So last night, I went to a reading at the Barnes and Noble in Park Slope. That is not usually my bookstore of choice, but Pete Hamill, a writer that I was introduced to by my dad and whom I enjoy reading was going to be there.
I sat in the thrid row, squashed against a row of glossy cookbooks and peered between the heads of many older strangers at this man, out of whose pen came Forever(If you live in New York and you haven't read it, read it). He spoke in his soothing voice about growing up in Brooklyn, about libraries and about the re-relase of his book The Gift.
Whenever I go to one of these readings, or even a concert or a show, I wonder what is going through the person's mind who is in front of this group. Is anything he does ok with us? Is it enough to truthfully answer a question or does it have to be shrouded in mystery? Did that person really just ask me that?
It's interesting because these people think they know a writer because they have read his or her writings. But what they know are the writings not the person. The annoying man behind me announced that he thought Maureen Dowd was a disgrace as his annoying wife asked Mr. Hamill whether he read Ms. Dowd's column in the Times. Is that what people really want to know? Mr. Hamill answered these questions and the question of who he thought were heroes with a good-natured grin, but I couldn't help thinking that he might have thought these questions were as inane as the rest of the audience might have.
I wonder what he was thinking about when he sat and signed books and tried to address each person personally, engaging them in a quick conversation before thanking them and sending them on their way. Do these snippets of conversation mean as much to him as they surely meant to the audience members?
Whether it did or not, it was a treat to be in the presence of someone whose writing I greatly admire and listen to him try to have the answers.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Sunday, November 27, 2005
The Verdict: 'Goblet' and 'RENT"
...and yes, RENT gets all caps. Deal. Anyway. I have now seen my required viewing for the Thanksgiving weekend (gotta go in NJ where a student ID warrants a ticket for $5.75). And I have to say...I was pleasantly surprised by both. Both stories are adaptations from elsewhere and could have been mangled beyond repair (see Prisoner of Azkaban post) but they were not. Neither film was perfect. But if they were, that wouldn't feel right, either.
I saw Harry first, after enduring a week of "What do you mean you haven't seen it yet?" Let me say right off that condensing a 730-odd page book into a manageable movie is quite a task. They shaved the story down to the bare bones, only allowing for the smallest traces of subplot, of which there are many in the book. However, the effect worked. The movie did not feel as though it was a whole that was torn into pieces and glued back together. It flowed well, moved along exceptionally quickly and made you momentarily forget what was not there. I'm still not a huge lover of Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, but I liked him well enough. Director Mike Newell, the first Brit to direct a Harry movie, did a good job of mixing dark with light and maintaining the magical spirit of the books. I, of course, pictured some things differently than they were depicted in the movie...but that is to be expected. Harry's scar was now on the correct side of his head and Fred and George actually had lines.
RENT on the other hand, at times did feel as though it was pasted together...but not necessarily in a bad way. I found that the exuberance of the play was intact, though it was obvious in some scenes that the actors were lip-synching...The songs were moved around and some of the plot-points were somewhat blurred but I felt that if I laughed and cried during it, then it served the purpose. The thing I found most irritating was that the play is sung-through; the actors sing even the dialogue. The movie used much of the sung dialogue...but it was spoken so it sounded as though the characters had taken to speaking in rhyme. That said, the cast is such a diverse group of beautiful and compelling actors that it is hard not to buy into the story. A couple of my favorite songs were cut out, but the movie was a little long anyway so there was really no way to make it a manageable length and not cut anything. The thing I missed the most was the fight between Mark and Roger near the end (quoted in the previous post) because that is where the most constant relationship seems as though it's in jeopardy and it's a little harder to get behind Roger running away to the west if that scene is cut. It is also harder to understand that when he comes back, he and Mark patch things up with a single hug. Anyway.
That said, I know that my DVD collection will have at least two new additions whent he time comes.
I saw Harry first, after enduring a week of "What do you mean you haven't seen it yet?" Let me say right off that condensing a 730-odd page book into a manageable movie is quite a task. They shaved the story down to the bare bones, only allowing for the smallest traces of subplot, of which there are many in the book. However, the effect worked. The movie did not feel as though it was a whole that was torn into pieces and glued back together. It flowed well, moved along exceptionally quickly and made you momentarily forget what was not there. I'm still not a huge lover of Michael Gambon's Dumbledore, but I liked him well enough. Director Mike Newell, the first Brit to direct a Harry movie, did a good job of mixing dark with light and maintaining the magical spirit of the books. I, of course, pictured some things differently than they were depicted in the movie...but that is to be expected. Harry's scar was now on the correct side of his head and Fred and George actually had lines.
