Crouching Tiger

            Racism is and has been a large issue in American Society since it has been founded.  Over the past few decades racism has come in and out of the spotlight.  One occasion was following the Katrina hurricane.  During a TV cast to try and raise support for hurrican victims Kanye West said, “George Bush hates black people.”   Another big star in the media today campaigning for African American rights is Oprah Whinfrey.  The approach taken by both of these celebrities is to raise support by rallying people for the cause and telling them about the problem.

            Another more subtle approach is that being taken by Tiger Woods.  Woods has done more in the past 12 years for African American rights than West or Whinfrey.  One could even say that Woods is not even trying to affect African American rights, he is just doing what he loves, playing golf.  Through his play he has proved that golf is not a rich white mans sport and that black athletes can be more than just football or basketball players.

            I propose that through a profile of Tiger Woods I will discuss his unique approach to racism and the way it exists today. 

Stewart's Oscars

            The red carpet is a chance for Hollywood’s finest to tell the public what kind of dress they cannot afford.  Who was the conductor to this parade, Regis Philban, who has not aged in 20 yrs and looks as though he lives in a tanning bed. In hearing Regis Philban was hosting the red carpet one probably though, “Oh great another boring Oscars!”  However, if one was able to make it through the red carpet they were pleasantly surprised.

            John Stewart should have not only hosted the Oscars but delivered every award, and booted Philban from the red carpet.  Stewart made the Oscars fun this year with constant remarks on how long and drab it normally is. 

            He also made light on the writers strike, which gave a much needed closure.  Prior to Stewarts comments the strike seemed like a touchy subject, but with comments like, "I'm happy to say the fight is over - so tonight, welcome to the make-up sex;"  it is now just history.  He then did a clip on, the Oscars if the writers would have still been on strike, it involved a salute to binoculars and bad dreams, both were hilarious.

            Aside from Stewart’s humor the Oscars showed viewers that actors are real people.  Viewers saw George Clooney and Hilary Swank stumble on their introductions as if they had just joined the business.  On the other hand they saw Jonna Hill and Seth Rogan put on a flawless performance as if they were seasoned veterans.

            Marion Cotillard’s acceptance was as moving an experience as one can see on T.V.  She was shaking uncontrollably and choking on tears during her whole speech.  Her acceptance really captured what the Oscars still mean to many actors. 

            The best Oscar given was the honorary Oscar given to Robert Doyle.  Doyle is 98yrs. old, and has been in the movie industry for countless decades.  In a touching speech Doyle talked about the Arts in this century and that movies are the bright spot.  He said, “I have had a great fortune of being a part of films, moving pictures.”  Doyle’s speech captured the magic of the Oscars, a deep passion for movies and movie making.  Doyle is just one man who has dedicated his life to movies and made them better for all of us. 

            As usual awards went to the expected recipients with the same movies coming up in every category.  Best Picture went to, No Country for Old Men and best actor went to Daniel Day Lewis for, There Will be Blood, as expected. 

            This years Oscars was not one to miss, the four hour event seemed only to last two hours, where years passed it seemed to last two days.  John Stewart as a host was, spot on, especially with his remarks on the writers strike.  The Oscars shows that movies are an art form, and viewers only see the final product; before that final product many individuals put their countless days and weeks into making movies.  The Oscars is their night to be recognized.   

Seinfield's Mistake

The initial trailers for bee movie had Jerry Seinfield in a giant bee costume, hanging from a wire, swinging into a giant flower.  It made one wonder what in the world Seinfield was doing with his new movie career.

            Michael Hastings review of Bee Movie praises Seinfield’s achievements with TV and stand up comedy; however he questions his decision to write and act in Bee Movie.  When describing cartoon caricatures, which Seinfield is in the movie, he says, “the post-millennial refuge of the damned.”

            Hastings describes the plot of the movie as being, “so thudding and uncertain, that at any given moment it seems Bee Movie might be something else entirely.”  He is correct, when watching the movie one constatnly feels there may be a hidden plot that one cannot really understand. 

            During the movie it is very difficult to follow the constant scene changes.  Hastings mentions this when he says, “the action flashes from one location to the other.”

            Bee Movie was not a very good movie and it is very unclear what Seinfield was thinking when he decided to make this movie.  Hastings sums up the movie perfectly when he says, “he can hide behind a bee suit for only so long.” 

Perfect Portrayal of a Terrible Marriage

“I’ve gotta find a way to really get at you, you’re a monster,”  George says to his wife Martha in the second act. Edward Albee’s portrayal of married life in, “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf,” has no love or compassion.  One sees constant bickering and calling of names, George summed it perfectly by saying it is, “Total war.” 

