JERRY!, JERRY!

The Jerry Springer Show is the grand daddy of the recent crop of exploitative and outrageous reality TV shows like Flavor of Love or American Idol. I remember growing up and giggling whenever I caught my grandparents or parents watching the Springer Show. They would always quickly change the channel and grumble about the crap on TV nowadays. The reasons I think these types of shows are so popular is one, the glee that comes from watching the train wreck of these peoples lives or performances, but also a recognition that these people really aren’t so far off from the rest of us. Today’s NY Times ran a hilarious and intriguing cover story on “Jerry Springer: The Opera”, that opened for a two show run recently in New York. A project like this could have easily been a series of dirty jokes and foul language sung in operatic voices, but the writer contends that the show, “finds the sublime in the squalid”, and that, “audience members bring their own irony, if they like; the performances are totally free of it”. I’d love to get the chance to see this musical, but unfortunately protests by Christian groups might scare away potential investors for a prolonged Broadway run.

Sing Your Melody

Working on a budget of only $160,000, Director John Carney crafts a beautiful film about the creation of music and unpredictability of love. Once is a musical without any glamour or kitsch, and is acted by professional musicians who do not have any experience in film. This organic approach to filmmaking heightens the emotional impact and realism of the film.

Known in the script only as guy and girl, Glen Hansard of the Irish band the Frames and Marketa Irglova play a Dublin street singer and a Czech immigrant who meet by chance. They connect as struggling artists with dreams of success and as lonely hearts in a dreary city. Over the course of a week they write, record, and fall in love.

The music in the film was written and performed by Hansard and Irglova. The tunes are simple but poignant, and coupled with lyrics that are smart and moving. They sing about the pitfalls and glories of love in aching voices. The songs are increasingly about their relationship with each other as they create music, like when Hansard croons, “Slowly sing your melody, I'll sing along.” The film is shot in a handheld style that compliments the music; both feel rough and slightly unfinished. The musical and visual styles provide an insight into the ugly beauty of creation.

Hansard and Irglova actually did fall in love while filming and the sincerity of their feelings is obvious. The romance of Once is even more real when compared with the leading man/ leading lady induced chemistry of Hollywood films. One bittersweet scene where they ride a motorcycle to a cliff overlooking the city is especially moving. They finally confront their feelings for one another awkwardly and indirectly, but leave the most important things unsaid. The things unspoken and unsung in Once are as important as what is heard on-screen.

In the end the lovers are not drawn apart by tragic circumstances, but by something just as tragic, reality.

A Speechless Oscars

Today’s front page article of the Arts section announced this years Oscar nominees. I’ve only seen one of the nominated films for Best Picture, but that’s not the only reason why I’m not excited about the Oscars this year. The ongoing writer’s strike means that this years Oscars will probably be like the Golden Globes, an awards ceremony with no presenters or recipients. The writer’s strike has already forced some of my favorite shows into a hiatus and flooded the networks with crap-reality shows. Now it’s threatening my favorite event of the year. Thanks for kicking me when I’m down writer’s strike. The dispute between the writer’s and the networks is over residual money for internet content, something that I think they deserve, but I wish I didn’t have to become collateral damage in their bidding war.

Steinem and the Election

My responses to Gloria Steinem’s questions at the beginning of her article were both yeses. Her point of anonymously presenting Barack Obama’s biography except with a change of sex, and then asking if this seemed like a viable candidate didn’t convince me of any gender bias. It wasn’t until the end of the article when she made several points that I began to see her side of it. Steinem gave five convincing examples in short paragraphs of how Hillary Clinton’s campaign was being affected by a gender bias both in the media and with the voters. One of them was about how women in their 50’s and 60’s disproportionately supported Hillary in their votes, while younger women who, “hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system” were more evenly split amongst the candidates. This made me wonder if the reason why I answered yes to both her questions was because I either was blind to or denied the presence of sexual prejudice. Is it progress that the younger generation doesn’t think about gender in this way, or have we collectively decided just not to deal with the issue?

Writing About ‘Writing About the Arts’

I found this excerpt very helpful and insightful, especially examining the differences between reviews and criticism. I also appreciated the humor in the writing that could have easily been very tedious reading. As I read Zinsser’s advice and guidelines for good review writing, I kept cringing thinking about the review of Sweeney Todd and how many of his rules I’d broken, among them: don’t give away too much of the plot, use specific detail, avoid ecstatic adjectives (clichés), and express your opinion firmly. I absolutely agreed with his take about, “last minute evasions and escapes”, and how this can be the, “most boring sentence of the editorial”. It’s a trend that I’ve noticed in many articles yet I still did the same thing in the Sweeny review. After reading this the idea of writing the much more complex criticisms seems daunting since I’m not an expert in any of the arts, and I feel much safer writing reviews. The only way I could write criticism would be to do research in the medium I’m writing on, but that would be defeating the purpose since the critique is supposed to be a unique opinion from the critic.

Lift Your Razor High, Sweeney!

The latest Tim Burton/ Johnny Depp film is a great achievement on the surface. Its visuals are gorgeous and signature Burton, pale faces, quirky characters, and drab settings. The acting is fantastic, and the music is super-catchy but not tacky, and sure to follow you home. But despite its strengths, Sweeney Todd never reached that higher plane of a great film. It doesn’t register emotionally and because of that the film was instantly forgettable. It was like one of Mrs. Lovett’s delicious meat pies, deceptively tasty until you start to wonder about that queer aftertaste.

Frequent collaborators Burton and Depp seem like the natural choice to helm the film version of the ghoulish Stephen Sondheim musical, Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Burton has a track record of moody, atmospheric films loaded with dark comedy, and he works wonders with the blood soaked script for Sweeney. The reprise of “Johanna” where Todd slits the throat of customer after customer is at once shocking, horrid, and unbelievably funny. Depp certainly looks the part of the tortured Sweeney, and even though his singing isn’t spectacular, he makes up for it with the conviction that he puts into his voice along with a touch of rock and roll.

Depp’s opposite Helen Bonham Carter is sensational as Mrs. Lovett. She steals every scene that she’s in and is the most sympathetic character. Mrs. Lovett is every bit as horrible a person as Sweeney, but Carter was still able to play that wretchedness along with a touching humanity. The best songs in the film were her duets with Depp like the hilarious “A Little Priest” where they imagine the possibilities of her meat pies and also her solo song, the show stopping number “By the Sea” a whimsical imagining of married life with Todd.

After a satisfying build up the film loses its momentum and ends disappointingly and anti-climactically. Burton spends so much time on the film working the revenge angle, that when Judge Turpin finally and gloriously takes his seat in the barber’s chair it feels like the natural ending point of the film. Depp’s performance is remarkable but there isn’t much there besides his captivating obsession with revenge, and because of that the next 20 minutes feel tacked on and slowly drain the excitement from the film. As with the stage version of Sweeney Todd, and for any good show or film, the audience needs to be emotionally impacted by the characters and should care about their fate. Even in a monster like Todd, there has to be a redeeming quality to keep interest high, especially in a title figure. Despite its flaws Sweeney Todd is one of the most interesting and enjoyable films of the year. It’s a must see if you are even a casual fan of musicals, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see it nominated come Oscar season.