them into a fabulous album.
Kree, "It Hurt So Bad" -- "I get to dance," Kree tells one of the kids at Children's Hospital, and then she plants her feet, never taking more than two steps in any direction. But musically, this is the equivalent of a 2-foot putt for Kree, and it's a strong performance. It never gets the oomph it needs to be a thrilling one, but it's the best we've heard so far. On the other hand, Idol voters do not always respond to obscurities like this one.
Angie, "Who You Are" -- For all the volume and power, that felt easier and more effortless than anything she's done in weeks, and the quiet moments were particularly good. I don't know what the magic is about her and the piano, but she goes from a C+/B- singer on her feet to a B+/A- singer at the keyboard. She could win this thing if she never leaves the piano again.
For Round One: Angie, Kree, Candice, Amber.
Next, a pair of officially non-competitive duets as palate cleanser and time killer:
Kree & Amber, "Rumour Has It" -- There are many songs, y'know, that have been written as duets. So why bother doing this, which isn't really a duet at all? It's another case of singers performing next to, instead of with, each other; I heard only one phrase of five or six notes with any harmony at all. They both sounded OK, but it was a lot of effort with no real point.
Candice & Angie, "Stay" -- At least they seem to realize that they're both on the stage, and there's some attempt at interaction between them. But the song doesn't really suit either of their voices, and their styles are so different that they never find a comfortable blend.
Amber, "MacArthur Park" -- There is no point to doing this song if you don't have the full seven minutes to devote to it. Every time she hits the big long high note, it starts fine and slowly sinks flat. And she doesn't have the skill (or, I suspect, the drug experience) that it would take to sing all the "sweet green icing" stuff as though it actually meant something. A blah moment.
(Were I sort to nitpick about the spirit and the letter of the rules -- oh, hell, you know that's exactly the sort I am -- I might suggest that when the theme is "one-hit wonders," you are at least skirting the spirit of the thing to do what is clearly more of a Donna Summer version than a Richard Harris version.)
Candice, "Emotion" -- Even Candice can't convince us that there's a real song here, and it's a bad fit for her. The appeal of the Samantha Sang version was that airy, ethereal voice, and Candice's voice is too much for the song (at least not without changing the arrangement more drastically than has been done here). It's like trying to pick up a feather with a bulldozer.
Kree, "A Whiter Shade of Pale" -- It was a lovely string of notes, and I continue to marvel at the clarity and force of her upper register. But it was entirely devoid of emotion, and wasn't communicating anything beyond "these are pretty notes." In her defense, I don't think anyone's ever been able to communicate any emotion with these hippy-dippy lyrics, but that's not much of a defense. It's been a round of bad song choices so far.
Angie, "Cry Me a River" -- There's a bit of a mismatch between Angie's vocal, which feels very contemporary, and the arrangement, which is certainly somewhat updated from the 50s, but still feels a bit old-school. Still, it's a reasonably good performance, and comes off maybe even a bit better than it deserves simply because it's a good song in a round of lesser ones.
(If you remember how big Julie London was in the 50s, you might wonder what this song is doing here in a one hit wonder round. But as big as she was, she wasn't successful in a top-40 pop charts way, and this was indeed her only such hit.)
For Round Two: Angie, Amber, Candice, Kree.
For the night: Angie, Kree, Candice, Amber.
For the season: Candice, Angie, Kree, Amber.
Let's send home: As long as it's not Candice, I won't complain too loudly. I'd probably send home Amber, but I think it'll be Kree.
And since the first round tonight is free choice for the singers, there's not much excuse for it, either. And even the second round -- One Hit Wonders, a new theme for the show -- offers enough choices that no one's being forced into a style that doesn't suit them.
So, theoretically, it should be a good night. Let's see, shall we?
The rundown:
Amber, "The Power of Love" -- The opening verse is weak; when you're the only sound being heard and we still can't tell what you're saying, you're in trouble. But once Amber hits the verse and gets to belt with no subtlety whatsoever (and what could be a better Celine homage than that?), her voice sounds fine. At this point, though, "fine" may not be enough. And the arrangement, which is rather more sluggish than the original, isn't helping.
