An Artist’s LOVE-Hate Relationship

Posted on by
8

We witness love everywhere we go and with everything we do. Whether it is a couple holding hands on a street corner, music that is sweet and romantic, or a piece of art that says “LOVE” sitting in the middle of our very own New York City. “LOVE,” created by Robert Indiana in 1967 during the Pop art movement, has been a blessing and a curse regarding the artist’s career and reputation. Explained in the article “An Artist’s LOVE-Hate Relationship” written by Jesse McKinley, “LOVE” has haunted Indiana because of the lack of respect for his work and overexposure of the piece.

images

Eighty-five year old Robert Indiana cannot help but feel like his piece of Pop Art has not been put in the proper light. “LOVE,” designed with a tilted O, was not correctly copyrighted and Indiana’s original design now has stretched from being translated to Chinese, to being used for the design on Converses. These places and products are not what Indiana had in mind for the piece of art, and was not able to voice if he wanted his work to be exposed on these things or not. As a result of the overexposure his creation, Indiana’s other pieces do not get a second look because people are not aware of the depth of his work past the infamous “LOVE.”

Mr. Indiana states “I’m sure all the people who have been born 20 years ago don’t know anything about me at all, except ‘LOVE.’” Unfortunately, it is safe to say his assumption is correct. He also adds that he did not like being identified under the Pop art movement. Do we really take a name like Pop art seriously? Are we so narrow-minded to forget that Robert Indiana’s “LOVE” is not just a one hit wonder in the world of art? Whitney Museum of American Art did not forget about Indiana’s collection. The museum is opening an exhibition retrospective of Indiana’s work called “Robert Indiana: Beyond LOVE.”

I am happy that Mr. Indiana is getting recognized for all of his work and not just his most mainstream piece. People identify with art every day whether they know it or not “LOVE” being an example of just that. People enjoy it splashed on their converse, drawing it in their notebooks, or taking a picture in front of it in NYC. However I can only hope that soon, our generation takes the next step after just identifying with art, but appreciating it as well. Robert Indiana created this piece and because of a copyrighting mistake, people took advantage of it and the depth of his work is forgotten.

Naturally, art was made a business for the people and companies that benefited from Indiana’s work. Does this mean that art overlaps with business? Is this ethical? Maybe Indiana should have been more careful so that his piece was given the respect it deserves. I believe that it was bound to happen that somebody made a profit on Indiana’s work especially with the copyright error. In my opinion, art overlaps with business more often than not because artists do need to make a profit and cannot just make art for fun if it is what they have chosen to do for a living.

McKinley, Jesse. “Robert Indiana Assumes One Work Has Swamped His Career.” New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Sept. 2013.

A Fortress of Books, But Not Like You Remember

Posted on by
11

Picture this (you probably won’t have to look too far): it’s hot outside. More than hot, it’s the hottest week of the summer (sound familiar?), and your dependence on air conditioner is less of the usual idleness and more of a prevention against heatstroke. Where would you go if the power suddenly went out?

How about a library?

That’s the central argument in Michael Kimmelman’s article “Next Time, Libraries Could Be Our Shelters From the Storm”. While Kimmelman doesn’t do his point much credit by citing places people went to during and after Hurricane Sandy (that were decidedly not libraries), he makes an excellent suggestion.

Admittedly, this article hit close to home. I am an avid reader. I love the fact that libraries exist. It hurts my soul to know that books and other media are lost to storms because libraries aren’t adequately protected. But what if libraries could protect themselves and us at the same time? Stories have supported mankind throughout history—why not make the structures that house them protect us as well? We wouldn’t have to leave books, movies, and old newspapers to the terrible fate of destruction. Not to mention that Kimmelman makes an excellent point when he cites the “lament” of Zadie Smith, a novelist: “Libraries are the only thing left on the high street that doesn’t want either your soul or your wallet.”

Over the years, libraries seem to have been waning in repute (at least, in New York) but they remain the primary place to get literary materials and other media for free, a culturally enriching center in a society that can’t seem to get it’s mind off of the money. Libraries aren’t even a business enterprise—they run on donations given by patrons, government funds, and overdue fines. I’ve gotten many an email from the New York Public Library asking for donations to keep the library system running because funding had been cut. Kimmelman refers to the library system as “always tin-cup-wielding”, but it feels like such a negative description, and there are still branches of the NYPL that are closed for renovation, having been damaged badly by Hurricane Sandy.

While I agree with Kimmelman’s description of the renovation of the Stephen A. Schwarzman building of the NYPL (the big, pretty one behind Bryant Park) as a useless project—the building is already a marvel of architecture, and last time I was there, it didn’t look damaged in any way—he goes out of his way to negatively describe the entirety of the NYPL system in the method that one would describe a beggar, contradicting his own point that funds should not be going to renovate the Schwarzman building, but to the branches that have been closed. Kimmelman also mentions that “potential billions in federal dollars could be available to rebuild the region, post-Sandy”, but that doesn’t do his original point credit.

Kimmelman seems to sway on his point, despite emphatically stating in his article’s title that libraries could be shelters from dangerous storms. I take a stronger stance on this and say that libraries need to be emphasized in society—they are safe havens, not only physically, but for the mind. They provide quiet places to study, think, read, and stimulate the senses with literature and other media. They even seem to be able to potentially provide safety for us in times of natural disasters. According to the article, libraries could potentially be designed in such a way that they would become shelters “with backup generators and solar panels, even kitchens and wireless mesh networks.”

