I’ve been able to be the audience in several plays and shows through out the course of this semester, yet I have yet to witness one that features a well-known movie star.

Since movie stars are not exactly playing on their turf on Broadway, yet Hugh Jackman  and his one-man show “Hugh Jackman: Back on Broadway” may prove otherwise. Though being one of the most popular actor in Hollywood with blockbusters like the X-men series, The Prestige, and recently Real Steal, Mr. Jackman made his debut on Broadway, hence the title of his show. He won a Tony back in his days singing and dancing on stage, therefore this show is a show that I would definitely want to go to.

Regarding the content, the show does not surround self-mockery nor narcissism but instead depicts the absurdity and wonderfulness of being a man who can make women swoon at each smile. From the picture of the Playbill, one can infer the central theme of the story, sex. But Hugh Jackman does not make it dirty nor profane, he executes everything in a more emotional undertone with his a capella voice and interact with the audiences away from the center of the stage.

For the girls who want to experience the thrill of being romance by the People’s sexiest man alive, I think you would really enjoy the show; but don’t expect a rose at your front door the next day, though. And for the guys who idolize the animally aggressive yet sensitive Wolverine, this is your chance to watch him in action; maybe you’ll learn something about flirtation at a celebrity-level.

Roberta Smith talks about a hanging piece of work at the Guggenheim in A Suspension of Willful Disbelief. The artist, Maurizio Cattelan used 128 pieces to create the work of art. Smith describes it as “a complicated” piece of art that hangs in a rotunda.

Roberta Smith believes that despite the initial awe of the work, it still doesn’t bring enough attention. She believes that the artist retiring is a good choice since he seems to be running out of innovative ideas. Smith also brings up Cattelan’s previous failures to produce art in time for an exhibit. She says that this piece protrudes too much at a time to the viewer. Despite all the negative comments, overall she felt that the piece of art was satisfactory.

I personally went to the Guggenheim museum before this exhibit. I would have enjoyed seeing it as it is a new way to display art. Also, the fact that it is suspended in mid air seems quite appealing to me. All these new and innovative types of art really catches my attention. One would expect art to be a painting on a wall. However, the 21st century has brought much more than that.

Many advertisements today are very boring. While a few original ads stand out, most have similar designs and ideas behind them. Ruth La Ferla explains a parody of this concept in the article “Scratch the Ad and Sniff Out the Parody.” The article explains that W Magazine’s November issue contained nine false ads shot by Steven Meisel. The magazine’s editor in chief, Stefano Tonchi, and creative director, Alex Gonzalez came up with the idea for these false ads. They wanted to set apart their magazine from other fashion magazines and show off how unremarkable most advertisements are.

La Ferla’s article is very well written. She starts out by describing a few of the ads before jumping into the explanation of what they really are. She explains that an “advertisement for Pizazz, an evening wear line,” “spotlights a sweet little girl, her lips streaked in scarlet, her doll-size body swathed in layers of tulle.” By describing this and other examples of the false ads before explaining that they are false, she gives the reader a similar experience to that of seeing the images while reading the magazine. She then points out that the reader has  “been punk’d” and goes on with a very informative explanation of these advertisements and the story behind them. She states the people who were behind the parody, explains the motivation behind it, and descrobes how it came about.

I think this parody was a great idea. Advertisements have become very typical, especially in fashion magazines. I don’t think I’ve ever opened one myself but even I know what the ads in them look like. I think its great that the editor in chief and creative director are aware of this problem and willing to make a parody out of it.

My recently pleasurable experience watching ‘Love’s Labor’s Lost’ at the Pub Theater and midterm assignment to write a review has sparked my interest in the theater section of the NY Times.. Which led me to this article, ‘When Two Beautiful Lives Begin to Unravel‘, by Charles Isherwood. This is a review of the play ‘Belleville’, about a young couple married for five years who live in Paris. The play is an observance of how the couple’s marriage slowly and inconspicuously unravels (as the title of the review says) and falls apart. I love how Isherwood marvels at the fact that the play is set in Paris, pointing out how the city itself is associated with an amazing and romantic vibe, yet the marriage crumbles apart regardless. Isherwood mentions that the opening scene starts off with Abby going home, expecting an empty apartment but instead finds her husband, Zack, in the bedroom during a moment of “self intimacy”. I found it quite funny and interesting for the play to introduce itself in this way. The fact that the play is about a young marriage that the two lovers may have ‘stumbled into’ too quickly makes it a topic very easy to relate to to nowadays as young adults fall in and out of relationships based on impulse.

Isherwood’s description of the playwright’s “thrillingly good play’ and ‘nail-biting psychological thriller” stirs up a curiosity in me,  not only of the storyline but also of the quality of the perfected directors choice, made obvious by Isherwood. He mentions how the characters are “portrayed with insight and delicacy”, and how Zack “never loses his laid back charm”; how a knife is brought onto set for practical purposes but automatically creates an idea that it might be used “for more gruesome ends” and even the closing and opening of doors “resonate with ambiguous meaning”. All in all, I guess I actually wanted to comment more on how I found Isherwood’s review to be extremely effective and well written, urging me to see this play.

Suicide seems like a weird topic for a play, let alone a business.  In “Suicide Incorporated,” Andrew Hinderaker, does just that.  From Charles Isherwood’s review I felt that the Hinderaker did a decent job in his production.  Charles Isherwood wasn’t on either side of the spectrum in his review, he pointed out what he liked and things he didn’t like.  His review seemed a bit on the positive side though, which is kind of ironic since suicide is the main issue.