Candice, "Find Your Love" -- I don't know that Idol has ever had a contestant whose song choices are as consistently unexpected as Candice's, and she has a knack for finding something interesting even in a fairly blah song like this. I think I could set my iPod on Shuffle and give her the first twelve songs that came up, and she'd turn them into a fabulous album.
Kree, "It Hurt So Bad" -- "I get to dance," Kree tells one of the kids at Children's Hospital, and then she plants her feet, never taking more than two steps in any direction. But musically, this is the equivalent of a 2-foot putt for Kree, and it's a strong performance. It never gets the oomph it needs to be a thrilling one, but it's the best we've heard so far. On the other hand, Idol voters do not always respond to obscurities like this one.
Angie, "Who You Are" -- For all the volume and power, that felt easier and more effortless than anything she's done in weeks, and the quiet moments were particularly good. I don't know what the magic is about her and the piano, but she goes from a C+/B- singer on her feet to a B+/A- singer at the keyboard. She could win this thing if she never leaves the piano again.
For Round One: Angie, Kree, Candice, Amber.
Next, a pair of officially non-competitive duets as palate cleanser and time killer:
Kree & Amber, "Rumour Has It" -- There are many songs, y'know, that have been written as duets. So why bother doing this, which isn't really a duet at all? It's another case of singers performing next to, instead of with, each other; I heard only one phrase of five or six notes with any harmony at all. They both sounded OK, but it was a lot of effort with no real point.
Candice & Angie, "Stay" -- At least they seem to realize that they're both on the stage, and there's some attempt at interaction between them. But the song doesn't really suit either of their voices, and their styles are so different that they never find a comfortable blend.
Amber, "MacArthur Park" -- There is no point to doing this song if you don't have the full seven minutes to devote to it. Every time she hits the big long high note, it starts fine and slowly sinks flat. And she doesn't have the skill (or, I suspect, the drug experience) that it would take to sing all the "sweet green icing" stuff as though it actually meant something. A blah moment.
(Were I sort to nitpick about the spirit and the letter of the rules -- oh, hell, you know that's exactly the sort I am -- I might suggest that when the theme is "one-hit wonders," you are at least skirting the spirit of the thing to do what is clearly more of a Donna Summer version than a Richard Harris version.)
Candice, "Emotion" -- Even Candice can't convince us that there's a real song here, and it's a bad fit for her. The appeal of the Samantha Sang version was that airy, ethereal voice, and Candice's voice is too much for the song (at least not without changing the arrangement more drastically than has been done here). It's like trying to pick up a feather with a bulldozer.
Kree, "A Whiter Shade of Pale" -- It was a lovely string of notes, and I continue to marvel at the clarity and force of her upper register. But it was entirely devoid of emotion, and wasn't communicating anything beyond "these are pretty notes." In her defense, I don't think anyone's ever been able to communicate any emotion with these hippy-dippy lyrics, but that's not much of a defense. It's been a round of bad song choices so far.
Angie, "Cry Me a River" -- There's a bit of a mismatch between Angie's vocal, which feels very contemporary, and the arrangement, which is certainly somewhat updated from the 50s, but still feels a bit old-school. Still, it's a reasonably good performance, and comes off maybe even a bit better than it deserves simply because it's a good song in a round of lesser ones.
(If you remember how big Julie London was in the 50s, you might wonder what this song is doing here in a one hit wonder round. But as big as she was, she wasn't successful in a top-40 pop charts way, and this was indeed her only such hit.)
For Round Two: Angie, Amber, Candice, Kree.
For the night: Angie, Kree, Candice, Amber.
For the season: Candice, Angie, Kree, Amber.
Let's send home: As long as it's not Candice, I won't complain too loudly. I'd probably send home Amber, but I think it'll be Kree.
April 23, 2013
MOVIES: The Perks of Being a Wallflower (Stephen Chbosky, 2012)
This movie disappeared fairly quickly when it was released last fall, but it was highly praised by a lot of critics in their year-end lists. It's directed by Stephen Chbosky, whose screenplay is adapted from his novel, which has been wildly popular with teens in recent years.
It's another version of a fantasy that is strangely common among authors who were misfits as teenagers -- the gang of misfits who come together, discover that they have everything in common, and learn that they're not such misfits after all. I call it a "fantasy" because, wish-fulfillment novels to the contrary, such things almost never actually happen. (I blame the whole damn thing on the stop-motion Rudolph Christmas special, and this movie even has an explicit reference to the Island of Misfit Toys.)