The whole idea of libraries as shelters against storms and other natural disasters might seem idealistic, and I am definitely biased in my promotion of libraries, but take a moment and consider that, if libraries had been able to support people, we could have housed refugees in libraries instead of our schools. They could have had access to working kitchens, wireless network access, and electricity if the libraries had been upgraded.

The idea is that, in order for that to happen, the people need to support the creation of library-shelters. There are libraries in nearly every neighborhood, and if we somehow got the funds or the resources (we seem to have them, if the Bloomberg administration’s gift of $150 million in taxpayer dollars towards the Schwarzman renovation is any indication) to furnish the libraries with the design aspects mentioned in the article, there would not only be safe places for people during storms, but there would be an unlimited amount of possibilities for communities.

So what do you guys think? Could libraries potentially be used as shelters during times of crisis?

 

Kimmelman, Michael. “Next Time, Libraries Could Be Our Shelters From the Storm.” New York Times. New York Times, 2 Oct. 2013. Web. 3 Oct. 2013.

The Agony of Suspense in Detroit

Posted on by
11

Immediately from the introduction, this line sticks out from the rest: “A fire-breathing dragon was bearing down on the Detroit Institute of Arts.” At the moment, when people hear “Detroit,” they associate it with “bankruptcy.” However, what does this have to do with art?

This behemoth was constructed by local artists in order to protest the speculations of having the Detroit Institute of Arts to sell world-class art pieces from its collection in order to help pay towards the debt. Now this is the controversy – is it worth giving up countless art collections to help relieve the city from debt? From the results of a poll conducted by The Detroit Free Press and WXYZ-TV, 78 percent were against selling the art. This shows the unity people are able to establish during hard times; the people care about the city’s art. However, just because the majority of Detroit’s population voted against the selling of the art doesn’t guarantee that it won’t happen. If forced legally, the museum is obliged to obey the law and sell. Graham W. J. Beal, the museum’s director, is busy working with two Republican state legislators in order to try and save the museum, as well as using the museum’s repair funds to hire lawyers in case of a legal battle.

But given Detroit’s current financial situation, what other choices do they have? There is always the option of cutting workers’ pensions, but is that any much better? Compared to 78 percent of people voting to not sell the art, 75 percent of people opposed to the cutting of workers’ pensions. This brings the debate between which is the greater good – what will be the sacrifice? Currently, the collection has been valued at possibly over 2 billion dollars. Selling even part of it would create a gaping hole in its value, as well as eliminate art donations and the huge pool of money from tax revenue that was going to be used to support and stabilize the museum for years to come.

Giving my opinion on this situation is hard, and will be biased as I am not a worker, but rather a student. Although I am one to appreciate art, I don’t feel right cutting workers’ pensions. I’m sure this is exactly how officials of Detroit feel – conflicted, lost, and panicked for more time. Perhaps there is a balance that can be found between the two options, although because of the shutting down of the government, it is likely no action regarding this situation will be taken just yet.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/arts/design/detroit-institute-of-arts-copes-with-threat-of-art-selloff.html?pagewanted=2&ref=design

Bibliography:

Terek, Donna. #Save the Art. 2013. Photograph. The New York Times, New York City. Web. 03 Oct 2013. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/10/03/arts/03MUSEUM/03MUSEUM-articleLarge.jpg

Kennedy, Randy. “The Agony of Suspense in Detroit.” New York Times 02 Oct 2013, n. pag. Web. 03 Oct 2013.

Go See “Rock Of Ages”!

