Home Blog Page 67

Isn’t She Great

0

“Isn’t she great?” is what talent agent Irving Mansfield (Nathan Lane) keeps saying about his client/wife Jacqueline Susann (Bette Midler), whenever she does something allegedly funny or outrageous. “Isn’t she great?” he’ll say, the ensuing “Eh? Eh?” implied rather than spoken.

And the answer? No. No, she’s not. She’s not great. “Great” is a quality wholly unassociated with Jacqueline Susann. It’s also not a word you’d use to describe the movie. “Unfunny” and “tiresome” spring more readily to mind, as do “unnecessary” and “By the gods, who made me watch this crap?”

“Isn’t She Great” takes place in the ’60s (the movie doesn’t give us specific years, just like it doesn’t bother to flesh out its characters), telling the real-life story of Susann, who wanted nothing more than to be famous, and who got her fame when she wrote “Valley of the Dolls” and other tawdry, poorly written books.

First she fails as an actress, and rightly so, as she is without talent. This does not stop Irving from falling in love with her and thinking he can make her famous, though, and they get married approximately one second after meeting each other. Two seconds later, they have a kid, who is autistic and has to go to a special place for autistic kids. Two seconds after that, Jacqueline has breast cancer. See, all this tragedy, and nothing to show for it! That is, no fame, which is the only thing she actually wants, never mind the family or the happiness.

I don’t know if Jacqueline Susann was actually as shallow as she’s painted in this film. Indeed, I wonder whether it’s possible for any human being to be as shallow as she is in this film. Midler and Lane are a fantastically annoying couple, despite being fairly good actors. Everything is played with so much schmaltz and over-the-top goofiness that you’d think you were watching a skit, rather than a biography.

And the laughs? They ain’t there, Hector. Some things could be funny, if they were played without the sledgehammer style of telegraphing the joke, telling the joke, and then reminding you that a joke was just told. Like when Irving prepares to save Jacqueline from drowning herself in Central Park, very carefully removing his shoes and socks and rolling up his pant legs. That’s a funny idea — taking your time to save someone’s life — but it’s ruined by the fact that the reason Jacqueline’s in the lake in the first place is a stupid, unmotivated one, and the fact that everyone keeps braying their lines like the between-songs banter you hear coming out of fiddle-playing families at the county fair.

The film is so dedicated to its cheesy badness (which goes right down to its sickening musical score) that you’d think it was being done on purpose. Yet someone apparently thought the movie would work as a Jacqueline Susann biography (which I don’t recall asking for, by the way), as it is virtually plot-free. Jackie wants to be famous; she writes a book; she gets famous; the end. That’s how you tell the story of, say, Gandhi or Genghis Khan — someone truly important, where just seeing what happened in their lives is interesting enough. Susann’s life doesn’t happen to have been all that interesting, apparently, and definitely not funny or worth watching a movie about.

The Cup (Tibetan/Hindi)

0

If you’re a big fan of comedies made in Bhutan (and who isn’t?), you’ll love “The Cup.”

Otherwise, it’s a pretty gentle, occasionally funny movie about a Tibetan monastery in India in which the teen-age monks are more interested in the World Cup playoffs than in monkery.

These young fellows, led by the rascally Orgyen (Jamyang Lodro), often sneak out at night to a nearby village that has a TV, where they watch the soccer games with great interest. They pass each other notes during prayer and meditation time, telling the last night’s scores.

One gets the sense that being a kid and being a monk at the same time is much like being a kid and being ANYTHING at the same time: You’re still a kid, regardless of whatever reverent circumstances you may be in.

The monastery’s leaders, Geko (Orgyen Tobgyal) and the abbot (Lama Chonjor) are a bit concerned about this preoccupation with soccer, but there is little tension there before their concern turns to bemusement. (“It’s two civilized nations fighting over a ball,” Geko explains to the abbot.)

In fact, the film goes to great lengths to avoid much tension. The kids want to rent a TV and satellite dish to watch the final game, and that problem is speedily solved. Even the potential drama of a homesick kid’s prized possession possibly being lost forever is dealt with before we get much chance to worry about it.

Many of the actors are from a Tibetan refugee settlement near the Chokling Monastery, a real-life place in India … and it shows. The acting is none-too-good, save for Jamyang Lodro, who plays the irrepressible Orgyen as a Tibetan Bart Simpson, a schemer with a good heart. Everyone else is stilted and flat, and the film just sort of limps along gamely until it finally ends.

Eye of the Beholder

0

Ashley Judd seems to be making a career out of doing crappy thrillers. Admire her for picking a genre and sticking with it, I guess.

First there was the ridiculous “Double Jeopardy”; now it’s the moody, incomprehensible “Eye of the Beholder,” a film that is genuinely unpredictable, but only because nothing in it makes sense. Predicting what will happen next would be like guessing what’s around the corner in a dream: It could be anything, because all rules of logic and reason are vetoed.

Ewan McGregor, all soft-voiced and sweet, plays The Eye, a secret agent working for what appears to be the U.S. government (though he is clearly a foreigner). His surveillance skills have earned him his nickname, and he’s so good at his job that his devotion to it has cost him his wife and daughter. He has visitation rights, though, sort of: He frequently imagines his little girl there with him, giving him advice and helping him with his surveillance work.

It is one of those patriarchal hallucinations that brings about an over-interest in a woman he’s pursuing. She’s Joanna Eris (Ashley Judd), a woman with many disguises, all of which center around wearing a different wig, who is suspected of blackmailing an important guy’s son. The Eye sees her kill someone, and then more people are killed, and all the while, The Eye does little or nothing to stop her. Why? Because his phantom daughter tells him that Joanna is like her, a little girl abandoned who needs a father.

(I’ve prettied it up a bit; it makes even less sense in the movie.)

So The Eye tails Joanna everywhere (she never spots him, despite the bright orange jacket he always wears), always watching but never interfering, until she comes into danger herself, in the form of a wretched-looking Jason Priestley, playing an Alaskan druggie, who beats her up for approximately the same reason that she killed those guys (that is, for no reason, at least not one that the movie is willing to share with us).

Director Stephan Elliot has an interesting style, using snowglobes to move us from one city to another, and shooting the whole thing in a greyish, somber tone. What he can’t seem to do is pull it all together into something cohesive. Is this a murder mystery? A psychological drama? A love story? None of the above? So much happens with so little explanation that the only possible reaction when it’s over is, “What did I just watch?” No point is arrived at, and no one seems to have learned anything.

Except the audience, who has learned not to trust Ashley Judd movies anymore.

The Sundance Kidding

0

Narrowly beating out Payson’s Onion Days celebration, the Sundance Film Festival is Utah’s greatest cultural event. This is especially true if by “cultural” we mean “featuring a lot of movies about gay people.”

I sort of covered the festival for the Daily Herald, and I enjoyed watching all the pretentious film people milling around, drinking coffee-based beverages by the gallon, and talking to other pretentious film people on their cell phones. (Prior to the invention of the cell phone, festival-goers had to speak pretentiously to themselves.) As far as I could tell, the only people who actually watched any movies were the reporters and critics; the other 13,000 people who cram themselves into Park City for the festival are there for the chance to look pretentious in front of others, and to enjoy Utah’s entertaining liquor laws. (“No spirits may be sold to a person carrying a pig, except on Thursdays,” is one actual law that I just made up.)

One non-pretentious person I almost met was Julianna Margulies. Who is this, you ask? Apparently, she’s on “ER,” a TV show that used to be No. 1 in the ratings all the time, until “Who Will Put up with Regis Philbin for a Half-Hour for a Million Dollars” came around. She was also in a Sundance film, which is why she was in Park City, although when I eavesdropped on her conversation with her assistant, she was desperately trying to get out of Utah altogether.

They were discussing possible airlines to fly on, and wondering whether it was worth flying on Southwest just because that airline had the soonest flight available. I wanted to pipe up and remind them of Southwest’s motto (“We Hate You”), and how they don’t assign seats to the passengers, so you have to find one on your own, so it’s pretty much like riding a big ol’ stinky flying bus, except with the added bonus of possibly plunging headlong into the sea. But I didn’t say anything, because I’m a big chicken when it comes to addressing celebrities, even if they’re ones I’ve never heard of.

Still, that would have been less embarrassing than what happened to a guy in one of the press screenings I went to. We were watching “American Psycho,” a film whose message is that, despite all its shortcomings, America still produces the best psychos in the world. Near the end of the film, we heard a loud snore. We media types chuckled, because we figured one of our fellows had fallen asleep, and we could all relate. I had dozed during a short film just a day earlier, in fact. (My feelings on shorts: I don’t like them. Either make a movie or don’t, all right? Don’t make part of one and then stop, you big quitters.)

Anyway, someone nudged the guy to wake him up, and then his arms started flailing, such as might happen if you’re in a deep sleep and someone nudges you to wake you up. But for some reason, the conclusion everyone jumped to was that he was having a seizure. So they called 911.

Meanwhile, the guy woke up and was understandably disoriented — up on the screen, Christian Bale was killing a woman with a chainsaw; I had been awake the whole time, and I was disoriented. When someone asked if he’d had a seizure, he readily agreed to that scenario, even though, by his own admission, he’d never had a seizure before, and he was really sleepy when he came to the festival that morning.

People bought the seizure story, which he didn’t even bother to add any details to, and helped him from his seat out to the lobby. Someone gave him a granola bar, and had he not been carrying a pig, someone could have gotten him a drink, too. All in all, he saved face by letting everyone believe he’d had a medical emergency, when the fact was, he’d just fallen asleep.

I don’t blame him for it. In fact, I admire his quick-thinking skills. The next time I doze off in a boring meeting, I might pretend it was a seizure, just so I can get out of the meeting. (Note to my bosses: I am only kidding. I would never try this. If I have a seizure in our staff meeting next week, it’s a REAL one, I swear.)

Wedlocked

0

The SCERA Showhouse’s production of “Wedlocked,” a new musical by Marvin Payne and Steven Kapp Perry, demonstrates that a show about marriage need not contain earth-shattering insight in order to be worth watching.

Real-life couple Marvin and Laurie Payne, the only actors in the show, have enough charm and stage presence between them to fill an entire cast. From Marvin’s deep-timbred but gentle bellow, to Laurie’s sweet but strong persona, the two sing and act their way through the show admirably.

They play Val and Elizabeth Utley, a Seattle couple best described as “typical.” Elizabeth, through whose eyes most of the story is told, is a harried and overworked housewife who feels ignored by her husband, who, despite being an accountant, mainly wants to have fun and avoid serious issues.

In an attempt to “start over,” Elizabeth drags Val back to Salina, Utah, where they spent their honeymoon. Val, being impossibly thick-headed — the show was written by men; is this really how we see ourselves? — hasn’t the first clue that Elizabeth is trying to put the spark back in their marriage, or that sparks are even missing. Eventually, everything comes to a head, and the problems are dealt with.

It’s a slight, innocuous storyline, and no major “secrets of a successful marriage” are revealed. Accordingly, the show is shorter than average, though a few minutes could still be shaved off here and there, particularly in the long sequence where Val tries to watch a video while Elizabeth tries to be romantic.

That scene, in particular, points out an interesting problem with the show. Marvin and Laurie Payne appear to have such a good marriage in real life that playing a couple with marital problems doesn’t come naturally to them. As Val fixates on the TV and Elizabeth tries awkwardly to cuddle with him, we get a few chuckles — but it seems overplayed and unreal. The moments that seem genuine are the ones when Val and Elizabeth are on the same wavelength, communicating like the happy couple the Paynes apparently are. (Who ever thought having a great marriage would be a liability on stage?)

Marvin, who is an excellent actor in all respects, is too broad in this show. Just as Val doesn’t take the marriage very seriously, Marvin seems not to treat Val with much depth, either. In the end, while compromise is needed on both ends, it is clearly Val who must do the most changing, when a more satisfying (and realistic) approach might be to have it more equal. But Elizabeth is so much a stronger, more sympathetic character, that it turns out very uneven indeed.

Nonetheless, “Wedlocked” is a reasonably solid production. Add a few more layers to Val’s character, and Perry and Payne will have a musical worthy of greater attention. As it stands, it pleases the audience, cordially doing its thing and politely allowing you to move on. You may be largely unaffected by the proceedings, but you leave with a smile on your face, anyway.

Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her

0

“Only a fool would speculate about the life of a woman.”

So says Carol Farber (Cameron Diaz) just after speculating on the life of a woman — specifically, why an old acquaintance of her sister, Kathy (Amy Brenneman), killed herself.

“Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her,” an amazingly well-crafted and sensitive film by first-time director Rodrigo Garcia, spends little time speculating about women, instead showing us the lives of several upwardly mobile Los Angeles women, their lives all separate except for some random crossings of one another’s paths. The “things you can tell just by looking” at these women are things like loneliness, longing, dissatisfaction and desire. The reason these emotions can be discerned just by looking is that Garcia has assembled a smashing cast of actresses who can tell you everything you need to know just by their body language and facial expressions. Then we see their stories, and we see WHY they look the way they do.

There’s Dr. Keenan (Glenn Close), a middle-aged doctor who avoids true intimacy while actually longing for it, sitting by the phone waiting for a male colleague to call. Then there’s Rebecca (Holly Hunter), a bank manager whose motto is “I’m not big on regrets” who finds out she’s pregnant by the married man she’s been having a three-year affair with.

And single-mom Rose (Kathy Baker), an endearing woman who develops a sweet crush on a new neighbor. And Christine (Calista Flockhart), a tarot-card-reader whose lesbian lover (Valeria Golino) is dying. And sisters Carol and Kathy Farber — Carol is blind; Kathy is a police detective — who both yearn for love and almost find it.

Bittersweet moments abound here, as does gentle humor and tender pathos. Outstanding acting performances are also the norm, particularly from Baker and Close (if I had to choose two), whose stories seem the most poignant and touching.

Technically, I think this may be a “chick flick.” But with superior acting and some of the finest story-telling in recent memory, it can be appreciated by anyone who enjoys an engrossing, sophisticated film.

The Convent

0

You have to admire a movie in which two people, tied up and about to be offered as virgin sacrifices by devil-worshippers, consider having sex with each other just to make them ineligible for the sacrifice.

That sort of ingenuity appears occasionally but is mostly hidden beneath a crazed, frenetic exterior of bloody killings and nightmarish mayhem in Mike Mendez’s “The Convent.”

Seems that 40 years ago, a girl walked into a convent in Anytown, U.S.A., and killed every nun in sight. The reason for the massacre has become an urban legend (we find out the real reasons later), but now the place is a favorite site for wannabe Satanists — mostly high-school weenies who dress in black when they’re not working at Dairy Queen.

On a night when a bunch of frat boys and their girlfriends visit the convent as an initiation rite, some of those Goth kids are there, too, fumbling with Satanism (their leader, a truly funny character named Saul, sings a demonic incantation to the tune of “Silver Bells”). They accidentally unleash the real evil that exists in the place, and soon everyone’s being turned into nun-zombies.

Everything is played way over-the-top, using the traditional trappings of a teen horror flick, but using them so much they become satirical. Guys in these movies are always obsessed with sex, right? So when an air-headed cheerleader gets a scratch and says, “What if it scars?,” her boyfriend says, reassuringly, “I’d still do you.”

And the blood: There’s plenty of it, much of it fluorescent. People’s heads get chopped off, they’re smashed by things, they’re shot full of bullets — and it’s all so fantastically bloody, like an “Itchy & Scratchy” cartoon, that you soon realize the intention was not to make you sick, but to make you laugh (though it still may not be for the squeamish).

Dropping Out

0

“Dropping Out,” itself a product of a media-saturated generation, is about what life is like for people who are products of a media-saturated generation.

In examining the banality of existence for members of Generation X, Mark Osborne’s film presents an utterly original, often hilarious story that, while unusual, should appeal to a mass audience, too.

Emile Brockton (Kent Osborne, the director/writer’s brother) is a 26-year-old guy with nothing to live for. Unemployed, he watches TV constantly; when the cable goes out, he automatically reaches for an X-Acto Knife and slits his wrist. (He belongs to an easily bored generation, though, and he starts flipping through a magazine even as blood is spurting ridiculously from his arm.)

He’s rescued by a phone call offering him a job on the night shift at a local hotel. There he meets the rather disconnected Henry (David Koechner), and he confides in him his plan: He’s going to kill himself, this time for real, and videotape it. After the deed is done, he wants Henry to come by, pick up the tape, and mail it to a woman Emile once dated.

Henry’s amateur filmmaker friend Andrew (Vince Vieluf) gets involved, though, and soon Emile’s suicide becomes a full-blown documentary, complete with interviews of his associates, all of whom are asked to express what their sorrow will be like when Emile actually DOES kill himself, which is intended to be the last scene of the movie.

All of this commotion, presumably a prelude to a suicide, causes Emile to feel excited about life again. What do you do when your planned suicide becomes a media event before it even happens? The film-making process gives Emile a reason to live — but if he DOESN’T kill himself, there’s no point in making the “Death-U-Mentary,” which means things will go back to the way they were — which will make him suicidal again. It’s the ultimate post-modern Catch-22, and for all its darkness and morbidity (“Don’t you still want to kill yourself?” he’s asked; “Oh, yeah, totally,” is his casual reply), it’s a surprisingly thought-provoking notion.

But never mind that. This movie is funny. Emile’s fantasy sequences, in which he’s in the cheesy opening credits to some generic sitcom, are brilliant, dead-on parodies of the genre. The film’s quirky characters are played with zeal and unironic dedication, without all the winking self-awareness that you see too often in comedies these days. These actors never let on that they’re aware of the absurdity, and that just makes it funnier.

Unfortunately, when Emile announces his intention not to kill himself, thus bringing to a halt the film’s production, the movie we’re watching slows down, too. But aside from those several minutes of slowness, “Dropping Out” is a wonderfully creative film, simultaneously sunny and dark, and altogether enjoyable.

Gigantic (German)

0

The German film “Gigantic,” directed and written by Sebastian Schipper and produced by Tom Tykwer (who directed “Run Lola Run”), has the sort of world-weary, melancholy bleakness we’ve come to expect from that country, while at the same time infusing energy and vigor into filmmaking as an art form.

It’s a magnificently depressing film, one that makes you long for something without knowing what, all fueled by three great performances from three talented young actors.

The action takes place over 24 hours in Hamburg. Three inseparable friends are about to be separated, as their leader, Floyd (Frank Giering), has decided he needs to leave town in order to find where he truly belongs. They have one last night to spend together, and they want it to be memorable.

