Tackling the Ultimate Tree House

FINAL VERSION

With one hand on the Bible, she recites the Oath of Office and it is now time to address the people as the nation’s first female president. In her first speech to the Joint Congress, she speaks right to the people - humbled by the greatness, the history, the responsibilities, and the idea that she is the first woman to hold this office as the nation’s leader. While this could be the reality for hopeful presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton, these are the words of Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis) of ABC's television series "Commander in Chief," who steps in to serve as the leader of the United States.

Taking the premise of the popular TV series “The West Wing” one step further, “Commander” is built on the differing opinions regarding a woman’s ability to lead a powerful nation, especially in times of criseis. Moreover, this show attempts to break the conception that women cannot be front-runners in the political realm. In its pilot episode airing in September of 2005, former First Lady Grace Bridges (Mary Paige Keller) approaches Allen and tells her that “if Moses had been a woman, leading the Jews out of Egypt, she'd have stopped to ask for directions. They would've found Israel within a week.” However, such favor is not found with a majority of her predominantly male staff who only encourage her resignation and criticize her every move and motive.

Going against the wishes of an incapacitated and dying president, and of her entire party, Allen takes over the nation's highest office and becomes the first female commander-in-chief. In the process, she finds herself endlessly at odds with her skeptical, largely male White House staff, and is forever sparring with Speaker of the House Nathan Templeton, played by a wonderfully reptilian Donald Sutherland.

It is not until the middle of the series that Allen begins to earn the respect of her staff in her efforts to deal with a crisis of international proportions and her leadership is put to the test as the country faces the threat of a possible nuclear war. But her careful and strategic planning earn her respect and even the Speaker of the House looks upon her with admiration.

Davis' Mackenzie Allen was able to gain the respect of the speaker of the house through her decisive leadership skills. In other parts of the world some women have already accomplished this feat and "Commander in Chief" was intended to reveal the level of acceptance of a female leader here in the States.

At the forefront of the 2008 Presidential Elections is former First Lady and current Senator of New York, Hillary Clinton, campaigning to be the first female Democratic presidential candidate as well as the first female commander in chief. Although potentially a historic event, the truth is that women before Clinton have challenged the status quo and were met, unfortunately, with little success.

As Glasgow’s “The Herald” writer Alison Rowat comments in her May 2006 critical piece, the first challenge to the “electoral equivalent of Everest” took place in 1872, when Victoria Chaflin Woodhull, a stockbroker and publisher, ran for the United States presidency in order to publicize the cause of equal rights. Since her, the closest any woman has come to the top job were Shirley Chisholm, 1972’s bid for presidency, and Geraldine Ferraro in her 1984 bid for the vice-presidency.

In terms of the reality of having a woman as the commander in chief, the closest the public has seen has been on television with the presidential administration in the control of Mackenzie Allen. Geena Davis’ physical demeanor, standing at 6 feet tall with high cheek bones, creates a commanding presence fit for the leader of the United States, and even the most powerful leader of the world. Such a presence earned her several award nominations; and she won the Golden Globe award for “Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Drama Series” in 2006.

Davis is in complete control of her position - she commands it - but unfortunately, the rest of the show does not fall in line with her throughout the season. After only one 18 episode-season, the series was canceled officially on May 13, 2006 due to various reasons - including low viewer ratings.

Initially, “Commander” sustained high ratings among the viewing audience and according to a Roper Public Affairs poll, in September of 2005 nearly 80 percent of Americans were ready for a female commander in chief. As the public’s perception of women in non-traditional roles shifts, this new mark of acceptance probably owes a great deal to the visible female national security leaders of the Clinton and Bush administrations, with both Madeline Albright and Condoleezza Rice serving as secretaries of state.

In similar support, president and co-founder of The White House Project - a foundation adamant in the electing of a female candidate to office - Marie Wilson writes that “female heads of state are not a 21st-century invention. For years, we have seen some women - Margaret Thatcher in England, Indira Gandhi in India, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan and Angela Merkel in Germany - ascend through political dynasties, monarchies or the parliamentary system.” These women have broken barriers and often have been inspirational leaders, but they are among an extremely small and elite group. Only 11 of the 193 nations have a woman in the top position and the glaring omission from this list is the United States, indisputably the world's leading democracy.

Even though the American public may be ready for a female leader, it has not yet become a reality and based on the low viewer ratings and the consequential cancellation of “Commander,” this acceptance was also not high enough to prolong a second presidential term for Allen.

As Gloria Steinem wrote in her editorial “Women are never front-runners” in January of 2008, “gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.” She argues that this country “polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.” In a USA Today interview, former Colorado congresswoman Pat Schroeder calls the White House “the ultimate tree house with a ‘No Girls Allowed’ sign on it.” There is an obvious gender disparity in the political field and women are not elected to political offices as much as men, despite having similar credentials. In the midst of the current presidential race for the Democratic candidate, it is a clear battle between a woman and a black man – is America ready for either candidate?

Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, initial curiosity does not make for sustainability and such will be her struggle if she is to be considered a viable candidate for the upcoming elections. Based on the results of "Commander in Chief" and its short runtime, Barrack Obama has a leg up on the competition.

The Reality of High School

Response to Ginia Bellafante’s Television Review of “High School Confidential” –

“Their So-Called Lives: Documenting High School Years”

Published Monday, March 10, 2008 in the New York Times

LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/arts/television/10bela.html?_r=1&ref=television&oref=slogin

The setting is a public high school and the characters are 12 teenage girls but this is no high school musical. In actuality, WE’s “High School Confidential” is a true life documentary that follows these 12 girls through the four grueling years of high school. More than just gossip and shopping, “Confidential” is teenage pregnancy, illness, death, self-mutilation, and even marriage all before graduation. Unlike recent films such as “Juno” and “Knocked Up,” “High School Confidential” is hard-hitting and heavy, dealing with the harsh reality of the different events that happen to these girls during their 4 years.

