Of course, Mr. Byrne was speaking just to you, Bree.
He doesn't smile that way for everyone.
Thanks for posting, Bree. Did the audience seem to enjoy it?
It wasn't quite a full house, but I was surprised at how few no-shows there were. Just before the performance started, the ushers announced that people in the back could move forward into any empty seats, so the audience ended up being clustered at the front, which made the house appear more full.
At intermission, I spoke to the couple sitting next to me, who I would guess are probably in their late 60's. She had walked to the theatre from their apartment at 94th and Park (probably close to 3 miles), and he had biked from his office in the east 20's, on a bike he hadn't ridden since the last strike, in 1980. He was planning to ride the bike home (assuming it was still chained to the post where he had left it), and she was going to walk because she's offended by the increased prices cabs have been authorized to charge during the strike. I admire their spirit.
Just saw your post, Raggedy. Yes, the audience did seem to enjoy it. The couple sitting behind me sighed and fidgeted a lot (I had hoped they would leave at intermission, but they came back), but they were the exception.
Well, the parties in the transit strike have heeded the words of the Christmas carol ("Oh, hush the noise, ye men of strife") and called off the strike, with the union members agreeing to go back to work while negotiations continue. I'm very relieved. By my rough estimate, I logged at least 15 miles on foot during the three days the strike lasted. (That's not a boast, just a statement of fact: I realize that thousands of New Yorkers walked many more miles than that.) Several of those miles were traversed in the process of going back and forth to movie theaters, (I told you my priorities were in order), seeing one movie that gets a thumb up and one that gets a thumb down.
The "thumbs up" movie is Transamerica, in which Felicity Huffman plays a trans-sexual character who was born a man (Stanley) and is in the process of becoming a woman (Bree!). At the beginning of the movie, she learns that she has a 17-year-old son she never knew about, and the movie is about the slow process by which she forms a relationship with her son. With that story line, the movie could easily have toppled over into smarminess or campiness, but somehow it never did: it's just funny and touching, and Felicity Huffman is sensational.
The "thumbs down" movie is The White Countess, the new (and last, since Ismail Merchant died earlier this year) Merchant Ivory movie. The movie, which is set in Shanghai in 1936 and 1937, has a script by Kazuo Ishiguro (who wrote The Remains of the Day), and stars Ralph Fiennes as an embittered American who owns a nightclub (shades of Bogart in Casablanca) and Natasha Richardson as a white Russian émigré who works as a taxi dancer. With those credentials, it should have been great, but somehow it never really took off.
I also questioned why it was necessary to cast Ralph Fiennes as an American: he's a wonderful actor, but weren't there any American actors who could have played the part just as well? It's a sign of the movie's failure to capture my attention that, while I was watching it, I spent a lot of time thinking about who I would have cast in the part. I finally decided on Harrison Ford, even though he's a bit too old for the part -- but he's Harrison Ford, so who cares?
Very wise priorities, Bree.
I take it you have several pairs of comfortable walking shoes?
Thank you for the excellent reviews. I've decided I will see "Transamerica" (when it comes to cable) and skip "The White Countess". I've been racking my brain trying to think of someone who could fill the bill for "Rick". Daniel Craig (loved him in "Sylvia") immediately came to mind, but darned if he isn't English. The only "newbie" American actor that I can think of who floats my boat is Viggo Mortensen.
What do you think, Mac?
I'm so glad to hear that things will be moving in NYC again, bree. And that you've made it to the movies despite the weather and the strike!
I will probably see White Countess, though maybe I can wait until it's out on DVD. As for casting, I'm a fan of both Harrison and Viggo. For a more obscure choice of middle-aged tough American actors, how about Aaron Eckhart or Vincent D'Onofrio? Of course before I came up with them, I thought of at least a dozen possibilities who were British or Australian...
I haven't heard about Transamerica. It sounds really interesting. I've admired Felicity Huffman for years.
ALERT
Just in case anybody is home. Kennedy Center Awards are on Tuesday, December 27 - PA time 9PM.
2005
Tony Bennett (singer), Suzanne Farrell (ballerina), Julie Harris (actress), Robert Redford (actor), Tina Turner (singer)
THANKS! I'll barely be home by then, but I'll tape them for sure.