This is where the film could easily have become an “American Graffiti”-style comedy — what sort of hijinks erupt when it’s your last night together? — and some of the events are indeed comical, though Schipper plays them more for their straight-faced psychological value than for laughs. The group runs afoul of a team of Elvis impersonating stunt-show drivers, for example, and then gets involved in a high-stakes game of Foosball (in a sequence that is surely the most brilliantly filmed Foosball game in movie history).

Giering’s Floyd is brooding and sad, saying little but speaking volumes with his expressive, yearning face. Florian Lukas plays perhaps the most interesting character, Richard, a wired-up, emotional, cocky wannabe rapper, wannabe everything who prefers to be called Ricco and fancies himself something of a lady-killer. His sensitivity — hidden beneath all that bravado — rivals Floyd’s in causing great heartache among the audience. Antoine Monot Jr. plays the smart and sensible Walter, a sort of bridge between the other two boys, who would be polar opposites if they weren’t ultimately just like each other.

The soundtrack features everything from techno to guitar-folk music, with one wistful, haunting theme recurring often enough to bring strong emotion whenever it does.

These characters are universal, and their situation — that of crossroads, goodbyes and high hopes — is one everyone can relate to, whether we like it or not. This is a pitifully touching film, uplifting for its intrinsic beauty even while evoking sadness for the characters.

The Prompter (Norwegian)

0

The titular occupation in the Norwegian film “The Prompter” is the person at an opera who sits in that little box at the front of the stage, cuing the performers on their lines.

Siv (Hege Sch�yen) is a plain, 30-something woman who loves her job as a prompter, and who loves opera in general. Her new husband, Fred (Sven Nordin), a divorcee with two kids, unfortunately has little regard for Siv’s profession (he calls her in the middle of a rehearsal to tell her to make spaghetti for dinner) — and, it would seem, little regard for her feelings in general. He makes no attempt to make Siv feel at home with her stepchildren, and he seems too hung up on his ex-wife, Helen, who moves in with them following an accident (the film’s one flaw, plot-wise, as this is simply too pig-headed, even for her pig-headed husband).

Siv’s battle is uphill all the way. Fitting in as a second wife is hard enough; it doesn’t help that the song Fred’s mother sings at their wedding is the same one she sang at Fred’s first wedding, with the name Helen replaced with the name Siv. Siv, a fragile, delicate, beautiful-on-the-inside woman, is easily stepped on, and easily hurt.

The only part of her life she has any control over, in fact, is her job. When she’s prompting, she has authority. She knows what the singers should be singing, and no one questions her. Having the score in front of her is comforting, as it means there’s no guess-work. Her real life, unfortunately, has no script, and its increasingly frustrating turns threaten to make it every bit as operatic as the production of “Aida” she’s working with.

Siv knows everyone’s part onstage; it’s her own role, offstage, that eludes her. This is a compassionate, eminently human film about a woman’s struggle to find herself and her place in life. Hege Sch�yen is magnificent in the lead role, showing us every nuance of Siv’s meek soul. Her story is one familiar to anyone who has ever realized that “just being yourself” doesn’t always bring happiness, even though it should.

Just, Melvin (documentary)

0

James Ronald Whitney’s first film is a documentary about the cycle of incest and abuse in his family, a cycle started by his grandfather, Melvin Just. One admires Whitney and his family members for their bravery in telling their harrowing stories; one just wishes this were Whitney’s seventh or eighth film, as “Just, Melvin” comes off as amateurish at times, often ruining what would have otherwise been emotionally gripping moments.

Whitney’s grandmother, Fay, married an abusive man who fathered four of her children. She divorced him and the next day married Melvin Just. Melvin immediately began molesting his step-daughters (including Whitney’s mother), as well as producing two more daughters with Fay, both of whom he also molested.

The only male child, Jim, grew up to be an abuser, too, as well as Fay’s caretaker, though he took that calling to mean that he should let her drink as much as she wants: When she drinks 16 ounces of beer, it brings her weight up to 72 pounds, after all.

Melvin eventually left Fay for a neighbor woman, whose daughters he also molested. They are interviewed, too, as are Fay, Jim, Whitney’s mother, aunts — and Melvin himself.

Whitney’s first interview with Melvin, an hour into the film, is perfect, coming at a time when we have already developed a strong hatred for the man due to the stories we’ve heard. Seeing him merely intensifies that, as he flatley denies every single charge made against him. This is a filthy, grotesque, vulgar man, as purely evil as any movie character ever created.

A technique that betrays Whitney’s inexperience (and perhaps too-strong attachment to the subject) is the frequent use of sound effects and re-created dialogue. When someone mentions that Fay’s first husband shot his dog, we hear a shotgun blast. When someone recalls something horrid that Melvin said, we hear a voice in the background saying the same thing, as if Whitney somehow captured the moment on audio tape.

“Just, Melvin” gives little hope for these particular victims ever overcoming their scars. The idea is to prevent such atrocities from happening in other families. It may also be therapeutic for people who have been through such abuse to see the stories of others. As documentary filmmaking, it’s best when it lets the people tell their stories, which it does admirably.

Play It to the Bone

0

The most interesting thing about “Play It to the Bone” is that the character named Cesar (Antonio Banderas) is sporting a Caesar haircut.

That’s the sort of thing your mind comes up with when you realize the movie isn’t going to entertain you, so you’re going to have to entertain yourself.

(Also: Woody Harrelson’s character, Vince, has a goatee. Have you ever seen a boxer with facial hair? Seems like if you got cut, the hair would get in the way of treating the wound between rounds. I would be clean-cut, if I were a boxer.)

Anyway, “Play It to the Bone” is a film so uninteresting, it almost seems to be working at it. Vince and Cesar are pals in L.A., both former semi-famous boxers, now a couple of has-beens (if indeed they ever were). Due to an amazing coincidence that the film doesn’t even TRY to play for laughs (which it should have, since it’s too unbelievable otherwise), both boxers in a major under-card fight become incapacitated. The promoter, needing someone to be the “opening act” for the big Mike Tyson fight in Las Vegas, calls Cesar and Vince and asks them to fill in.

Here the movie has potential: Two best friends, both boxers, now have to fight each other. What kind of psychological impact does that have? Will one pull his punches in the ring? Will it damage their friendship? Can they even go through with it?

These are all fascinating questions, and the film addresses none of them. Instead, we’re treated to the two idiots driving to Las Vegas (no explanation is given why they didn’t fly, especially when the fight promoter TOLD them to) in a road trip that seems to be shot in real time. Accompanying them is Grace (Lolita Davidovich), a determinedly free-thinking gal who is currently dating Cesar and once dated Vince.

Along the way we learn fascinating tidbits such as the fact that Vince is now a Jesus freak, and that Cesar toyed with homosexuality for a while. Ideally, the rapport between Harrelson and Banderos would be fun to watch, like your standard “buddy” movie. That rapport is occasionally amusing, but not often enough to warrant spending half the movie just getting to Las Vegas.

Once they get there, the actual fight happens, and it’s a genuinely unthrilling boxing match, perhaps the most unthrilling in film history. It livens up near the end, just in time for a cop-out resolution as the film fails to end, preferring instead to just sort of peter out.

Harrelson is the same way he’s been in pretty much every post-“Cheers” gig he’s had: braying and obnoxious, to the point where you just want to smack him. Banderas is slightly better, and definitely the more sympathetic character, though not by much. Davidovich’s Grace is baffling, as we’re never sure what her function is. To provide tension between the two fighters? To serve as a female contrast to their testosterone-heavy bickering? I suspect the only reason she’s in the movie is that Cesar and Vince needed a ride to Las Vegas.

You walk out of this movie scratching your head, saying, “Why did they make that?” It’s not funny, it’s not interesting, it’s not exciting — why were we supposed to want to see it? The answer is, you don’t.

Down to You

0

Call me old-fashioned, but I still think movies should have plots. I mean, if you’re going to go to the trouble of hiring actors and buying film to put in the cameras, you might as well have something happen, right?

“Down to You” is a bland, witless romantic comedy that takes great care to avoid introducing conflict into the lives of the protagonists. They meet, they date, they fall in love, all without hindrances. Even when they break up — 15 minutes before the film ends — it’s for a generic reason, and it’s quickly overcome after only a few moments of fretting.

Our heroes are Al (Freddie Prinze Jr.) and Imogen (Julia Stiles), students at an unnamed New York City university. He’s the son of a TV chef (Henry Winkler, who actually looks like he could be Freddie Prinze Jr.’s dad — odd, considering he looks nothing like the actual Freddie Prinze Sr.); she’s the daughter of somebody we never meet.

Potential conflicts abound. Al’s dad embarrasses her on his TV show. Al has friends involved in the porno-movie industry, and he has to go be an extra one night, due to a stupid bet he lost regarding which wine represents love and which one represents illusion (just one of many puzzling moments in the film). He’s two years older than her. She thinks she might be pregnant. Everywhere you look, there are seeds of a plot — seeds of SOMETHING happening — but they never grow. Instead, we see a cutesy relationship blossom and flourish, but without the benefit of chemistry or actual romance. Only in the last few minutes of the movie do we feel any kind of connection to them — like maybe we actually like them — but by then, it’s too little, too late.

Both main characters narrate the film, which at least makes it somewhat different, if not entertaining. Prinze, who has some genuine charisma in real life, here is muted and watered down, grinning his “aw-shucks” grin all the time so as to appeal to the 14-year-old girls this film is aimed at (an audience that is probably content to just look at Freddie Prinze Jr. for 90 minutes, plot or no plot). Stiles is pretty, too, and her character is more than just a living toothpaste ad, but not much more.

One thing this film has going for it is the fact that if you see it, the next day you’ll have forgotten it ever existed. It’s a terrible movie, but a skimpy, innocuous one. At the end of 2000, it won’t make anyone’s “Worst of the Year” lists, not because it doesn’t belong there, but because everyone will have forgotten it ever existed.

A Keane Sense of Humor

0

The other day, while embarking on my daily vigil to see if “Family Circus” had suddenly become funny, I happened to see the front page of the newspaper. It said the Supreme Court is going to decide whether it’s legal for the Boy Scouts of America to ban gays from its ranks. My opinion is: I don’t care. What’s the deal with all the knot-tying?

The Boy Scouts have been around for, I don’t know, like a century or something, and they’re certainly a grand institution. Many a boy has learned valuable skills on overnight campouts, skills like lighting things on fire, and swearing. But still, the thing people associate most with the Boy Scouts is the fact that if you join them, you’ll learn to tie a lot of knots. Goodness knows I learned my fair share of them during my brief stint in the Scouts (1985-1985).

The thing is, knowing how to tie knots is like knowing how to use an abacus: It’s nice that you can do this quaint old thing from a bygone era, but how practical is it? In real life, you need to know how to tie your shoes, how to tie a necktie, and how to tie your basic “tying-things-together” knot. That’s it. Everything else is taking up valuable brain space.

This brain space could be used for other purposes, such as figuring out ways to make “Family Circus” funny. This is an important issue to me, because I’m a big fan of comic strips, and I feel very strongly that they should be funny. The only comic that was allowed to slide by on that requirement was “Peanuts,” and that was only because it had been around so long and was so well-loved that everyone was able to overlook the fact that it hadn’t produced a laugh in decades. “Peanuts” was the Bob Hope of the comics page.

All other comic strips, though, need to be funny, and “Family Circus” just ain’t cuttin’ it. The same goes for “Hagar the Horrible” and “Beetle Bailey.” And if right now you’re saying, “Hey, those comics are funny!,” you’re doing what psychologists refer to as “making a mistake.” Those comics USED to be funny, back when they started. Now they’re hardly worth the money it costs to buy a magnifying glass to be able to read them in the newspaper.

But I don’t think “Family Circus” is beyond repair. I continue to read it because I believe that one day, purely by accident, it will be funny. It seems like if Bil Keane keeps doing it long enough, he’s bound to do something funny eventually, even if it takes a thousand years.

But I don’t want to wait around another thousand years. For one thing, I don’t want to have to listen to people argue about whether the next millennium starts in 3000 or 3001. But more to the point, I’d rather laugh at “Family Circus” in my natural lifetime. Surely if we all put our heads together, we can come up with some jokes that would make it funny. Here are my suggestions; feel free to send me yours, and I’ll forward them to Bil Keane.

• Dolly brings Mommy’s diaphragm to school for show-and-tell.

• Jeffy asks Daddy, “What’s an accident? ‘Cause Mommy said I was one.”

• A twisty-turny dotted line shows where Billy stumbled after getting into Daddy’s liquor cabinet.

• The family gets freaked out by Grandma’s frequent chats with her dead husband, and they put her in a home. (“Enough is enough!” says Daddy.)

• Barfy the dog gets “Old Yeller Syndrome,” if you know what I mean.

• A little imaginary imp named “Not Me” goes around and puts hydrochloric acid in all the shampoo bottles.

• Sissy-boy Billy gets pummeled by street-wise Dennis the Menace.

• Social Services is called when a bleary-eyed Mommy tries to trade baby PJ for crack.

• It is revealed that the reason Billy takes over as cartoonist for a week every now and then is that Daddy’s visiting his secret other family out in the country.

Livin’ la Vida Utah

0

RICKY MARTIN: Eric D. Snider

She’s into Mormonism,
Gardening and the Utah Jazz.
Her boyfriend’s on a mission,
His picture’s all she has.

Her church is around the corner:
She could walk, but she always drives.
Her neighbors are all Mormon —
She’s never seen a non-member alive.

She’ll never even kiss you ’til you’ve been married a year.
She won’t drink tea or coffee — or even Barq’s Root Beer
‘Cause it has caffeine, she hears!

My heck!
She is LDS
She’s livin’ la vida Utah.
Her house is a mess
Livin’ la vida Utah.
She makes green Jell-O,
And into it she puts fruit-a.
She’s sweet and mellow,
Livin’ la vida Utah.
You’re livin’ la vida Utah.
She’s livin’ la vida Utah.

Took her to Salt Lake City
To see the lights on Temple Square.
I asked her if she would marry me,
She took the ring and just left me there.

She’ll never do polygamy, she wants to be the only wife,
She’ll stay at home and watch the kids and watch “Days of Our Lives,”
And be adviser for the Beehives!

My heck!
She has spiritual strength
She’s livin’ la vida Utah.
Her shorts are knee-length
Livin’ la vida Utah.
She does genealogy,
It’s all stored on her computah.
Gosh oh golly gee
Livin’ la vida Utah.
You’re livin’ la vida Utah.
She’s livin’ la vida Utah.

She went to BYU so she could find a man to wed.
But she had to have a major to kill time while she hunted
So she took elementary ed.

My heck!
Her skin’s light, not dark
She’s livin’ la vida Utah.
She’s from Spanish Fark
Livin’ la vida Utah.
She gossips in Relief Society
About who is dating who-a
She’s the model of piety,
Livin’ la vida Utah
Nothing can cure it
Livin’ la vida Utah
She has a sweet spirit
Livin’ la vida Utah

She thinks she’s an eight-cow wife,
When she’s really more like two-a.
I’ve loved her all my life,
Livin’ la vida Utah.
You’re livin’ la vida Utah.
She’s livin’ la vida Utah.
Livin’ la vida Utah.

A gotta, gotta, gotta la vida Utah.
Gotta, gotta, gotta la vi—

Supernova

0

When a studio releases a film without letting critics see it first, there’s only one reason: It sucks, and they know it. If critics see it, they’ll only write reviews, and that won’t help any.

So I’m happy to oblige those responsible for “Supernova” by making this review as brief as possible.

Taking place in space in the future, “Supernova” has not one single original idea in it, borrowing instead from “Alien,” “Terminator 2,” “2001: A Space Odyssey,” and countless other sci-fi films.

Our heroes are a crew on a sort of spaceship ambulance that flies around the universe answering distress signals. One such signal comes from a destination so far away that the ship has to jump to the “ninth dimension,” whatever THAT means. This process is sort of like jumping to light speed, except that everyone has to get completely naked and encase themselves in protective pods.

So they jump, and they put their clothes back on, and then there’s something about there not being enough fuel to get back, so they have to hang around for a while. But the important thing is that the guy they “rescue,” Troy Larson (Peter Facinelli), turns out to have been altered and made unkillable by some kind of crazy alien substance that can 1) wipe out all existing life, and 2) create new life — “like God, only not as nice,” says someone in the movie (or maybe it was someone in the theater; I don’t remember).

The crew, in a rare moment of competence, wants to get rid of the alien goo, since they can tell it’s dangerous. As a result of this plan, Troy starts killing them. Fighting him off are tough-as-nails female captain Kaela (Angela Bassett) and bland-as-dirt co-pilot Nick (James Spader). Other crew members include the sex-having couple Danika (Robin Tunney) and Yerzy (Lou Diamond Phillips, in a role that will hopefully send him back to oblivion, where he belongs).

Meanwhile, the ship’s computer, Sweetie (who provides all the exposition and back-story, by the way, which is a sure sign of a poorly written movie), starts to act like a human being, even going so far as to fall in love with crew member Benjamin (Wilson Cruz). This idea goes nowhere. I mention it only because it’s stupid, and I’m hoping the movie will be embarrassed that I pointed it out.

“Supernova” was directed by Walter Hill, under the pseudonym Thomas Lee (another bad sign). The film was clearly intended to be rated R, but has been rather choppily edited down to a PG-13. This is most clear during the scenes with nudity or violence, where it’s obvious that things have been cut out.

The special effects are surprisingly good, and the film isn’t long enough to be boring. In fact, there are a few moments of actual entertainment, and studios have certainly let critics see, in advance, movies that were a lot worse than this one. Still, with herky-jerky, almost random storytelling, forgettable characters, wooden acting and no script to speak of, there’s no compelling reason to see this thing.

Das Boot

0

I speak without any exaggeration whatsoever when I say that the practice of “booting” cars that are illegally parked is absolutely the stupidest activity mankind has ever undertaken in all the history of the world, even stupider than the last Schwarzenegger movie, not that you saw it.

Booting, in case you don’t know, is when a towing company puts a huge metal clamp over one of the wheels of an illegally parked car rather than towing the car away. It’s impossible to take one of these “boots” off by yourself; you have to have special tools and perhaps even the specific body odor of a tow-truck driver to do it. So if your car gets booted, all you can do is call the towing company and wait for them to send someone out to remove the boot, which of course costs money. Booting a car is basically a way of holding it for ransom.

Many Utah Valley residents — particularly the college students, who are always screwing things up somehow — have had experience with bootings, and the reaction is always the same: “Could all of human civilization, working together as a team, come up with anything dumber than this?”

The main reason booting is so stupid is that it defeats its alleged purpose. Around here, cars usually get booted because the drivers have parked them at apartment complexes for which they do not have a parking sticker. The car is in the way; it’s taking up space reserved for tenants. If a tenant came home and could find nowhere to park, he would be very frustrated to find that a non-tenant was taking up a space.

