I was listening to Seth Rodetsky on Sirius' Broadway station (I think it was Seth), and he was saying that a lot of his friends who have seen Christina Applegate in "Sweet Charity" are remarking that she can't sing. I'm not going to argue the point even though her singing was fine by me, but HELLO! Have these people listened to Broadway legends like Ethel Merman and later Angela Lansbury? A great singing voice has never been a prerequisite for Broadway stardom. This hypothesis was proved again when I heard Gertrude Lawrence sing "Hello, Young Lovers." "The King and I" was written specifically for the woman, but her voice? Not so hot. Listen to a big star like Ray Bolger sing "Once in Love with Amy." Again, not so hot. Even worse, listen to him talk his way through "Once Upon a Time" with an occasional failed attempt to hit a note on pitch. I won't even bring up performers like Rex Harrison who didn't bother to try to sing.
I admit that in general a dancer must really be able to dance on Broadway. But look at Chita Rivera, one of the two or three greatest dancers in the last half century. Love her, adore her, worship the ground she highkicks on. Then, they gave her a tailor-made role in "Kiss of the Spider Woman," but her best days as a dancer had passed so they had to choreograph around her in the more difficult moments. Exact same story goes for Gwen Verdon in "Chicago."
Did I not enjoy those shows? I loved them all. Why? Because a Broadway performer does not always have to sing well or dance well. They have to entertain us. Granted, many times they entertain us because of their exciting skills at singing or dancing, but plenty of performers thrill us with less than perfection.
So all I can say about Christina's performance is that I had a great time seeing the show, and I really didn't find any reason to put down her singing or dancing. (I know, I know, some of the critics are going to say that they just didn't find her entertaining whether she can sing and dance or not. They're entitled to their opinions, but I disagree.) So give the girl, who -- don't forget -- usually gets great reviews for her comic acting, a break.
By the way, if by some bizarre, unimaginable circumstance you hear of this blog entry, Christina, we actually had a brief encounter once. When you had your restaurant in West Hollywood, I was having dinner with a friend on the very dark upstairs patio and said to him, "You know, Christina Applegate owns this restaurant." The person near me at the next table said, "Yes, and she's sitting right here." I looked over and there you were opposite her. I mumbled an apology and said hi. In my defense, it was very dark and your hair was red! LOL! Anyway, congrats on your Broadway debut.
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
And You Thought I Rambled Yesterday?! War as the First Resort
I was driving along this afternoon when I saw a truck with a sticker bearing a seal -- I'm fairly certain that it was the seal of the US Marine Corps since another sticker bore that moniker-- and the slogan "When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed today." Hard though I may try, I just can't comprehend that kind of mentality. As a pacifist I find it hard to admit that war is ever a necessity, but if it is, then our reaction should not be joy. It should -- no, must -- always be sadness and shame. I know I'm not the first one to say this, but it bears repeating and repeating and repeating: War is a failure. And failure should only be conceded after every option has been exhausted. Unfortunately, it seems to be the option of first resort for far too many people with far too much power. Their flags wave in hubristic denial of our failure over signs that proudly proclaim their support for our troops. As if the rest of us want our soldiers to die . . . Of course, "Support our troops" really means "turn off your brain, shut up, and follow your leader without question." Which brings me to another bumper sticker I saw last week. It bore the traditional folded yellow ribbon, but read, "I support mindless jingoistic slogans." There's the rub. Americans don't know that there is a difference between patriotism and chauvinism. I am a patriot. I love my country. Which makes it all the sadder for me to watch it bolt away from all the principles that make it great. CHAUVINISM IS NOT PATRIOTISM!
While I'm on the subject of things that should be a last resort but have become the first resort, let me mention our justice system. We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other industrialized nation. That is not something to be proud of folks! It's a cause for sadness and shame. Where is the investment in programs to make the penal system unnecessary -- education, job training, child care? Again, these thoughts are not mine, but they bear repeating. The same applies to war and peace. Where is the investment in early diplomacy? Where is the intelligence -- in the sense of IQ, not spying -- to not sell weapons to "friends" who invariably turn against us? Oh God, I'm about to spout a terrible cliche! But don't these people ever remember that ounce of prevention which is worth a pound of cure? Ah, well. That's American mentality. Very sad, but there it is.
Until next time.