As a viewer, I felt Charles Isherwood enjoyed the production.  He noted it was “brisk and enjoyable” and had some humor in it.  He also seemed to enjoy the acting of the cast, all of which were males.  His overall tone was positive when he described his experience with the play.

His criticism came when he became a critic.  He pointed out the obvious flaws in creating that type of business.  He also mentioned that one would have to buy into the belief that this type of organization could belief even with all the legal problems surrounding it.

The two sides that Isherwood presents is interesting because that is the way I sometimes think.  There’s the viewer and critic that everyone has inside them.  When watching a production, the viewer ultimately determines if the production was satisfying.  Then once everything is said and done, the critic analyzes the work and determines if it was properly produced and set up.  The viewer is related with certain things like emotions and closure, while the critic is more analytical and logical.

Having these two sides present and obvious leads to a more complete review and Isherwood’s presentation of this makes me interested in “Suicide, Incorporated,” which is showing at the  Black Box Theater at the Harold and Miriam Steinberg Center for Theater on 111 West 46th Street.

A gifted pianist, Yuja Wang captures the audience not only with her music, but also with her sense of fashion. A young lady of 24 years old, Ms. Wang would have a different idea of what to wear to a recital in which she stars in. So at her Hollywood Bowl event, located in Hollywood known for its’ glamor, Ms. Wang decided to go with a bright orange, body hugging dress. This daring outfit stirred up a big commotion afterwards. Many people thought her dress was inappropriate and thought it would lower her image. That is understandable, but I think Yuja is free to choose whatever she wants to wear as she would have thought about how it would affect her before she wore it.

With her wonderful skills that show how great a pianist she is, I don’t think what she wears should have any affect on her image as a pianist. Actually, I think it’s wonderful that she dresses in what she wants and in something appropriate for the location of the event. In her event at Carnegie Hall, she wore a simple black dress with black shiny stilettos. Tommasini mentions and describes the pieces she plays with so positively that I would consider attending one of her performances. What I loved about his review is that not only did he love her music, he states that he was unaffected by her wardrobe and that he does not see anything wrong with what she wore. This just goes to show that people are making a big deal out of nothing.

In Tomassini’s “Bartok at Home, With a Touch of the Mischievous,” He discusses the creative work of Hungarian-born pianist Andras Schiff and with the help of the Hungarian group Muszikas, Bartok can achieve a level of musical talent comparable to those of classical masters. He praises Mr. Schiff’s vibrant concertos. I found his context necessary, but dry. His writing style showcases his knowledge of the classical musicians and composers. Tomassini describes fluently the artists whose works are nothing short of brilliant.

Words like pummeling, propulsive, engulfed, and steely are great example of how Tomassini utilizes adjectives to his advantage. He reveals a different facet of various music performances. These adjectives elaborate on how the sound and tones of the instruments were received by the audience. Tomassini follows a logic that the reader can easily understand. The sequence of the concertos and the colorful compliments make this review.

Alastair Macaulay’s dance review about The Fall For Dance Festival highlights the best and worst performances of the festival. The festival itself was a mixture of great free-flowing and expressive dancers accompanied by evocative musicians. Macaulay focuses on three performances and describes the strongest parts.

I really enjoyed his descriptions of the dancer Lil Buck. In short, he is fluid. Macaulay describes Lil Buck’s dance as “dazzling ripples along his arms and through his shoulders” and these words strike me. When I read these words over again Macaulay successfully paints the image/performance in my head – and that is what makes this a convincing review. Also Macaulay incorporates YouTube links in his reviews to make it much more interactive.

Yet, even though the review itself is great at displaying these images. I cannot comprehend how Macaulay derives these conclusions from what he saw. I feel that dance reviews are not exactly the most useful type of art review for everyone. Dance is interesting – but a dance review is just a heap of metaphors and adjectives. I guess that after reading so many theater reviews, I feel that these dance reviews are lackluster. I hope that I can see what Macaulay is seeing when we watch it on Wednesday.

Packed with powerful words and images, but nothing enticing.

The new movie Anonymous has caused quite an uproar with its premise that the man we know as William Shakespeare might have actually been a fraud. But debates about Shakespeare’s identity have been around for a long time. There have been suggestions that Shakespeare was actually just the front for a group of writers working together, that he plagiarized from an earlier author and even that he was actually a ‘she.’ So, the movie’s theory that Shakespeare’s works were actually written by Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford is not really that shocking. Nonetheless, it has caused quite a stir. But to play the devil’s advocate, does it really matter? Would Shakespeare’s identity have any real impact on our view of the work itself? Ben Brantley examines this interesting counter argument in his article, Who Wrote Shakespeare? Who Cares?

I agree with Mr. Brantley, it really doesn’t matter to me who Shakespeare was. Of course, I am curious about the truth of the matter. For history’s sake, the true identity of the person/persons who wrote those great works needs to be discovered. But, like Mr. Brantley discusses in his article, great works of art transcend their creators. When it comes to Shakespeare, the words and the infinite ways in which they can be interpreted are far more interesting than the possibly false identity of the playwright.

In fact, I have always considered the possibility that the Shakespeare works have been written by more than just one person. At times, I find the work too diversely interpret-able and universal to have plausibly come from the thoughts of just one person.  If indeed, William Shakespeare was the glove maker’s son from Stanford-upon-Avon, I stand in profound admiration for the genius of one man. If not and it turns out that he had help, then, it wouldn’t surprise me. Mr. Brantley makes a good point; however shocking Shakespeare’s real identity turns out to be, the work will remain as important and profound as ever.