In fact, I have many times come home after a late night of being a journalist, vigorously pursuing the news by way of hanging out at the movies, and found no place to park. This has bothered me, and I am not one who is easily bothered, as the gentle tone of my columns has surely indicated.

I will grant you that my solution to the problem — blowing up the cars that don’t belong there — may be a bit “drastic” in some people’s eyes. But at least it is better than the towing companies’ solution, which is to put a boot on the vagrant car, thus causing it to take up the space even longer.

Assuming we’re discarding the whole “blowing up” idea (which I don’t think we should rule out completely), wouldn’t it make more sense to TOW the car? Not only would it free up the parking space faster, it would also save the tow-truck guy another trip out to take the boot off. If you tow the car, the owner has to come to you.

So why do companies boot instead of tow? Because they’re fantastically lazy. Ferociously lazy. Mind-numbingly, butt-scratchingly, paralyzingly lazy. Booting requires very little manual effort, and even less intelligence. Towing involves hooks and levers and chains and stuff.

The other great thing about booting is that when the guy does show up to remove the boot, you have to pay him on the spot. In cash. They don’t usually take checks, and certainly not credit cards. (Again, we’re talking about companies that want to expend as little effort and brain power as possible.) Do most people have $50 cash on them? Of course not. They would have to drive to the bank to get some cash, which of course they cannot do, because there’s a boot on their car.

In short, booting is just a blatant way for towing companies to make more money. It provides no real service, as it makes illegally parked cars have to remain illegally parked even longer. It benefits mankind in no way whatsoever; this is probably why it’s still a part of our society. The dumb things always persist. Schwarzenegger has another film coming out this year, for example.

The Mylaynniul Farley Family Dinner Party

0

The Little London Dinner Theatre is a good setting for James Arrington’s one-man “Farley Family” shows. The setting is always a family reunion, with the audience members assumed to be fellow Farleys, and what better activity for a family reunion than eating?

Arrington makes the most of this in “The Mylaynniul Farley Dinner Party” (“mylaynniul” being how a Farley, native of Utah, would pronounce “millennial”). While the audience is eating dinner before the show, he comes out as Aunt Pearl (the Farley family “historican”), going from table to table to see how all the Farleys are doing and to give them nametags.

When the show officially begins, Arrington is Heber J. Farley, acting patriarch of the family (old Grandpa Asa only wakes up occasionally) and by-default master of ceremonies whenever the clan gathers. “How grateful to be alive and to feel your sparts (Utahn for “spirits”) when we was supposed to have World War III,” he says by way of introduction.

Heber is Arrington’s best character, capturing perfectly the prototypical Mormon Grandfather. He stumbles over introductions, occasionally gets a bit choked up at “what a blessing” it is that some thing or other has happened, and just generally presides and conducts without any real presiding or conducting skills.

Much of Arrington’s shtick here is the same as in his “Farley Family Xmas,” a perennial favorite in this area. Aunt Viola, who caterwauls “O Holy Night” at Christmastime, sings “Climb Every Mountain” this time around (“When she sings a song, it stays sung,” Heber says without a trace of irony). Her part is brief, but funny.

A highlight of the show is teen-ager Fayreen’s being forced to do one of her cheerleading numbers. Arrington has just the right tone of voice and facial expression for a teen who probably didn’t want to come in the first place, let alone perform for all her stupid relatives, and there’s true pleasure in watching a rather large middle-aged man dressed as a teen-age girl flouncing around the stage, acting like a cheerleader and humming his own accompaniment.

The show ends with an adorable little girl giving the closing prayer. I applaud Arrington for having the guts to poke gentle fun at the way little kids pray — not at prayer itself, of course, but at how our children do it.

A great treat is when Heber introduces a special guest — James Arrington himself (or “Arlington,” as Heber calls him), who comes out to do a high-energy, giddily stupid magic act. It’s a display reminiscent of an old Steve Martin routine as Arrington grins like a fool while doing the dumbest magic tricks imaginable, again humming his own “exciting” music — and the result is hysterical.

The show drags in several places, though, particularly when the non-Utah Farleys make appearances. Texas hick Uffer K. Johnson is proud of his daughter, Queezledean, for making it as a professional wrestler, but he’s not terribly funny. And fatuous lounge singer Vonell Farley is similarly challenged. Doing a dead-on parody of Utah families and their customs is funny and full of potential; making fun of lounge singers has been done to death.

Grabnet: We Aim to Police

0

“Grabnet: We Aim to Police” is a fairly straight-forward parody of “Dragnet”-style TV shows, without all the pop-culture references that normally get thrown in at the Desert Star Playhouse.

Is it a bit late to be satirizing “Dragnet”? Well, yes. Is it wrong for Desert Star to borrow not just lines but entire scenes from the “Police Squad” TV series and the “Naked Gun” movies that followed it, both of which definitively parodied the deadpan-cop genre of entertainment? Emphatically, yes.

But if you put aside issues of timeliness and originality, “Grabnet” is a typically loony evening at the Desert Star, full of jokes that make you groan and jokes that make you howl with laughter. (Often, these are the same jokes.)

Small-business owner Denny Fell (Julie Ann Christensen), who is so named just for a joke later in which someone says “then he fell” and is mistaken to have said “Denny Fell” (which is one of those “Police Squad” rip-offs, by the way), is being harassed by the local Mob. The Mob is run by Granny Twyes (Kathleen Richardson), her balloon-breasted assistant Bubbles (Kori Hazel), and her low-life grandson Tommy Twyes (Steven Fehr). (The family’s last name is Twyes because it sounds like “twice,” which enables a character to say, “I shot twice” and have people think she shot Twyes — another “Police Squad” theft.)

Anyway, cops Joe Thursday (Scott Holman) and Frank Smith (Spencer Ashby) are on the case, as is young cop Will Gannon (Rick Miller), who is smitten with Denny. They are assisted by a surf-shop owner (Jonathon Phipps) who has some information on the case. (“We want some names, Mister!” the cops tell him. “Didn’t your parents give you names?” he replies.) (That joke is original, as far as I know.)

The case is solved, everyone’s happy, and the cast does the traditional post-show Olio, this time centered around swing music and rather clunkily choreographed, except for one hysterical scene with Ashby dressed as a woman, dancing with Holman, both of them destroying the furniture and each other.

I feel like a broken record every time I review the Desert Star Playhouse, but Scott Holman is still the best performer they have. No one onstage is funnier, and that’s always true, regardless of the size of his role. (One of his best moments here as stone-faced Thursday is when he “disguises” his voice on the phone without changing it at all, and the person calling still falls for it.) His partnership with Ashby, another genuinely talented comic actor, is very good, and they are well supported by their co-stars, particularly Kori Hazel, showing more comic intuition than a character like Bubbles would normally get.

Next Friday

0

When the world loves a film so much that the masses clamor for a sequel, Hollywood is quick to oblige! This is also true even if no one was clamoring for a sequel, which was surely the case with “Friday,” a sleeper hit taking place in the ‘hood from a few years ago.

But now we have “Next Friday,” an embarrassingly unfunny drug comedy that makes Cheech & Chong’s drug comedies look funny by comparison. It seems that urban black fellow Craig (Ice Cube, who also scripted, though I use the term loosely) beat up a guy named Debo (Tommy “Tiny” Lester), who apparently had it coming and who in fact went to jail. He swore revenge on Craig, though, and now he and his stupid prison-pal Tyrone (Sticky Fingas), whose main purpose in the movie is to be hit on the head, have escaped from the L.A. County Jail. (They do this in broad daylight, by the way, still shackled together at the ankles.)

In order to protect his son, Craig’s dad (John Witherspoon), a dog-catcher who falls in dog poop at the beginning of the movie and does not clean it off his clothes until the end, sends Craig to live with his rich relatives in Rancho Cucamonga. But trouble seems to find Craig wherever he goes: He falls for Karla (Lisa Rodriguez), the gorgeous sister of a trio of Mexican gangsters who live in the same cul-de-sac as Craig’s uncle and cousin. One of these Mexicans, it should be noted, is later seen wearing nothing but a jock strap with a bow-tie on the front. Allegedly, this is funny.

I believe there is a plot somewhere in all this in which Craig and his cousin Day-Day (Mike Epps) believe the Mexicans to be in possession of a lot of drug money, and it seems like Day-Day is being harassed by a woman who claims he fathered her unborn child. But I couldn’t say for sure. What I recall most vividly is that the whole gang sits down to smoke pot with a frequency and lack of provocation usually reserved for sex scenes in porno movies. Hey, the mail’s here, let’s smoke pot. Hey, it’s a Friday, let’s smoke pot. Hey, I have some pot, let’s smoke pot.

There are a few chuckles in the movie. Day-Day’s impression of his ex-girlfriend’s fat sister is quite amusing (it sounds like she’s coughing when really she’s just breathing), and, um, there must have been something else, too. Can’t think of it now. All I remember is all the unfunny stuff, like the foul-mouthed Chinese neighbor and the weird sex toys Craig’s uncle has, and the way Craig’s uncle’s new wife keeps trying to mount Craig. (She’s played by Kym E. Whitley, though you’ll probably think it’s Jackee, and you might as well be right, I mean who cares, really?) Oh, and someone gives a dog a brownie laced with pot.

I’ll give the film this: Except for the drug use, it’s relatively harmless. The sexism, racism and rampant violence you usually find in movies about the ‘hood are not here; the filmmakers, while crude and foul-mouthed, at least don’t seem to have had any axes to grind or political statements to make. That doesn’t make the film enjoyable, but at least it keeps it out of the “harmful” category.

The Cripple of Inishmaan

0

Those familiar with the works of Irish playwright Martin McDonagh will be interested to know that “The Cripple of Inishmaan,” now being performed at Pioneer Theatre Company, does not shine the spotlight on the human trait of cruelty quite as brightly as some of his other plays do.

That’s not to say the downtrodden, tiny-village-dwelling Irish folks that inhabit this play (and all McDonagh’s plays) don’t exhibit some cruelty, both emotional and physical. They certainly do. The town gossip (though he’s not very good at it — he thinks a goose biting a cat is newsworthy), Johnnypateenmike (Craig Bockhorn), is trying to kill his aged mother (Patricia Fraser) by making her drink herself to death. The devil-tongued Helen (Michelle Six) cracks eggs on the skull of her brother Bartley (Corey Behnke) and is an assassin-for-hire when it comes to neighbors’ pesky animals. Everyone refers to Billy (Liam Christopher O’Brien), a physically deformed but mentally superior young man, as “Cripple Billy.”

There’s more cruelty, too, but I won’t spoil it.

The difference between this and some of McDonaugh’s other plays (“The Beauty Queen of Leenane,” for example, which Salt Lake Acting Company did not long ago) is that the depths to which these bleak, desperate characters sink don’t weigh the entire play down. Yes, there are lies and suffering and pain — but the end result is surprisingly upbeat, especially considering what we’ve been through.

Oddly, this upbeat ending almost seems non-McDonaugh-ish, and not as satisfying as it would have been if things had ended as drearily as we guessed they would.

The plot centers around the island of Inishmaan in 1934, when an American filmmaker was coming around to film a documentary. Billy, eager to leave this village of gossips and critics, winds up getting whisked to Hollywood for a shot at being in pictures.

Meanwhile, his two aunts, who have cared for him since his parents died young, fret about his well-being. The slightly sane Aunt Kate (Mary Fogarty) even begins to talking to rocks, while the mostly sane Aunt Eileen (Tandy Cronyn) tries to go about running their impoverished little country store, which sells mostly cans of peas.

The world of these characters is dismal, enhanced greatly by Peter Harrison’s magnificent set design, in which the dingy, jagged walls of the country store jut upwards toward the gray sky behind it. Yet despite it, they all have sense of humor. This humor can often be dark and even mean-spirited, but it is humor nonetheless. As a result, the play itself is more comedy than tragedy, albeit a pitch-black one. (“It will all end in tears,” predicts Eileen of some turn of events. “Tears or death,” says Kate, with which Eileen readily agrees, as if those two possibilities are equal both in likelihood and appeal.)

O’Brien is outstanding as the crippled Billy, hopelessly in love with the vulgar Helen. Michelle Six is a stand-out, too, as Helen, making her positively mean with just a hint of vulnerability (which she keeps well-hidden).

The entire cast, in fact, is right on target, leaving no weak links. The characters, who are all either insane, odd or stupid, resonate and come to life with their bickerings, stubbornness and human weaknesses. This is a darkly funny, altogether very satisfying play.

Wyoming2K

0

I rang in the new millennium in Evanston, Wyo. I figured if all technology was going to fail at the stroke of midnight, I should be in a place where there WAS no technology. (Many of the people there already think the year is 1900 anyway.)

Evanston’s biggest claim to fame is that Utahns go there to buy fireworks that are quite understandably illegal in Utah. I was there, however, to hang out with my friend Other Eric, who lives there.

I had never been to Wyoming before. My first impression of it as I neared Other Eric’s house was that it’s a scenic, beautiful place, a winter wonderland full of WHY THE CRUD AM I BEING PULLED OVER?! I was not speeding. The officer did not give me a ticket, but neither did he ever say why he stopped me. I later learned that it was probably because my car has Utah license plates, which is evidently against the law in the otherwise lawless state of Wyoming.

We learned late in the evening that the town of Evanston (pop. 12,000) was having a big celebration downtown, including the dropping of a ball much like Times Square does. So we went downtown and found the area packed full of excited Evanstoners and their cigarettes. There was a grandstand on which stood a man who I’m guessing was the mayor, who was speaking into a microphone that did not seem to be working, though this did not stop him from speaking. All the local police were there, thus allowing people with Utah license plates to run amok in other parts of the city. People were talking and smoking excitedly. Some of them were dressed (I’m serious here) in hunting fatigues. I did not see any guns, but I’m sure the fatigue-wearers had them at the ready, in case something crazy happened at the advent of Y2K, like a riot erupting or a homosexual existing.

The ball, it turns out, was a glittering disco ball attached to a cable that someone was going to lower from atop a crane. When midnight struck, the dropping of the ball proved to be rather stupid, as you might expect, but it was followed by a fireworks display that, in all honesty, was 1,000,000 times better than Provo’s annual “Stadium of (Fire the Employee Who Recommended You Go to Stadium of) Fire.” Seriously. They might be a little back-woodsy in Wyoming, and sure, maybe they have more guns than library books, but I’ll give them this: They know how to put together a fireworks show.

Immediately after this, there was a party in a nearby building. Much of the crowd began to file festively into this party. Other Eric and I mixed in with the revelers, many of whom, being efficiency-minded, had saved time by getting drunk beforehand, possibly as early as November. We couldn’t afford the cover charge at the party (and didn’t really want to go in anyway); instead, upon leaving the building, we saw four men in suits standing behind a pickup truck, urinating in the parking lot. All four were turned at precisely the same angle, making it look like an event of Synchronized Peeing.

Evanston!

Back at Other Eric’s place, he introduced me to his family’s New Year’s tradition, where you run a lap, barefoot, around the outside of the house. This is easily as stupid as it sounds, as there is a great deal of snow on the ground on New Year’s Eve in Wyoming, but we did it anyway. Then we went out back and shot off a bunch of fireworks. Other Eric, ignoring the label on the Roman Candles that said “Do not hold this in your hand,” held it in his hand. When it didn’t shoot out its fireballs immediately, he feared it was going to explode in his hand, so he dropped it on the ground, at which point it DID shoot out its fireballs, only instead of being pointed at the sky, it was now pointed at us. We all ran for cover as fireballs erupted around us, and Other Eric’s brother took one in the butt. (The worst part about that was that he later insisted on showing us the welt it caused.) The millennium was not even an hour old, and already Other Eric had endangered the lives of others. His family did not seem surprised by this.

So if the first night is any indication, the new millennium is going to be one of festivities, drunkenness, public urination and poorly handled explosives. Just like the old millennium! Hooray!

Nunsense

0

Dan Goggin’s goofy musical “Nunsense,” now at Hale Center Theater Orem, is about a group of nuns who must put on a show in order to raise money to bury a bunch of their sisters who died after eating bad soup at the convent.

Fifty-two died; only 48 were buried, though, before the Mother Superior spent the rest of the convent’s money on a DVD player. Until the burial money is raised, the remaining four dead nuns are being kept in the freezer — until the Board of Health finds out, that is.

If this sounds like an extraordinarily distasteful storyline for a musical, well, you’re right. (I won’t even mention the part where one of the nuns accidentally gets high on inhalants.) But its outlandishness can be forgiven when presented in such a whimsical, giddily morbid fashion. There is something inherently funny about seeing women dressed in full nun regalia dancing around like the Rockettes (one of them even does a cartwheel!), and you have to respect a show about nuns that, by its own admission, never stoops to doing “penguin jokes.”

“Nunsense” is the name of the show that five of the surviving nuns are putting on, and we are their audience for that show (they therefore assume we’re all Catholic, by the way). We also see some behind-the-scenes drama, though, as the street-wise Sister Mary Robert Anne wants to do her own number; Sister Mary Amnesia struggles to remember who she was before a crucifix fell on her and wiped out her memory; Sister Mary Leo wants to be a ballerina; and Sister Mary Hubert wants to be Mother Superior.

There are some wonderful jokes and one-liners. While thumbing through the convent’s cookbook “Baking with the Blessed Virgin Mary,” they find Mary Magdalene Tarts, which two of the sisters observe must be “easy and cheap” to make.

The only potential problem with the show is its mockery, sometimes gentle and sometimes quite pointed, of Catholicism. When it’s being done by Catholics for a Catholic audience, everyone can laugh together. But there’s something uneasy about Mormons making fun of Catholics for a Mormon audience — and the fact that the Mormon audience laughs really hard at it. I would bet that if Catholics did a show in this valley making fun of Mormonism, it wouldn’t go over very well. People would get all huffy and righteously indignant and say, “How dare you make fun of our religion,” and “That’s just not funny.” (Of course, in an ideal world, everyone would just take the joke and be fine with it.) I’d be curious to see a Catholic’s reaction to “Nunsense,” as performed by LDS people in an LDS community.

The show is double-cast, and two of the Friday performers were filling in when I saw it on a Thursday. This makes reviewing individual performers difficult, because while some of the onstage chemistry was a bit off, it’s probably because members of both casts, not used to working together, had to work together (which is Reason No. 1 not to double-cast your show — or if you do, to keep the casts separate.)

Ignoring any notions of religious implications or political correctness, the show is audaciously funny, deftly staged and directed by Sister Mary Syd Riggs (as the program calls her), and energetically performed by five women in costumes that are probably nun-too-cool to be hopping around in.