Posted on by
Reply

Get Ready to Rock With Rock Of Ages!
I haven’t had this much fun in a while. Rock of Ages, a rock musical playing at the Helen Hayes Theatre since 2009, delivers as advertised “Broadway’s Best Party.” From actors dancing (and protesting) in the aisles to ushers taking your drink order as you sit, you feel like you are a part of the show. It is apparent that audience participation is greatly encouraged and you may be so inclined, as I was, to sing or dance along to the familiar tunes of the ‘80s. The whole experience can be likened to that of a concert-an enjoyable one at that. I challenge you to find a moment in this show when you are not genuinely entertained.
Though I arrive late and miss the first couple minutes of the opening number (Don’t we all hate those weekend NYC subway schedules?) I don’t dare miss a second more. The performers display an enormous amount of energy that is immediately noticeable and present throughout the entire show. This energy was amplified (literally) by the support of the spot-on acoustics. From my seat in the mezzanine, I hear every word the actors say as if I am sitting in the front row. The theatre itself, being cozy yet spacious, is greatly conducive to the show’s concert-like feel.
The scenery is very effective in immersing the audience in the world of the play as the theatre is adorned with many facets of the 80’s decade. A “Live Nudes” sign hangs high above stage left. There is bar onstage that has a “worn” feel to it and is graciously decorated with portraits of rock legends as well as the occasional vomit or urine stain (I didn’t say it was pretty). The set is even complete with swing-out bathroom. I must commend the set designers as well as the costume designer (Gregory Gale) on their recreation of such a realistic setting.
We are welcomed back to this “sexier time” (downtown Los Angeles in the late 1980’s) as so put by the narrator, Lonny (Genson Blimline), an infectious personality that is undoubtedly a fan-favorite. He introduces the audience to two characters (Drew and Sherrie) that will be at the center of the musical’s romance. Drew (Aaron C. Finley), is an aspiring rock star (from Detroit) that waits tables at the “Bourbon Room”, a bar where the play is set. Sherrie (Kate Rockwell) is the typical small-town girl that has just moved to Los Angeles in hopes of becoming an actress. Not to give anything away, but this sets up a certain Journey classic at the performance’s conclusion. Simultaneously, the “Bourbon Room”, owned by Dennis (Adam Dannheiser), is being forced to shut down due to a German developer’s (Paul Schoeffler) plans of turning the Sunset Strip into a row of malls along with his reluctant son, Franz (Cody Scott Lancaster). Regina (Josephine Rose Roberts) begins of lengthy protest of the developer’s plans in order to “Save the Strip”. The band, Arsenal, headed by Stacee Jaxx (Joey Calveri), is called in to play one last show at the “Bourbon Room” where they got started, but problems arise when Jaxx impedes on the impending romance of the two leads.
At the end of Act I, as noted by the narrator, Blimline, “everything is in turmoil.” He says “this is the part where nothing seems as though it’s going to turn out right,” but we know better than that. Blimline serves as the voice of the audience and bridges the gap between the actors on stage and us. He cleverly draws from the audience’s positive reaction to him, getting funnier and more ridiculous (if possible) as the show progresses. It’s impossible not to be amused by he and Dannheiser’s duet, “Can’t Fight This Feeling,” in Act II. Also in Act II, Blimline breaks the “fourth wall” in the most blatant way possible. He hands a Rock Of Ages Playbill to Finley telling him that he is in a musical and everything that has happened to him so far was the doing of the writers (so much for subtlety) and that it is up to him to change it.
Subtlety, however, is not what this show is going for in the least. Even with a predictable plot and the “boy meets girl” love story that we’ve seen time and time again, Rock Of Ages succeeds in keeping the audience intrigued with it’s over-the-top style, “cheesy humor”, and loveable characters. The cheap plug of putting the words “I Love NY” on the video board didn’t hurt either. The fact that the show is so purposefully ridiculous is what makes it unbelievably witty and funny.
It is worth noting that the ensemble is just as exciting to watch as the show’s leads (not taking anything away from them by any means). I am especially impressed with Andre Ward who flawlessly played three drastically different minor roles, though that admittedly adds some confusion to my viewing. Another role I enjoyed was that of Lancaster’s Franz who surely provides for some comical moments. He is soft-spoken throughout the whole show and spoke in a dialect hinting at his sexual preference. This leads to Franz having to reveal, “I’m not gay, I’m just German” much to the delight of the audience.
Musically, my favorite number was the closing of Act I, “Here I Go Again” (originally performed by Whitesnake). If you need to use the restroom at this point, I advise you to wait until intermission. You wouldn’t want to miss out on this one. Kelly Devine’s powerful choreography (jazz hands included) was the ideal, high-energy conclusion to the first act. Aaron C. Finley was featured in this song as well as many others, and his voice never once failed to impress me. It showed great flexibility to be able to sing softer rock ballads as well as flat-out belt the notes to some of the edgier songs. As a singer myself, I was struck by his dynamic vocal range and his sheer vocal endurance on stage. You can’t talk about endurance in this show without talking about the Rock Of Ages band. These guys were on stage for the duration of the performance and are really a quintessential part of the experience. Dannheiser asks, “Have you guys been here the whole time?” in reference to the band. After a moment, a roaring applause comes from the audience in recognition of the band’s impressive feat.
The high-energy entertainment continues through to the show’s end and I leave with a huge smile on my face. I can’t ask for anything more than that. Rock of Ages is wildly funny and entertaining. Knowing that I can just go to the theatre and purely enjoy the show without having to wrap my brain around a complex plot is a welcome feeling. I’m truly glad I saw it. If you want to have a good time, Rock Of Ages is the way to go.

Favorite Warning: There Will be Nudity
avatar

Posted on by
Reply

Mike Lew’s Bike America directed by Moritz von Stuelpnagel and presented by the Ma-Yi Theater Company follows the vivid journey of a 27 year-old girl named Penny (Jessica Digiovanni) on a cross-country bike marathon across the United States.

Immediately at the beginning of the play the audience is immersed into this cross-country journey, opening with Penny on a bicycle. She shatters the third wall telling the audience quite frankly that she’s “a fuckhead”, setting the comedic tone for the rest of the performance. This play appears to be a light-hearted comedy at first with expletives seemingly used every three breaths, but as we travel along with Penny and her biker gang¬ we see insightful commentary about age, sexuality, gender, identity, and state culture in the United States.

Penny’s cross-country bike trip starts out with a group called “Bike America”– a cancer awareness bike gang. The group consists of a group leader and also Penny’s sex buddy, Ryan (Tom White), another romantic interest named Tim Billy (Landon G. Woodson), a vehemently lesbian couple, Rorie (Melanie Nicholl-King) and Annabel (Marilyn Torress), and finally the group’s physical and even mental support guy, simply known as the Man with the Van.

The group dynamics are an important part of this play, and in its essence the play is largely about people and relationships. It is established early on that Penny’s intention for the cross-country trip is not exactly for cancer-awareness but rather a personal escape from relationships and obligations at home and school. Undeniably one of the comic reliefs in the play (since it’s a comedy anyways) is Penny’s clingy not-boyfriend Todd (Vandit Bhatt). Although all signs point to Todd at some point being Penny’s boyfriend, Penny rejects that notion that a romantic relationship every existed between the two, instead claiming that it was just a casual relationship.