RENT on the other hand, at times did feel as though it was pasted together...but not necessarily in a bad way. I found that the exuberance of the play was intact, though it was obvious in some scenes that the actors were lip-synching...The songs were moved around and some of the plot-points were somewhat blurred but I felt that if I laughed and cried during it, then it served the purpose. The thing I found most irritating was that the play is sung-through; the actors sing even the dialogue. The movie used much of the sung dialogue...but it was spoken so it sounded as though the characters had taken to speaking in rhyme. That said, the cast is such a diverse group of beautiful and compelling actors that it is hard not to buy into the story. A couple of my favorite songs were cut out, but the movie was a little long anyway so there was really no way to make it a manageable length and not cut anything. The thing I missed the most was the fight between Mark and Roger near the end (quoted in the previous post) because that is where the most constant relationship seems as though it's in jeopardy and it's a little harder to get behind Roger running away to the west if that scene is cut. It is also harder to understand that when he comes back, he and Mark patch things up with a single hug. Anyway.
That said, I know that my DVD collection will have at least two new additions whent he time comes.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Before the RENT Movie:
So reviewers are weighing on on the Rent movie everywhere (check out www.nytimes.com, among others if interested)...And the result is mixed. There is talk of how the story is muddled, how the material is dated and how the actors are too old to be playing people in their 20's.
They are doing their jobs. They are looking at the movie from purely a filmamking perspective. They are not looking at it from a loyal fan's perspective. They make cracks about the unabashed idealism of the story, but I feel like this is the most compelling part of it. These are characters that, for the most part, have no money and don't know where their next meal is coming from. How does Roger keep up with his supply of AZT? How does Mark charge his camera if they have no electricity? These questions are pretty much irrelevant. The point is that this group of friends survives despite the odds. They keep their ideals and make their art. That is the crux of the story. The question is then, does the movie live up to that?
I was on the fence about the idea of there even being a movie because the whole thing is about not selling out and isn't the ultimate sellout putting the story in the hands of a Hollywood director to make a mainstream, holiday weekend movie?
When the reviewers talk about how the optimism and idealism are naive and silly, I say that's ridiculous. Sometimes,idealism is all you have. If you work in a job that you find boring, having enough idealism to think past it is sometimes what keeps you going. In a time when people are cynical and hopeless, it is important to keep the idealism alive. I listen to Rent at work. Why? Because it keeps me going. Someday, I think. Someday, I will do what I want to do. I will write. I will do it. I can do it because Jonathan Larson did it. And if he could do it, how come I can't? Of course, Jonathan died before he saw the whole success of his creation, but that's another subject, entirely.
The threat of AIDS is something that people also say is dated. It's not. More people than ever now have AIDS and the public thinks it's old news now that rich Americans can get drug cocktails to keep them alive longer. People say bohemia is dead. It's not dead. It just looks different now than it did then. People take temp jobs and jobs they're not necessarily thrilled with to pay the bills so they can create. People work for free. People open their art studios for eveyone to see. Bohemia still exists. Come to the DUMBO community in Brooklyn.
I am concerned that my faovrite parts of the show haven't made it into the film, but that's not a criticsm of the movie, it's just something I would like to see. The part that hits home most for me is in the latter part of Act II when it looks like everything is falling apart and Mark, the narrator and the character with which I most identify, tries to make his best friend and roommate Roger stay instead of running away from his problems:
Mark: I hear there are great restaurants out West.
Roger: Some of the best. How could she?
Mark: How could you let her go?
Roger: You just don't know. How could we lose Angel?
Mark: Maybe you'll see why when you stop escaping your pain. At least now if you try, Angel's death won't be in vain.
Roger: His death is in vain.
Mark: Are you insane? There's so much to care about; there's me, there's Mimi.
And from listening to the CD until it barely exists, I know the words. But I never fail to be moved by the barely controlled tears and anger in both characters' voices, both accusing their best friend of failure, of not living up to expectation. That raw emotion is what it's all about and if the movie can't find a way to communicate that, then that is the real problem, more so than any date put on the material.
Roger: Mark has got his work. They say Mark lives for his work. Mark hides in his work.
Mark: From what?
Roger: From facing your failure, facing your loneliness, facing the fact you live a lie. Yes, you live a lie. Tell you why: You're always preaching not to be numb, when that's how you thrive. You pretend to create and observe when you really detach from feeling alive.
Mark: Perhaps that's because I'm the one of us to survive.