In her review of this TV documentary, Ginia Bellafante mentions the “good fortune” that “Confidential” has in premiering after “Juno” but at the same time, it brings another level of dimension to teenage pregnancies. None of the young women who become pregnant in “High School Confidential” have the same humor that “Juno’s” Ellen Page presents to the topic but this portrays the grave the reality of the situation – a situation that could not necessarily have been prevented with protection and Planned Parenthood as believed by Bellafante.

Although she mentions the flaws of the show (like choppy editing and little action), she highlights the distinguishing feature of this documentary – the lack of exceptionalism. In her words, “it does us a service” as these are real girls suffering and growing on their own. They are not geniuses, future presidents, Olympians, or music prodigies – they have few expectations with some of the girls hoping to just get into the local college for school.

After catching a few previews for this show and reading this review, I am interested in seeing how the documentary develops. It is definitely not “The Hills” and that is refreshing to see but at the same time, with very heavy material such as self-mutilation and a life-threatening illness, I have to wonder about how much reality is too much?

Tackling the Ultimate Tree House - DRAFT

Back in the day, some people thought that women playing baseball, a classic men-only sport, was unorthodox and unimaginable. However, 1992’s film “A League of Their Own,” starring Geena Davis, is a fictionalized account of the real-life All-American Girls Professional Baseball League (AAGPBL), a league created to help disassemble the gender boundaries created by American society. So if women taking part in a man’s sport is now attainable, what is the reality of a woman being elected to a typical male’s office - the office of the President of the United States?

This reality is brought to the forefront in the 2008 Presidential Elections as former First Lady and Senator of New York, Hillary Clinton, is campaigning to be the first female Democratic presidential candidate as well as potentially the first female commander in chief. Although having Clinton run as the first female candidate is being spoken of as a historic event, the truth is that women before Clinton have challenged the status quo and were met, unfortunately, with little success.

As “The Herald” writer Alison Rowat comments in her May 2006 piece, the first challenge to the “electoral equivalent of Everest” took place in 1872, when Victoria Chaflin Woodhull, a stockbroker and publisher, ran in order to publicize the cause of equal rights. Since her, the closest anyone has come to the top job is Geraldine Ferraro and her 1984 bid for the vice-presidency.

Unfortunately, the closest we have come to a female commander in chief was on television. With its pilot episode airing in September of 2005, ABC’s television series “Commander in Chief” attempted to break the conception that women could not be front-runners in the political realm. The solution was a presidential administration in the control of Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis), the first female President of the United States. However, after only one season of 18 episodes, the show was canceled officially on May 13, 2006 due to various reasons, including low viewer ratings.

Taking the premise of the popular TV series “The West Wing” one step farther, “Commander” is built on the differing opinions as to the ability of a woman to lead a powerful nation, especially in times of crisis. “If Moses had been a woman, leading the Jews out of Egypt, she'd have stopped to ask for directions. They would've found Israel within a week” is the response of former First Lady Grace Bridges to Allen’s acceptance of the presidency but such favor is not found with a majority of her predominantly male staff who only encourage her resignation.

Geena Davis’ physical demeanor, standing at 6 feet tall with high cheek bones, creates a commanding presence fit for the leader of the United States, and even the most powerful leader of the world. Such a presence earned her several award nominations, including winning the Golden Globe award for “Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Drama Series” in 2006.

Going against the wishes of an incapacitated and dying president, and of her entire party, Allen takes over the nation's highest office and becomes the first female commander-in-chief. In the process, she finds herself endlessly at odds with her skeptical, largely male White House staff, and is forever sparring with Speaker of the House Nathan Templeton, played by a wonderfully reptilian Donald Sutherland. It is not until towards the middle of the series that Allen begins to earn the respect of her staff in her efforts to deal with a crisis of international proportions and her leadership is put to the test as the country faces the threat of a possible nuclear war. But her careful and strategic planning earn her respect and even the Speaker of the House looks upon her with admiration, though now worried as she poses a competition for him in the next election.

President and co-founder of The White House Project (a foundation adamant in the electing of a female candidate to office), Marie Wilson writes that “female heads of state are not a 21st-century invention. For years, we have seen some women - Margaret Thatcher in England, Indira Gandhi in India, Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan and Angela Merkel in Germany - ascend through political dynasties, monarchies or the parliamentary system.” These women have broken barriers and often have been inspirational leaders, but they are among an extremely small and elite group. Only 11 of the 193 nations have a woman in the top position and the glaring omission from this list is the United States, indisputably the world's leading democracy.

Davis' Mackenzie Allen was able to gain the respect of the speaker of the house through her decisive leadership skills. In other parts of the world, as mentioned above, some women have already accomplished this feat and "Commander in Chief" was intended to reveal the level of acceptance of a female leader here in the States.

Interestingly, according to a Roper Public Affairs poll in September of 2005, nearly 80 percent of Americans were ready for a female commander in chief. As the public’s perception of women in non-traditional roles shifts, this new mark of acceptance probably owes a great deal to the visible female national security leaders of the Clinton and Bush administrations, with both Condoleezza Rice and Madeleine Albright serving as secretaries of state. However, based on the low viewer ratings and the consequential cancellation of “Commander,” this acceptance was not high enough to sustain a second presidential term for Allen.

As Gloria Steinem wrote in her article “Women are never front-runners” in January of 2008, “gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.” She goes on to quote results from one study by saying that this country “polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.” In a USA Today interview, former Colorado congresswoman Pat Schroeder calls the White House “the ultimate tree house with a ‘No Girls Allowed’ sign on it.” There is an obvious gender disparity in the political field and women are not elected to political offices as much as men, despite having similar credentials. In the midst of the current presidential race for the Democratic candidate, it is a clear battle between a woman and a black man – is America ready for either candidate?