            The play takes place over a long night of drinking.  Martha played by, Martie Philpot, is the daughter of the local university president and her husband, George, played by, Richard Philpot, is a history teacher at the university. 

            On this particular evening after a get together at her fathers house Martha invites over a new teacher and his wife, at two in the morning.  George is not happy but obeys Martha, which becomes a common theme in the play. 

            The couple arrives to George and Martha screaming at each other, Nick, played by, Trevor Maher is the new biology teacher and Carol Zombro plays his wife, Honey.  Through the rest of the play, we see how dysfunctional George and Martha’s marriage is and that Nick and Honey’s is not perfect either.

               “Who’s afraid of Virginia Wolf,” gives a portrayal of the most pathetic husband figure.  His wife is constantly telling George what to do, and he does it.  Martha sums it perfectly when she says; “I wear the pants in this relationship.”  From a males perspective it is not entertaining to watch, George being criticized and humiliated by his wife.

            Martha is a character that has many problems in all aspects of her life.  During the third act she said, “George, who makes me happy, but I don’t want to be happy.”  This is clear during the play and it is annoying. 

            George does as Martha pleases early in the movie; such as, get the door when she tells him, or make her a drink.  As the play progresses he listens to her less and less, until he finally tells her to go and cheat on him with Nick in the kitchen. 

            While Nick was in the kitchen with Martha, his wife, Honey, was in the bathroom throwing up.  Honey then comes out and we learn that she destroyed the baby that was inside her.  Earlier we had learned that Nick had married Honey because she was pregnant and that there was little emotional attachment.

            Nick and Honey initially looked like a good married couple, compared to George and Martha, but as the play goes on we see that this is far from the truth. 

            There is no part in the play that sheds a good light on marriage, it is very depressing.  The only solace one can find in the play is that these are not normal people; George killed both of his parents, on accident.  Martha is obsessed with her father who as George said, “Doesn’t care if she lives or dies.”

             “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolf,” makes one not want to get married.  On the other hand if in a relationship it can make a couple feel good because no marriage could be worse than Martha and Georges. 

Think of Me

In Alvin Klein’s, Another Chance for a Different ‘Phantom,’ he argues that Maury Yeston and Arthur Kopit’s, “Phantom,” has been unfairly shadowed by Andre Lloyd Weber’s “Phantom of the Opera.”

            Klein praised the acting in Kopit’s production. He complimented the performances of the actors who play, Christine and Carlotta.  He also raved about Kopit’s phantom, Eric, played by Bradley Dean; he said his performance, “is no less bravura than Lord Lloyd Webber's, but he is far more affecting.”  The acting is not only superb but leaves a lasting impression.  Klein was very complimentary not only of the acting but the singing, especially Eric’s; he wrote, “He makes human, non-repetitious, utterly gorgeous sounds.”

            The actors were not the only great part about “Phantom,” Klein makes note on numerous occasions of Kopit’s wonderful work.  When speaking of Kopit’s music he said it, “charms and effervesces, valuing melodiousness and variety more than the extended leitmotif and endless bloated reprises.”

            Kopit’s version does not have as much, “stuff on stage,” as Klein put it; however, he wrote that, “the thrill of such a spectacle wears thin.”  Phantom is more than just a pretty set, the music is spectacular and the acting is superb.  Klein finished by saying, “When history tells the tale, the ''other 'Phantom''' may well be the winner.” 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E7D8113AF932A1575AC0A9659C8B63

In Need of Treatment

“It’s been on and off, blah, blah, blah,” said Laura describing her relationship to her therapist in the new HBO series, In Treatment.  This comment does a very good job of describing the show, aside from a few quirky comments the show is very blah.

            The show is based on the therapy sessions of a troubled therapist, Paul Weston, played by, Gabriel Byrne.  Throughout the week in each episode he sees a client and then at the end of the week he goes to an old friend and they go through an awkward non-formal therapy session. 

            In the first episode Paul deals with a patient named Laura.  The entire episode is her crying out her problems to him.  This is not fun to watch, someone crying and babbling about how their life sucks. 

            The only plus side to the show is that HBO is not confined to the normal restraints of network television.  Laura discusses how she feels, it is a right of passage for any young girl to, “get fucked,” in the bathroom.  She also says things like, “Your sitting there like a fucken Buddha.”

            That is all Paul does Monday through Friday sit there and listen to his patients sob stories.  This is how psychotherapy works and its not fun to watch.  HBO has a number of great shows this one does not fit in that category, it seems as though they are reaching for something.