They are doing their jobs. They are looking at the movie from purely a filmamking perspective. They are not looking at it from a loyal fan's perspective. They make cracks about the unabashed idealism of the story, but I feel like this is the most compelling part of it. These are characters that, for the most part, have no money and don't know where their next meal is coming from. How does Roger keep up with his supply of AZT? How does Mark charge his camera if they have no electricity? These questions are pretty much irrelevant. The point is that this group of friends survives despite the odds. They keep their ideals and make their art. That is the crux of the story. The question is then, does the movie live up to that?
I was on the fence about the idea of there even being a movie because the whole thing is about not selling out and isn't the ultimate sellout putting the story in the hands of a Hollywood director to make a mainstream, holiday weekend movie?
When the reviewers talk about how the optimism and idealism are naive and silly, I say that's ridiculous. Sometimes,idealism is all you have. If you work in a job that you find boring, having enough idealism to think past it is sometimes what keeps you going. In a time when people are cynical and hopeless, it is important to keep the idealism alive. I listen to Rent at work. Why? Because it keeps me going. Someday, I think. Someday, I will do what I want to do. I will write. I will do it. I can do it because Jonathan Larson did it. And if he could do it, how come I can't? Of course, Jonathan died before he saw the whole success of his creation, but that's another subject, entirely.
The threat of AIDS is something that people also say is dated. It's not. More people than ever now have AIDS and the public thinks it's old news now that rich Americans can get drug cocktails to keep them alive longer. People say bohemia is dead. It's not dead. It just looks different now than it did then. People take temp jobs and jobs they're not necessarily thrilled with to pay the bills so they can create. People work for free. People open their art studios for eveyone to see. Bohemia still exists. Come to the DUMBO community in Brooklyn.
I am concerned that my faovrite parts of the show haven't made it into the film, but that's not a criticsm of the movie, it's just something I would like to see. The part that hits home most for me is in the latter part of Act II when it looks like everything is falling apart and Mark, the narrator and the character with which I most identify, tries to make his best friend and roommate Roger stay instead of running away from his problems:
Mark: I hear there are great restaurants out West.
Roger: Some of the best. How could she?
Mark: How could you let her go?
Roger: You just don't know. How could we lose Angel?
Mark: Maybe you'll see why when you stop escaping your pain. At least now if you try, Angel's death won't be in vain.
Roger: His death is in vain.
Mark: Are you insane? There's so much to care about; there's me, there's Mimi.
And from listening to the CD until it barely exists, I know the words. But I never fail to be moved by the barely controlled tears and anger in both characters' voices, both accusing their best friend of failure, of not living up to expectation. That raw emotion is what it's all about and if the movie can't find a way to communicate that, then that is the real problem, more so than any date put on the material.
Roger: Mark has got his work. They say Mark lives for his work. Mark hides in his work.
Mark: From what?
Roger: From facing your failure, facing your loneliness, facing the fact you live a lie. Yes, you live a lie. Tell you why: You're always preaching not to be numb, when that's how you thrive. You pretend to create and observe when you really detach from feeling alive.
Mark: Perhaps that's because I'm the one of us to survive.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Possibilities
I'm not gonna lie....getting asked out is fun. The antidote, of course, to said fun is going on a date and having it fall flat like a B-movie that seemed like a good idea but was executed on the cheap with poor acting and direction.
The best time is the time between being asked out and before the date. It's a time of infinite possibility. You get all idealistic like a high-school girl before the big dance. This could be really fun, what should I wear, wear would go on the second date. All those things come into your head. But once you actually go out, reality comes back like the reviewer of said B-movie to tell you, in fact, the movie is not as good as you hoped it would be.
This doesn't always happen. But it happens a lot. That's why they...whoever 'they' might be...call dating a roller-coaster. The high before going out and the possible low following. Why do we do it? For the possibilities.
The best time is the time between being asked out and before the date. It's a time of infinite possibility. You get all idealistic like a high-school girl before the big dance. This could be really fun, what should I wear, wear would go on the second date. All those things come into your head. But once you actually go out, reality comes back like the reviewer of said B-movie to tell you, in fact, the movie is not as good as you hoped it would be.
This doesn't always happen. But it happens a lot. That's why they...whoever 'they' might be...call dating a roller-coaster. The high before going out and the possible low following. Why do we do it? For the possibilities.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Expert
The question of the hour: Can someone be an expert on something if they've only studied it and doesn't have any practical experience at it?
Allow me to explain: Last night, a friend/co-worker and I went to hear a professor from SU talk about the television business. Said professor has a PhD, and is tapped by many to give statments, comments and interviews regarding different aspects of the climate of television at the given moment. He has studied television extensively and while television is interesting and culturally relevant since it's inception.