Hollywood loves to play with the big "what ifs" of American life, including the "what if" of a female president. There is an interest in the idea of a woman leading the United States, as indicated by the initial high response of “Commander,” but this interest cannot be sustained and the attention dies out. America's president is not just a head of state but a symbol of national identity. This is why the possibility of the commander in-chief being female is such a challenge to Americans.

But the people are still fascinated with the idea because the position of such a leader has been pretty much an eight-year monarchy with men as the only candidates. Having a female take the lead would require a new self-image for the American people, one that embodies defining 21^st-century leadership and the true meaning of a democratic nation.

“TV does a favor for female politicians”

Critical Review of Op-Ed Piece by Ellen Goodman

Published in “The Boston Globe” – June 9, 2006

LINK:

http://0-www.lexisnexis.com.ariadne.kzoo.edu/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3200929293&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3200929296&cisb=22_T3200929295&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8110&docNo=5

Ellen Goodman’s Boston Globe Op-Ed article, “TV does a favor for female politicians,” begins with a rhetorical question, directing the reader to focus on the disparity between the genders specifically in the work force. This disparity and the scrutiny that women face in the top careers, like that of the Commander in Chief, is her main focus as she discusses the possible reasons for the downfall of ABC’s “Commander in Chief” TV series.

She writes of the potential that the TV series possessed, some believing that it could “hurry up history” and for others, it could “hurry Hilary.” For Americans, there is almost a need to “see it in order to believe it” attitude and she mentions this as there was the hope that "Commander in Chief" could do for women in the Oval Office what "Will and Grace" did for gays in the workforce – the idea being that “see her on TV, see her in real life.”

Her words are direct and poignant and it is her descriptions of the reasons why the TV series failed to get a “second term” that are particularly engaging. As she describes, “if there's a woman behind every great man, the men behind this great woman were her undoing.” From not being able to get the shows done on time to not deciding whether this show was about the First Female leader of the First Mom, this show managed to be jerked around by the network heads until approval ratings “sank to the level of George W. Bush’s.”

Despite the closing of this show, the author is still optimistic that the first female president may no longer have to be too good to be true but if she has any hope of winning, she “just has to be better than the guys running against her.” This seems to be a pretty self-explanatory and simple concept, one leading right into her kicker – reducing what could be a very historical election season down to the premise of a reality TV show – just beat your opponent.

With this idea in mind, especially as the current 2008 elections continue to unfold, it may seem as if it could turn into a reality TV show only the prize that they are fighting for is to be the leader of the United States of America.

Is "Commander in Chief" good for the Clinton campaign?

As Gloria Steinem wrote in her article “Women are never front-runners” in January of 2008, “gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House.” She goes on to quote results from one study by saying that this country “polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.” Women are not elected to political offices as much as men, despite having similar credentials. In the midst of the current presidential race for the Democratic candidate, it is a clear battle between a woman and a black man – is America ready for either candidate?

With its pilot episode airing in September of 2005, ABC’s television series “Commander in Chief” attempted to break the conception that women could not be front-runners in the political realm by creating a presidential administration in the control of Mackenzie Allen (portrayed by Geena Davis), the first female President of the United States. However, after only one season of 18 episodes, the show was cancelled officially on May 13, 2006 due to various reasons, including low viewer ratings.

For my final project, I want to examine this low viewer response to this series in comparison to its male-counterpart, “The West Wing,” which walked away with 3 Golden Globe awards and 26 Emmys during the course of its 7-season production. More specifically, I want to see how the influence of our media, through television, has any application to the politics of reality. It is interesting that in today’s society, more people vote for the American Idol contestants than they do in the presidential elections. Does the poor response to “Commander” give any indication as to the success of Hilary Clinton’s campaign, especially as a campaign to elect the first female President of the United States?

At 80, Oscar is conservative?

A Review of the 80th Annual Academy Awards, aired on February 24th, 2008 on ABC.

Sure the standard phrase “and the award goes to…” was used numerous times throughout the night but something was missing from this year’s 80^th Annual Academy Awards. There was haute couture, diamonds and schmoozing; tears were shed, speeches delivered, and awards accepted but it was a different awards ceremony.

To sum it up simply, it was a show lacking in fanfare and exuberance. Starting from the red carpet, the haute couture that has been so elaborate over the years was moderate and tame, colors primarily consisting of blacks, deep purples, and silvers, with the occasional red dress worn by a few. The dramatics in these outfits were minimal and everyone was covered tastefully.

This simplicity and moderation was carried into the Kodak Theater as the stage was austere, having only 2 podiums at either side and a microphone that appeared for the reading and accepting of awards. Even the acceptance speeches were kept straightforward and uncontroversial. In her acceptance of Best Original Screenplay for “Juno,” writer Diablo Cody was the only actress (other than host Jon Stewart) to mention the writers by saying “this [award] is for the writers."

Differing from previous years, the film nominations this year tended to lean more to the dark, bleak, and even violent side. Stewart found this worth mentioning as he commented: "Does this town need a hug? What happened? “No Country for Old Men,” “Sweeney Todd,” “There Will Be Blood.” All I can say is, thank God for teen pregnancy."

Despite the somber attitude that seemed to afflict everyone in attendance, there were patches of light that were able to cut through the overcast atmosphere. Such a light was found with Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova performing their song “Falling Slowly” nominated for Best Original Song in the motion picture, “Once.”

In contrast to the other nominations, “Once” is a musical that lets the music dictate not just with words and sounds but also emotions and passions. It makes no apologies for its simplistic musical style and Hansard’s and Irglova’s performance highlight this as they perform on stage with only a borrowed piano and a broken guitar. This simplicity wins out as Hansard and Irglova take home their first Academy Award.