While I'm on the subject of things that should be a last resort but have become the first resort, let me mention our justice system. We have a higher percentage of our population in prison than any other industrialized nation. That is not something to be proud of folks! It's a cause for sadness and shame. Where is the investment in programs to make the penal system unnecessary -- education, job training, child care? Again, these thoughts are not mine, but they bear repeating. The same applies to war and peace. Where is the investment in early diplomacy? Where is the intelligence -- in the sense of IQ, not spying -- to not sell weapons to "friends" who invariably turn against us? Oh God, I'm about to spout a terrible cliche! But don't these people ever remember that ounce of prevention which is worth a pound of cure? Ah, well. That's American mentality. Very sad, but there it is.
Until next time.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Farewell, QAF, Hello Minstrelsy
Well, it's over. The one show -- I admit exceptions -- that allowed gay men to actually BE SEXUAL! So long, Queer as Folk!
Before I talk about that show, let me comment on the current state of the queer nation on television. Blah, blah, blah, everyone has already expressed our despair about Will's ever being allowed a kiss let alone sex while Grace humps every straight male character that appears on the show, so I won't go into that. And many have discussed the desexed Fab Five on Queer Eye. Maybe they've even pointed out that while these guys have no visible sex life, they spend their days glorifying and celebrating every heterosexual institution known to the human race, but I think it's time to bring up the case of Ellen DeGeneres.
Let me state up front to Ellen: Ellen, I love you, I adore you, I respect you and all you've done for gay openness, you are one celebrity that I really think I would enjoy spending time with just hanging out, and I absolutely know that you are not at fault for the limitations placed on your very entertaining show. I just have to say that it bothers me that you also celebrate heterosexual institutions while denying your own relationship(s). I've seen you arrange weddings and honeymoons without a mention of our struggle for equal rights in that area. I've seen you give some poor kids who were going to miss out on their school dance due to a shortage of funds the prom of their dreams without mentioning the turmoil caused all over the country when some kids have simply wanted to bring same-sex dates to their own proms. Through all this -- and I admit I can't watch you every day, so forgive me if I'm wrong -- I have never once heard you mention your own relationship. I think you're still with Portia, though I could be wrong about that too. At any rate, I find it truly upsetting that your support for heterosexual love is so frequent, but your acknowledgement of even the existence of gay love is nil. Again, I know that you don't consider yourself political, and I understand that. I also know with some degree of certainty that you have been unequivocally told by network execs that the day you do bring these things up will be your last. But there it is.
Yes, we are the new minstrels -- doomed to remain pre-pubescent clowns who entertain the heterosexual masses. I pick up The Advocate -- and I do subscribe -- and find straight actors lionized for taking on gay roles. Can you imagine picking up a copy of Ebony and finding a white actor praised for daring to take on a black role? Why do we accept this? And why, oh why, did Tony Kushner permit the casting of five straight actors but not a single gay one in the five gay roles found in the admittedly brilliant film of Angels in America? Just something to ponder.
Well, I guess it's time to get back to Queer as Folk. Did I watch it? Yes. Did I think it was good? Not at all. Most of the plot lines unfolded as unrealistically and reached resolution as effortlessly as those found in mediocre sitcoms. The acting rarely rose above the level of soap opera, but I'll blame the scripts and hope that the actors have talent. Still, there was a lot of hot sex, and Showtime deserves our support for daring to allow us to see aspects of our lives that the networks wouldn't touch with a ten-inch pole. Nonetheless, having seen the British version, I can't help but feel disappointed that the American version threw out the subversion and nihilism of the original and replaced it with saccharine and sentiment. Well, with apologies to All in the Family, isn't that what usually happens when Americans adapt foreign material?
In case you haven't guessed, I've been reading a lot of Dorothy Parker in the past few days. Too bad I can capture her sense of nausea over the arts and steal a bit of her prose style without also possessing her brilliant wit. But there it is. So I will close where I began by saying, "Farewell, QAF and Hello, Minstrelsy."
Until next time.
Before I talk about that show, let me comment on the current state of the queer nation on television. Blah, blah, blah, everyone has already expressed our despair about Will's ever being allowed a kiss let alone sex while Grace humps every straight male character that appears on the show, so I won't go into that. And many have discussed the desexed Fab Five on Queer Eye. Maybe they've even pointed out that while these guys have no visible sex life, they spend their days glorifying and celebrating every heterosexual institution known to the human race, but I think it's time to bring up the case of Ellen DeGeneres.