Although physically unfit to carry on the roughly 3,000 mile bike journey from Boston to California, Penny perseveres anyhow seeing the journey as an unshackling experience. She wants to start a new life in another city, and tries on each state as they move along, discovering in each that she doesn’t quite fit in. Ultimately the play is about self-discovery; all the elements combine in the play to contribute to this theme.

The play’s environment felt exclusive and almost secretive. Performed in the auditorium of a St. Clemente’s Episcopal Church in the middle of a wealthy neighborhood, it almost felt like my friend, Kevin and I didn’t belong. Most of the audience was dressed semi-formally, some even had journals and notepads, seemingly ready to write reviews in real-time. With little knowledge of what the play was going to be about, not having read any synopsis or description, I was surprised to discover how much I related to the play. Self-discovery is something that we all experience regardless of our wealth or social class, an idea that my assumptions prevented me from realizing.

Although one of the major themes was self-discovery, Lew’s intent wasn’t exactly clear. Some parts of the 90-minute play felt irrelevant or prolonged. Lew also sent confusing messages about other themes, most notably, same-sex marriage. In the play, the Lesbian couple, Rorie and Annabel, makes it a goal to get married in each state their bike route takes them through. If I recall the state correctly, when they get to Nevada the clerk rejects their application for marriage, citing that the application was incomplete because of the lack of a groom. They throw a fit despite the fact that the clerk claims he’s not a politician, simply a clerk working a minimum-wage job. In this scene, they bring a long a frustrated-at-life Penny to the clerk’s office to demonstrate what true love is (and by extension the importance of other people in your life). Unfortunately, I felt that the message didn’t get across. Penny doesn’t benefit from this scene, and I’m not too confident that the audience does either. Although I understood the sentiment, the couple’s protest was almost childish, rude, and unfounded. This scene in particular was prolonged more than it needed to be¬; although– I understood the idea of acceptance and being who and what you want to be that stemmed from it.

Scenes such as the ones cited above, made the play incoherent at times. But overall, Lew’s ideas were successfully conveyed through Penny’s and the biker gang’s journey. The play ends on a heart-rending note with Penny’s death (which is announced at the beginning of the play so I’m not ruining anything). She abandons the bike group growing frustrated at their convictions about family and relationships, getting run-over by a semi-truck. The special effects on this scene were actually spectacular. Continuing the audience interaction, the stage goes dark and floodlights shine bright on the audience while a loud semi-truck roars by.

Penny’s Gang

Penny’s ghost speaks to the audience about the other bikers while we watch an almost dream like vision of the bikers hitting the Pacific Coast– the end of their journey. This ending makes the development and impacts of Lew’s themes much more powerful. He reminds us that when we’re on our journey of self-discovery, we often neglect other people in our life, just like Penny did; we fail to realize that other people and our relationships contribute to our identity in ways we never imagined¬ until it’s too late.

Penny felt as though she needed to move to another state to live a meaningful life. In this pursuit she ran away from Todd and even from her new biker family, failing to see that it wasn’t the state that made the state, but rather the people. We discover that Penny was afraid and reluctant over scratching beyond the surface of her relationships. She didn’t see Todd has a boyfriend even though he did, and she didn’t see Ryan as anything more than a sex buddy. Ultimately, she discovers the importance of other people in the self-discovery process and living a meaningful only after it’s too late– once she’s dead.

Overall I enjoyed the performance. The play was hilarious. The constant use of vulgar, and the most creative vulgar filled lines I’ve ever heard made the audience and myself explode with thunderous laughter: “Peace out stinky bitches”, “You’re more self-absorbed than a Sham Wow” and “The Mississippi River’s my bitch!” among others. Sure, there was a flash of nudity for even more comedic purposes, but ultimately, the play was a commentary on some very comprehensive and thought-provoking themes.

“Kinky boots”: Enjoyable, but Disappointing

Posted on by
1

I believe “Kinky Boots” is a musical people go to see with much anticipation. There’s something undeniably irresistible about seeing a Broadway number that showcases gorgeous cross-dressing men dancing in heels in a way most women can’t. Playing eight shows every week to an almost always sold-out crowd at the moderate-sized Al Hirschfeld Theatre, the Tony Award-winning musical is obviously very well received.

Which is why, unfortunately, I felt somewhat disappointed for about almost half of the musical.

Don’t get me wrong; it has all the right ingredients for the making of a great Broadway show – a colorful cast with an impressive array of vocal ranges (especially in the case of the “transvestites”) – but that’s precisely why it’s lacking. It’s cheesy. It isn’t groundbreaking, nor is it very deep. Putting it harshly, in terms of complexity, it’s a grown-up’s production of an elaborate high school musical. If you demand from me what I left the show with, I would say that its message is (maybe) that feminine men are ultimately better than masculine men because of their sensitivity.

And that brings me to what saved the show. If not for Lola – the fantastic Billy Porter, who won the Tony for Best Actor by the way – I would’ve probably gone home in a somewhat foul mood. Words cannot describe how he lights up the stage. He simply blows everyone else out of the water with his husky tenor voice, flamboyance, and eye-catching costumes – no offense to the charming lead, Charlie (acted by Stark Sands), who has quite the voice himself. I’m willing to bet that after his first appearance, the entire theatre was just waiting for Porter to come out again. Even when he reverted to men’s garb in order to fit in, he never quite lost his flair, which leads me to believe that he is very much at home in Lola’s shoes, disregarding the fact that he was in six inch stilettos for most of the show. His colorful voice went from powerful in his dance numbers, to soft and sentimental in that ballad duet with Stark Sands in front of the toilet prop, and to soulful and send-a-chill-down-your-spine in that solo scene with the flowy white dress and strobe lights.