On a more interesting note, no American actor or actress took home an Oscar for his or her performance in a film this year. Irishman Daniel Day-Lewis sure enough picked up the award for best performance by an actor in a leading role - no surprise here for his excellent work in the Paul Thomas Anderson’s film, “There Will Be Blood.” The female counterpart for this award was given to France-native Marion Cotillard for her performance as legendary Edith Piaf in “La Vie en Rose.” And, as for best supporting roles, Spanish actor Javier Bardem (for “No Country for Old Men”) and British actress Tilda Swinton (in “Michael Clayton”) took home these awards.

With the turn to more international talent, this may indicate a shift away from the flashiness of Hollywood with its special effects and technical editing to a more naturalistic, simple style, often found in the foreign films. With the increasing popularity of such films like “Juno” and “Once,” there is something to be said for the phrase “less is more.”

All in all, after the cancellation of the Golden Globes due to the writers’ strike, one might think that Hollywood would kick it up a notch to make up Oscar’s 80^th birthday a special one but according to Stewart, being 80 makes him now “automatically the front-runner for the Republican nomination.” Whether this was any foreshadowing on Stewart’s part as to how the show would continue, the Academy Awards this year were simply that - conservative.

Deflation appropriate for the red carpet?

A response to “Jon Stewart, Hands Long Tied by Strike, Pedals Fast for Oscars,” published in the New York Times, Wednesday February 20, 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/arts/television/20stewart.html?_r=1&ref=television&pagewanted=all

For sports fans, their Super Bowl has long been gone, concluding with one of the biggest upsets in sports history as the New York Giants defeated the favored New England Patriots. Is this any foreshadowing for the coming Oscars – entertainment fans’ own “Super Bowl?” Is the film industry in for a big upset? With the writers’ strike just finishing and Jon Stewart at the helm, it is going to be a sprint to pull off one of the most televised shows in just 8 days.

For Mr. Stewart, having only 8 days to prepare for the event does not seem to faze him. Interestingly, he considers hosting the Oscars an “elective,” coming second to his own “Daily Show” which has taken up much of his energy during the writers’ strike.

Having not watched many episodes of the “Daily Show,” I am not very familiar with Mr. Stewart’s humor or personal comedy style. As he describes it, “it’s the comedy of deflation in large amount.” Deflating Washington politicians is the norm for the “Daily Show,” but what about Hollywood? Mr. Stewart’s response: “Washington and Hollywood are really sister cities…the only difference between Hollywood and Washington is that Washington actually has power.”

For Washington politics, his humor fits because this is not the biggest night of their lives and they are not in the room with him, but for the actors and everyone else in the film industry, balance and appropriate tailoring are needed.

After reading this piece, I am interested in seeing the efforts of 8 days worth of work (on Mr. Stewart’s part) for one of biggest nights of the year in the entertainment industry. Though I have not seen many of the films that have been nominated, this is not a problem. While some people watch the Oscars to get an idea of the films that they should see, I watch the award show for the statements that are made – fashion, political, and the like. With the cancellation of the Golden Globes this year, there is a lot of pent-up energy in the industry and it is ready to be released this Sunday on the red carpet.

A Night of Booze and Banter

THEATER REVIEW

Whether it is something trivial about not calling on time or something more significant as a cheating spouse, almost every couple has a spat from time to time. In order to remedy such arguments, many couples turn towards couples counseling for help but for Martha and George in Edward Albee’s play “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” their therapy is the liquor bar in their living room.

With a minimal set and the audience surrounding the stage, the focus is on the actors as Albee’s words become their own. This is the formula that makes this production work as every grimace or expression of pain is witnessed, every hurtful word echoing in the ears in their struggle of “illusion versus reality.”

Under the direction of Randy Wolfe and in the intimacy of the Whole Art Theater in downtown Kalamazoo, Albee’s play centers on the marital issues plaguing Martha (Martie Philpot) and George (Richard Philpot), only such issues are intensified by the mass consumption of alcohol.

The Latin phrase “in vino veritas” (“truth in wine”) becomes evident right from the first drink as the harsh truths between George and Martha come pouring out. After they just come home from her father’s dinner party at two in the morning, Martha announces to George that she has invited guests over. Into this already tense atmosphere come the young biology professor Nick (Trevor Maher) and his younger, “slim-hipped” wife Honey (Carol Zombro).

The course of the evening into the following morning takes place over three long acts. What transpires is basically a series of drunken mind games, in which George and Martha try to humiliate and hurt each other. For these games, the actors expertly exploit being in the round as they almost physically circle each other as much as their words do.

Because there is little outside action, it is the words and dialogues between the characters that create the movement and timing is key. For this quartet of actors, their timing is impeccable, catching every sarcastic note with a retort or even just a raise of an eyebrow, despite the occasional dropped line.

Mr. and Ms. Philpot shine in their leading roles as husband and wife on-stage. The casting is paramount with Mr. Philpot’s 35 years of acting experience accounting for his sharp wit, even with his astounding blood-alcohol content. His suffering, waning portrayal of George is spineless and crafty with a sense of nebbish sarcasm. While his wife is blatantly seducing Nick, George continues to simply sit and read his book and his response to Martha’s comment that she sees what he is up to is that he “is up to page a hundred and …” She tries to bait him but Mr. Philpot’s ability to remain nonchalant, even in his tone, is impressive only to show his repressed emotions as soon as she leaves with Nick by hurling the book at the door chimes. There is pain and there is anguish etched into the wrinkles of a man worn by 23 years of marriage.