Our central misfit this time is Charlie (Logan Lerman), who hopes to make just one friend on his first day of high school. It takes a few days longer than that, but he does eventually fall in with a small crowd of fellow misfits, headed up by two seniors, Patrick (Ezra Miller) and his stepsister Sam (Emma Watson, sporting a most erratic American accent).
You could probably write most of the script yourself from there. Charlie falls for Sam; Patrick falls for Charlie; and by the time the year's over, Charlie's found the strength to confront his Dark Secret.
What, you thought you were going to get away from this without a Dark Secret? Oh, heavens, no. And when this one arrives, it comes almost entirely out of the blue in the last half-hour of the movie, and it's a really cheap bit of exploitation.
But as hopelessly predictable and unrealistic as the story is, the acting is extremely strong. The three principals are terrific, and I would imagine that this movie is going to lead to roles in bigger movies for all three. (Watson, of course, has plenty of big movie experience already.) The supporting adult actors aren't given much to do, and have been filled with a cast who are really overqualified for what are glorified cameos -- Dylan McDermott, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, Melanie Lynskey, Joan Cusack.
If you are less annoyed by the cliche nerd fantasy plot than I was, you might enjoy this movie a lot; even if it does drive you nuts, you might still get enough pleasure from the acting to make it worth seeing.
It's another version of a fantasy that is strangely common among authors who were misfits as teenagers -- the gang of misfits who come together, discover that they have everything in common, and learn that they're not such misfits after all. I call it a "fantasy" because, wish-fulfillment novels to the contrary, such things almost never actually happen. (I blame the whole damn thing on the stop-motion Rudolph Christmas special, and this movie even has an explicit reference to the Island of Misfit Toys.)
Our central misfit this time is Charlie (Logan Lerman), who hopes to make just one friend on his first day of high school. It takes a few days longer than that, but he does eventually fall in with a small crowd of fellow misfits, headed up by two seniors, Patrick (Ezra Miller) and his stepsister Sam (Emma Watson, sporting a most erratic American accent).
You could probably write most of the script yourself from there. Charlie falls for Sam; Patrick falls for Charlie; and by the time the year's over, Charlie's found the strength to confront his Dark Secret.
What, you thought you were going to get away from this without a Dark Secret? Oh, heavens, no. And when this one arrives, it comes almost entirely out of the blue in the last half-hour of the movie, and it's a really cheap bit of exploitation.
But as hopelessly predictable and unrealistic as the story is, the acting is extremely strong. The three principals are terrific, and I would imagine that this movie is going to lead to roles in bigger movies for all three. (Watson, of course, has plenty of big movie experience already.) The supporting adult actors aren't given much to do, and have been filled with a cast who are really overqualified for what are glorified cameos -- Dylan McDermott, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, Melanie Lynskey, Joan Cusack.
If you are less annoyed by the cliche nerd fantasy plot than I was, you might enjoy this movie a lot; even if it does drive you nuts, you might still get enough pleasure from the acting to make it worth seeing.
Labels:
Movies
April 22, 2013
MOVIES: The Croods (Kirk De Micco & Chris Sanders, 2013)
The animated film The Croods takes a strong cast of voice actors and strands them in a predictable story, and the animation isn't interesting enough to compensate.
Our heroine is Eep (voiced by Emma Stone), a teenager who is chafing under the restrictive rules laid down by her father Grug (Nicolas Cage). Grug lives in constant fear of the world, and keeps the family holed up in a cave except for absolutely necessary hunting trips. "Never not be afraid" is his motto.
The Crood family also includes mother Ugga (Catherine Keener), dimwit son Thunk (Clark Duke), elderly Gran (Cloris Leachman, giving what is rapidly becoming the only performance anyone will allow her to give as the mean old lady), and feral toddler Sandy.
Eep ventures out of the cave one night and meets Guy (Ryan Reynolds), who is rather more evolved than Eep's family, and who warns that the world is about to end. (We get a planet-view shot that tells us the "end" is the separation of the continental plates, which isn't historically accurate for the era of cavemen, but if you're looking to The Croods for historic and scientific rigor, you've got bigger problems than I can help you with.) Reluctantly, the Croods join guy on his trip to a safer place.