I know I said that Charlie had a good voice, but his voice is also part of my disappointment. He has a very boyish voice, which I guess suits his immature character somehow. His voice was thin, such that when his solos finally ended in a full throated belting note, I found myself suspecting whether he was singing live. In fact, from the very beginning, I found myself questioning the perfection with which the ensemble performed their numbers. The cast sounded amazing and the vocals were like something out of a movie. There were no intakes of breath to be heard. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if the cast actually lip-synched one or several songs, what with all the dancing they were doing. Be that as it may, I refuse to believe that Porter was lip-synching any of his songs. He’s simply too good.

The choreography – of course I’m talking about Lola and her company of transvestites – struck me as flamboyant, but unoriginal. We’ve seen our fair share of strutting, pointing, arm waving, etc. Admittedly, there was the occasional split – in heels, by a man no less! – that took the audience by surprise. There was also that awkward conveyor belt dance in the middle of that kind of put a damper on things. I’d much prefer watching the ensemble prancing around the stage waving boots in the air than seeing them strut on conveyor belts. There was something very unoriginal about that.

Another flaw that threw me off was the North Hampton accent, or the English accent in general. I’m not a native speaker, but even to my untrained ears, the cast’s accent sounded a bit forced and exaggerated to me. I’m sure they all worked really hard on their accents – maybe it’s something about being on a Broadway stage – but with mikes that transported their voices to all corners of the room, I didn’t see why the actors had to try so hard to enunciate and drag out every sentence.

Of course, Lola wasn’t the only one that was brilliant. Although there are the occasional slow and boring solos (Sands’), the audience is brought to life once again by songs that are sung by the whole cast. Now the solos might be lacking, but when the whole cast sings, it’s a harmonizing force to be reckoned with. One such number is “Everybody Say Yeah.” It’s the highlight of Act I and brought the first act to a close. It also might’ve prevented anyone who was bored – I, for one – from leaving to see what else the musical was going to bring to the stage. I won’t deny that this resounding number made the hair on the back of my neck stand on end. I even overheard the girl next to me hum the song during intermission. Sometimes, you just have to bow down to power of Cyndi Lauper’s music and lyrics.

A successful show such as this one is not without a certain measure of interaction with the audience. Lola constantly “spoke” to the audience with her deep “mm’s” and pauses; often invoking laughter around the theatre. At numerous points throughout Lola’s numbers, cat calls could be heard here and there. By the end of the finale, the cast got the audience clapping along and standing on its feet with gleeful smiles.

Speaking of the audience, this was a somewhat mature crowd for a Friday night. For a show like “Kinky Boots,” I expected to see a lot of people in their early twenties. Instead, the audience was full of people I perceived to range from late twenties to eighties. Which is interesting, considering the material at hand.

I really want to say that I loved the show. I stepped into the theatre with much expectation, but ended up only partly quenching my thirst. “Kinky Boots” was enjoyable and light-hearted, but it’s doesn’t leave a very deep impression.

Romeo and Juliet Review

Posted on by
Reply

After 36 years off Broadway, William Shakespeare’s tragic love story, Romeo and Juliet is revived. Richard Rodgers Theatre presents a modern twist of the ancient story of two star-crossed lovers, Romeo and Juliet. This modern interpretation is directed by David Leveaux and involves interracial characters and dramatic changes to the setting. Orlando Bloom makes his Broadway debut as the brash and passionate Romeo. Bloom, who is known for his roles in Pirates of the Caribbean and Lord of the Rings, is able to captivate the audience from the start and shows off his experience in acting. On the other hand, Condola Rashad, actress from Stick Fly and Trip to Bountiful, breaks through barriers by playing the first black Juliet. Although this rendition of Romeo and Juliet can be interpreted as revolving around the tensions between two racial groups, I believe it is more focused on the differences between modern and ancient times.

The play starts off with a pitch, black stage. The loud sound of a bell suddenly rings throughout the theatre, startling the audience.  A dove proceeds to fly onto the stage, as a light appears on a man in medieval clothing. He talks to the audience while fire and flames burn across the stage on long rods. Immediately after he finishes speaking, a brawl breaks out, knives and chains are thrown and flung across stage. Finally the two rival families, Montague and Capulet, are introduced. The beginning of the play is extremely chaotic and flamboyant. It happens incredibly quickly, so most of the dialogue is lost through the fighting and screaming. However, the first scene successfully captivates the audience’s attention and prepares the audience for what’s to come.

As soon as the brawl disperses, the scene quickly changes as Romeo, Orlando Bloom, rides onto stage on a motorcycle. You can feel the audience grow with excitement as Bloom skids across stage. As Bloom opens his mouth and speaks his first lines of old Shakespearian language, I became aware of how out of place he seems, wearing his hoody, jeans and sneakers and riding his motorcycle. However as the play progresses, I am able to get used to the clashing between modern and ancient culture. This clashing in time period styles is seen throughout the play, from bicycles, motorcycles and paper money to the background of a large graffiti covered mural of an old picture of Christ and saints praying. Most of the time modern references were used to provide comical relief, like when the Friar exclaimed “holy Saint Francis”! Ultimately this creative, contemporary version of Romeo and Juliet makes the play much more relatable and entertaining to the modern audience.