            That reach is evident in the way the first episode ends.  Half-way through the episode we find that Laura is in love with Paul and that she was imagining him taking her into the bathroom and making her a woman.  As this unfolds Paul sits there as if nothing is happening as this poor girl is confessing her undying love for him.  He just says, “how long have you felt this way?”  Then Laura says, “what am I gonna do now?”  Paul responds with, “we’ll talk about it next week.”  Yes the session time was over but a real therapist would not end a session like that in that way, it’s a little ridiculous.

            Even more ridiculous is Fridays episode where Paul goes to his old supervisor Gina to, “talk.”  Paul and Gina proceed to catch up as they have not seen each other in a while, then Paul discusses his problems.  In doing so he sounds just like his patients, in many instances even more troubled.  He talks about his troubles with his wife, he feels she is having an affair, which is very similar to Laura’s problem.  He also gets very defensive when Gina cannot remember Laura’s name.  The Friday episode is better than the rest of the week but is still bland.

            Bland does not normally describe HBO, with great shows such as Entourage and Deadwood.  All other shows on HBO are like honey-nut cheerios and In Treatment is like plain cheerios, bland, with a lot to be desired.  

Criticism: The Record of the Soul

The common conception of art today consists of, paintings, poems or novels.  When one imagines these things words like original, beautiful and masterpiece come to mind.  Contrary to this belief none of these forms of art are in fact original or new, according to Oscar Wilde.  The truest art form is criticism.            

            In Wilde’s piece, From the Critic as Artist, he counters the common view of the arts.  Wilde describes art other than criticism as having confinements, he says, “the painter must be pictorial always.”  When describing an sculptor he says, “the sculptor gladly surrenders the imitative color.”  Wilde then says, “It is through its very incompleteness that Art becomes complete in beauty.”  This beauty he feels is not seen by the trained critic because it is not original, all art is an imitation of works before, except criticism.  He then says, “the critic reproduces the work that he criticizes in a mode that is never imitative.”

            From the Critic as Artist, is an engaging piece, it offers a different view of art.  His notion that criticism is the only non imitative form of art is thought provoking.  He feels that, “the highest criticism really is, the record of one’s own soul.”  

Passion: the Achilles Heal

            Dopey, dumb, grungy, horny, and stinky just a few of the words that Pauline Kael used in her reviews that made her unique.  Pauline was a special movie critic; she wrote for the middle class viewer, unlike most publications in the New York Times that wrote for the upper class.  Kael’s approach to movie criticism pioneered criticism as it is known today.  The way she was able to have such a large impact on movie criticism was in her love for movies.  She had a deep passion and that is what made her special.  This love sometimes lead to a sense of, “I am better than you,” and a deeper knowledge of movies than the average movie viewer has.

            Pauline’s use of descriptive language such as trashy, stinky or soft made her reviews special.  This style was different from many movie critics and all of the publications in the New York times.  This is why Pauline was so criticized for her work, it was not the normal style for the New York times; but this is what made Pauline special and different as a movie critic.  One of the people who disliked Kael’s style was Renata Adler.  In her essay Canaries in the Mineshaft she mocks Kael’s writing style.  She feels that Kael’s writing is a threat to prose, she wrote, “What is really at stake is not movies at all, but prose and the relation between writers and readers, and of course art.”  It is true that Kael’s writing may not follow all of the guidelines but, it is fun to read, that could be why many readers have said they enjoy her reviews better than the movies. 

            Pauline Kael’s passion for movies allowed her to become one of the greatest critics of all time.  This passion, however, leads to a sense of superiority and assumptions that are inaccurate.  Renata Adler made mention of her feeling of superiority by saying, “seemed more hectoringly to claim, she certainly does know about movies.”  This is true however she has earned the right to feel this way because she has seen so many movies.  Where it hurts Pauline is where she makes references to movies assuming everyone has seen all the movies she has.  Interestingly Adler makes fun of Kael for this even though she used hectoringly.  Adler said, “Ms. Kael wants us to know, for instance, that she knows that Renais is related to Malraux, and that Malraux is dead.”  Most people will have no idea what is going on here.  Pauline has such a passion for movies and loves writing reviews she just forgets that everyone doesn’t share that same desire.

            Pauline Kael made great advancements in movie criticism.  Her use of common language widened the audience of New York Times readers and allowed for a new form of movie reviewing.  She wrote for the middle class reader.  Kael’s only downfall was her dire passion for movies that lead to a sense of superiority and unreasonable expectations on the part of the viewer.  Kael is a perfect example of how passion can lead to greatness but also be ones downfall.