From there, the story's predictable: Eep and Guy fall for one another, Grug and Guy bicker over the correct approach to life and to their journey, and everyone gets a big helping of redemption in the end.
Some of the landscapes are lovely to look at, and there is one spectacular scene involving a giant flock of flying pink piranha-bugs, but much of the animation is drab. The action scenes never quite provide the necessary thrills, and as you watch, for instance, the opening family hunting sequence, you can't help but think how much more crisp and precise the timing would be if it had been done by Pixar or Aardman.
The cast is generally good, though Reynolds doesn't have quite enough energy. Cage is the standout; who would have guessed that literally making him a cartoon would have brought out his subtle side?
If you have kids who must be entertained, this will probably do the trick, but if you can talk them into waiting to see it on cable or DVD, you'll save some money.
Our heroine is Eep (voiced by Emma Stone), a teenager who is chafing under the restrictive rules laid down by her father Grug (Nicolas Cage). Grug lives in constant fear of the world, and keeps the family holed up in a cave except for absolutely necessary hunting trips. "Never not be afraid" is his motto.
The Crood family also includes mother Ugga (Catherine Keener), dimwit son Thunk (Clark Duke), elderly Gran (Cloris Leachman, giving what is rapidly becoming the only performance anyone will allow her to give as the mean old lady), and feral toddler Sandy.
Eep ventures out of the cave one night and meets Guy (Ryan Reynolds), who is rather more evolved than Eep's family, and who warns that the world is about to end. (We get a planet-view shot that tells us the "end" is the separation of the continental plates, which isn't historically accurate for the era of cavemen, but if you're looking to The Croods for historic and scientific rigor, you've got bigger problems than I can help you with.) Reluctantly, the Croods join guy on his trip to a safer place.
From there, the story's predictable: Eep and Guy fall for one another, Grug and Guy bicker over the correct approach to life and to their journey, and everyone gets a big helping of redemption in the end.
Some of the landscapes are lovely to look at, and there is one spectacular scene involving a giant flock of flying pink piranha-bugs, but much of the animation is drab. The action scenes never quite provide the necessary thrills, and as you watch, for instance, the opening family hunting sequence, you can't help but think how much more crisp and precise the timing would be if it had been done by Pixar or Aardman.
The cast is generally good, though Reynolds doesn't have quite enough energy. Cage is the standout; who would have guessed that literally making him a cartoon would have brought out his subtle side?
If you have kids who must be entertained, this will probably do the trick, but if you can talk them into waiting to see it on cable or DVD, you'll save some money.
Labels:
Movies
April 21, 2013
MOVIES: No (Pablo Larrain, 2012/US 2013)
The Chilean film No was one of this year's Oscar nominees for Best Foreign-Language Film. It's a movie about an advertising campaign, and if that has you envisioning a sort of South American Mad Men, lord, are you in for a world of disappointment.
In 1988, under domestic and international pressure, dictator/president Augusto Pinochet agreed to a national election on whether he should continue in office for another eight years; it was to be a simple yes/no vote, and No tells the story of the campaign for the "no" side.
Each side was given 15 minutes of uninterrupted TV time each day to present its case, and the multiple anti-Pinochet political parties turned to TV ad writer Rene Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal) to help create their campaign. The politicians wanted to do a dry, scary recitation of the facts -- this many people executed, this many people "disappeared," this many people exiled -- thinking that this would be the only chance they'd ever had to present that case on national television.
Saavedra argued that facts, especially depressing ones, wouldn't "sell" and that the campaign was sure to lose with that approach. Instead, he proposed a peppy, optimistic campaign built around a sappy jingle ("Chile, happiness is coming"), imagery of picnics and rainbows and happy children, and bad Laugh-In sketches.
That conflict, and that clash of styles, would have made a really interesting movie, but it's dismissed in about ten minutes so that we can watch lots of the ads and be fed a tepid thriller plot about whether Saavedra's family is in danger as a result of his work. Also pushed to the background is the tension between Saavedra and his liberal friends, many of whom believe that the election is rigged, and that by taking part, Saavedra is only lending legitimacy to an inherently corrupt process.