When Juliet first runs across the stage (she’s having a pillow fight with a servant), the audience immediately reacts to her liveliness and excitement. As the play goes on, Juliet and Romeo meet for the first time and share a long and passionate kiss. Twinkly, serene music plays as Romeo and Juliet looked longingly into each other’s eyes. This was my favorite scene of the play because the audience can feel the strong chemistry between the two actors and the scene felt magical and real.

Romeo and Juliet immediately get married the day after they meet, however their joyous mood is put to an abrupt end right after their nuptials. After a series of terrible events, Romeo is convicted of murdering Juliet’s cousin and is banished. Juliet becomes extremely depressed and is forced by her parents to marry someone else. Ultimately Romeo and Juliet kill themselves because they can’t be together. The scenes in the play go by fairly quickly. If I did not know the plot of the play beforehand (from reading the play in middle school), I would be confused about who the characters were (not all the characters were introduced) and what was happening. Although it is not necessary, I recommend reading Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet before watching the play to get the most out of the experience.

During many parts of the play, the actors are successful in engaging the audience as if the audience were part of the play. The actors would run through aisles and at one scene Juliet sits on a swing and swings towards the audience. The audience, which consists mostly of teenage and middle aged females, as well as a few couples, are able to feel as if they are part of the character’s subconscious and understand them better. On many occasions a spotlight would shine on one character and the other characters in the background would stop moving Then the actor in the spotlight would begin to talk to the audience about how they felt This technique using light makes it seem like time has stopped and the character is talking directly to the audience. Another successful technique to engage the audience is the use of music. The music sets the mood and atmosphere of the scene. During scenes where Juliet and Romeo were together, soft cello music would play and create a sense of magic and harmony. In other scenes like the masquerade ball, a mixture of African, jazz and hip hop music played to create a festive mood.

Ultimately I believe Romeo and Juliet is worth watching, especially if you are a Shakespeare enthusiast or Orland Blooms fan. The plot and tragic ending is kept the same, but the modern references make the play relatable to the audience. My favorite aspects of the play have to be the unique use of music and the chemistry between Romeo and Juliet. Not only were they able to express and act out passionate lines, they connected with the audience and kept my attention for the whole play.

Cinderella with a Twist

Posted on by
Reply

Review on “Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella”

Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, a dynamic duo in the musical theatre department, are the creators of many award-winning Broadway shows including “The King and I”, “South Pacific”, “The Sound of Music”, and “Carousel.” Rodgers & Hammerstein’s Cinderella started in 1957 as a musical television series and debuted on Broadway for the first time on January 25th, 2013. I went to see the show on September 26, 2013 and even though I disliked the beginning for its childish acting, its many strengths such as its music, cast, costumes, lessons, and brilliant revisions overpower the first five minutes.

“Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Cinderella” takes place in the Rodgers and Hammerstein Theatre on 53rd and Broadway. Walking in, you see the doors to a beautiful theatre and golden staircases leading up to the balcony seats. The theatre is nearly packed to capacity with people of all ages. Children, teenagers, adults, and the elderly all gather for this one show. The stage is perfectly centered, so everyone can clearly see the action. The stage makes you feel as if you are the townspeople in the show, watching the life of a young girl transform. The audience chirps and converses about the beautiful set, but as soon as the lights dim, silence, along with anticipation, is among us.

Cinderella, played by the beautiful and talented Laura Osnes, is exactly as lovely as I imagined her to be, both inside and out. She walks with an unwavering aura of hope and compassion that is automatically sensed by the audience. Prince Topher, played by Santino Fontana, definitely holds the physical capabilities of a prince, being a dragon slayer and all, but is oddly depicted as an oblivious clown.

In the first five minutes of the show, frankly, I can only think about how childish the acting is and how choreographed the “war” is. I am almost disappointed I spent money on this show. My expectations drop lower and lower. After the prologue ends however, the music and singing hit full blast, virtually blowing me away. When Ella sings her first song, “In My Own Little Corner,” her voice moves me, sending shivers throughout my body. She has a gentle, soft, and hopeful voice that resonates with me. During the show, I unconsciously shiver numerous times, not just from Ella, but from all the characters. Rodgers and Hammerstein succeed not only in creating this stunning musical with an incredibly talented cast, but also in incorporating little hints of wit. Fifteen minutes into the show, I find myself laughing uncontrollably along with the hundreds of other people in the audience. The contemporary style of the show makes it very relatable to the audience, people of all ages, and always steals a laugh out of me. What is noteworthy about this show is the balance between traditional and modern. Although the language is very contemporary, the imagery sticks to a more conventional attire, featuring puffy ball gowns and petticoats. Rodgers and Hammerstein’s plotline twists also make the show truly enjoyable. I love how they are able to keep the heart of the story amongst new revisions. Those new changes serve as jaw-droppers throughout the performance, making me anticipate each and every upcoming scene.

The biggest revision throughout the musical occurs right before the intermission.  The first half ends with the iconic scene: the clock ticks midnight and Cinderella accidentally drops her glass slipper on the staircase. My expectation is that Prince Topher will pick up the slipper, but instead, Cinderella runs back and hastily grabs her slipper back. The curtain then proceeds to close with my jaw on the floor. Later on, rather than losing her slipper, Ella hands it to Topher. She takes matters into her own hands and gives the dumbfounded prince her slipper. Instead of relying on fate or destiny, she makes a clear decision to chase her desires, which I believe is meant to send a message to the audience about self-esteem.