Into the Woods

0

Certainly one of the greatest musicals of the last 20 years, “Into the Woods” puts characters from several fairy tales into one story, letting their paths cross and causing each person’s actions to influence the others’ lives.

Then, in Act II, with great depth and insight into human nature, we see what happens after “they all lived happily ever after.” We see that getting what you wish for — marrying a prince, having a child, killing a giant — isn’t always what it’s cracked up to be. We see that our actions have consequences, but that action MUST be taken: You can’t choose not to decide. We all have to go “into the woods” and face our fears every now and then.

Written by Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine, this is a marvelously complex show, and a hard one to do. (Despite the presence of fairy-tale characters, the show is not for kids.) The music is challenging, and the performers must be able to act as well as they can sing (a rarity in musical theater, where the focus is usually on the songs, not the depth of the characters). We’re pleased to report that the Villa Playhouse Theatre in Springville measures up to the task admirably, with nearly every performer filling his or her role with confidence and ability.

At the center are the Baker (Brian McFadyen) and his wife (Esther Covington), rendered childless by a curse-dispensing witch (Kristina Holley) who lives next door. (In a hilarious and impressive bit of pyrotechnics, the witch shoots a ball of flame right at the Baker’s crotch.) To lift the curse, the couple must obtain several items to be used in a spell. These include a cow belonging to beanstalk-climbing Jack (a soulful and subtle Claybourne L. Elder), the hood of sassy, attitude-heavy Little Red Ridinghood (Lesa Sutton, playing the role with marvelous comic ability), and a slipper from Cinderella (Brianna Gray).

Rapunzel (Jessica Perry) is involved, too, as are a couple of un-gentlemanly princes (Craig Nielson and Spencer Barnes).

McFadyen and Covington are superb as the Baker and his wife. While the entire cast sings the intricately rhymed lyrics with agility and clarity, not to mention fine singing voices, these two stand out as professionals. They have chemistry as a couple and carry the show well.

Covington, in particular, lends heartbreaking realism to her character in the second act, when her poor decisions and subsequent realizations lead to one of the play’s saddest moments.

Directed by Kathleen Nutt, this production suffers from poor lighting in quite a few scenes. The idea is apparently for the lighting to reflect the dark turn of events in the story, but it’s often hard to see the performers. Also, a potentially wonderful scene between Jack and the Baker is ruined by having the actors sit on the balcony — above and behind the audience, forcing them to either turn all the way around in their seats, or to be content just hearing them. We should really be able to see their faces in this important scene.

Aside from the small glitches and a few performances that remind us of it, this doesn’t feel like community theater. The Villa has taken upon itself the chore of doing a challenging show, and the production as a whole rises to the occasion.

Cash on Delivery

0

Is it too early to call “Cash on Delivery” at Hale Centre Theatre West Valley “the funniest play of the year”? I guess we still have 51 weeks for something to top it, but whatever show tries to be more frantic, witty, absurd and hysterically funny than “Cash on Delivery” has its work cut out for it.

The show is a full-on farce, complete with slamming doors, dead bodies, bald-faced lies, mistaken identities and men dressing as women. Eric Swan (Cody K. Carlson) lost his job a couple years ago and, unable to find new work, was delighted when a Social Security check for Rupert Thompson, a former tenant, came in the mail. The tenant had moved away, so Eric cashed the check himself and assumed his identity, at least as far as the government was concerned.

Unfortunately, the British government is not content to just give out Social Security. When they learned Rupert Thompson had the gout, they began providing him with disability money. Soon Eric had other alter egos, too, each of them unemployed, disabled, or in some other way eligible for government assistance. His wife (Rashell P. Ainsworth), of course, had no idea anything was going on.

The trouble begins when a welfare agent (Ray Jensen) shows up to have Rupert Thompson and his landlord, Eric Swan, sign a form. They two men are one and the same, of course, which means Eric has to find someone to pretend to be him, since he’s already pretending to be Rupert Thompson. His slightly dim real-life tenant, Norman McDonald (Justin Bruse), whom the government believes to be dead (Eric told them that in an effort to stop the flow of dirty money), is wrangled into the ruse, as is Eric’s Uncle George (Russ Peacock).

At one point in the show, Uncle George is believed by other characters to be three different people — all while he’s lying unconscious, presumably dead (people in farces never take anyone’s pulse). Naturally, things begin to unravel and explode, and the lies have to keep getting more well-timed and creative. (Eric’s wife says to Norman, “Why are you wearing women’s clothing and dancing with my husband?” Eric answers for him, “No trick questions, please.”)

Despite the absurdity, the situations come across as almost completely believable, thanks to a very committed cast. Carlson and Bruse are the leads, but their supporting cast members are just as dedicated to the emphatically silly script, which abounds in popping one-liners and jaw-dropping sight gags (the best one involving a “corpse” on a stretcher).

The whole thing makes so much sense, in fact, that when an astoundingly impossible coincidence involving a dress and a wig occurs near the end, we have no trouble accepting it. We’ve been so competely taken for a ride that we’ll swallow anything.

Into the Woods,” at The SCERA Showhouse; “A Funny Thing Happened on The Way to The Forum

0

Two Stephen Sondheim musicals opened in Utah County last weekend, and the shows couldn’t be more different.

“Into the Woods,” playing at the SCERA Showhouse II in Orem, uses the normally just-for-fun medium of fairy tales to examine serious issues of ethics, fate and the vicissitudes of life. It adds depth to characters who have never been deep before.

Meanwhile, “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum,” now at the Little London Dinner Theater in Pleasant Grove, is by its own admission completely devoid of anything weighty, meaningful or important. It is a comedy, and nothing more.

What the productions have in common is that they are well-cast, well-sung and thoroughly enjoyable.

“Into the Woods” is a brilliantly structured show in which the first act is more or less a straight-ahead amalgamation of familiar fairy tales. At the center are the Baker (Brian McFadyen) and his wife (Esther Covington), rendered childless by a curse from the witch (Reyna Ricks) who lives next door. To lift the curse, they have to locate four disparate objects that the witch can use in a potion to restore her youth and beauty.

They head into the woods to find the items, and there they encounter Jack (Steven Ladd), who will soon climb a beanstalk; Little Red Riding Hood (Laura Money), on her way to grandmother’s house; and Cinderella (Natalie Haddock), fleeing the prince after the ball.

These characters, in turn, have their own stories, all of which intersect constantly.

The second act shows what happens after they all lived “happily ever after.” Cinderella has her prince (Tasi Young), but realizes he’s more interested in pursuing young maidens than in actually catching them. Jack and his mother (Tracy Whitlock) are wealthy due to his stealing the giant’s gold-producing goose, but now the giant’s widow is enraged. And the Baker and his wife have a baby, but we all know those come with their own set of problems.

“The woods” represent the trials of life. In real life, things often are not as black-and-white as fairy tales make them seem: Here the witch turns out to be a sympathetic figure, while the “good” characters make some morally questionable choices.

Brian McFadyen and Esther Covington, who have played these roles before (also under the direction of Kathleen Nutt), make for an endearing couple, first humorous then tragic. Laura Money is a sassy Little Red Riding Hood with great facial expressions, and Steven Ladd is an appropriately dumb-headed Jack.

More great casting? David Haenlein’s Mysterious Man (who offers the Baker and his wife enigmatic advice) is delightfully loony. Tracy Whitlock, playing Jack’s mother, berates her boy with great comic agility. And you’ll wonder why a man (Andrew Hunsaker) has been cast as Little Red’s grandmother — until you actually see granny, at which point you’ll be delighted.

Reyna Ricks is dazzling as the witch, who after her transformation into a pretty young thing becomes a vampy, attitude-heavy powerhouse.

“Forum,” directed by Bob Manning, is an all-out, vaudeville-style farce set in ancient Rome. Pseudolis (Aaron Dejesus) is a crafty, shiftless slave who desires his freedom. His master, post-adolescent Hero (Seth Child), promises to set him free if he will help him win the love of Philia (Marilee Spencer).

Philia, alas, is a courtesan (i.e., wife-for-hire) in the house of the rising sun … I mean, the house of Marcus Lycus (Brett Merritt). What’s more, she has just been sold to famed warrior Miles Gloriosus (Adam Daveline).

Meanwhile, Pseudolis is under the watchful eye of the aptly named Hysterium (Patrick Livingston), the head slave who’s a nervous wreck while Hero’s parents (Ryan Wooden and Traci Brewster) are out of town.

From the opening number to the very end, the production is full of non-stop laughs and contagious energy. A broad comedy like this easily lends itself to over-acting — which is the surest way to kill the laughs — but only the omnipresent Proteans (Aaron Spjute and Sam Davis) succumb to the temptation.

Aaron Dejesus forgets he’s the lead and plays Pseudolis as just another cog in the comedy wheel — which is a brilliant thing to do. Seth Child is understated as Hero, earning his laughs in his somewhat limited stage time, and while Traci Brewster gets only one big number as Domina (Hero’s mother), she makes an indelible impression.

Patrick Livingston’s Hysterium is frantic enough to be funny, but not so much that it gets annoying. (His incognito number, “I’m Lovely,” is a scream.) Similarly, Adam Daveline struts and preens as Miles Gloriosus, but restrains himself from going over the top.

It’s hard to choose, but Brett Merritt just might be the funniest of the bunch, playing Lycus as a pouty, flamboyant fop.

Basically, this is a cast full of people with great chemistry together who know the best way to get laughs is to act like getting laughs is the furthest thing from your mind. One hilarious scene blends into another; for what it’s worth, I haven’t laughed this hard at a show in a long time. It’s easily the best production Little London has ever done.

The Best of the Millennium

0

So we’ve reached the end of another millennium. Seems like just yesterday we were eagerly preparing for the year 1000, taking our annual baths, gathering up live chickens to foully eat with our bare hands at the celebration, and marvelling at how we’d lived to the ripe old age of 28 and would indeed live to see another year, provided a Mongol horde didn’t come through the village and wipe us all out first.

Of course I’m aware that the next millennium doesn’t actually start until 2001. I’m aware of this primarily because once a week, every newspaper in the country prints a letter to the editor written by someone who thinks he’s a genius for pointing out this fact. To these people I would like to say two things:

1) Do you READ the letters to the editor, or just write them? Because if you read them, you’d see that this information has already been passed along numerous times. Everyone knows this by now. We are all aware that there was no year “0,” and hence, the new millennium doesn’t really start until 2001. WE KNOW THIS.

2) We don’t care.

Anyway, many of the year-end lists and reflections have focused only upon this year or this century. I’d like to do a true “Best of the Millennium” list, taking into account all the factors that make this world the grand experience it is.

BEST LAND MASS:
1. North America
2. Africa
3. Marlon Brando

MOST DESPISED PERSON:
1. Adolf Hitler
2. Genghis Khan
3. Jar Jar Binks

GREATEST TRAGEDY AT SEA:
1. Sinking of the Titanic, 1912
2. Sinking of the Spanish Armada, 1588
3. “Speed 2,” 1997

GREATEST DISCOVERY:
1. America
2. The law of gravity
3. That you can sing the words of “If You Could Hie to Kolob” to the tune of “The Beverly Hillbillies” theme song.

MOST IGNOBLE DEATH:
1. Hitler’s cowardly suicide
2. Elvis dying on the toilet
3. The last episode of “Seinfeld”

BEST ANCIENT RUIN, DISCOVERED AND RESTORED IN THIS MILLENNIUM:
1. King Tutankhaman’s tomb
2. The Roman Colosseum
3. Elizabeth Taylor

MOST CONTROVERSIAL THEORY, LATER PROVEN AS FACT:
1. Galileo’s theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa.
2. Columbus’s theory that the Earth is round, not flat.
3. My theory that Ann Landers and Dear Abby are actually the same person, and that their “separate” columns are word-for-word identical to each other about three times a week.

GREATEST INVENTION:
1. The printing press
2. The microchip
3. Flesh-eating robots that will one day assist me in my plot to take over the world (NOTE: Flesh-eating robots still in development.)

The Best and Worst Movies of 1999

0
The Best and Worst Movies of 1999

More than any year in recent memory, 1999 served up films that were unconventional and innovative, films that turned out winners despite having the odds stacked against them.

The low-budget, homemade-looking “Blair Witch Project” was the scariest film of the year, even though it never showed us what everybody was running from and featured no onscreen violence.

“The Sixth Sense” started out as a more conventional thriller — a little boy sees ghosts walking around — and had the burden of starring Bruce Willis. Yet it wound up being very unconventional indeed, with a touching message and by far the best ending of the year.

“Toy Story 2” was supposed to be a direct-to-video project, and it was written by committee. Plus, it was a sequel. All those signs point toward disaster, yet it nearly tops the list of the best films of 1999.

On the other side of the coin, “Wild Wild West” had everything going for it. Great stars (Will Smith, Kevin Klein, Kenneth Branagh), good director (Barry Sonnenfeld), cool special effects and a fun premise — yet it still managed to beat the odds and turn out terrible.

In short, all the conventional wisdom of filmmaking was shot to pieces this year, as movies that seemed like winners fell apart, and movies that had an uphill battle triumphed.

Here’s my highly opinionated list of the best of 1999. To be eligible, films had to be released in Utah this year. (This disqualifies some films from the end of 1998, like “Life is Beautiful,” as well as some like “Magnolia” and “Boys Don’t Cry” that are now in “select cities” but haven’t opened here yet.)

1. “The Sixth Sense” Not only is this the best film of the year for reasons to be described later, but it also indicates that the movie-going public is perhaps not as far off the deep edge as we’d thought.

Here’s a movie with almost no profanity, no sex, no nudity, and only mild violence and gore … and yet it also has a creative plot, great acting and clever cinematic tricks … and yet it still managed to become the second most-popular film of the year. Usually, the top money-makers are popcorn movies, trifling little pieces full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. Often, the most popular films are downright bad. (See “Wild Wild West” in the “Worst Movies of 1999” list.)

Haven’t seen it? You should, but I’ll summarize anyway. It’s about a young boy named Cole (Haley Joel Osment) who can see dead people, and the psychologist (Bruce Willis) who tries to help him. It’s a spooky premise, and there are some traditional “jump” moments, where ghosts pop out of nowhere and scare poor little Cole (and us).

By now, everyone knows the film has a twist at the end, and some people are able to guess what it is, since they know to look for one. But before the word got out, trust me: NO ONE guessed the ending. Even movie veterans, film critics who have seen hundreds of flicks, people who can always guess what’s going to happen — no one saw it coming.

That, in and of itself, makes the film pretty darn noteworthy, when it can pull the wool over all of America’s eyes and force audiences to go back and watch it again to see if the twist actually works with the rest of the movie. (It does, and brilliantly.) But having a shocking twist is not what makes this the best movie of the year.

What puts it at the top of the list is the fact that whatever you thought the movie was about for 100 minutes, that all gets changed in the last seven. Critics who were already mentally writing their reviews had to erase everything and start over again. Audiences had to discuss it — or go back and see it again — to take in what it was all about.

The beautiful thing is that while you think you’re watching a pretty spooky ghost story starring a heart-breakingly sympathetic young actor, it turns out you’re actually watching something far, far deeper, and much more emotionally touching. “The Sixth Sense” is about redemption, and how you can’t do anything until you love and forgive yourself.

Pretty heady stuff, coming from a movie that was billed as just another creepy ghost story.

2. “American Beauty” Kevin Spacey deserves (and just might win) the Best Actor Academy Award for his portryal of a spineless man enduring a midlife crisis in Anytown, U.S.A. (The license plates on the cars don’t even have state names on them.) He’s living a hellish suburban life with a cold, ambitious wife (played with nuance and energy by Annette Bening) and a daughter who despises him.

You can’t take your eyes off this dark, compelling comedy, so black is the humor and so evocative is the mood — dreary and optimistic at the same time. The movie works to create a mood more than a unifying theme, and you come out of it FEELING something, even if you’re not sure what.

3. “The Blair Witch Project” Everyone has always acknowledged that less is more with horror films, because the viewer’s imagination can come up with something worse than anything a director can film.

On that principle came “The Blair Witch Project,” in which three amateur filmmakers go into the woods of Maryland to investigate an old local legend. They don’t come back. A while later, their cameras are found; “The Blair Witch Project” is the footage they left.

Which means there’s a lot of shaky camera movement, a lot of darkness, and a lot of screaming. The actors were given plot outlines and improvised their dialogue. All of this made the film seem absolutely, positively REAL. We never once saw whatever it was that stalked the three in the woods, but that just added to the horror. The last scene is one of the most terrifying of all time, and that final shot, in the basement, in the corner…. it’s been five months and it still gives me the chills.

4. “twin falls idaho” From last year’s Sundance Film Festival came this unusual and moving modern-day fairy tale, shot in muted colors and with unusually crisp sound, giving it an “anytime, anyplace” fable-like quality. Real-life twins Mark and Michael Polish play Blake and Francis Falls, conjoined (“Siamese”) twins who have come to New York City to 1) find their mother, and 2) die. A prostitute named Penny (Michele Hicks) enters the picture, and while the ailing Francis sleeps, she and Blake begin to fall in love, leading to an awkward rift between the two brothers that threatens their supernaturally close relationship.

This film — which, if we’re being honest here, has made me bawl both times I’ve seen it, though my emotional reaction to it is not what makes me consider it one of the year’s best — is a metaphor for all human relationships (making it a fairy tale, fable AND a parable). In one scene, the dying Francis says of the stronger Blake, “He is the reason my blood pumps and my heart beats. I’m alive because of Blake.” This is true not just physically, but emotionally as well, and anyone who’s ever been in a marriage or other close relationship has probably been able to say the same thing. “twin falls idaho,” alternately funny and sad, reminds us of how sweet those feelings are.

5. “Being John Malkovich” Certainly the weirdest movie of the year, video-director Spike Jonze’s feature film debut is also a funny, dark, visually interesting joy ride. Controversial puppeteer and big-time loser Craig (John Cusack, one of the most under-rated actor of his generation) discovers a portal in his office that allows him to enter the body of actor John Malkovich (playing himself like the good sport he is) for 15 minutes at a time. Soon his desire (a desire shared by all people, at some point) to be someone else can be fulfilled, causing a strain on his dingy marriage with Lotte (a highly unglamorous Cameron Diaz).

Part “Alice in Wonderland,” part Terry Gilliam movie, this is a memorably surreal film, and a rare treat: It can be enjoyed purely for the hilarity and oddness of the moment, but it also has some deep (and rather disturbing) messages about reality, fame and self-worth.

6. “Toy Story 2” Hey, Disney, it’s possible to make a sequel that actually improves upon the original and isn’t just a cheap attempt to make more money! (See all the “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin” and “Lion King” straight-to-video sequels for background on what I’m talking about here.)