Chile voted to get rid of Pinochet (it's really not a spoiler if it's a 25-year-old historical event, right?), but -- and here is one of the movie's major flaws -- we're not told anything that convinces us that this campaign is at all responsible for Chile's vote to oust Pinochet. This lack of information, to be sure, is not the fault of the filmmakers -- I would imagine that a regime as repressive as that of Pinochet was not a hospitable place for pre-election polling -- but it does leave us feeling that we've watched a lot of sound and fury without knowing what, if anything, it accomplished.
The look of the movie is interesting; it's shot using cameras and film stock from the 80s, so the period footage, including ads from the "no" campaign, blends seamlessly with the new footage. But that is the most interesting thing about the movie, which ignores its most promising ideas in favor of letting us hear the "Chile, happiness is coming" jingle about 18,000 times.
In 1988, under domestic and international pressure, dictator/president Augusto Pinochet agreed to a national election on whether he should continue in office for another eight years; it was to be a simple yes/no vote, and No tells the story of the campaign for the "no" side.
Each side was given 15 minutes of uninterrupted TV time each day to present its case, and the multiple anti-Pinochet political parties turned to TV ad writer Rene Saavedra (Gael Garcia Bernal) to help create their campaign. The politicians wanted to do a dry, scary recitation of the facts -- this many people executed, this many people "disappeared," this many people exiled -- thinking that this would be the only chance they'd ever had to present that case on national television.
Saavedra argued that facts, especially depressing ones, wouldn't "sell" and that the campaign was sure to lose with that approach. Instead, he proposed a peppy, optimistic campaign built around a sappy jingle ("Chile, happiness is coming"), imagery of picnics and rainbows and happy children, and bad Laugh-In sketches.
That conflict, and that clash of styles, would have made a really interesting movie, but it's dismissed in about ten minutes so that we can watch lots of the ads and be fed a tepid thriller plot about whether Saavedra's family is in danger as a result of his work. Also pushed to the background is the tension between Saavedra and his liberal friends, many of whom believe that the election is rigged, and that by taking part, Saavedra is only lending legitimacy to an inherently corrupt process.
Chile voted to get rid of Pinochet (it's really not a spoiler if it's a 25-year-old historical event, right?), but -- and here is one of the movie's major flaws -- we're not told anything that convinces us that this campaign is at all responsible for Chile's vote to oust Pinochet. This lack of information, to be sure, is not the fault of the filmmakers -- I would imagine that a regime as repressive as that of Pinochet was not a hospitable place for pre-election polling -- but it does leave us feeling that we've watched a lot of sound and fury without knowing what, if anything, it accomplished.
The look of the movie is interesting; it's shot using cameras and film stock from the 80s, so the period footage, including ads from the "no" campaign, blends seamlessly with the new footage. But that is the most interesting thing about the movie, which ignores its most promising ideas in favor of letting us hear the "Chile, happiness is coming" jingle about 18,000 times.
Labels:
Movies
MOVIES: The Place Beyond the Pines (2013, Derek Cianfrance)
Cianfrance's followup to Blue Valentine tells a three-part story about fathers and sons, and how the sins of the former are visited upon the latter.
We begin with Ryan Gosling, playing a stunt motorcycle rider who travels with a small carnival. During the carnival's annual visit to Schenectady (a Mohawk word which translates roughly as the movie's title), he drops in on Eva Mendes, with whom he'd had a one-night stand during his last visit. His relationship with her and her family, and his attempts to win a more permanent place in their lives, make up the first chunk of the movie.
For the second chunk, we abruptly shift focus to Bradley Cooper, a local cop, and follow the beginnings of his rise through the police (and local political) ranks. This is the most hackneyed piece of the movie, a tired story of corrupt cops and the superior officers who choose to remain blind to their behavior.
Part three begins with a "fifteen years later" title card, and our new central characters are the sons of Gosling and Cooper, played respectively by Dane DeHaan and Emory Cohen. The complicated relationship between their fathers becomes an issue between the boys, leading (but, of course) to A Terrible Tragedy.
The performances are fine, though DeHaan and (particularly) Cohen are, even by Hollywood movie standards, far too old to be playing 16-year-olds. Cooper is particularly badly served by the 15 year time jump, looking too old in the first half of the movie and not old enough in the second half.