There are numerous lessons conveyed through the story of Cinderella. One of course is that kindness is always the way to go. Even though she lives a life surrounded by resentment, she stays true to her kind side. During the ball, as the women play the game “ridicule,” Ella decides to stay true to her own belief that kindness is always better than mockery, and compliments her stepmother. Ella also teaches us to enjoy the simple pleasures in life, to live in the moment, and to never be greedy. She chooses to treasure the moments she spends with Topher and live in those moments. Unlike the rest of the women who chase after Topher, she actually runs away from him. After the ball, she simply reverts back to her old life, keeping the memories in her heart, and expecting nothing more from the prince. Finally, what I find truly ingenious is Madame’s apology to Ella. Madame puts down her pride and apologizes for the terrible way she’s treated her. Nowadays, I believe that children do not see the importance of an apology and of forgiveness. Ella says, “I’m going to say the three words I love most, ‘I forgive you.’” She serves as the perfect role model for children, and makes them understand the significance of these trivial matters. The goal of the show is for one to be mesmerized with the possibilities in life. It displays a situation where “anything is possible” and all you need to do is believe in yourself. Not only that, but the performance brushes up on other major themes such as forgiveness and kindness. The general feeling of the show is to leave you hopeful, to almost give you a new perspective towards life.

I think Rodgers and Hammerstein definitely accomplish this incentive. By watching this musical, it reminds me to believe in myself and to treat others the way you would want to be treated. Although this is cliché, in our society, the idea of kindness can easily be lost or forgotten. The musical helps restore my faith in people and leaves me feeling optimistic and rejuvenated. I can’t help but leave the theatre with a giant smile upon my face and two thumbs up, and I’m sure many would agree.

New Is Not Always Better

Posted on by
1

 Romeo and Juliet is a comedy, right? Huh… it’s not? Oh yeah, it’s a tragic love story full of death and conflict. So why were we all laughing? Maybe it was the mix of Shakespearean English and the modern gangster outfits. Maybe it was the clear lack of chemistry between the two lead roles. Maybe, in fact probably, it was the leather-clad Orlando Bloom riding onto stage on a motorcycle.

The new Broadway version of Romeo and Juliet, directed by David Leveaux, had all the makings of a success but none of the actualization. This adaptation of William Shakespeare’s famous tragedy debuted in New York City this past September. During the months leading up to the opening show the play was hyped tirelessly as the ‘new’ Romeo and Juliet. And it certainly was new. After the show the audience wasn’t reminiscing about the tear-jerking love scenes- we were thinking about the scene when Orlando Bloom took his shirt off. What was supposed to be a tragic romance ended up as a comedy and as an exhibition of Orlando Bloom’s artistic and physical prowess.

The reasons for this are debatable but the popular sentiment is clear: this is not 1597’s Romeo and Juliet. When this classic romance was converted into a modern Broadway production something got lost in translation. But, ironically enough, it wasn’t the language. The modern version updated the costumes and scenery but left the Shakespearean English unchanged.

This was a major reason why the play was so awkward. When someone in baggy jeans carrying nun-chucks is angrily yelling, “Have at thee, coward!” it’s difficult to take them seriously. And many of the actors seemed so tongue tied over the iambic pentameter that they forgot to actually act.

Despite his showy stage entrance on the back of a motorcycle Orlando Bloom was excellent. His portrayal of Romeo was the perfect balance between arrogant swagger and romanticism. He was the only actor who really made his character come to life. When he spoke you didn’t picture Legolas or Paris or William Turner or any of the other characters from his past Blockbuster films. He wanted us to envision Romeo and so we did.

But Orlando Bloom’s success detracted from the overall success of the performance. His acting was so passionate and committed that all of the other characters seemed shallow in comparison. Many seemed flat, and those who tried to show more emotion became forced and unnatural. To be fair this was probably not due to a lack of skill, but in context with Bloom’s portrayal of Romeo everyone else came off amateurish.

Another issue was that most members of the audience didn’t care about any other characters besides Romeo from the start. Most people didn’t buy tickets to go see Romeo and Juliet; they bought tickets solely to see Orlando Bloom in person. When he first walked (or motorcycled) on stage everyone immediately broke into applause and the woman next to me exclaimed “Wooo, honey!” and fanned herself with her program. Maybe if the audience has shown a little more interest in the other actors those actors would have shown a little more passion in their roles.

It’s obvious that in any production of Romeo and Juliet the two most important roles are, well, Romeo and Juliet. Unfortunately actress Condola Rashad’s portrayal of Juliet could not match Orlando Bloom’s passionate performance. In any other play with any other lead male actor I am confident that she would have been able to hold her own. She has a good stage voice and was clearly committed to the role- Rashad could successfully depict a ‘happy’ or ‘excited’ Juliet. But when she needed to portray love or deep emotional distress her acting seemed shallow. In comparison with Bloom she appeared professionally immature.

This contributed to the lack of chemistry between Romeo and Juliet. The most important part of the play is the love between these two characters and in this modern version it was totally unconvincing. The first time Bloom and Rashad kissed the audience literally laughed.  And the famous balcony scene that was supposed to exemplify the strength of their love seemed staged and cliché. What we saw were two actors pretending to be in love with one another instead of two lovers entwined in a complicated romance.