The computer animation has improved tenfold since 1995, and the characters have gotten deeper. This time, Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks) falls into the clutches of a toy collector, who plans to ship him and the other toys from his original set (seems Woody was quite a collector’s item back in the old days, which he didn’t know until now) off to Japan to a toy museum. He’s faced with a dilemma: Go back to his home, where his owner, Andy, will eventually outgrow him and discard him, or become part of a musuem exhibit where he’ll live forever, but never be played with or truly loved?

Quite a dilemma for a computer-animated toy, but it all works. Jokes fly fast and furious as Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and Woody’s other toy friends come to rescue him, leading to one fantastic sequence after another. Easily the most whimsical, joyful, body-and-soul-enriching movie of the year.

7. “Fight Club” Hilarious and macabre, this dark, nihilistic film follows a white-collar nobody (Edward Norton) and a free-wheeling soap salesman (Brad Pitt) as they establish an underground club for men to fight each other — which leads to more and more mayhem as the true male psyche is slowly unleashed. Director David Fincher (“Seven,” “The Game,” both excellent films) uses innovative flashbacks, narrations and eye-catching cinematography to examine the male psyche and what ’90s-repressed men have become. Undeniably primal and violent, yet highly intelligent and engaging, not to mention disturbing: If men were allowed to behave as they wanted to, I’m afraid this really IS what would happen.

8. “Run Lola Run” Cool and frenetic German movie in which a girl has 20 minutes to come up with a ton of money or her boyfriend gets killed by bad guys. Those 20 minutes are shown three times, and each time a minor delay or extra head-start as Lola leaves her apartment drastically changes all the ensuing events, including the outcome (i.e., whether she makes it in time or not). The “minor-events-influence-everything” idea has been done before, but never as stylishly as here. The rave-style modern techno music is non-stop, the camerawork is fun and engaging, and the film is a breezy treat to watch. It also happens to have a little depth, too, though it’s understated: What is reality? Do we make our own reality? “The Matrix” dealt with those questions, too, but “Run Lola Run” is so much more entertaining. (My apologies to those who took “The Matrix” as gospel.)

9. “The Iron Giant” I’ve written plenty about this film already this year, and critics have politely scolded the general public for not going to see it. (They’ve been less polite to Warner Bros., which completely botched the promotion of the film yet still managed to promote the heck out of the dreadful “Pokemon.”) Set in the Cold War 1950s, a boy finds a giant robot that has crash-landed on earth from who-knows-where. The government finds out about it and, naturally, wants to destroy it. (If America didn’t make it, it must be a dangerous weapon, is the reasoning). The anti-gun message is a bit too blatant, but the rest of the film is magical and sweet. The animation is stylized, made to look like a ’50s-era Warner Bros. short, and there is abundant gently satirical humor and “E.T.”-style boy-and-his-pal sincerity. Rent it on video and see if you don’t just fall in love with it.

10. “The Talented Mr. Ripley” Eerily affecting character study about Tom Ripley (Matt Damon), a man with a chameleon personality who falls in love with the carefree, spoiled-rich-kid life of Dickie Greenleaf (Jude Law). His obsession with Dickie and his life leads to dire consequences, and since the film is told through Ripley’s eyes, we see every facet of his creepy, twisted little brain. That point of view also make us sympathetic for Ripley: Even though the facts clearly show him to be evil, I simply cannot bring myself to describe him that way. Damon gives a careful, nuanced performance, making Ripley desperate and yearning for love. You want to be his friend, even while fully aware of what that could lead to. A haunting film whose subtleties and implications stick with you long after you’ve seen it.

Other worthy films of 1999:
“Dogma”
“Election”
“Go”
“An Ideal Husband”
“The Insider”
“Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace”
“The Straight Story”
“Tarzan”


The Worst Movies of 1999
(Listed in alphabetical order; the prospect of choosing one as the absolute worst was too daunting.)

“Baby Geniuses” Paralyzingly unfunny comedy about a secret project to create genius babies. It’s the evil opposite of humor — anti-humor, where it actually sucks the humor out of everything around it. (My “Seinfeld” tapes lost all their funny because I accidentally left them next to “Baby Geniuses.”)

“Inspector Gadget” At 75 minutes, this loud, TV-commercial-style dud is 76 minutes too long. Some kids liked it, apparently, but I don’t know of any adult who endured the whole thing without a headache and a strong sense of disappointment in Matthew Broderick.

“Love Stinks” A thoroughly unenjoyable film, full of sit-com stars, yet worse than any sit-com this side of hell. Bridgette Wilson plays a domineering woman who takes control of French Stewart’s life — and makes her character screamingly, frustratingly hateable. I want to smack this movie, again and again.

“The Omega Code” Prominent businessman uses hidden Bible codes to make himself the fulfillment of prophecy, rising to power to become the Antichrist. Apparently, he never read the REST of Revelation, where the Antichrist gets defeated. Casper Van Dien does some of the worst acting of the year as the guy who has to stop him. Chock-full of horrible dialogue and overall ineptitude.

“Pokemon: The First Movie” Don’t get me started. Bad animation, incomprehensible plot, too much violence, and the audacity to claim an “anti-violence” message. Plus, it — wait, I said don’t get me started.

“Random Hearts” Unbearably slow and ponderous yawner about newly widowed folks who fall in love. No romance, no warm feelings, no laughs, no tears, no insights into the grieving process — why were we supposed to want to see this?

“Universal Soldier: The Return” Hilariously bad movie starring Jean-Claude Van Damme. That’s enough said right there, but I’ll add that every performance is bad, the script is worse, and the action, while non-stop, is dull. Even for its genre, this is dreadful.

“Wild Wild West” Will Smith proved that reigning over the July 4 weekend is not necessarily a for-life calling with this incomprehensible assemblage of tired cliches. The jokes weren’t funny, the situations weren’t exciting — it’s like a dozen screenwriters tossed their differing, even opposite, ideas into a blender and then vomited whatever came out onto the big screen.

Other especially bad films of 1999:
“Bats”
“Body Shots”
“Dog Park”
“Double Jeopardy”
“Grizzly Falls”
“The Haunting”
“Mystery, Alaska”
“The 13th Warrior”

Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (documentary)

0

It’s hard to go wrong with a title like “Mr. Death,” and director Errol Morris uses the sort of music you’d hear in a Hollywood summer blockbuster, accompanied by opening credits that hide the fact you’re watching a documentary, to draw you immediately into this story of a man who designed execution equipment for a living.

Fred A. Leuchter Jr. was a Massachusetts engineer who was concerned about the inhumane conditions of many states’ electric chairs. Often, due to out-dated practices and prisons’ unfamiliarity with some laws of science, executing a criminal amounted to torture, Leuchter said.

So he went to work on Tennessee’s electric chair, bringing it to his Boston home to work on it intensely. His success with that project brought New Jersey calling to have him help out with their lethal injections. “What lethal injection has to do with electrocution is beyond me,” Leuchter says. But the trend continued: Since he had fixed problems with one form of capital punishment, states figured he could help them with theirs. (“Delaware had a hanging problem that they totally were not able to deal with,” he says frankly.)

The first one-third of the film tells, in riveting fashion, how Leuchter traveled around the country, helping prisons execute their inmates with more efficiency and humanity. We also learn details like Leuchter’s tendency to drink 40 cups of coffee a day and smoke six packs of cigarettes (perhaps subconsciously designing his own personal method of execution), and how his wife, Caroline — heard but never seen on camera, having since split up with Fred — found his work a little unsettling.

But don’t forget, the film is called “The Rise AND FALL of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.” The “fall” comes when he is called upon as an expert witness in the trial of history revisionist Ernst Zundel, who distributed inflammatory literature claiming the Holocaust never happened. Specifically, he said, Auschwitz was not used as a gas chamber. In 1988, Leuchter headed to Poland, accompanied by Caroline (he called it their honeymoon; she tries never to think about the experience), a translator and a cinematographer. His mission: to analyze Auschwitz to see if it could have been used as a gas chamber.

If anyone knows how gas chambers work, it’s Leuchter. He chips off parts of the walls to have a lab check for traces of cyanide. He also examines the layout of the room: Did it have all the necessary accoutrements of a gas chamber? His finding, surprisingly, is that Auschwitz was NOT used as a gas chamber. Zundel is still found guilty in court, but Leuchter has sealed his own fate: He’s now a history revisionist, unwisely extrapolating his findings regarding one concentration camp to mean the entire Holocaust never happened.

It’s a positively fascinating story, told with slickness (and honesty) by the people involved. I’ve seen plenty of “regular” movies that were slower-paced and less enjoyable than this thought-provoking, eminently watchable little footnote from a history book.

The Third Miracle

0

Religion, when it is dealt with at all, is usually mocked in movies, and religious characters are generally foolish for having faith.

It’s either that, or the movies are shamelessly preachy and overbearing. For some reason, a film that examines faith and miracles with honesty and realism is a rarity. (Some would say this is because most people in Hollywood are not themselves religious, so they don’t know how to write about it realistically. I’m not going to say that, but some would.)

“The Third Miracle” is just such a rarity, an oddly uplifting, soul-searching sort of movie with an intriguing premise and solid acting, not to mention deliberate and somber direction from Agnieszka Holland (“The Secret Garden”).

Father Frank Shore (the underrated Ed Harris) is a Chicago priest in 1979, suffering a crisis of faith after an incident involving one Father Falcone, who committed suicide but was so beloved by his parishioners that they began to fake miracles on his behalf in an attempt to have him granted sainthood.

Frank, as a postulator — one who investigates whether a person should canonized — discovered the fraud, thus earning him the derisive nickname “The Miracle Killer” and causing him to leave traditional priest work to hang out in a soup kitchen for several months.

He’s called back into action, though, when a statue outside St. Stanislav’s in Chicago starts crying tears of blood. The locals believe it to be the blood of Helen O’Regan, who died seven years earlier after a life of dedicated service, albeit as a layperson, to the church and the community at large. Many think she should receive sainthood, and the tears of blood — which have supposedly healed people — is proof of her holy status.

Frank is determined to give the whole thing a fair and impartial look, calling in chemists to determine if it’s real blood (it is, and it’s Helen’s type, too), and tracking down the lupus-stricken young girl (Caterina Scorsone) who was supposedly cured by the blood on the day of Helen’s funeral — a girl who has now turned to a life of prostitution and drugs. (“God wasted a miracle,” her mother says.)

All of this comes at a time when the Catholic Church is skeptical about canonizing anyone, especially an American. As the devil’s advocate Archbishop Werner (Armin Mueller-Stahl) keeps pointing out, America has only produced three saints so far, and Helen, he insists, doesn’t qualify.

Of little help is Helen’s daughter, Roxanne (Anne Heche), who doesn’t believe in Catholicism and in fact felt abandoned when her mom devoted her life to the church full-time when Roxanne was 16. It also doesn’t help that Father Frank — who doubts himself and his calling more than he doubts his religion — is attracted to her.

The subplot of Frank and Roxanne’s attraction, and his possible defrocking, is almost embarrassingly weak and unconvincing. Not only do the two have no chemistry together (though they’re fine separately), but that entire device is contrived. Let Frank doubt himself, fine. But to have a woman be the temptation is overdone and simply doesn’t work in this film.

Setting that aside, we have a film that is entirely honest with itself and with its audience. Maria was healed of her lupus, but her life turned out rotten. Frank became a priest in exchange for God letting his father live, and then his father died just months after Frank finished seminary. Frank’s supervisor, Bishop Cahill (Charles Haid), is vulgar and cavalier about any claims to miracles (“They claim she’s racked up a few cures,” he says dismissively of Helen). The church itself is seen as a huge bureaucracy, run by extremely fallible men.

Yet at the same time, the whole thing builds up to a theme of individual faith and devotion. The point, we see, is that in spite of these seeming contradictions, God still does exist and can play a vital role in our lives. The point is made several times that no one — not even the high-and-mighty cardinals and archbishops — can claim to know the will of God.

In order to be declared a saint, one must have three miracles. Two are discussed in the movie, though their validity is the central issue at hand. The third miracle must be important, as it gave the film its title. What that miracle is, is suggested subtly — perhaps too subtly, which is a shame, as it may leave the viewer somewhat unsatisfied with the ending — and director Holland has said herself that it’s open to interpretation. Whatever you get from it, it’s undeniably a thought-provoking, gentle beauty of a film.

The Hurricane

0

“The Hurricane” is an unbelievable movie, and I don’t mean that in a good way. For being based on a true story, it sure comes across at times as remarkably unrealistic.

I don’t doubt that the way the events unfold in the innocent-man-goes-to-prison drama are more or less the way they really happened; truth is, after all, often stranger than fiction.

But that’s not a good defense. Fictional or not, events and characters in movies have to come across as real. And “The Hurricane” just has too much that doesn’t.

Denzel Washington plays Rubin “The Hurricane” Carter, a boxing champ in the ’60s who spent 15 years in prison for murders he didn’t commit.

Washington is stellar in the role, playing the character at several ages between 20 and 50, and doing a fine job each time. He brings dignity and realism to a film that, aside from him, is slight and muddling.

We first see Carter as a kid, knifing in self-defense a middle-aged child molestor who first hits on one of Carter’s friends, then threatens to throw Carter over a cliff. (The scene is no less odd to see than it is to read about.)

A gruff New Jersey cop named Della Pesca (Dan Hedaya, playing the role with one dimension, if that) doesn’t like black people, so Carter doesn’t even get a fair trial: He’s sent to juvenile hall. He busts out at age 18 and joins the military; upon his discharge, he is promptly jailed again. He gets out later and becomes a successful boxer. One night two black men walk into a bar and shoot up the place, killing three people. Della Pesca manipulates the situation to make it look like Carter was one of the shooters, and he and his buddy go to prison based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

Della Pesca is so convinced of Carter’s badness that he spies on him, trails him, practically stalks him, just waiting for him to slip up. Why? Because he’s black, and because he stabbed that guy a bunch of years ago. Sorry, I ain’t buyin’ it. Della Pesca calls Carter “a lifetime criminal,” even though he only committed one “crime,” and it was self-defense, and it was at age 11.

While in prison (where, by the way, he refuses to wear prison-issue clothing — and is granted permission not to!), Carter writes a book about his innocence. Troubled black youth Lesra (Vicellous Reon Shannon) buys it for a quarter at a used-book sale, reads it, and becomes pen pals with Carter, whose innocence he is convinced of.

Lesra lives with three bland Canadians who either live on a commune (does three people living together constitute a commune?) or do something vague and at-home for a living, and who are home-schooling Lesra, having plucked him from his inauspicious surroundings in Brooklyn.

One of these bland Canadians is played by bland Liev Schriber, who keeps saying bland, philosophical things like, “Sometimes we don’t pick the books we read. They pick us.”

Well, these three plucky (but still bland) Canadians move to New Jersey in order to devote themselves full-time to proving Carter’s innocence. (They either quit their jobs or didn’t have jobs to quit — either way, I don’t know how they’re affording all this, and if the movie knows, it’s not telling us.) Before long, they’ve uncovered, “Scooby-Doo”-style, several important bits of evidence that Carter’s lawyers were unable to dig up in 10 years of investigating.

Naturally, Della Pesca doesn’t like these meddling Canadians and their snooping, so he threatens them with some very harsh language and one-dimensional acting. (Seems he’s racist against Canadians, too.)

They finally get enough evidence to bring the case before a federal judge (Rod Steiger), in a scene replete with your standard courtroom-drama cliches and pat endings.

It’s all a true story, more or less, and it’s not dull; Washington is compelling enough as an actor to carry almost anything (witness the by-the-numbers “Bone Collector” earlier this year). The film wants to be about the triumph of the human spirit over adversity, and Washington almost pulls that off by himself. He is the one believable element in a film that reeks of Hollywood triteness and generic screenwriting, and he elevates “The Hurricane” from so-so to slightly above so-so status.

Titus

0

“Titus Andronicus” is infamous in the theater world for being Shakespeare’s most horrific play.

It’s not that the body count is terribly high — there are more deaths in “Hamlet,” for example — but that the play is all about cruelty, revenge, mutilation, rape, and even cannibalism. The general consensus is that Shakespeare wrote it simply because he knew it would be popular (which it was). If there is a point to all of the gruesomeness — as there is in “Hamlet,” for example — it’s well-hidden beneath all the blood.

Julie Taymor’s film adaptation, called “Titus,” does not, for the most part, pretend to be anything more than the horror story Shakespeare wrote. In fact, where the long, sprawling film falters is when it tries to be too “Shakespearean,” allowing the actors to get too flowery and proper in their delivery. Yes, Shakespeare wrote the play, but a sensible adaptation would not adhere too closely to that fact, since the Bard was hardly writing in his usual fashion when he churned it out. It would be like forcing too much terror into “The Green Mile” simply because Stephen King wrote the book.

Taymor’s “Titus” is set in ancient Rome, but it’s a surreal ancient Rome that has automobiles, newspapers and swing music, effectively contrasting it with the traditional Rome we’d expect from the Shakespeare who gave us “Julius Caesar” and “Antony and Cleopatra” (and giving more weight to the argument that “Titus” ought not force itself into the usual Shakespeare mold).

The story: Rome needs a new emperor, and rather than give the throne to either of the dead emperor’s sons, Saturninus (Alan Cumming) or Bassianus (James Frain), it’s offered to popular war hero Titus Andronicus (Anthony Hopkins). He turns it down on the grounds that he’s too old (and he really has a point there), but endorses Saturninus, who is promptly crowned and, as a show of thanks, offers to make Titus’s daughter Lavinia (Laura Fraser) his queen.

Titus goes along with this, but no one else does. Seems Lavinia was previously betrothed to Bassianus, and he’s not going to lose the throne AND his fiancee, both to his brother, on the same day. So he grabs her and runs off, supported by Titus’s brother, Marcus (Colm Feore), and Titus’s four sons. Titus, enraged at being disobeyed, kills one of his sons and is ready to kill the rest of them before Saturninus stops him: Turns out he’s in love with the widowed Tamora (Jessica Lange) anyway, and wants to marry her instead of Lavinia, no offense.

So Saturninus marries Tamora, and Bassianus marries Lavinia. Everyone’s happy, right? Not for even two seconds, silly. Tamora is in love with Aaron (Harry J. Lennix), an evil, evil black man with whom she commits adultery. And Tamora’s grown-up sons Chiron (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) and Demetrius (Matthew Rhys) are upset because they both, suddenly, are also in love with Lavinia.

Spurred on by Aaron, they kill Bassianus, then each rape Lavinia. They then cut off her tongue so she can’t tell anyone who did it, and lop off her hands, too, replacing them with branches so she can’t write any notes.