The biggest problem with the movie, though, is that each of the three sections has enough story to justify a full movie of its own. Part of why the stories all feel so cliched, I think, is that we're rushing through them and hitting only the obvious narrative high points, instead of giving each story the time it needs to breathe, time that would allow for characters and situations to be developed beyond the superficial. We've got six or seven hours of movie stuffed into 140 minutes.
And with all of the new financing and distribution options available to directors these days, it's increasingly hard to justify making a movie that is either too long or too short for the story it wants to tell. Within the last year, we've seen major directors go outside the feature film world to tell longer stories -- Jane Campion's done a 7-hour miniseries for the Sundance Channel; David Fincher's produced a 13-hour series for Netflix -- and surely after the rapturous reception of Blue Valentine, Cianfrance could have found some such alternate home for this project. As a feature film, though, it feels sadly cramped and familiar.
We begin with Ryan Gosling, playing a stunt motorcycle rider who travels with a small carnival. During the carnival's annual visit to Schenectady (a Mohawk word which translates roughly as the movie's title), he drops in on Eva Mendes, with whom he'd had a one-night stand during his last visit. His relationship with her and her family, and his attempts to win a more permanent place in their lives, make up the first chunk of the movie.
For the second chunk, we abruptly shift focus to Bradley Cooper, a local cop, and follow the beginnings of his rise through the police (and local political) ranks. This is the most hackneyed piece of the movie, a tired story of corrupt cops and the superior officers who choose to remain blind to their behavior.
Part three begins with a "fifteen years later" title card, and our new central characters are the sons of Gosling and Cooper, played respectively by Dane DeHaan and Emory Cohen. The complicated relationship between their fathers becomes an issue between the boys, leading (but, of course) to A Terrible Tragedy.
The performances are fine, though DeHaan and (particularly) Cohen are, even by Hollywood movie standards, far too old to be playing 16-year-olds. Cooper is particularly badly served by the 15 year time jump, looking too old in the first half of the movie and not old enough in the second half.
The biggest problem with the movie, though, is that each of the three sections has enough story to justify a full movie of its own. Part of why the stories all feel so cliched, I think, is that we're rushing through them and hitting only the obvious narrative high points, instead of giving each story the time it needs to breathe, time that would allow for characters and situations to be developed beyond the superficial. We've got six or seven hours of movie stuffed into 140 minutes.
And with all of the new financing and distribution options available to directors these days, it's increasingly hard to justify making a movie that is either too long or too short for the story it wants to tell. Within the last year, we've seen major directors go outside the feature film world to tell longer stories -- Jane Campion's done a 7-hour miniseries for the Sundance Channel; David Fincher's produced a 13-hour series for Netflix -- and surely after the rapturous reception of Blue Valentine, Cianfrance could have found some such alternate home for this project. As a feature film, though, it feels sadly cramped and familiar.
Labels:
Movies
April 20, 2013
MOVIES: The Sapphires (Wayne Blair, 2012/US 2013)
(I've fallen behind on movie posts, but hope to get caught up this week on posting about what I've seen recently.)
The Sapphires is an Australian movie about four Aboriginal women -- three sisters and a cousin -- who get a job entertaining the American troops in Vietnam. Chris O'Dowd stars as their manager, who teaches them to sing soul music instead of the country they'd been doing.
The women are all appealing, and each is given just enough of a personality that we can distinguish one from another; Jessica Mauboy, as the lead singer of the group, delivers perfectly nice performances of Motown standards that are entertaining in precisely the same "half a step up from karaoke" way that American Idol can be. And O'Dowd works his charming Irish guy shtick -- it's a bit discouraging that it already feels like shtick, given that he hasn't really been around all that long -- with his usual gentle charm.
There are a few minor feints towards social conscience, with backstory about the horrific way that Australia treated Aborigines in the 20th century; rather clunky parallels are drawn to the American civil rights movement.
The Sapphires is almost never a surprising movie, nor is it a terribly amibitious one. It aims no higher than to be 90 minutes of amiable entertainment, and it achieves that goal quite nicely.
The Sapphires is an Australian movie about four Aboriginal women -- three sisters and a cousin -- who get a job entertaining the American troops in Vietnam. Chris O'Dowd stars as their manager, who teaches them to sing soul music instead of the country they'd been doing.