Thanks, raggedy. I saw Julie Harris do a one-woman show in Chicago. She portrayed Emily Dickinson in "The Belle of Amherst". The presentation was "theater in the round", a very close-up and intimate experience, especially memorable because it was the legendary Julie Harris.
Thanks again, dear Raggedy. I thoroughly enjoyed the show.
My pleasure. Glad you enjoyed it, Mac.
I particularly enjoyed the Stephen Sondheim number performed for Julie Harris, as did Julie
-- and Willie's "My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys" for Redford. Loved Redford's expression of delight. (I had forgotten that Willie sang that song in Redford's "The Electric Horseman" and can't believe it was 26 years ago.)
Happy new year, everyone!
This is a little bit off-topic, but I wanted to post a link to an article in today's New York Times which I think regular readers of this thread will find interesting. The article, which was written by the chief music critic of the Times, starts off by mentioning the fact that the San Francisco Opera recently used electronic amplification in a production of a new opera. It then goes on to speculate about what this development might mean for the future of opera, and from there to discuss how the widespread use of amplification has affected musical theater. I thought it was fascinating (and a little disturbing). The article is at:
Amplifying the Classics
A very interesting and to me a very disturbing article, bree. Thank you for posting it.
It's funny, but as I was reading the article, Mary Martin and Renata Tebaldi and John Raitt came to mind, before the critic mentioned their names. I was fortunate enough to see Martin in Annie Get Your Gun, Tebaldi in Madame Butterfly and Raitt in Carousel. I think they would have been appalled at the suggestion of a mike. They sang to the audience and the audience heard.
I'll take the "old stodgy stuff", as the critic calls it, any day.
Me, too.
A couple of years ago, I went to a concert at Carnegie Hall in honor of Marilyn Horne's 70th birthday. The singers on the program were a mix of opera singers and popular singers; the opera singers didn't use amplification, but the popular singers (mostly) did. The exception was Brian Stokes Mitchell, who began singing "The Impossible Dream" in front of a microphone. After a few bars, he looked down at the microphone with disdain, and then -- in a gesture that appeared spontaneous but that I'm sure was carefully rehearsed -- took a step to the left and sang the rest of "The Impossible Dream", without amplification, loud and clear enough to be heard in the last row of Carnegie Hall. (As Dizzy Dean would say, "It ain't braggin' if you can do it".)
Aaah. Brian Stokes Mitchell. Now, he's a performer.
A perfect example. You've heard him on a CD, I'm sure. And I'll bet you've noticed that he doesn't sound nearly as good on the CD as when you saw him on stage, like listening to an opera CD and seeing it live. No comparison. So, I feel that if a singer/performer has to have a mike or whatever to project his voice, he isn't a top notch singer/performer. And as the music critic implied - with enhancement the performers are probably not going to be as talented/skilled as we were used to in the past --- and that's the beginning of the end for good B'Way musicals.
Cripes, don't get me started on this one. I have a very strong opinion on this! But it's too late to read the article, I'll be back when I've had a chance to read it.
or
and Mac said:
Cripes, don't get me started on this one. I have a very strong opinion on this! But it's too late to read the article, I'll be back when I've had a chance to read it.
Waiting, Mac.
Thanks for the reminder, Raggedy. I'll be Bach...
Wow, great article - thanks for posting it, bree. Anthony Tommasini has done a thorough job, giving pros and cons and the history of amplification in the theater.
In my experience, amplifying the actors or singers is being used as the easy fix to various problems. Bad acoustics, too big (or too small) of an orchestra, and especially the casting of poorly trained performers are all being solved by miking everyone involved. It creates plenty of work for the sound guys, but it lessens the experience every time. Nothing compares to hearing a great performer with nothing in the way between his or her throat and your ears.
I worked with a wonderful actor who was also an acting professor at the university attached to the theater company. He was performing the lead role in a huge production and had been struggling with a cold for a few days. He actually lost his voice, but refused to wear a body mike or to allow his understudy to take over. Instead, he went out there and somehow pushed out his lines. The croaking, alarming sounds he made fit the part, thank god, or it would have been a disaster. The actor was so dead-set against being miked that he made it happen without it.
I'm glad you enjoyed the article, mac. I'm also glad the actor who refused to be miked wasn't appearing in a musical!