Ms. Philpot’s Martha is cruel, vulgar and sexual, but she lacks vulnerability. Her eyes seem frighteningly hardened as she goads and torments her husband, exclaiming that he is a “big flop!” As a result, it is difficult to muster up the sympathy she might deserve at the end of the play. However, it is Maher’s Nick that makes for the most awkward performance as he hides behind his bourbon and the cloud of smoke he produces with his cigarettes. His words are forgettable as he lacks conviction and experience that his counterparts seem to possess.

Though no one in the audience was “busting a gut,” Wolfe creates an emotional balance between the illusion and the reality of marriage, as echoed in Albee’s script. The illusion is a hope to mend the dysfunctional marriage but the reality is that George and Martha need to seek counseling from something other than the bottom of an alcohol bottle.

Good yarn but no sweater?

This review, written by Charles Isherwood, was published in the New York Times on Monday, February 11. The link for this review is below:

http://theater2.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/theater/reviews/11oroo.html?ref=theater

Right from the first line, the reader already knows where the critic, Charles Isherwood, stands in his review of the play “Oroonoko,” which opened in the Duke Theater in New York this past weekend. In his words, this show is a “disappointment onstage.” He sets up the background of the play by giving the reader some information about the writing and directing (which is helpful because it gives context to a not-so-well-known piece), acclaiming the talent that this piece possess only to counter this collaboration of work as a “strangely bland if superficially exotic work of theater.”

His words are descriptive, sharp, and precise and this makes for a good read as the images he evokes are clear to the reader. For example, in “Oroonoko’s” ability to address the significant matters such as psychological intricacies, depth, and the narrative, Isherwood states that the play “is about on the level of the higher-grade children’s theater.” The image is sentimental (as who can’t love a child’s production?) but clear – this play is not for those seeking intellectual stimulation.

Overall, this is a good example of a theater review, based on the criteria given in “Writing the Performance Review.” Isherwood makes this review approachable with his images, tone, and word choice. Isherwood does not completely pan the show as he calls it “good yarn” as the different technical aspects are there – sets, costumes, lighting, acting, etc. However, while these elements are necessary to even make a show, the final product does not measure up to the quality of these components. It is “good yarn” but the quality of the sweater depends on the individual’s taste and this is said for the whole of “Oroonoko.”

(On a side note, this play is an adaptation of a short novel by Aphra Behn and interestingly, Isherwood mentions that as one of the first Englishwomen to earn lasting fame as a writer, “she was celebrated for her pioneering spirit by no less than Virginia Woolf.” This reference just caught my eye because Woolf is in the title of the play we are seeing on Thursday. Some more research might be done to see why Behn was celebrated by Woolf and why this is of significance.)

Talk therapy - the new "Dr. Phil"

Replacing “The Sopranos” mob boss, blood, and guns as weapons, HBO’s newest series focuses on the power of words as weapons – their assaultive ability to reveal unwelcome truths or awaken new revelations and deep-seeded emotions. Moreover, for HBO’s newest drama “In Treatment,” action is created with these words, triggering feelings and releasing secrets. Unlike Dr. Malfi of “The Sopranos,” “In Treatment” is the new “Dr. Phil” with Paul Weston as the leading man.

Adapted from the popular Israeli series “Be ‘Tipul” created by Hagai Levi, “In Treatment” centers on psychotherapist Paul Weston, played by Gabriel Byrne, and his daily sessions with his patients. Mondays through Thursdays are appointments with his patients – Laura, Alex, Sophie and the married couple Jake and Amy before concluding on Fridays. For the Friday episodes, the role of psychotherapist-patient is reversed and the viewer is witness to Paul’s sessions with his own therapist, Dr. Gina Toll (Dianne Wiest), in which Paul is now the patient, placed under the scrutinizing questioning of his former colleague.

Within the framework of little music, unchanging scenery, and minimal camera work, the focus is now on the actors and their abilities to portray characters burdened with secrets and issues, needing the security of the intimate home-office to delve deeper into their troubled lives. Because of the lack of “extras” (i.e. special effects, varied settings, etc.) within this series, it is a necessity for the actors to be able to capture and hold the viewer’s attention and, for the most part, the actors do this. Though slow at times, they exploit the scripts for every bit of theatricality and their stage is the office.

This is what makes the show work. The actors, such as Byrne, Melissa George, and Wiest, connect with their characters and, as a result, connect with each other. As Paul’s patient “Laura,” George convincingly conveys her infatuations with Paul as she explains to him how he has become the “center of her life.” The melodramatic nature of her character is highlighted with her comment that she came to “[the office] in darkness and now [is] leaving into a bigger darkness.” What could potentially be perceived as an uncomfortable voyeuristic experience is expertly shifted to one of sexual confusion and loss of self. This loss is all too real for many patients undergoing therapy.

Complementing George’s performance as the patient is the performance by Byrne. Whether he is playing the doctor or the patient, he has the uncanny ability to convey frustration, exhaustion or surprise with a shift in the chair or a raise of an eyebrow. He is believable as a psychotherapist, asking the leading questions, probing for answers, and even responding professionally to the retorts thrown back to him by his patients. With his unwavering expressions, Byrne’s eyes see through everyone but himself.

The connection between Wiest and Byrne is one of experience as they circle each other with words, truths, and unfinished business in their dialogues. Despite her few lines, her wisdom and curiosity are apparent with her mercilessly directed questions which makes her a good fit for her character as Paul’s mentor – a therapist for the therapist.

Despite the excellent performances and the ability of the words to draw the viewer in, like ‘erotic transference,’ there just is not enough momentum in the dialogues to keep the viewer’s attention. There is progress to be made, revelations to be had, tears to be shed and diagnoses to be determined if one can wait long enough to get there.