However the play did succeed in offering comedic relief from its more serious themes. The modern version was more successful than the original literature at integrating humor into the story. Christian Camargo who acted Mercutio and the character Juliet’s Nurse, played by Jayne Houdyshell, were hilarious. Both had good comedic timing and were not afraid to commit to the humor and look ridiculous.

Houdyshell gave the character of the Nurse a funny balance between nurturing and cynicism. She soothed Juliet’s emotional frenzies while simultaneously mocking her stupidity. And Mercutio’s unashamed sexuality brought a sense of lightness to Romeo and Juliet that I have not seen before. But unfortunately Romeo and Mercutio’s bromance was the most believable sexual tension in the play.

If Leveaux had intended for this version of Romeo and Juliet to be a satire I would have been much more impressed. All of the emotional moments in the play seemed too cheesy to be intentional. The performance was interesting and worthwhile but it did not deliver on the passion that is necessary for Romeo and Juliet.  In short, if you want to laugh at love then this is the play to see. Or you can jump on the bandwagon and just go to stare longingly at Orlando Bloom.  But if you are looking for a play that will make you cry and feel sentimental I suggest that you keep looking.

Critical Review: Arguendo Fails to Win the Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Promoted as a witty and thought-provoking comedy, “Arguendo” depicts the 1991 Supreme Court proceedings of the Barnes v. Glen Theatre case, in which a group of exotic dancers challenge a law banning public nudity. Using the First Amendment to build their case, the dancers succeed in proving that as a “form of expression,” their dancing, even if in the nude, should not be limited by the law. Director John Collins displays these events using dialogue from legal transcripts and vigorous, if not a little chaotic and bombastic, stage direction.

Despite the obvious effort put into the show’s visuals, the production shamefully fails to capture and intrigue the eyes. The scenery, though designed to be minimalistic and functional, actually looks sloppily put together, its only truly noteworthy addition being a digital screen that gaudily flashes a cartoonish depiction of the United States Supreme Court Building or legal transcripts in a miniature, illegible print. The focal point of the scene, a bulky and seemingly unsteady platform that stretches across the entire set, is meant to serve as the justices’ seating area and a symbol for their power; yet the justices spend less than an eighth of the show time on it. Instead they remain indistinguishable, at the same level as the court’s plaintiff and defendant. Thus, something which takes up such a vast majority of the stage instead deems itself as a useless presence and a waste of space. Most frustrating of all was the lack of what seems like an obvious prop, a desk, leaving the “court intern” to sloppily, awkwardly, and unrealistically scatter legal documents at the court justices’ feet.

Altogether, the lack of scenery and props left the actors with very little to interact with. The practically nonexistent stage direction is a tragic attempt at bringing movement and liveliness to a show based on a typically sedated environment. In fact, because the show is based on such an unexciting and colorless setting, the actors’ movements seem rather forced, unnatural, even peculiar at times. The stage directions could basically be summarized in justices sliding down a ramp and across the stage in their chairs, and the plaintiff or defendant dramatically tango dancing with the podium, only to deliver a feeble punch line. The poorly planned stage direction proves to be repetitive and useless to the greater meaning of the production.

However, three quarters into the show, the stage directions do become somewhat attention grabbing, but only in a grating and distracting way, due to an obnoxiously chaotic scene and a cheap resort to male, full frontal nudity. Unfortunately this addition to the show took the audience’s attention away from the key dialogue and back into the meaningless stage movements: court documents flying through the air, a journalist aimlessly kicking her feet at the ceiling, more justices sliding around in their chairs without any appropriate purpose. As if the legal jargon was not already difficult enough to understand, the mindless motions and stage directions made it especially more difficult to concentrate on the slightest word spoken by the actors.

In fact, there was very little opportunity to grasp the meaning behind the dialogue in general. The script was comprised entirely of legal jargon spoken in such a swift and emotionless way that even a law student wouldn’t be able to comprehend its full meaning. The gaudy, digital screen, meant to supplement the viewer’s hearing with a visual aid also flashed legal texts too quickly for any digestion of the information to occur. Surely the director could have slowed down the pace for a show that lasted only an hour and twenty minutes, without even stopping for an intermission. This is particularly true for a show that relies so heavily on the legal facts behind a trial as the sole basis of its plot.

The minuscule cast of five actors splitting twelve roles, with an average of about ten characters on stage at a single moment, also did not help make the comedy more reasonable. Instead, it added to the muddled and poorly planned structure of Collin’s production as a whole. While the three actors represented all nine judges at once, each was physically a caricature of one specific judge, making it difficult to accept him or her as the representation of three other. Thus, this seems like a failure in character development as opposed to an artistic liberty.

Although the play poked fun at all of the judges, the only tidbit that was actually humorous occurred in the very last scene, during which Sandra Day O’Connor steps out and discusses the reasons behind the collars she wears with her gowns. Unrelated to the rest of the comedy and its plot, it is clear that this scene is a last attempt at humor and a final gift of comedic relief to an audience that just endured through a painful and meaningless history lesson.

While John Collin’s “Arguendo” is playing at the Public Theatre until October 13, 2013, one cannot make the argument to go see this show for its steep seventy-five dollar price. Watching “Arguendo” is like listening to pair of toddlers bicker over something as trivial as an action figure—practically incomprehensible and irritating—and in causing such a reaction to a show based on something as vital as the American court system attests to the greater failure of the Collin’s production.