It gets more gruesome from there. Titus chops off his own hand in exchange for the lives of his sons, who have been taken prisoner on trumped-up charges and who are then killed anyway. Everyone wants revenge against everyone else, and they pretty much get it, though Titus surpasses them all when he learns who Sticks-for-Hands’s attackers were and goes Sweeney Todd on them.

Though uneven overall, and definitely too long (the 10-minute opening sequence could have been cut altogether, for instance), “Titus” is marked by great performances by Hopkins, Lange and Cumming, just to name a few. Hopkins, in particular, is engrossing as the tragic, occasionally insane, father, and he’s a campy delight when he reprises his Hannibal Lector role in the finale. (That finale, by the way, features cannibalism, a neck-breaking, a stabbing-with-a-knife, and a stabbing-with-a-candlestick.)

It is the acting, in fact, that saves Taymor’s hit-or-miss directing and makes the whole thing watchable. Not pleasant, perhaps, and still occasionally hard to follow, but definitely an interesting piece of work that lives up to all the bloody madness Shakespeare intended.

Angela’s Ashes

0

Turns out Limerick, Ireland, isn’t nearly as happy a place as you’d think, what with the merry five-line poems being named after it and all.

In “Angela’s Ashes,” a film based on Frank McCourt’s autobiographical novel, Limerick in the 1930s and ’40s was a damp, gray place where everyone was unemployed and lived in squallor, yet still managed to find money enough to drink a lot.

The Angela of the title is Angela McCourt (Emily Watson), Frank’s mother. It’s best not to ask why the film is called “Angela’s Ashes” when neither Angela nor her ashes are central figures in it, as that question is not answered.

Neither are a lot of others. Like, Why are we watching this?

Told through the eyes of Frank, beginning at age 5 and ending with him at 16, the story is a bleak, dreary one with little humor. Dad (Robert Carlyle) is a drunk who can’t get a job, partly because he’s from Northern — that is, Protestant — Ireland, but mostly because he’s a drunk. Three — count ’em, three — of the family’s young children die within the first 25 minutes of the film. They live in a water-logged apartment with flea-infested mattresses, the kids at school make fun of Frank because of his poverty, and things are just generally pretty crappy.

Frank’s No. 1 goal is to go to America, where the family was to start with before poverty forced them back to their roots in Limerick. To that end, he takes over as man of the house after Dad disappears, and he gets a job with the post office.

We see Frank grow up, and the three actors who play him at ages 5, 10 and 15 (Joe Breen, Ciaran Owens and Michael Legge) are all very good, particularly Legge. He gives the character a handsome-but-gawky feel, and you can tell just by looking at his face that Frank has lived a hard life already.

But then there’s that unanswered question: Why are we watching this? Or, to put it more bluntly, So what? Frank dabbles in love, sex, domestic violence and plenty of other coming-of-age experiences, but they don’t seem to add up to anything. It is hinted that he will turn out to be just like his father, but that never pans out. It’s also hinted he’ll become involved with a rich young lady who may be his ticket out of this hellhole, but that doesn’t happen either.

The film is a lot like life, in other words. It’s interesting enough to keep you with it, lots of things start to develop but never go anywhere, people come and go without really being fleshed out (Frank’s parents are the worst victims of this), and it’s overall pretty sad and dismal. Most of us go to the movies precisely because they’re NOT like real life — we’ve all experiened real life, and it’s kinda boring — but this one dares you to watch it because it IS real.

So be it. I’m not sorry I saw it, but I wouldn’t see it again. Reality is a perfectly acceptable thing for a film to engage in, but only if it’s leading up to some universal truth or other worthwhile point. To show a young man’s life just for the sake of showing it doesn’t cut it.

Mansfield Park

0

When Fanny Price (Frances O’Connor) leaves her dirt-poor home in late-1700s England to live with rich relatives at Mansfield Park, her aunt tells her that her life will be “a quick succession of busy nothings.”

That could describe the entire movie.

Never was a movie more Jane Austen-y than this one. Fanny lives with a couple aunts and an uncle, as well as with a few other buxom brunettes who are all identical-looking. Seriously, it’s often hard to tell the four women apart, especially since their personalities differ so little.

Her life is easy and boring, two qualities in a character’s life that don’t bode well for a film about her. She grows up with Edmund (Jonny Lee Miller), who’s destined to become a preacher of some kind (they live in a parsonage). She’s in love with him, which is pretty obvious, but then Henry and Mary Crawford, brother and sister, move in and disrupt things.

Henry (Alessandro Nivola) proposes to Fanny, who’s really in love with Edmund, who is courting Mary (Embeth Davidtz). Ideally, there would be some suspense as to which of the two men Fanny will wind up with. The problem is, neither one seems like a bad choice. She could marry either one for all we care; both seem like they’d make fine husbands.

She returns home to her filthy, white-trash family for a while, but winds up at Mansfield Park again when one of its residents takes ill. Once she’s there again, she must confront both men in her life and figure everything out once and for all.

This is a movie in which a lot of events occur, but in which nothing really happens. Director/writer Patricia Rozema allows no surprises, no twists, no suspense — which is fine, if the characters are changing or growing somehow. But they’re not. No one gets any smarter or realizes any kind of universal truth; they all just kind of do stuff.

“Mansfield Park” is not boring, exactly. It’s well-acted, and the quaintness of the setting does a lot for keeping one’s interest. There’s also some subtle, jovial humor in the beginning and end. Unfortunately, the middle, while remaining upbeat, never amounts to anything substantial.

The Talented Mr. Ripley

0

In “The Talented Mr. Ripley,” the eponymous Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) delineates his talents as follows: “forging signatures, telling lies, impersonating almost anyone.”

He tells this to Dickie Greenleaf (Jude Law), and then proceeds to prove it by doing an impression of Dickie’s father — who, by the way, has sent Tom to Italy to get the rich punk Dickie to come home and quit spending daddy’s money.

Possessing those particular skills is necessary for Tom, as we soon learn that he has no identity of his own. That is to say, what small things we know about him — he works as a custodian at Princeton University, he plays classical piano, and Dickie’s father sent him to Italy because he thought Tom was an old friend of Dick’s — don’t add up to much.

What adds up to plenty is the character of Tom Ripley, who, for having such a sketchy past, turns out to be one of the most complex, powerful characters of the year, in a movie that is as richly disturbing as it is intriguing.

Dickie is lounging around Italy with his girlfriend, Marge (Gwyneth Paltrow), who claims to be a novelist or something. Tom befriends the two, but especially Dickie, convincing him they were at Princeton together and that they have many common interests. (Dickie likes jazz, for example, and so Tom, having done his homework, comes off as an aficianado as well.)

Soon the two are best of friends, spending all their time together in clubs and bars and beaches. Dickie sees it as any other male friendship, and in typical male fashion, is quick to ignore Tom when another friend interests him more at the moment.

For Tom, though, it’s altogether different. Though Tom’s homosexuality is never stated outright (in fact, he says “no” once when asked directly about it), it’s there and it’s obvious. His friendship with Dickie is a chance to have the brother he never had. He longs to have secrets that will just be theirs, anything to bond them together, anything that will enable Tom to feel like he has something with Dickie that no one else has.

The line between gay and straight is a fine one. This being Italy (in the 1950s, by the way), men often kiss each other on the cheeks as greetings. Dickie does this a lot, and he’s always putting his arm around his male friends. Physical affection is normal, and it means nothing. Law plays the part well, walking perfectly the line between no-emotions machismo and honest sensitivity. It sounds dumb, but Jude Law is great at playing a man — not just because he IS a man, but because he obviously UNDERSTANDS men. Plenty of men not in touch with their true selves would be incapable of playing this role with as much realism as Law does, in effect holding a mirror up to men in general and saying, “See how you are?”

Halfway through the film, things turn psychotic as Tom’s obsession with Dickie runs its course and he tries to assume Dickie’s identity. He doesn’t just want to be WITH Dickie; he wants to BE Dickie.

This is Damon’s movie all the way, and he performs brilliantly. His Tom Ripley is vulnerable and desperate without seeming so, a truly underplayed role that takes the audience through every nuance in his twisted little brain. His mannerisms make him just gay enough to pass for one without making mainstream audiences squirm.

Indeed, though homosexuality is a theme in this movie, it is discreet. No homosexual activity is shown or implied, and if you see Tom Ripley as a gay guy who gets a crush on a straight man, you’ve missed the point. Tom doesn’t want sex; he wants love and acceptance, even in a “straight” way. He wants a friend. He insists on calling Dickie his “brother”; the fact that Dickie sees Tom as nothing more than a pal to hang out with (and sometimes not even that) is crushing.

Tom sees in Dickie the things that he would like to be, even though he already is a lot of them (handsome, personable, charming) himself. It’s low self-esteem at its most devastating, and Damon’s portrayal of this sad, isolated, lonely man is heartbreaking.

Beautifully shot and directed by Anthony Minghella, the film lags slightly in the middle, between the initial character studies in the beginning and the psychodramatic twists in the end. But overall, it’s an eerily affecting film that reminds us that everyone has wanted to be someone else at some point in their lives.

Galaxy Quest

0

With dry, understated wit and an attitude that is giddy without being sophomoric, “Galaxy Quest” succeeds in being one of the more enjoyable comedies of the season.

In the film, “Galaxy Quest” was a popular TV show 20 years ago that is still enjoyed, analyzed and obsessed over by millions of devoted “Questerions” today. The stars of the show have been unsuccessful in finding legitimate work since then, and to one degree or another, they all resent being stuck in the roles and having to appear at conventions, where the nerdy fans treat them like their characters actually exist.

That is, except for Jason Nesmith (Tim Allen), who played the starship’s captain, Commander Peter Quincy Taggart. Being the captain, he’s most popular at the conventions, and he eats up every moment of spotlight time he has — which just adds to the growing resentment of his co-stars.

At one particular convention, a group of human-like aliens approach “Commander Taggart” and tell him they need his help in fighting a group of bad-guy aliens who want to kill them. It is one of the film’s best jokes that these friendly aliens look and act just like obsessive fans of the show — which is why Nesmith casually dismisses them at first as just another bunch of geeks.

In a way, they ARE the show’s biggest fans. They’ve seen every episode and they’ve built their own ship patterned after the one on TV (except that all the functions actually work, rather than just being props and plywood). The difference is, they don’t realize it’s just a show. Their society has no concept of “fiction” (or even lying or acting), and they refer to the episodes as “historical documents.” (In fact, they think of ALL Earth TV shows that way: “You don’t think ‘Gilligan’s Island’…?” says one crew member incredulously; “Oh, those poor people,” whispers one of the aliens with great solemnity.)

Thus, Capt. Taggart and his crew are called upon to actually live the roles they played on TV years ago, and save this race from doom. It’s the same plot as “Three Amigos” and “A Bug’s Life,” and it worked there, and it works here.

The film is not, as it appears, just a parody of “Star Trek” and that show’s legendarily geeky fans. There is some of that kind of humor, but the filmmakers wisely realized that making fun of Trekkies is not particularly funny anymore, since it’s been done so much (and since those folks are so odd, they practically make fun of themselves).

Still, “Star Trek” is the obvious parallel, and there is some marvelous humor in presenting characters who perform the functions of Enterprise crew members, yet who act in ways we’re not accustomed to. Tony Shalhoub is a stitch as the Scotty character, Tech Sergeant Chen, who delivers his lines in a slightly enthusiastic Bob Newhart style. (“The ship’s boosters suffered major damage, Captain, you know, just, F.Y.I.”)

Even better is Alan Rickman as the Spock character, Dr. Lazarus. It is he who most resents being typecast, having always wanted to be a true thespian, and his eye-rolling reaction to all the inanity around him is priceless, especially when he is called upon again and again to say his famous TV catchphrase.

Sigourney Weaver is the ship’s female member, Lt. Tawny Madison, basically a useless blonde who just repeats what the computer says. Her real-life persona, though, is more intelligent, and it’s fun to see Weaver in a different kind of alien-fighter role.

Sam Rockwell rounds out the cast as a man who was once an extra on “Galaxy Quest,” who was quickly killed. He shows up at the convention in costume and winds up aboard the aliens’ starship — yet no one, including himself, knows his character name (they just call him “Guy,” and they keep assuming he’ll be the first to be killed: “We’d better get out of here, before something kills Guy,” says Tawny).

Tim Allen, it must be said, is no William Shatner (boy, I never thought I’d say anyone was “no William Shatner”). Allen is a lightweight, a standup comedian who had a successful sit-com; he’s no major comedy talent, and certainly not in the league of some of his co-stars here, who clearly outshine him. Nonetheless, his bombast and egotism are amusing, and he is surrounded by a fine supporting cast, including the aliens, who are a race of endearingly naive, giggly folks.

What works best here is the understated nature of the humor. So many comedies lately are cloying, mugging, “aren’t we funny?!” shows that whack you in the head with lame jokes or assault your senses with crudity. “Galaxy Quest” is surprisingly clean, and the actors (except for Allen and Darryl Mitchell, who plays the ship’s navigator, both of whom are often over-the-top) tends to play it straight, letting the movie’s natural humor speak for itself.

The film gets a little too serious in the middle, when the crew members must explain to their alien pals that their show was fictional and that they have no idea what they’re doing, but it picks up again after that with a hilarious save-the-ship sequence in which the day is saved by — who would know the layout of the ship better? — one of the obsessive fans.

A Y2K Christmas

0

‘Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the land,
The Y2K fears were now quite out of hand.
The rifles were hung by the doorways, the shooters
Hoping to pick off some Y2K looters.

Fanatics were frantic, insisting they hunker
Deep in their sub-basement “just in case” bunkers.
Up on the surface, the zealots were warning
That no one on earth would survive New Year’s morning.

And those who weren’t scared were not acting much better:
Acting as dumb as a big Irish setter,
People got crazy — all common sense severed —
Wanting to have the best New Year’s bash EVER!

Parties were planned that you’d never have thunk up;
Gallons of beer and champagne to be drunk up;
Lechery, lewdness and cultural sewage
All just to herald the dawn of a new age.

I said to myself, “This is lunacy, this is:
Nobody seems to remember it’s Christmas.
Peace and goodwill cannot be celebrated
When everyone’s freaked out or inebriated.”

I sat on the couch with my kids and my wife
To watch on TV “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
When out on the lawn there arose such a yell,
I sprang from the couch and I said, “What the heck?”

Out in the yard there was Santa himself
With his entourage, made up of fairy and elf.
The big jolly guy seemed unable to speak;
A single tear coursed down his rosy-red cheek.

His voice was so quiet you barely could hear it:
He whispered, “What’s happened to Christmastime spirit?
Money and greed may cause folks to neglect it,
But this year’s millennial madness has wrecked it!

“The meaning of Christmas is all but forgotten
As folks check their food storage, see if it’s rotten,
Making out all kinds of lists, in a panic —
Enough to make me all depressive and manic.”

I sympathized with him; I knew what he meant.
To think of the Christ child was no one’s intent.
The gifts and the parties were bad enough yearly,
But this time around, they hurt Christmas severely.

“But what can we do?” I asked Santa himself.
And then he became a right jolly old elf.
He said with a twinkle, “WE still know the reason
That people should celebrate each Chrismas season.

“We’ll buy them all presents — so what if they scoff?
The spirit of giving is reason enough.
If they want to overlook Christmas, then let ’em.
We’ll show them the Savior will never forget ’em.

For that’s what He’d do if he were here on earth —
He’d give us all presents we didn’t deserve.
His life was a gift that no one was entitled to;
Reminding of that is what one good Yuletide’ll do.”

So Santa and I went to buy presents for
The people whose minds weren’t on Christmas no more.
For people who feared Y2K’s helter-skelter,
We bought scented candles, to cheer their bomb shelters.

For people whose goal was to party obnoxiously:
Streamers, balloons, ought to help them act raucously.
They thought it quite odd that we’d give them the presents,
But frankly, their puzzlement adds to the pleasance.

So Santa was pleased (so was I, you should know);
He said, “Thank you, friend. But it’s time I should go.”
As the wise old man left, I could still hear him say:
“Merry Christmas to all — it’ll all be OK!”

Farley Family Xmas

0

James Arrington’s one-man show “Farly Family Xmas” is a gentle skewering of the sort of people who live in Utah in particular, but who really can be found everywhere.

I have no family ties to Utah; the members of my family who are LDS joined the church in California. Yet the MC of the Farley family gathering, Heber J. Farley, is exactly like my grandfather, who has only visited Utah a couple times and didn’t become a Mormon until the 1950s.

That’s what the show has going for it: It’s universal and specific at the same time. The peculiarities of the Utah dialect (plenty of “for heck’s sake” in this show) and the very idea of having a family reunion attended by 500 people, all of them Farleys, definitely smacks of Utahism. But the characters themselves — from artsy-craftsy old Beatrice Farley to Eagle Scout candidate Eugene — can be found throughout Mormondom.

Arrington plays all the characters, with Heber introducing each one as he or she comes up to make his or her contribution to the family gathering. (Heber usually keeps a running commentary, too, to fill the seconds needed for Arrington to put on the wigs and other articles necessary to make the transformations.) Heber is by far Arrington’s best character, a man who has no MCing capabilities, but who must lead the reunion simply because he’s acting-patriarch of the family. He mixes words around, introducing Aunt Pearl the genealogist as the family’s “gynecologist” instead (“She knows this family inside and out”), he speaks too loudly into the microphone, and he gets teary-eyed when he speaks of old Grandpa Farley, who is pert-near 100 and “still full of vim and Viagra.”

Heber is Every Mormon Grandfather, and Arrington plays him with deliberate anti-charisma — the guy’s so un-charming, he’s charming.

Arrington is less adept at certain other characters, like the young Delbert Farley whose musical number is a disaster, and the lounge singer Vonelle Farley (frankly, singing Christmas carols in lounge-singer style simply isn’t very funny).

But he strikes gold with the aforementioned Grandpa Farley, a toothless, stumbling, lizard-tongued old dodderer who wakes up long enough to come up on stage and say pretty much nothing.

Aunt Pearl the genealogist calls up members of the audience — everyone there is considered to be a Farley — to give out prizes for various things. Here Arrington’s improvisation skills shine, interacting with audience members while staying flawlessly in character. (“They look so much like we do here,” he said of a young Belgian “Farley” last Friday night.)

Parts of the show — like the absurdly bad organ duet between Veta and Theta Farley — go on for too long, and not all of it is as dead-on accurate as it could be. But there’s a whimsical sweetness about this show, with just enough satire to call it that, but not enough to offend anyone. Arrington and his Farleys are an asset to the community.