But he has never worked a day at a television station, production house or writer's room. He doesn't do ratings research or sell advertising. He teaches about television. Which is fine. Everyone who has an interest in television is not required to do any of the aforementioned things. However, when one professes to be an expert in their field, shouldn't that mean that they have, in fact, worked in the business instead of studying it and making observations from afar?
Professors at SU and more specifically, the Newhouse Communications program, are all kinds. I had professors who were, in fact, development execs and comedy writers. None of these people considered themselves 'experts' on television, though conversations with them on the subject would lead one to believe that they were.
Then there's this professor, who has none of this practical experience...yet he has become a respected 'expert' in the field of television. Somehow, it doesn't make sense to me. Why do people care what this guy has to say?
Allow me to explain: Last night, a friend/co-worker and I went to hear a professor from SU talk about the television business. Said professor has a PhD, and is tapped by many to give statments, comments and interviews regarding different aspects of the climate of television at the given moment. He has studied television extensively and while television is interesting and culturally relevant since it's inception.
But he has never worked a day at a television station, production house or writer's room. He doesn't do ratings research or sell advertising. He teaches about television. Which is fine. Everyone who has an interest in television is not required to do any of the aforementioned things. However, when one professes to be an expert in their field, shouldn't that mean that they have, in fact, worked in the business instead of studying it and making observations from afar?
Professors at SU and more specifically, the Newhouse Communications program, are all kinds. I had professors who were, in fact, development execs and comedy writers. None of these people considered themselves 'experts' on television, though conversations with them on the subject would lead one to believe that they were.
Then there's this professor, who has none of this practical experience...yet he has become a respected 'expert' in the field of television. Somehow, it doesn't make sense to me. Why do people care what this guy has to say?
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
The Queen
Checkmate. Thats' right. You made a mistake and now I'm taking over. I hardly ever move but when I do, it's with a purpose. Stealth is the obligation of my army; the pawns with thier limitations, the knights zig-zagging to make room for me. I move in a straight line, knocking everyone out of the way. The rules of war are all here in black and white. Play at your own risk. I'll wait here on my square for you to work out your strategy.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Paper Clips
I sent the below email to the principal of the Whitwell Middle School in Tennesee, where groups of students collected paper clips to represent the people who died in the Holocaust and later built a Holocaust memorial including a rail road car imported from Germany that once carried Jews to their deaths:
Hello Ms. Hooper,
I just watched the documentary of the paper clip project on HBO and I wanted to express my feelings to you and your community. As a student, I studied the Holocaust in both historical and religious contexts. Many programs held at our college Hillel, the Jewish organization, emphasized celebrating the lives of these people instead of focusing on their early and rather grotesque deaths. I feel as though your project fit right in with Jewish educational efforts and the amazing thing is that there were few to no Jewish people involved...which makes that even better perhaps in a time when groups try to deny this happened and accuse the Jewish people of manufacturing the idea of the Holocaust. I wish you a hearty mazel tov, congratulations, on the success of making your part of the world more tolerant and maybe when people hear your story and the story of the paper clip project, they will think twice about precipitating intolerance.
Sincerely,
Sara
To learn more, visit http://www.marionschools.org/holocaust/
Hello Ms. Hooper,
I just watched the documentary of the paper clip project on HBO and I wanted to express my feelings to you and your community. As a student, I studied the Holocaust in both historical and religious contexts. Many programs held at our college Hillel, the Jewish organization, emphasized celebrating the lives of these people instead of focusing on their early and rather grotesque deaths. I feel as though your project fit right in with Jewish educational efforts and the amazing thing is that there were few to no Jewish people involved...which makes that even better perhaps in a time when groups try to deny this happened and accuse the Jewish people of manufacturing the idea of the Holocaust. I wish you a hearty mazel tov, congratulations, on the success of making your part of the world more tolerant and maybe when people hear your story and the story of the paper clip project, they will think twice about precipitating intolerance.
Sincerely,
Sara
To learn more, visit http://www.marionschools.org/holocaust/
Thursday, November 03, 2005
The Best of 2005... Sara Style, Continued
Best Place to Relive Your Youth: The American Girl's Place (49th and 5th) I used to recieve the catalogues when I was young and now I can go visit the dolls whenever I want...though I wouldn't go during the holidays as the place is overrun with little girls and their harassed mothers.
Best Place to Hear Random Bands (tie): Barbes (9th St and 6th Ave, Park Slope) and Two Boots (2nd St and 7th Ave, Park Slope)...both places have warm, friendly atmospheres, inexpensive drinks and you can fins Cajun or Hawaiian music if you wander in one weekend...