The women are all appealing, and each is given just enough of a personality that we can distinguish one from another; Jessica Mauboy, as the lead singer of the group, delivers perfectly nice performances of Motown standards that are entertaining in precisely the same "half a step up from karaoke" way that American Idol can be. And O'Dowd works his charming Irish guy shtick -- it's a bit discouraging that it already feels like shtick, given that he hasn't really been around all that long -- with his usual gentle charm.
There are a few minor feints towards social conscience, with backstory about the horrific way that Australia treated Aborigines in the 20th century; rather clunky parallels are drawn to the American civil rights movement.
The Sapphires is almost never a surprising movie, nor is it a terribly amibitious one. It aims no higher than to be 90 minutes of amiable entertainment, and it achieves that goal quite nicely.
Labels:
Movies
April 17, 2013
TV: American Idol 2013: Songs from birth years / Divas
With Lazaro's departure, we're guaranteed the first female winner since Jordin Sparks in season six, and the first all-female finale since season three (Fantasia Barrino over Diana DeGarmo). The themes tonight are a mix of old and new -- the perennial favorite "song from the year I was born" and the first appearance of "divas" as a theme. Hard to do that one with men still in the field, I suppose.
Even more important than gender, though, this is the most talented final five the show's ever had. While I think that Candice and Kree are the favorites, one never knows what to expect from Idol voters, and it should be an entertaining season from here on out.
The rundown:
Candice, "Straight Up" -- Not a song choice I'd have expected from Candice, and not a song I would have thought worth bothering with, but she gives it a serious re-imagining, treating it as a jazzy nightclub number with a Latin flair. It's light, breezy, and surprisingly charming. A delightful surprise.
Janelle, "When I Call Your Name" -- A nice performance, I suppose, though some of the lyrics are too breathy to be understood. She's not going to be our winner, but Janelle has a fine career ahead of her as the opening act for some semi-retired country singer in Branson.
Kree, "She Talks to Angels" -- One of those tedious rock songs that confuses cryptic lyrics for profundity, and things aren't helped by Kree's uncharacteristically mushy enunciation. One of her worse performances.
Angie, "I'll Stand By You" -- Mentioning her connection to Boston comes off as a cheap bit of begging for pity votes, and it wasn't necessary, because the performance is strong. I always like her better at the piano, and she's in fine voice tonight, delivering an emotional performance that is her best of the season.
Amber, "Without You" -- This theme always brings at least one cheat, so here's Amber (born in 1994) singing a song from 1970, theoretically justified by the Mariah Carey remake. And it's not working; the low notes are too low for her, some of them so much so that she's re-writing the melody to avoid them. She sounds fine once she gets to take the chorus up the octave and belt the high notes, but for this song to work, you have to sing the entire range of it well, and she doesn't.
For Round One: Angie, Candice, Janelle, Amber, Kree
Candice, "When You Believe" -- There's an interesting paradox at work here. The Mariah/Whitney school of diva singing is built, in large part, around the slightly exhausting athleticism of the performance -- the runs, the flourishes, the high notes, the frills -- and the "how did they do that?!?" awe it inspires. Candice does all of that stuff, and does it very well, but it sounds so easy that some of the thrill of seeing it done is lacking. The fact that there's so little apparent effort disguises to some extent just how good she is.
Janelle, "Dumb Blonde" -- Where's the playfulness, the fun, the joy that Dolly would bring to a song like this? Janelle's giving us no subtlety, and her vocal has a harsh edge to it that is odd for her. A bad stumble.
Kree, "Have You Ever Been In Love" -- The big high notes are lovely as ever, but the rest of it is tapioca-bland, and her face looks pained and uncomfortable. She's having such a bad night that I'm wondering if that pinched nerve from a while back is still bothering her.
Angie, "Halo" -- One of the things I'm realizing as this round goes on is just how boring contemporary diva singing really is, and here's a fine example. It's well done -- the notes are in tune, the runs properly placed, the big belty notes big and belty -- but it doesn't go any deeper than the technique. It's the triumph of style over substance.
Amber, "What Are You Doing the Rest of Your Life?" -- She's at her best with songs like this; she brings to them an elegant refinement that shows off her voice very well. Unfortunately for her, the world of current pop music doesn't have much use for elegant refinement.
For Round Two: Amber, Candice, Angie, Janelle, Kree.
