"It's a Beautiful Ville"

Remember last semester when I said I was going to review "Belleville" and didn't? Well I did, I just never posted it. Because I'm addle-brained. So now I'll take a few moments to tell you about it.

"Belleville" is a new play, that was very recently born here in Connecticut. It is set in Belleville, Paris, which is a shadier part of the city. A young couple lives there, and another couple are their upstairs landlords. The first couple have moved here for Zack's job as a doctor,while Abby stays at home and works on her art and fixes up the house.

At first, they appear to be happy and comfortable, definitely in love. But as the play goes on, the audience sees that Abby has some mental disorders to work through. Her mother has died a few years ago, and she has drawn obsessively close to her family. This unhealthy behavior has been emphasized by her sister's pregnancy. Zack, wanting to spend time with her and help her out of a depression-rife rut, continually tries to take the phone from her. Actually, he is constantly taking care of her. Abby acts much like a child, and Zack pays the price with heavy drug addiction.

But Zack isn't perfect either. It is revealed that he dropped out of med school and never had a job in Paris. Abby's discovery that they are actually living on zero revenue combined with her excessive paranoia and depression push her too far. She tries to commit suicide with a knife in the bathtub, under the guise of "washing off." Before Zack figures it out, he asks her if she ever regrets asking him to marry her, or wishes that he'd said no. She says "yes," she does wish that, but doesn't respond to a barrage of questions following. Zack panics, kicks down the door, and saves her life.

The couple seems to have a breakthrough, with Zack telling Abby how much he loves and cares for her, his wife. Abby reacts lovingly for the first time in the entire show... and then the phone rings. Zack answers it, talks to Abby's father for a few minutes, and then hands the phone over to Abby.

While talking, she goes and gets dressed in the far room, closing the door behind her. Zack looks out the window into the beautiful sunrise for a few hopeful moments, and then picks up the knife Abby tried to kill herself with and hovers outside her door, before retreating into the bathroom and locking the door. The sound of running water is heard. When Abby exits her room, there is a rising white noise, and a blinding spotlight is set on her. She looks at the bathroom door for a moment, and then leaves the apartment.

Overall, I thought “Belleville” was disappointing. I went into the theatre with high hopes for a fabulous show that would amaze me just as much as “Three Sisters” did. This isn’t to say that “Belleville” was bad. In fact, it was quite a remarkable script with some fabulous acting and a stunning set. However, there were some things (which I will go into more detail about) that made me feel uncomfortable, and not in the way that was intended.

First thing’s first: the acting. I thought that all of the dramatic acting was stellar, especially from the female lead, but the same actress’ dialogue at the beginning of the play set me on edge. It’s possible that she was trying to show early on that there was something wrong mentally with her character, but when she was speaking to Alioune (her landlord), or even her husband, the way she spoke seemed like she was “acting” instead of empathizing and being realistic. For such a visceral and realistic play, I think it was a bit jarring that her tone was so showy during the exposition.

Her dramatic acting, as I mentioned before, was beautiful, though. When she was cutting her toenail off, I felt sympathy pains because of her intensity, and her attempted suicide was breathtaking in its realism. I believe that the actor who played Zack did the best job overall, however. He was always believable and knew how to be obvious without being overt about his drug addiction and other personal problems. Subtlety is essential for those kinds of issues.

Another thing that set me off was the ending. Near the end of the play when Zack and Abby were kneeling in front of each other and he answered the phone instead of her, I took it as a moment of symbolism; Abby was going to let Zack back into her heart and Zack was going to stop being antagonistic about her obsessive behaviors with her family. This made the role-reversal, Zack’s suicide, and Abby’s abandonment of her husband that much more heart-wrenching, and not in a way that I though was beneficial. It made me walk out of the theatre intensely disheartened and angry. Why can’t “good plays” end happily? But that’s a rant for another time.

Another scripting issue I had was the very end of the play. The large amount of French dialogue was quite upsetting. I could understand one or two minutes of silence interspersed with French, but five to ten is excessive. Never assume your audience can speak a foreign language, or will be okay with not understanding whole minutes of dialogue. It was very frustrating.

A praise I have is for the set and lighting. BRILLIANT. The set looked like a nice, if well-used, French apartment, complete with lovely artwork, small embellishments on the fireplace, and an outdoor neon sign and street that looked absolutely real. And let’s talk lights for a minute; how do you get lights to look like the morning sun? That’s pure genius. And not only did it look like sun, it like the sun. I was amazed.