Man on the Moon

0

“Man on the Moon” stumbles awkwardly in some minor areas, but still manages to convey in fascinating terms the oddness of Andy Kaufman’s life.

Little attempt is made to show us WHY Andy was so weird. In one telling scene, he says to his girlfriend Lynne (Courtney Love), “You don’t know the real me.” She replies, “There isn’t a real you.” He says, “Oh, yeah. I forgot.”

But even then, he hesitates slightly before saying it. It’s like he’s weighing what she said: IS there a real me? It seems like there WAS a real Andy Kaufman, somewhere underneath all the facades and characters and lunacy, but that it was easier for him to deny his existence than to get someone to understand him.

And that’s the attitude of Milos Forman’s film, too: Whatever Andy’s motivations were for all the publicity stunts and general strangeness, only he was aware of them.

Jim Carrey doesn’t so much portray Kaufman as he does channel him. The actor has never committed himself so deeply to a role. He’s even funnier as Kaufman’s alter ego, the odious lounge singer Tony Clifton (sort of how Mike Myers’ Dr. Evil stole the show from Austin Powers).

Forman does a fair job re-creating Kaufman’s public life, too. The actors who appeared with him on “Taxi” are made (as much as possible) to look 20 years younger than they do now; noticeably missing from those scenes, though, is Danny DeVito’s famous Louie DePalma character (DeVito is busy elsewhere in the film, playing Andy’s agent, George Shapiro — a bit of bad casting, in my opinion, since DeVito really should have been in those “Taxi” scenes).

A second look:

6/15/2011: Re-Views: ‘Man on the Moon’ (1999)

However, other elements are sloppy. The famous showdown with wrestler Jerry Lawler on the David Letterman show is fine, except that neither Dave nor Paul Shaffer is made to look any different from the way they do now. Dave is even wearing his glasses, which he didn’t start doing on the air until a year ago; Paul, too, is completely clean-headed, which didn’t occur until recently.

These are minor things, but they’re troublesome: Why go to the trouble of re-creating the TV studio sets, the scenarios and the conversations — why go to the trouble of getting David Letterman, who rarely does this sort of thing — if you’re not going to do it right? Did Letterman and Shaffer just refuse to undergo wigs and makeup? Did Dave flat-out refuse to take off his glasses? It seems unlikely.

This sort of thing is worth mentioning because its symptomatic of the movie as a whole: It retells Andy’s public life but gives almost no insight whatsoever into his private life. Why make the movie if you’re not going to say anything?

As a documentary that is reasonably accurate, it’s highly entertaining. Kaufman was a wonderfully colorful character, and Carrey brings all that to life so well it engulfs the viewer. Just seeing all the crazy stuff he did re-enacted is entertainment enough — especially since we see some of the behind-the-scenes stuff, too. So much of what he did was an inside joke that only he and a couple others got; in this film, we’re made privy to some of it, too.

But just knowing which of Andy’s experiences were staged and which ones were real isn’t enough to tell us who he was. It’s interesting, sure, but as a biography, it’s about as insightful as a guy lip-synching the “Mighty Mouse” theme.

Any Given Sunday

0

Oliver Stone’s “Any Given Sunday” is the “Saving Private Ryan” of football movies.

Just as World War II films had been done before but would change forever after Spielberg took a turn, the genre of football movies (indeed, the genre of sports movies in general) will from now on have to answer to this one, an epic-length, obscenely realistic examination of every angle of professional football.

“Every angle” is a good way of putting it, too, as Stone manages to squeeze more shots from more points of view into the football-game sequence that opens the film than some films have in their entirety. We see the game from the perspective of the players, the coaches, the media, the fans and the people watching on TV — and in each case, we’re made to feel like we’re RIGHT THERE with them (which, you’ll recall, was what people loved so much about “Saving Private Ryan”).

Al Pacino, yelling and swearing a lot as usual while doing a bang-up acting job, is Tony D’Amato, the coach of the Miami Sharks. His first- and second-string quarterbacks have been injured, forcing him to play the cocky glory-hound Willie Beaman (Jamie Foxx). D’Amato hates the way Beaman changes plays at the last minute and doesn’t have his head in the game; unfortunately, the guy is pulling the team out of its losing streak, so his complaints to general manager Christina Pagniacci (Cameron Diaz) fall on deaf ears.

D’Amato is an old-school coach whose players love him, with the possible exception of Beaman. He believes in team work and loyalty; he’s given his entire life to this team over the last 20 years, and he’ll be darned if some hot-shot is going to tear the team apart from the inside.

Football, made here to seem like the only important thing in life, is in fact a metaphor for life. You win some, you lose some. You come in a half-second too late, you miss your chance. And in the end, what really matters is whether you played with dignity and pride, and not whether you won or lost.

Diaz is badly miscast as the general manager. Christina is intended to be out-of-place, her daddy having left her the team when he died; the problem is that Diaz has so little clue what she’s doing, she can’t even be convincing as a woman who doesn’t know what she’s doing. You get the sense that Cameron Diaz, not Christina Pagniacci, is the one struggling.

Nearly everyone else in the ensemble is terrific, especially Pacino (of course) and Foxx (surprisingly). James Woods is also a slithering delight as the team’s cynical sports doctor.

As the producers of highlights reels learned long ago, everything seems more dramatic if you put it in slow-motion and punch up the bone-crunching sound effects. Stone, using every technique in his filmmaker’s handbag, does this and more, with close-up shots of the ball being snapped, of players’ eyes, of shattering tackles, usually without a tripod and sometimes cutting from one shot to the next so fast you can’t keep up. It’s like Stone is making violent, passionate love to the game of football.

A second look:

2/15/2012: Re-Views: ‘Any Given Sunday’ (1999)

He uses the same techniques outside of the game, too; about half the movie seems like one big montage of parties, commercial shoots, and arguments with the front office.

It’s a visually exciting movie, dazzling in its whole-hearted use of mind-bending images. It could easily be 20 minutes shorter just by cutting a few seconds off the many shots that seem to go on forever, but I suppose that would make Stone feel his art had been tampered with. In his mind, there’s probably not a second that could be shaved off anywhere without doing serious harm to the film, and you can tell he feels that way just by watching it. (How long do we need to watch a football soar through the air in slow-motion? Ten seconds? Twenty? More?) I disagree, but at the same time, I could hardly take my eyes off the screen. It’s unflinchingly real, but explosively entertaining, too.

Snow Falling on Cedars

0

I’m guessing this is the excuse: Well, see, there was snow falling, and so the movie had to drive reeeeaaaallly slow to avoid skidding out.

“Snow Falling on Cedars” has all the makings of a great film. There’s a suspenseful murder trial, an ethical dilemma, issues of racism and prejudice, and beautiful cinematography.

Somehow, though, all these elements fail to come together. Instead, we get a film that feels much longer than it is, full of flashbacks, montages, and shots of people looking at each other. (Ethan Hawke, who stars in it, seems to have about 10 lines of dialogue all together.)

Hawke plays Ishmael Chambers, a small-town reporter in 1950s Washington state whose heart is still broken after his Japanese-American love Hatsue (Youki Kudoh) sent him a “Dear John” letter while he was fighting the war and losing an arm. Hatsue instead married another Japanese-American man, Kazuo (Rick Yune), who is now on trial for killing a man whose family screwed his family out of some land. (I’ve explained it much more clearly, concisely and in proper time sequence than the movie does, by the way.)

Ishmael comes across some evidence that seems to put Kazuo in the clear. His dilemma is whether or not to present it. On the one hand, if he comes forward, justice is served and an innocent man is cleared. On the other hand, if he stays silent, the man goes to prison (or is executed), thus making his beloved Hatsue available again.

It’s an interesting quandary whose potential is missed. The war flashbacks in which Ishmael goes through hell for his country and then gets dissed by his girl are harrowing, and almost succeed in making us sympathetic for him. But Hawke is so sullen and sulky throughout the entire film, effectively pushing the audience away, when all we want to do is give him a hug.

Furthermore, there’s no evidence to suggest that Hatsue regrets marrying Kazuo and wishes she’d married Ishmael — which means even if he lets Kazuo get convicted, that’s no guarantee Hatsue will take him back.

And still furthermore, the teen-age romance between Ishmael and Kazuo is shown entirely in flashbacks, with very little dialogue and very many scenes of them running through the woods and lounging around the hollow of a tree. These are nice, but they’re played by younger actors playing the same characters. Scenes establishing the love between Ethan Hawke’s Ishmael and Youki Kudoh’s Hatsue are few — and even there, Hawke is still adamantly poker-faced.

Everything is muted (except the orchestral soundtrack). The potentially exciting courtroom drama is toned down, the potentially passionate love between Ishmael and Hatsue is glossed over, Ishmael’s dilemma is tossed out without really examining it — the list goes on. A light snow seems to have fallen on the entire movie, covering everything up and leaving forms and shapes of a good film underneath it.

Girl, Interrupted

0

“Girl, Interrupted” is easy enough to like. It has good acting and a frequently compelling storyline. But recognizing it as a good movie is one thing; actually enjoying it is another, and it’s hard to see anyone going back a second time to watch this cold, wearying film about depression and suicide.

The action takes place in the late ’60s, when doe-eyed Susanna (Winona Ryder), daughter of socialite parents, makes a half-hearted suicide attempt and goes to Claymoore Hospital to “rest.” The mental hospital has the cold, clinical feel that all movie mental hospitals have — the kind where the doctors and nurses are competent, but not particularly caring. No one’s been mistreated, but it’s not someplace you’d want to stay, either.

(The fact that the entire film takes place there makes it that much harder to enjoy. Even if I had a friend there, I doubt I’d visit him for 2 hours and 5 minutes at a time.)

Among the patients at the hospital is zombie-complected Lisa (Angelina Jolie). She’s a mean, heartless gal who revels in her mean heartlessness. She also manages to have friends, somehow, and soon Susanna is among them.

The first one-fourth of the film is peppered with Susanna’s flashbacks, woven seamlessly into the present, which give a good feel for what life was like for her on the outside. She was quiet and unambitious, and perhaps a bit promiscuous.

Once the flashbacks go away, we’re kept interested for a while by the gals at Claymoore. That wears off, though, and I recall thinking, “Shouldn’t this movie be OVER now? What else can happen?” at exactly the half-way point.

A long stretch of nothing occurs, in which another patient gets released, and Susanna kicks against the system, etc., etc. Finally, things get interesting in the last act, and Susanna eventually realizes that to be happy, she must control her urge to rebel. Conform! the movie says cheerily. To the extent that you agree with that notion, that’s how enjoyable the film is.

Ryder and Jolie both give excellent performances, earnestly committing themselves (pardon the pun) to roles that are sometimes melodramatic. They are worthy of praise, as is the film as an artistic work. But as entertainment — or even as a thought-provoker — it doesn’t have much going for it.

The Emperor and the Assassin (Chinese)

0

Chen Kaige’s “The Emperor and the Assassin” is an epic-length film with some breathtakingly filmed epic-sized battles and palace scenes … yet it all boils down to a simple, non-epic story of love, loyalty and power.

It is 221 B.C., and Ying Zheng (Li Xuejian), king of the Chinese kingdom of Qin, has been charged by his ancestors with the duty of unifying all seven kingdoms of China. He takes this seriously, figuring the best way to do it is to conquer them. To that end, he invades the kingdom of Han, with the intention of moving on to Zhao and Yan next.

Ying Zheng’s prime minister, Lu Buwei (Chen Kaige), objects to these tactics, and is summarily fired. Ying Zheng’s mother (Gu Yongfei), who is having a secret affair with the oleaginous Marquis (Wang Zhiwen), objects (she’s a Zhao native) but is quiet about it, as is Lady Zhao (Gong Li) herself, with whom Ying Zheng grew up and who is occasionally his lover.

Lady Zhao, seeking to help Ying fulfill his destiny with as little bloodshed as possible, suggests a rather Shakespearean plan: She’ll go to Yan, where the prince (Sun Zhou) is openly furious at Ying’s plans and gain his trust. Then, she’ll convince him to send an assassin to kill Ying. Ying will be ready, of course, and will not be assassinated — but the attempt will be political justification for his invasion of Yan; the prince might even give up voluntarily, once he sees his error in trying to kill Ying.

Lady Zhao gets in good with the prince and they seek out a professional hitman. Yan’s best assassin, Jing Ke (Zhang Fengyi), however, is a weary, aging man, racked with guilt over his life of killing for hire. It’s not the best time to ask a man to kill an emperor, and Jing Ke refuses to do it, which lands him in prison. Lady Zhao, seeing his inner goodness, begins to fall in love with him and doubt her loyalty to Ying Zheng. (The assassin, it turns out, is less monstrous than the emperor.) The emperor’s terrifying, malicious invasion of Lady Zhao’s homeland does little to help her change her mind.

A film that is 160 minutes long has its work cut out for it, needing to justify its length to audiences who prefer their movies around 2 hours. “The Emperor and the Assassin” just about succeeds at that, introducing subplots that may seem like tangents, but which all add to the ongoing theme of Ying Zheng’s ruthlessness and Machiavellian attitude: He must unite China even if it means killing everyone in it.

There are surprises and revelations that keep the movie interesting, in addition to building its themes; indeed, the film doesn’t feel the least bit padded.

One senses almost immediately that this will be a tragedy — there’s a vague feeling of doom that increases as the film goes on — and it truly is. It’s a masterpiece of story-telling, marked by impeccable acting and fine direction, a film that is every bit worthy of the time it takes to watch it, as it will stay in your mind for a long time after it’s over.

Anna and the King

0

Considering director Andy Tennant’s previous efforts include things like “Ever After,” “Fools Rush in” and the made-for-TV “Amy Fisher Story,” “Anna and the King” is a fantastic achievement.

Not giving any extra credit for rising above his most recent work, however, “Anna” fails to be the grand, sweeping drama it wants to be.

Based rather loosely on the true story of Anna Leonowitz, an Englishwoman who went to Siam in 1862 to be a schoolteacher to the king’s numerous children, “Anna and the King” is a character drama. We see how Anna (Jodie Foster) helps change Siam for the better, and how Siam — particular its king (Chow Yun-Fat) changes Anna for the better.

The story is more familiar (and more romanticized) in the famous Rodgers and Hammerstein musical “The King and I.” Fans of that show, though, will find many differences in the new version. The romance between Tuptim and Lun Tha is made almost non-existent, and Anna’s attempt to Anglicize the king’s family so as to impress visiting English nobles is also swept away. (Just as well on that one, since it always smacked of ethnocentrism: “Ignore your own culture and act British if you want the British people to like you.”)

There’s also a completely unnecessary subplot involving a traitor (Randall Duk Kim) who stages a coup attempt, culminating in an Indiana Jones-style jungle battle and bridge explosion.

That subplot does nothing to advance the theme of personal change and acceptance of other cultures. It seems to be there solely to make the film too long. One wonders if Tennant kept it in out of fear that a straight-forward drama, with so little “action,” wouldn’t attract audiences.

He needn’t have worried. Foster, with her expressive face and flawless accent, performs admirably as Anna, making her simultaneously both headstrong and directionless (after the recent death of her husband). And Yun-Fat makes a fine king, a truly believable monarch. He commands respect and perhaps a little fear — but he obviously loves his family, too, making him an accessible character. In fact, Yun-Fat out-acts Foster for most of the movie, and makes one forget Yul Brynner ever even played the role.

Cinematographer Caleb Deschanel (who also did the equally striking “Twin Peaks” TV series) gives us a stunning view of 19th-century Siam. There are many wide shots of gorgeous scenery and palaces, showing us plenty of beauty to look at to accompany the engaging story.

The film’s only major weakness is the aforementioned subplot, which sticks out like a sore thumb. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention the little show that Anna has the king’s children put on for him. In it, they sing “Daisy Bell” (aka “A Bicycle Built for Two”), which wasn’t written for another 30 years. Tsk, tsk.

Bicentennial Man

0

Robin Williams may be stuck. His wacky improvisational style of comedy — think “Aladdin” and “Mrs. Doubtfire” — has grown stale (think “Patch Adams”), but giving him a more focused, less frenetic role, as in the new “Bicentennial Man,” is just as dull, but for different reasons.

That leaves him only the dramatic roles, which he has proven he can do well (“Good Will Hunting,” “Dead Poets Society”), but not consistently (“Jakob the Liar”).

In “Bicentennial Man,” Williams plays a robot named Andrew. His head looks like a cross between a crash-test dummy and an iMac. He’s purchased by the Martin family, for whom he does household chores, in accordance with the three laws governing robots: Can’t hurt people, must obey orders, must protect himself. (For movies about suburban families who get strange visitors with three rules attached to them, see “Gremlins.”) He immediately starts exhibiting signs of actual life and feeling. (See “Short Circuit.”)

The movie plays out for a while like you’d expect it to. The rebellious teen daughter hates him, while the adorable little daughter loves him. Just as you’re handling yet another domestic comedy with a twist — their BUTLER is a ROBOT! — we jump ahead 15 years in time. The younger daughter gets married, even though Andrew is her best friend.

More time passes. Andrew wants his freedom. His owner (Sam Neill) lets him go. He builds his own house on the beach. More time passes. People get old and die. He meets the younger daughter’s granddaughter (that younger daughter is now quite old, you see), Portia (Embeth Davidtz), who looks exactly like her grandmother did when she was that age. (See “We Didn’t Want to Hire Another Actress.”)

With the help of a robot expert named Rupert (Oliver Platt), Andrew takes steps toward becoming a real person. First he has fake skin plastered all over his body, then fake nerves inserted, then fake organs, and so on. His goal: to become a real live person. (See “Pinocchio.”)

This is billed as a family comedy, but it will never succeed as one. It’s 2 hours and 10 minutes long — far longer than most family comedies. Also, it abandons the cute little domestic situation, where most of the laughs are (Mr. Martin explaining sex and humor to Andrew is an amusing scene), early on.

After that, it eventually becomes even a little dark, as Andrew struggles with the fact that’s immortal, but all the people he loves aren’t. Director Chris Columbus (“Mrs. Doubtfire,” “Stepmom”) is the master of sap when it comes to that sort of thing, and it’s played to the hilt here.

Eventually, 200 years have passed since the film started. Such a great space of time should give us the feeling we’ve watched a sweeping epic, a grand portrait of one robot’s journey through life. But it doesn’t. Instead, the frequent jumps in time simply keep us from getting too involved with any one situation, and the story becomes too serious to elicit much in the way of laughter.

Williams plays a robot fairly well in terms of voice and motion, hidden underneath an elaborate costume and machinery. Once he starts to look human, though, he loses it. Andrew is still a robot under the latex skin, yet Williams walks, talks and acts differently — like a person, in fact, which is exactly what he is not supposed to be doing.