"A Creation Within a Creation"

A response to Oscar Wilde's "The Critic as Artist"

Set as a critical dialogue between two characters, a questioning Ernest and a knowing Gilbert, Oscar Wilde argues and defends his views of criticism - criticism as an art form, the true definition of a critic, and criticism's value over art, for example – in his piece, “The Critic as Artist.” For Wilde, conveyed in the voice of Gilbert, good criticism “treats the work of art simply as a starting point for a new creation.” Moreover, he goes on to say that good criticism does not confine itself “to discovering the real intention of the artist and accepting that as final.” This is the foundation of the Aesthetic movement (written during this time of the Victorian era) as the purpose of art is not to convey meaning but rather to provide pleasure and beauty – “art for art’s sake.”

Therefore, in order to be a good critic, one is not meant to explain the meaning in a piece of art (as this is subjective and meant to be personal for each individual) but to be an interpreter for the public. As Wilde describes, it is the critic’s privilege to be able to make the Beauty of a piece available for the common man. For Wilde, this requires personality as “it is only by intensifying his own personality that the critic can interpret the personality and work of others, and the more real the interpretation becomes, the more satisfying, the more convincing, and the more true.”

Wilde ultimately places the critic above the artist and criticism itself as an art – creative and independent (as it does not necessarily have to reflect the creation for which it is based) – it is a creation within a creation. However, he also believes that unless there is criticism, creativity is meaningless. If he means criticism as personal interpretation, then this would be true as personal interpretation is subjective and potentially creates meaning, from the creativity, for that person. But criticism has to start somewhere and so in order to be a “creation within a creation,” criticism needs a creation – criticism needs art.

Accessible art

For Pauline Kael, the legendary film critic, a good movie makes her feel great and she believes “good movies do that for people." Starting from early childhood, Kael has always expressed her love of the movies, both good and bad, and her writing of these movies reflects such an enthusiasm. Her ability to capture the reader’s attention with her words, tone and insights reflects the influential status that she has had as a film critic on today’s society.

Unlike today’s film critics, Kael did not pursue her writing career from the start, despite her childhood love of movies. Earning her philosophy major from UC-Berkley, Kael worked a range of different jobs in her early adulthood in order to make ends meet. Such jobs included anything from a cook to a seamstress, an ad copywriter to a bookstore clerk. This diverse background gave Kael her insight into how to approach her everyday reader with her words. Instead of using “academic English” when writing about the movies, Kael preferred using the language that they were created in – “the language of movies.” In her opinion, not to do so was “an attempt to elevate movies…it denies them what makes them distinctive.” It is the language that everyday people would speak when they would leave the theater and this is what she wanted to capture – something familiar and attainable.

Her language sets a scene and a tone for the reader, whether or not it was about the movie. Often it was said that she wrote so vividly about the experience of seeing the movie, sometimes even more so than writing about the actual movie. In her essay, Renata Adler criticizes Kael’s use of “we,” “you,” “we feel/know/needs,” etc. in her writing as she believes that this is manipulative. However, for Kael, this is an effective way of making the movies accessible for her audiences. She writes her pieces on a personal level and by using “we” or “you,” she addresses the reader directly, engaging them and convincing them in her argument.

Kael was not afraid of addressing the issues that everyone else tried to avoid in particular movies. In her review of “Hiroshima Mon Amour,” instead of focusing on the acclaimed movie itself (which she does for all of a couple paragraphs), Kael critiques the broader implications of such an “art house” movie on its viewing audience. Moreover, she believed in championing the best that movies had to offer, finding meaning in some of the worst movies. For example, she wanted to do a review of “Deep Throat” and not because it was a good movie but because of the social implications involved in such a movie. She felt that “not to deal with all that [eroticism] in its most naked form was to shrink part of what’s involved in being a movie critic.”

As Francis Davis describes in his book, Afterglow: A Last Conversation with Pauline Kael, it was Pauline Kael who “established the movie review as a form of literature with the potential for social commentary.” Through her provocative writing style, she could sharply uncover faults as easily as she could crown a new piece of art. Her influence lies in her belief that “art happens in the real world and that it should be an instrument of pleasure.” This belief has become a governing principle in writing about rock and pop today – art that can be accessible and attainable by everyone, not just the highbrows.

The Language of Movies

A response to Francis Davis's Afterglow: A Last Conversation with Pauline Kael.

Now here is a woman that gets it and is not afraid of telling the public how she gets it. Known for her witty, opinionated, and poignant reviews, Pauline Kael has made a mark on the art of being a critic. Her writing evokes the enthusiasm that she has for the movies that she reviews, whether she likes them or not. While reading Afterglow, it was easy to see why Kael had such a fan-appeal and is considered one of the most influential film critics of her day. This enthusiasm and profound insight, often not writing much about the movie itself, gave the public something else – a candid opinion.

Kael was not afraid of addressing the issues that everyone else tried to avoid in particular movies. Having only been talked out of writing a review just once (she was going to write a review for “Deep Throat”), she enjoys writing about the eroticism in films because as she puts, “half of the reason that people become interested in movies in the first place is sex and dating and everything connected with eroticism on the screen.” Moreover, I particularly enjoyed the comment from her that followed when she said that “I felt that not to deal with all that [eroticism] in its most naked form was to shrink part of what’s involved in being a movie critic.” She defines herself, as well as her career, as being able to address all aspect of the movie and as a result, she provides meaningful insight on even the most “untouchable” of topics.

After finishing this book, I honestly felt like I had just had a conversation with my own grandmother, or just listened to her while she talked - I felt touched by and appreciative of the knowledge and insight that Kael expressed. Her words are poignant and her stories memorable. Also, for an 80-year old woman suffering from the end stages of Parkinson’s disease, she was not remorseful but rather, full of light and her memories of films are still astounding. My only regret while reading this book was that I did not know many of the films that she referenced to and as a result, felt a little lost at times.