Let me state up front to Ellen: Ellen, I love you, I adore you, I respect you and all you've done for gay openness, you are one celebrity that I really think I would enjoy spending time with just hanging out, and I absolutely know that you are not at fault for the limitations placed on your very entertaining show. I just have to say that it bothers me that you also celebrate heterosexual institutions while denying your own relationship(s). I've seen you arrange weddings and honeymoons without a mention of our struggle for equal rights in that area. I've seen you give some poor kids who were going to miss out on their school dance due to a shortage of funds the prom of their dreams without mentioning the turmoil caused all over the country when some kids have simply wanted to bring same-sex dates to their own proms. Through all this -- and I admit I can't watch you every day, so forgive me if I'm wrong -- I have never once heard you mention your own relationship. I think you're still with Portia, though I could be wrong about that too. At any rate, I find it truly upsetting that your support for heterosexual love is so frequent, but your acknowledgement of even the existence of gay love is nil. Again, I know that you don't consider yourself political, and I understand that. I also know with some degree of certainty that you have been unequivocally told by network execs that the day you do bring these things up will be your last. But there it is.
Yes, we are the new minstrels -- doomed to remain pre-pubescent clowns who entertain the heterosexual masses. I pick up The Advocate -- and I do subscribe -- and find straight actors lionized for taking on gay roles. Can you imagine picking up a copy of Ebony and finding a white actor praised for daring to take on a black role? Why do we accept this? And why, oh why, did Tony Kushner permit the casting of five straight actors but not a single gay one in the five gay roles found in the admittedly brilliant film of Angels in America? Just something to ponder.
Well, I guess it's time to get back to Queer as Folk. Did I watch it? Yes. Did I think it was good? Not at all. Most of the plot lines unfolded as unrealistically and reached resolution as effortlessly as those found in mediocre sitcoms. The acting rarely rose above the level of soap opera, but I'll blame the scripts and hope that the actors have talent. Still, there was a lot of hot sex, and Showtime deserves our support for daring to allow us to see aspects of our lives that the networks wouldn't touch with a ten-inch pole. Nonetheless, having seen the British version, I can't help but feel disappointed that the American version threw out the subversion and nihilism of the original and replaced it with saccharine and sentiment. Well, with apologies to All in the Family, isn't that what usually happens when Americans adapt foreign material?
In case you haven't guessed, I've been reading a lot of Dorothy Parker in the past few days. Too bad I can capture her sense of nausea over the arts and steal a bit of her prose style without also possessing her brilliant wit. But there it is. So I will close where I began by saying, "Farewell, QAF and Hello, Minstrelsy."
Until next time.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Here We Go Again
Well, I tried starting a blog once before, but with my usual unstoppable persistance, I gave up after about two weeks. This time I absolutely, definitely, positively, unquestionably will continue to post . . . until I get bored.
I just finished my Master's thesis at CSULB, so I'll have lot of time during the next several weeks before I start my PhD program at UCSB . . . well, in between taking a chunk out of my reading lists.
So I don't know. What should this be about? Personal stuff? Political stuff? Philosophical rantings? All of the above?
Today, I think I'll comment on the Broadway channel on Sirius satellite radio. Commercial free? Great. Show tunes? Excellent. One big complaint. With like 80 years of great music to choose from, why do I have to hear Michael Crawford sing "Music of the Night" at least every other day? And I like Avenue Q, but those people seem to think it's Mozart! Come on guys! Let's get some variety. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of shows you're neglecting. I know you know them because you do play some great lesser known stuff. How about limiting a song to once a week? I'm sure there's enough material to fill in at least that much.
Well, that's my first rant. I may discuss more profound themes in the future, or I may just ramble on about nothing. Anyway, it's a start.
I just finished my Master's thesis at CSULB, so I'll have lot of time during the next several weeks before I start my PhD program at UCSB . . . well, in between taking a chunk out of my reading lists.
So I don't know. What should this be about? Personal stuff? Political stuff? Philosophical rantings? All of the above?
Today, I think I'll comment on the Broadway channel on Sirius satellite radio. Commercial free? Great. Show tunes? Excellent. One big complaint. With like 80 years of great music to choose from, why do I have to hear Michael Crawford sing "Music of the Night" at least every other day? And I like Avenue Q, but those people seem to think it's Mozart! Come on guys! Let's get some variety. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of shows you're neglecting. I know you know them because you do play some great lesser known stuff. How about limiting a song to once a week? I'm sure there's enough material to fill in at least that much.
Well, that's my first rant. I may discuss more profound themes in the future, or I may just ramble on about nothing. Anyway, it's a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