All of this being said, I consider “Belleville” a good experience for myself mainly for setting and lighting purposes and some great dramatic acting. I may not have enjoyed all of the play, but it was definitely a good watch, and exceptionally well-done

That's about all I have to say today. I'll probably be doing a review of "Into The Woods" in the near future, because I'm a sucker for Sondheim. In the meantime, Stay classy, Planet Earth!

Love,
Caty

"Hunting High, Not Low"

Hello!

So, I am massively sick today, but my brain is simply going mad with energy. So, I thought I'd channel some of that here. I watched Good Will Hunting today, and it was, in a word, breathtaking. I don't know if I want to review it or not, because it was just that good. Anyway, here's what I've been doing with myself for the last few days. I'm taking a class this semester that deals with manipulating images and producing media. This inspired me to download the free trials for Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. This is the result.

I'm pretty proud with these:

And this was just kind of fun:

And this was fever-induced silliness:

I think I have a serious problem...

Anyway! Good Will Hunting: an amazing film. Watch it. There's cursing, but I would say it adds a lot to the characters. All of the actors were very organic and convincing, and the storyline is quite compelling. It's about friendship, love, and the important things in life. It made me cry just as much as Moulin Rouge! did, so... that accounts for something.

As for life, it's pretty good when I'm not sick (which feels increasingly often). I'm pretty sure it's the air here. It's yucky. When not photoshopping like a maniac, I've been spending my time reading some H.P. Lovecraft, working on my harmonies for the upcoming musical, and browsing some webcomics. My favorites include Problem Sleuth, Girl Genius, and Homestuck. Unfortunately, they are REALLY LONG, so it takes an undue amount of effort to keep up. I pretty much wait until I'm under the weather, like today, and blast through large chunks of them.

I also watched the 1925 version of Phantom of the Opera. It was really interesting to see how much the new adaptation had pulled from it. Some of the sets were literally IDENTICAL. That made me feel really good about film-makers honoring their predecessors. Also, Lon Chaney played the phantom, which was GREAT. If you don't know who Lon Chaney is, go watch some old horror movies. RIGHT NOW. I don't mean crap like Saw and Hostel. I mean "The Wolfman" and "Creature from the Black Lagoon" and "Dracula." He didn't actually do all of those, but you should watch them all. Yes, I mean YOU!

Now that I've given you a job, I think I shall either watch something incredibly epic, or pass out and sleep for 12 hours. So, adieu!

Love,
Caty

P.S. I'll bet you couldn't tell that shirt with the zipper was originally white, huh? ;)

"Yale: Ye Ole Maze O' DEATH"

So, I mentioned in my last post that I was going to go to Yale Cabaret and watch Dracula, right? Well, I guess God the Father must have been sitting up there in Heaven, looking through the playbills of shows around the world, and upon seeing the description of "Dracula," decided that it was NOT FOR MY EYES and that he should KEEP ME FROM IT AT ALL COSTS by making it as DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE for me to find my way to the Cabaret. Either that, or he thought it would be really funny for me to get lost and sniffle like a little girl. At any rate, it was a horrible experience. Everyone at Yale is snobby, except for the really sketchy people that smoke in Gothic alcoves, and I was a little worried I was going to die. When I finally made my way back to the bus stop, after being told by the maitre de that my ticket had been given away due to my tardiness, I called my boyfriend and made him talk to me about Gundam and Stratego, because I needed something THAT RANDOM to get my mind off of my soaked hat and Toms (which were a poor choice of footwear for a rainy day).

All in all, I am really grateful I didn't get mugged or something, and now I know my way around the theatre district of Yale (more or less).

I hope y'all's weekends were better than mine!
Love,
Caty

P.S. I heard it "sucked" anyway

"French or Fry?"

Hello, all! I've been out of the blogging scene for a while, but this semester I've found a way to tie blogging and homework together! Huzzah! So, there should be more frequent posts... In theory.

Okay, it's not a review today, but what I have to say IS about some prominent theatre characters. More specifically, villains. Namely, Jud Fry from Oklahoma and Inspector Javert from Les Misérables. The assignment was to compare and contrast the characters, taking into account their backgrounds and "villainous" ways. If you don't want to know anything about what happens to these characters, stop here.