Best Place for a Weekend Walk: Prospect Park. Every weekend, any number of people will be running, playing frisbee or walking their dogs in this landmark park in Brooklyn.
Best Bohmeians: Get off the F train at York street and you'll find yourself in the world of DUMBO, an artists' community that one weekend a year opens its doors for the rest of the world to peruse their studios and works.
Unique Book Reading: Jill Soloway at Mo' Pitkins (34 Ave A). While promoting her new book, this former Six Feet Under staff writer hosted an evening starring Molly Shannon, Lilli Taylor and Lauren Ambrose, who read from her new book. www.jillsoloway.com
Best View: My friend Jodie's apt in Hoboken overlooks Manhattan. Even with the sadly diminished skyline, it is a sight to see. City of Blinding Lights, indeed.
Ok, that's all for now ;o)
Best Place to Hear Random Bands (tie): Barbes (9th St and 6th Ave, Park Slope) and Two Boots (2nd St and 7th Ave, Park Slope)...both places have warm, friendly atmospheres, inexpensive drinks and you can fins Cajun or Hawaiian music if you wander in one weekend...
Best Place for a Weekend Walk: Prospect Park. Every weekend, any number of people will be running, playing frisbee or walking their dogs in this landmark park in Brooklyn.
Best Bohmeians: Get off the F train at York street and you'll find yourself in the world of DUMBO, an artists' community that one weekend a year opens its doors for the rest of the world to peruse their studios and works.
Unique Book Reading: Jill Soloway at Mo' Pitkins (34 Ave A). While promoting her new book, this former Six Feet Under staff writer hosted an evening starring Molly Shannon, Lilli Taylor and Lauren Ambrose, who read from her new book. www.jillsoloway.com
Best View: My friend Jodie's apt in Hoboken overlooks Manhattan. Even with the sadly diminished skyline, it is a sight to see. City of Blinding Lights, indeed.
Ok, that's all for now ;o)
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
I'm Not That Girl...
So I spoke with my friend Lauren from high school on the phone last night for the first time in I don't know how long...and she called with a piece of gossip: that Dave, whom I went out with junior year in high school, is engaged.
Now, this didn't make me feel odd becuase I still have feelings for him because I don't. I don't see us as being remotely compatible anymore and I haven't even spoken to him since I moved away from West Islip. It made me feel odd because it is an inevitable part of growing up that one's friends begin to marry and grow up themselves.
I met Dave in my sixth grade homeroom and along with my friend, Brian, we all became close. I stayed close with Dave throughout middle school and high school while Brian faded in and out. Ironic how I still keep in touch with Brian but not Dave.
Dave was my first boyfriend. My first kiss. My first date. The first time I held hands with a boy. The first boy to tell me he loved me. My first breakup. I suppose I feel odd because no other boy will ever be that for me. Will ever be with me at 16 and experience things together for the first time. I'll never be that idealistic about a relationship again. And that's what I miss. Not him, per se, but being that 16 year old girl who sat next to him on the bus and was made happy because he held my hand.
Like every relationship, we had our share of drama. Our breakup wasn't great. I went out with his friend shortly after...which, yes. I know. Is against the rules and something I will never do again. I look back in my journal and read about how the thrill of my first boyfriend made me feel. It's something Dave and I shared and I won't get to share with anyone else.
Mazel tov, Dave and Ellen. I hope you will have a wonderful marriage.
Now, this didn't make me feel odd becuase I still have feelings for him because I don't. I don't see us as being remotely compatible anymore and I haven't even spoken to him since I moved away from West Islip. It made me feel odd because it is an inevitable part of growing up that one's friends begin to marry and grow up themselves.
I met Dave in my sixth grade homeroom and along with my friend, Brian, we all became close. I stayed close with Dave throughout middle school and high school while Brian faded in and out. Ironic how I still keep in touch with Brian but not Dave.
Dave was my first boyfriend. My first kiss. My first date. The first time I held hands with a boy. The first boy to tell me he loved me. My first breakup. I suppose I feel odd because no other boy will ever be that for me. Will ever be with me at 16 and experience things together for the first time. I'll never be that idealistic about a relationship again. And that's what I miss. Not him, per se, but being that 16 year old girl who sat next to him on the bus and was made happy because he held my hand.
Like every relationship, we had our share of drama. Our breakup wasn't great. I went out with his friend shortly after...which, yes. I know. Is against the rules and something I will never do again. I look back in my journal and read about how the thrill of my first boyfriend made me feel. It's something Dave and I shared and I won't get to share with anyone else.
Mazel tov, Dave and Ellen. I hope you will have a wonderful marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)