For the night: Candice, Amber, Angie, Janelle, Kree.
For the season: Candice, Kree, Amber, Janelle, Angie.
Let's send home: Tough call. Candice is the only singer who had two good performances, and she only solidified her lead over the pack. Amber and Angie had one strong performance each, and on a weak night overall, that should be enough to keep them around. I'd expect Kree and Janelle to be the bottom two, and while Janelle has certainly been the weaker of the two overall, Kree had a very bad night, and I won't be surprised if she gets the boot. As for the save, my bet is that the judges use it to save Kree, but not to save Janelle.
Even more important than gender, though, this is the most talented final five the show's ever had. While I think that Candice and Kree are the favorites, one never knows what to expect from Idol voters, and it should be an entertaining season from here on out.
The rundown:
Candice, "Straight Up" -- Not a song choice I'd have expected from Candice, and not a song I would have thought worth bothering with, but she gives it a serious re-imagining, treating it as a jazzy nightclub number with a Latin flair. It's light, breezy, and surprisingly charming. A delightful surprise.
Janelle, "When I Call Your Name" -- A nice performance, I suppose, though some of the lyrics are too breathy to be understood. She's not going to be our winner, but Janelle has a fine career ahead of her as the opening act for some semi-retired country singer in Branson.
Kree, "She Talks to Angels" -- One of those tedious rock songs that confuses cryptic lyrics for profundity, and things aren't helped by Kree's uncharacteristically mushy enunciation. One of her worse performances.
Angie, "I'll Stand By You" -- Mentioning her connection to Boston comes off as a cheap bit of begging for pity votes, and it wasn't necessary, because the performance is strong. I always like her better at the piano, and she's in fine voice tonight, delivering an emotional performance that is her best of the season.
Amber, "Without You" -- This theme always brings at least one cheat, so here's Amber (born in 1994) singing a song from 1970, theoretically justified by the Mariah Carey remake. And it's not working; the low notes are too low for her, some of them so much so that she's re-writing the melody to avoid them. She sounds fine once she gets to take the chorus up the octave and belt the high notes, but for this song to work, you have to sing the entire range of it well, and she doesn't.
For Round One: Angie, Candice, Janelle, Amber, Kree
Candice, "When You Believe" -- There's an interesting paradox at work here. The Mariah/Whitney school of diva singing is built, in large part, around the slightly exhausting athleticism of the performance -- the runs, the flourishes, the high notes, the frills -- and the "how did they do that?!?" awe it inspires. Candice does all of that stuff, and does it very well, but it sounds so easy that some of the thrill of seeing it done is lacking. The fact that there's so little apparent effort disguises to some extent just how good she is.
Janelle, "Dumb Blonde" -- Where's the playfulness, the fun, the joy that Dolly would bring to a song like this? Janelle's giving us no subtlety, and her vocal has a harsh edge to it that is odd for her. A bad stumble.
Kree, "Have You Ever Been In Love" -- The big high notes are lovely as ever, but the rest of it is tapioca-bland, and her face looks pained and uncomfortable. She's having such a bad night that I'm wondering if that pinched nerve from a while back is still bothering her.
Angie, "Halo" -- One of the things I'm realizing as this round goes on is just how boring contemporary diva singing really is, and here's a fine example. It's well done -- the notes are in tune, the runs properly placed, the big belty notes big and belty -- but it doesn't go any deeper than the technique. It's the triumph of style over substance.
Amber, "What Are You Doing the Rest of Your Life?" -- She's at her best with songs like this; she brings to them an elegant refinement that shows off her voice very well. Unfortunately for her, the world of current pop music doesn't have much use for elegant refinement.
For Round Two: Amber, Candice, Angie, Janelle, Kree.
For the night: Candice, Amber, Angie, Janelle, Kree.
For the season: Candice, Kree, Amber, Janelle, Angie.
Let's send home: Tough call. Candice is the only singer who had two good performances, and she only solidified her lead over the pack. Amber and Angie had one strong performance each, and on a weak night overall, that should be enough to keep them around. I'd expect Kree and Janelle to be the bottom two, and while Janelle has certainly been the weaker of the two overall, Kree had a very bad night, and I won't be surprised if she gets the boot. As for the save, my bet is that the judges use it to save Kree, but not to save Janelle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)