Here's my essay:

                 All too often, audiences slip into the mindset of a “good guy” versus a “bad guy” without taking into account the actual character that is supposedly a dastardly villain. Two prime examples of misunderstood antagonists are Jud Fry from Rodgers & Hammerstein’s Oklahoma, and Inspector Javert from Claude-Michel Schönberg & Alain Boublil’s Les Misérables. The three aspects of this exposition will focus on are the characters’ backgrounds and how they respond to their upbringing, their deaths, and whether or not either of them could be considered a true villain.

                Jud and Javert were born into similar situations, and it is apparent that both characters have some anger about their initial positions in society. Jud often complains that no one will speak to him because he’s a cowhand. He projects his own insecurities about social position onto others, when the real animosity stems from his gauche behavior. It is also clear that he had very little mothering by his extensive collection of “pretties” and his goal to simply go get the woman he wants without regard to her tastes.

                Rather than embrace his birth status, like Jud, Javert makes a total break from his past. He works hard, seeks to tidy and organize everything around him, and punish the unlawful lowlifes he had to grow up with. Since Javert says that he turned his own father in, we can infer that his relationship with his parents was just as bad, if not worse, than Jud’s. However, instead of being angry about others judging him, like Jud, he judges others with an uncaring and narrow-minded rule of law. Any irregularity in his judgement is unacceptable, and he is only barely able to contain his anger about the inconsistencies of the world.

                However, both of these men have solos where we can see a little deeper into their sympathetic side. Jud expresses how trapped and alone he feels in “Lonely Room,” while “Stars” gives some insight into Javert’s longing for definite purpose and desire for unchanging consistency. Jud really just needed a good friend. But Javert’s issues are far more deep-seated and difficult to address. Best guess, cubicle work and a good psychiatrist could have made him happy, but neither were available in his day.

                This brings us to death. Jud’s death was, frankly, unnecessary. He had been down at the bar for weeks, trying to forget about Laurey. If he had really been planning to kill Curly, why would he have gotten drunk? Jud didn’t have much in the way of book smarts, but his story about burning down a house and disposition to use the tricky “Little Wonder” show a more calculating nature than a slovenly drunkard trying to murder a groom. Curly even hints that his killing Jud was intentional, which makes him more cruel than Jud if we go by actions (but I’m getting ahead of myself here).

                The suicide of Javert is a completely different story. The audience is sad that he has to die, but simultaneously relieved that this tortured man has finally found some kind of respite. He can’t reconcile letting Jean Valjean go free, so death is the only option. And as he dies, the melody from “Stars” chimes in, implying a sense of satisfaction and catharsis for the troubled Inspector. And I suppose he must have resembled a shooting star, hurling himself off of a bridge like that.

                And now, for the real question: are either of these characters real villains? I would say no. Jud talks about being able to do horrible things, but never actually hurts anyone. After the betting over the hampers had concluded, he hesitated rather than kill Curly quick and clean, and he brought a knife rather than a gun to the wedding, and was clearly not in a heightened state of mind. While Jud may not be a nice fellow, it would be a stretch to call him a villain based on his actions.

                As for Javert, he definitely does horrible things. His lack of sympathy for Fantine is the best example of his hardened heart. She is a prostitute, and therefore she is wrong and must be punished regardless of the circumstances. However, Javert always thinks that he is doing good. He is never cruel for the sake of cruelty, but always seeks to carry out justice. When he finally has to examine the disparity between morality and his so-called justice, he kills himself rather than continue to enforce his uncaring law, which he could not ignore. He dies for what is right, because he can’t handle living with a broken system.

                Personally, I have more fondness for Javert. He tried to make it out of his past, and attempted to do good. When he realized he was wrong, he did the only thing that he believed could prevent further injustices. There is far more depth to his character than I see in Jud, who just lives with himself and thinks that accumulating more things will make his life better. But I always wonder if either character could have been saved if someone had simply been kind to them? Had given them a conscience? Maybe they just needed better mothers and fathers? However, both Jud and Javert made their own choices, and those choices led to their demises. One always has a choice.

That's all for this week, folks. This weekend I'll be watching "a neo-sixties sensual adaptation" of Dracula. I'm... hesitant to say the least, but very excited about seeing such a great villain on stage! Expect a review!

I hope you're all doing well :) Happy Valentine's Day!

Sincerely,

Caty