Overall, Kael demonstrates that she is a good critic and I think Zinsser would agree. She is knowledgeable, passionate, and she provokes us – providing insightful truths and excitement - using our own language, “the language of movies.”

A broken guitar and a borrowed piano

"Once" Film Review

The story is a simple one. The film-making closely resembles a home-video in its quality. The raw, inexperienced acting creates a desire for subtitles. This is the independent film “Once,” directed and written by John Carney. However, these simplistic, unrefined elements in conjunction with the powerful music combine to create a musical that stands apart from others in its genre.

“Once” begins with Glen Hansard (“Guy”) as an Irish busker, playing his guitar for small change on Grafton, Dublin's famous shopping street. Markéta Irglová’s “Girl”, a Czech immigrant, peddles roses on this same street. Intrigued by his music, Girl stops to talk to Guy and they start up what appears to be a quirky but natural conversation. He tells her he works at a Hoover repair shop; she says she has a broken vacuum cleaner. This common bond over vacuum cleaners extends to other aspects of their life, including their personal relationships - his former girlfriend deserted him to move to London and the father of her toddler has gone back to the Czech Republic - they both have had loved ones walk out on them. Music is their other bond and this defines their relationship. It is this love of music and the creation of music, together, that create the rest of the story. Simply put, the story is of two strangers meeting, foraging a friendship, and through that friendship, music is created.

Despite the fact that the film looks as if anyone with a video-camera could have shot it, there is an honest quality about it. This film was produced with a low budget (approximately $160,000) but Carney uses this to his advantage in making the film more intimate and real. The scenes and settings are not anything too elaborate or high-tech, but in fact, for some of the places, they are shot in friends’ homes. For instance, the music party scene was filmed in Hansard’s own flat with his personal friends and family playing the partygoers and/or musicians. Overall, the effect of such a simplistic style is taking the focus off the surroundings and placing it directly on the characters and their music.

With the focus now placed on the characters, Carney was adamant about having characters who could sing well and previous acting experience was not a requirement. And so casted to play “Guy” and “Girl” (never introduced or named until the final credits) were musicians Glen Hansard (of popular Irish rock band The Frames) and Markéta Irglová (a 19-year old Czech immigrant) as the fictional struggling musicians. Because of this deficiency in experience, the dialogue between the characters was indistinct and created the need for subtitles. Despite this, their modest, down-to-earth performances and on-screen chemistry enhance the story, which has an improvisational, straightforward feel.

It is the music, above everything else, which highlights this film. It overshadows the inaudible dialogue between the characters and is what creates the movement in the story. The music is folksy and familiar but, at the same time, powerful. This is a musical that lets the music dictate. In one of the more memorable scenes, Irglová, having just composed lyrics to Hansard's music, pours her heart out in song as she walks around the streets of Dublin at night, wearing only her pajamas and slippers. The music in this film does more than just convey words and sounds – it portrays emotions, passions, and makes no apologies – it is real and sincere.

In lieu of the others in this genre, “Once” attempts, and succeeds, to create a film that moves with its music – music created from a broken guitar and a borrowed piano.

"Criticism is a serious intellectual act" - William Zinsser

After wading through the big words and pompous tone of William Zinsser’s “Writing About the Arts,” a chapter taken from his book, On Writing Well, there is good advice to be had about being a critic and creating one’s own voice – it just takes some ego flaunting, on behalf of the author, to get there. It is pretty clear from the text that this is a man that knows what he is talking about (and he almost comes right out and announces it) and at the same time, this is a man that takes himself and his “art” a little too seriously.

The saying that “everyone is a critic” would surely be an insult to Zinsser as he believes that in order to be a critic, one must possess a “special set of skills and a special body of knowledge.” Moreover, he is presumptuous in assuming that every writer, at some point in his career, wants to be a critic. To some extent, everyone is really a critic as each person has his own opinions but whether he is an educated critic is the question. The author makes a strong point in emphasizing that a good critic needs a strong background in the medium that he is critiquing. The idea is to be able to draw on other examples in support of the ones being given and give additional information to the reader as part of the education process. Essentially writing a critique is educating the reader as to why this film may or may not be worth it to see or why this book is a best-seller – a good critic can evoke an opinion from the reader as a result of his words.

Despite his seriousness and stuffiness, I did draw the most from this idea of being able to provoke a response from my readers as a result of my critique. This is an area where I want to be able to improve in my writing as having a voice/opinion of my own becomes necessary. Whether it is right or wrong, I want to become more opinionated in my writing and when I can get this voice, I can better be able to draw responses from my readers. However, at the same time, I want to be able to entertain with my words and so when Zinsser says that “criticism is a serious intellectual act,” someone needs to tell him to lighten up because when it becomes too serious, the critique loses some of its humanity.

So, should we see it?

New York Times Critical Defense: "An Opera for a Crowd Unfamiliar with Opera" by Steve Smith (Tuesday January 22, 2008)

Link to review: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/arts/music/22dica.html?ref=music

For a tale as old as time, it does not cease in being brought to life again and again. First published in 1740 by Madame Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve, the story of “Beauty and the Beast” has been told for hundreds years, starting with the written word and then being adapted for film, stage and now performed as an opera. In his review of this opera, Steve Smith opens by describing the audience attending such a show as his title implies that this opera is for those who do not know opera. Based on the audience, he could not be more accurate as he describes “few appeared to have reached their 10^th birthdays.” This was an opera designed for children and while the audience was fairly attentive, Smith neither seemed blown away by the show nor thoroughly disgusted by it. This indifferent attitude is carried throughout the review, leaving the reader with muddled impression of his overall opinion.

After giving background information on the composer of this opera, Vittorio Giannini, and the origin of his opera, Smith continues by commenting on the score of the opera as clever and well-paced though, at times, too many syllables are crammed into some of the lines. Moreover, for someone that does not know operas (like the children), the music resembled popular Disney songs thus leaving one to potentially interpret that there is something child-like about this opera. As a music critic, Smith draws authority but then again, for something that is designed for a younger audience, this music score would be appropriate as the audience can more easily connect with it.

In response to the performances, Smith again was not very opinionated. As he describes, the Beast, played by Michael Boley, was pitchy at times but enthusiastic and Beauty, portrayed by Maija Lisa Currie, was promising as an actress and singer. Throughout the review, Smith’s choice of words was not very convincing in giving the reader an accurate picture of the overall performance. Though he claims that the diction in the show was excellent, his diction is not. The lede is strong and captivating but the kicker, while connecting back to the lede in its reference to the audience of children, does not give the reader a sense of whether this tale is worth going to see.

From reruns to reality - is there an end in sight for the WGA writers' strike?

Tuesday night. 9 pm. A new episode of America’s favorite pill-popping MD, Gregory House in another medical mystery diagnosis, is to be aired on Channel FOX. The TV is turned on and what is being shown, with much disappointment, but a rerun of the cynical doctor of “House, MD.” As a result of Writers’ Guild of America’s (WGA) strike, no new episodes have been written for this show and many other shows, resulting in many reruns, loss of viewers, and most importantly, loss of several millions (if not billions) of dollars in the film and TV industry.

Beginning November 5^th, 2007, the WGA has been on strike because, among the many proposals from both sides regarding the new contract (as the old contract with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers – AMPTP – ended in October of 2007), there are several key issues of contention for the writers including DVD residuals; union jurisdiction over animation and reality program writers; and, perhaps most importantly, compensation for today’s newest media – shows and programs written and made for the Internet, digital cable, “On Demand,” etc. Summary, the strike is about money and who deserves more.

Now entering into its 12^th week, negotiations between the WGA and the AMPTP have been minimal and irresolute. After the modest Golden Globes “press conference” in early January, the industry is itching to come to a compromise that works for the writers, directors (the DGA also joined in on the strike), and producers but who is going to budge first?

The screenwriters do deserve a cut of the ever-growing digital technological “pie” as without their words and creativity, the public is condemned to viewing and listening to Ryan Seacrest’s personal anecdotes on “American Idol” or, better yet, the rough-and-tumble action of “American Gladiator” – two both intellectually stimulating shows that the American audience has been forced to watch as a result of the lack of new programming. So from reruns with the ever-contemptuous Dr. Gregory House to trashy reality TV with the sarcastic music producer Simon Cowell, will the strike ever end?

One can only hope as many TV plots were left at cliffhangers and the public needs to know if the “Desperate Housewives” can put their lives back together after the tornado. The reality is that thousands of jobs and millions of dollars have been lost and still there seems to be little progress. So, if not for the viewing audience, but the families of those jobless, the strike needs to end and a compromise needs to be made if the film and TV industry is going to survive another day. If not, the American public is going to need a new hobby.

Related Articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-writers.html?scp=2&sq=WGA+writers+strike

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/business/media/08strike.html?scp=7&sq=WGA+writers+strike

“Atonement”: Two figures stand by a fountain

Two figures stand by a fountain. A child witnesses. And so begins a series of misunderstood events that ultimately lead up to the devastation of three lives in director Joe Wright’s “Atonement,” based upon the bestselling novel by Ian McEwan. Wright and screenwriter Christopher Hampton do a marvelous job of depicting and remaining faithful to the film’s source, with few changes. Due to childish misunderstandings, it produces dire consequences in this sad, romantic drama whose title’s significance does not come to life until the last few minutes of the film.

The story begins at the Tallis estate in Southern England in the summer of 1935, 13-year old Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) witnesses an erotic exchange between her older sister, Cecilia (Keira Knightley), and the housekeeper’s educated son Robbie (James McAvoy), whom she also has a crush on, at the fountain. Her resentment grows. Later that evening, a terrible crime is committed and Briony tells the police it was Robbie. She witnesses him do it - or at least convinces herself that it was him - and thus sentences all of their fates because of her childish immaturity.

As a result, the rest of the film traces the impact of her false testimony, as Robbie goes to prison and later, war, and as Cecilia continues to love him. Cecilia, now a war nurse, has never forgiven Briony (played in later years by Romola Garai and then Vanessa Redgrave) for her false accusations and Briony now has to deal with the consequences of her crime. It is up until this point that the plot is moving along at a good pace but once Robbie goes off to war, the story bounces back and forth between France and England. It lacks the direct character interactions that give it its energy (i.e. interactions between Cecilia and Robbie, Cecilia and Briony, and Briony and Robbie) as seen in the first hour.

Keeping the pace of the film is the dissonant musical score, composed by Marianelli, which makes use of the typewriter as a percussive instrument and such is the opening of this film. Beautifully arranged, the effect of using the typewriter as part of the score is profound because it highlights the artistic nature of this film – writing as the creation of fiction (Briony uses her typewriter in creating her plays and stories). Though, at the end of this film, the viewer is also made aware of the power of writing as bridging fiction and reality as the older Briony uses her writing as a means of portraying the truth/reality in her eyes.

The cinematography and direction of the film also complement the duality between fiction and reality as some events in the film are shown twice. This is an effective approach because it helps the viewers to see both sides of the story and understand what Briony mistakenly believes is occurring. In addition, there are some quite remarkable camera shots, notably the scene on the beaches in Dunkirk as the viewer is transported into the desperation and hellish nature of war.

The potential was there for this to be a memorable romantic epic because of the stunning cinematography, music, and cast, but because of the pace, it just never seems to get there completely. Overall, this film is beautifully constructed and performed but the ending is a disappointment because the significance of the title is only now addressed and soon forgotten once the viewer leaves the darkened theater.