“Bicentennial Man” succeeds on the levels of special effects and makeup (particularly for the characters who age). But as a warm family comedy, it’s low on laughs and unfocused in its themes.

Stuart Little

0

The most brilliant touch in “Stuart Little,” the delightful new family comedy based on the story by E.B. White (“Charlotte’s Web”), is that when the Little family goes to adopt a child, and they come home with a talking mouse named Stuart, NO ONE CARES.

This is a talking mouse, for crying out loud! Yet no one ever seems surprised that a rodent can speak. If anything is an issue, it’s the fact that the family has adopted a mouse instead of a human — but even there, the only one to raise a fuss is Stuart’s adoptive brother, George (Jonathon Lipnicki).

The first half of the film is spent on Stuart winning over George, which he does by helping him win a toy-boat race in Central Park. After that, we move to Plot #2: Stuart’s alleged birth parents show up to collect him, and he leaves the Little family for life as a mouse. Naturally, there’s sinister doings afoot, but all turns out well in the end.

Stuart (voiced with lovable “aw-shucks” charm by Michael J. Fox), who exists only in computer-animation land, looks perfect, and the blend between live action and animation is seamless. A gang of cats, who talk but can only be understood by their fellow animals, have equally impressive voices and facial movements, aided by the same technology that gave us the two “Babe” movies.

Something else this film picked up from the “Babe” movies is the idea of creating the human characters in broad and cartoonish — yet eminently likable — strokes.

In addition, “Stuart Little” shares “Babe’s” storybook charm and refusal to talk down to its audience. While many family comedies are either too dirty for kids or too stupid for adults, this one is neither. Adults will be charmed by the film’s guileless sense of humor and sweetly overdone message of tolerance — it doesn’t matter that Stuart looks “different” from his family; they’re still family! — and kids will like everything else about it.

Everyone wishes Hollywood would make more high-quality, entertaining family films. Thankfully, they still turn up every now and then.

Magnolia

0

“Magnolia” begins with a narrator telling us about some amazing coincidences — like a guy who lived at Greenberry Hill being killed by three guys named Green, Berry and Hill — and then telling us that “these things just happen. It’s just something that happens.”

Now we’re expecting a movie in which widely variant characters’ lives somehow intersect each other at random moments, causing coincidences that change everyone’s direction. We’re excited; we like movies with cool intersecting plots like that.

Unfortunately, only a few of the stories really do intersect. There are about a million stories going on at once, and only two things connect them all: One, a weird natural occurrence that affects all of Los Angeles, where this takes place (for a hint, read Exodus 8:2, which is referenced no fewer than four times in the film); two, a fascinating sequence in which all of the major characters sing along with the song currently playing on the soundtrack (a very cool film device, and an effective one here, not just for being quirky, but for expressing emotion).

The main stories: An old guy named Earl (Jason Robards) is dying of cancer. His estranged son, Frank (Tom Cruise), is now an offensively crass infomercial guy whose system, “Seduce and Destroy,” teaches men how to have sex with any woman they choose. Earl wants to see Frank. Meanwhile, Earl’s trophy wife Linda (Julianne Moore) has actually fallen in love with the rich old guy and bear to see him die.

Meanwhile, whiz-kid Stanley (Jeremy Blackman) is a contestant on the long-running live-TV game show “What Do Kids Know,” hosted by Jimmy Gator (Philip Baker Hall), who also has just found out he has cancer, and who also has an estranged child, a cocaine-addicted daughter named Claudia (Melora Walters), with whom a good-hearted cop named Jim (John C. Reilly) starts to fall in love.

Stanley, a true genius, hates being forced into this by his father. All-too-familiar with the situation is grown-up former-whiz-kid Donnie Smith (William H. Macy), who now moons over cute male bartenders and says he has lots of love to give, but nowhere to put it (an important idea in this film).

All of these stories add up to the same themes of forgiveness and regret. “We may be through with the past, but the past isn’t through with us,” we’re told a couple times. Despite our changed ways and good intentions, the regretful things we may have done before can still come back to haunt us.

That’s all well and good, but did we need to see a dozen different stories that all say the same thing? Any one of these subplots could have been developed into its own story and express the point just about as powerfully.

If writer/director P.T. Anderson wanted to explore coincidence and chance in our daily lives, he had a perfect opportunity to do it here. But coincidence and chance don’t play nearly as big a part in this film as we’re led to believe they will. Instead, we’re mainly just seeing a bunch of stories acted out before us, all of which have the same moral.

To his credit, Anderson has assembled a fantastic cast — probably the best cast of any film in the last year — and pulled excellent performances from everyone. Pretty-boy Cruise, in particular, has never given more of himself to a role than this one, pulling tears from the audience as he struggles to maintain his offensive facade.

Robards and Hall are also exemplary in their roles as old men who wish they’d done things differently. And Macy is nearly heartbreaking as the man who feels he has no place in life anymore.

Does the film NEED to be three hours long? It’s a moot point. It would be impossible to tell all these stories in less time; the question is, do ALL these stories need to be told? I say no, although I was honestly interested in each of them. I just wish they’d all added up to more, and that “Magnolia” itself had meant more than it did.

The Cider House Rules

0

The cider house doesn’t just rule. The cider house ROCKS!!!

Sorry. I’ve been wanting to say that for a long time. Actually, “rules” in “The Cider House Rules” is used as a noun, not a verb — as in, “the rules pertaining to the cider house.”

The titular cider house (“titular” is also a word I enjoy working into a review whenever I can) doesn’t appear until quite a ways into the film, which is based on John Irving’s novel by the way, and even then we don’t realize right away that it’s a “cider house,” specifically. We just thought it was a place where the hired help lived.

But I’m ahead of myself. The story begins in St. Cloud’s, Maine, in 1943. Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine, almost shedding his British accent, but still pronouncing “our” as “air”) is a kindly old doctor who runs an orphanage, delivers babies whose mothers plan to give them up, and performs illegal (but medically safe) abortions. Oh, and he’s addicted to ether.

He truly is a loving man, and Caine is excellent in the role as “caretaker of many, father of none.” This is no Miss Hannigan, “Annie”-style orphanage. Larch loves the boys and girls under his care, and they love him. “Good night you Princes of Maine, you Kings of New England,” he says to the boys each night after reading them bedtime stories. And he means it.

The closest thing he has to a son is Homer Wells (Tobey Maguire), an orphan who never got adopted and whom he has taught to be a doctor all his life. In fact, as far as Larch is concerned, Homer IS a doctor, as fully qualified as if he’d gone to medical school.

Homer, however, sees that life in an orphanage is no place for a young man, so when a young lady named Candy (Charlize Theron) comes with her boyfriend Wally (Paul Rudd) to have an abortion, he rides with them back to an apple orchard run by Wally’s family. Soon he’s picking apples for a living, and he’s just as happy as can be, especially when Wally goes off to war and Homer develops a relationship with Candy, which leads to dilemmas not a few. Larch thinks Homer is missing his true calling in life, but Homer’s happy to live in the cider house with the migrant workers.

The “cider house rules” is a list posted on the wall. None of the workers can read, so they don’t even know what the rules are. Once Homer arrives and reads them aloud, they realize they’ve been breaking every one of them, but they still don’t care: These rules were made by the orchard owners, not the people who actually have to live and work there. Sometimes in life, one has to disregard the rules because rare indeed is the rule that ALWAYS applies in EVERY situation.

That’s the recurring theme in this evenly paced, well-crafted film. Sometimes a lie is OK. Sometimes an abortion is OK. Sometimes what we’ve been taught is “right” isn’t right. Time and time again, characters in the film demonstrate this idea — gently, for the most part (though the pro-choice abortion stance is pretty flagrant), and in a way that avoids controversy. Few audience members would disagree with the characters’ actions; it’s what we would do, too.

Maguire is appealing as Homer, if not particularly deep. The film resonates well, with some truly touching moments — scenes that earn tears without jerking them. The end is perfectly satisfying, and the movie as a whole is a sweet, light-hearted, gently odd piece of fiction.

The Christmas Christmas

0

Christmas is a sentimental time of year. In no way is this more evident than in the fact that Richard Paul Evans’s “The Christmas Box” and its many dozen follow-up books sell millions of copies, despite having as much literary value as a stop sign.

See, the stories, which are usually around 1,000 words long but printed in huge type so they take up more pages, are sentimental. They’re sweet. They touch on your emotions.

The same can be said of many GOOD books, too, of course. The problem is that those other books don’t have anything to do with Christmas. Neither do most of Richard Paul Evans’s books, but at least they say, “By Richard Paul Evans, the author of ‘The Christmas Box'” on them, which sort of ties them in.

This year’s book is called “The Dance” (“By Richard Paul Evans, the author of ‘The Christmas Box'”). The following is all true information which I obtained by standing in the bookstore and analyzing the book. It is 30 pages long. Half of those are full-page illustrations by Jonathon Linton, so it’s really only 15 pages long. And on those 15 pages is a story of 680 words (yes, I counted). The book sells for $16. (In contrast, Dr. Seuss’s “The Cat in the Hat” is 1,615 words long, has 61 pages, and costs $12. Also, this column you are reading is 695 words long and is free.)

I am not angered by Richard Paul Evans’s success; on the contrary, I want in on the action. I want to write a book that is as long as one newspaper column and sell it for $16. The two books I HAVE published, each of which contains about 20 columns, sell for only $6.95 each (visit www.ericdsnider.com for details). Obviously, I’m getting screwed.

So here’s my contribution to the Christmas-feel-good-sentimental-emotionally-manipulative genre of literature. Note that I have used the word “Christmas” in the title so as to attract readers.

“The Christmas Christmas”
By Eric David Snider
(The author of “The Christmas Thing That Did Stuff on Christmas”)

Once there was a young family where the Dad worked too much and got surly with his wife and little girl, spending all his time at the office instead of at home, listening to them nag. Then the little girl, who I’m sure it doesn’t need to be said had blue eyes and dimples, got a horrifying disease, which made her dad re-evaluate things. Like he started spending even more time away from home, for fear of catching whatever plague she had picked up.

Just kidding. He started staying home more, and he would come into her bedroom, except when it was quarantined, and read stories to her until the sight of her festering lesions overpowered him and he had to stumble, gagging, out of the room.

Meanwhile, there was an old lady who lived alone who was grumpy and had forgotten the True Meaning of Christmas. She had also forgotten Where She Put Her Purse and What Time “Wheel of Fortune” Comes on. She was grumpy either because her husband died a long time ago, or because her little girl died a long time ago, or because her one true love broke her heart a long time ago. The key phrase is “a long time ago.” Long enough to be over it by now, only except she wasn’t.

The young family came to live with her, even though her house had that old-lady smell about it. The sick little girl, who was adorable and danced like a ballerina except when she was vomiting or having hallucinations, got to be friends with the old lady. Soon they both learned the True Meaning of Christmas, which had to do with buying over-priced books with “Christmas” in the title as gifts for people.

When the old lady finally died, at the very end of the book, she was happy. The family was happy, too, partly because she was dead, but also because their little girl’s repulsive disease had been cured, possibly because she learned the True Meaning of Christmas, but also maybe because she took some aspirin.

(Christmas) The end. (Christmas)

Christmas Carol Conspiracy: A Dickens of a Christmas

0

Borrowing a fairly bad script from Bob Bedore at Off Broadway Theatre, the Desert Star Playhouse has turned “A Christmas Carol Part II” into “Christmas Carol Conspiracy: A Dickens of a Christmas.”

The Off Broadway Theatre version, which was performed last year, is short on jokes and long on sentiment as it tells about what happened to Scrooge after his turn-around. Seems he became TOO soft, falling prey to any swindler who wants money, and especially to a vengeful Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim, seeking retribution for all those years of abuse.

Jansen Davis and Scott Holman have adapted the script for Desert Star, shortening it considerably and taking out the message (which is fine: You don’t want messages at Desert Star). Unfortunately, they forgot to put any more jokes in it. At Desert Star, we’re used to lots of pop culture references, bad puns, elaborate sight gags and general lunacy. “Christmas Caorl Conspiracy” is gentle on all those points.

There are bright spots, of course. The tradition of having a Dickens-like character narrate “A Christmas Carol” is satirized, as the narrator becomes too intrusive and must be told to shut up. As Scrooge (Steven Fehr) undresses for the evening, he takes off his balding wig, too, revealing a full head of hair, which he then re-covers with a balding wig/nightcap combo.

The between-scenes parodies of Christmas carols, which also serve as narration after the Dickens guy is ditched, are sparkling and witty.

And there’s Scott Holman. He is often the best thing to watch at the Desert Star Playhouse, and his turn as a surly Ghost of Christmas Present is highly amusing. (He also has a brief but hilarious appearance as an out-of-place George Bailey when Christmas Past accidentally shows Scrooge the wrong Christmas.)

In short, there are laughs here, but few and far between. Desert Star shouldn’t have tied itself down to this lackluster script, even if they did intend to adapt it to their needs. It needed more than just an adaptation; it needed a complete turn-around, just like Scrooge, and it didn’t get it.

It’s too bad, because the idea of Bob Cratchit seeking revenge on a meek Scrooge is very funny. It’s an opportunity lost; hopefully Desert Star will redeem itself in the new millennium.

The X-Mas Files

0

Salt Lake City’s Off Broadway Theatre is at its best when doing its own material. You can’t blame them for trying things like “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum” and “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” but the fact is, their own blend of satire and improvisation works better for them than even Shakespeare does.

“The X-Mas Files” is OBT at its finest. It has clever parody, fantastic sight gags and stage tricks, and actors who aren’t afraid to screw up their lines and improvise something better (or worse, which is often funnier).

Written by Bob Bedore, “X-Mas Files” is a parody of “The X-Files,” first and foremost, and a highly accurate one, at that. Non-fans of the show will miss a lot of jokes here, especially a delicious one where the two heroes almost kiss but are stopped in a manner similar to what happened in last year’s movie.

The plot has Smolder (Bob Bedore) in search of his long-lost sister, who was abducted by Santa Claus as a child. The problem, of course, is that most people don’t believe in Santa — especially his no-nonsense partner, Scullery (Laura Bedore; played by understudy Alexis Owen the night of this review).

Santa exists, of course; it was his sleigh, not a UFO, that crashed at Roswell in the 1940s, and the government’s been hiding it, led by Cancer Man (Zac Zumbrunnen), who now wants to use his Santa/android hybrids to make Christmas last all year long, thus ruining its magic.

“X-Files” fans are already laughing at the parallels here, but the parody doesn’t stop at “X-Files.” There are also some excellent spoofs of “Star Wars” (including a Darth Maul-like character played admirably by Robert Bogue), “Soylent Green,” “Miracle on 34th Street,” “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” and of course “A Christmas Carol” (note the already-obvious comparisons between Cancer Man and Scrooge).

Eric Jensen, easily OBT’s funniest actor, plays four parts here, each of which is hysterical. He’s Mr. Kruger (who’s really a mix of several Jimmy Stewart roles), a fey mannequin who gives Smolder and Scullery a hand, a department store Santa who turns out to be a robot (which leads to a GREAT scene in which Santa’s decapitated head speaks to Scullery), and Elfis — an elf who resembles the King in yet another wonderful sight gag.

But OBT regulars Bob Bedore, Robert Bogue, Mark Harris and Zac Zumbrunnen also add quite a bit, particularly when they ad-lib. This is sometimes because they can’t remember the right line, but they also seem to enjoy doing it just for fun. Seeing actors break each other up on stage is always a treat.

To top it off, at least two song parodies — “The Cancer Man” (to the tune of “The Candy Man”) and “Take a Walk on the Dark Side” (Lou Reed’s “Take a Walk on the Wild Side”) — are absurdly funny.

Problems? Yeah, sure, there are some. The show feels a little long, due partly to the cast’s screwing around, but mostly due to a script that isn’t sure when to quit. And those two good song parodies are the exceptions: The rest are kinda lame.

But this is a solid show nonetheless, especially for “X-Files” fans. Even non-fans, though, will appreciate the show’s sense of lunacy and sheer goofiness. These folks know comedy, especially when they wrote it themselves.

Topsy-Turvy

0

Is “Topsy-Turvy” a vivid, realistic, detail-perfect re-creation of the Victorian theater world? Yes. Will anyone other than Gilbert & Sullivan fans enjoy it? That is the question.

At 2 hours and 40 minutes, it stretches the patience of any movie-goer, G&S fan or not. And a good 30 minutes, total, are devoted to showing bits of performances of the duo’s comic operas. Anyone not especially interested in such things is unlikely to be won over, as the performances are nothing spectacular. They’re realistic according to the period (the 1880s, in London), but do not exude excitement. They hardly even capture the humor G&S were known for. (One could watch these segments and wonder how, exactly, anyone ever thought these queer little musicals were comedies.)

I do like Gilbert & Sullivan quite a bit, and am a fan of theater history, too. Yet even I found myself wishing the film were shorter and more to the point.

“Topsy-Turvy” takes place at a critical juncture in William S. Gilbert (Jim Broadbent) and Sir Arthur Sullivan’s (Allan Corduner) career together. Though partners for over two decades and having great respect for one another’s talents, the two are not friends, socially, and have little in common. Gilbert (who wrote the words) is a sarcastic, stuffy man, while Sullivan (the composer) is a hedonistic man-about-town. They call each other “Gilbert” and “Sullivan,” even while others use their first names.

Still, they have worked well together and have become THE names in the theater world. As the film begins, though, their latest work, “Princess Ida,” is opening to poor reviews and, eventually, poor attendance. Furthermore, the libretto Gilbert has written for their next project proves absolutely unsuitable to Sullivan, who says he’s tired of writing such trivial music for trivial shows. He wants to write a grand opera; his contract with Richard D’Oyly Carte (Ron Cook) and the Savoy Theatre is the only thing keeping him in operettas.

Then Gilbert is dragged by his wife, Lucy (Lesley Manville), to a Japanese-culture exhibit currently in London. He is inspired by it and comes up with “The Mikado.” The rest of the movie shows the politics, struggles and backstage bickering that goes into producing a show. Actresses don’t want to wear traditional Japanese costumes because it means they can’t wear their corsets. Sullivan is still unhappy with writing fluff. Gilbert continues his tradition of refusing to attend opening-night performances, largely because he doesn’t know how to take praise, and is unsure whether he even deserves it.

Broadbent and Corduner are fantastic as Gilbert and Sullivan, fleshing out their characters to the point of making them as tangible as the guy sitting next to you. The creative process is often fascinating to watch, and director/writer Mike Leigh often lets the camera sit in one spot for minutes at a time to let us enjoy the experience as if we were live spectators.

What the film lacks, though, is a conclusion; it’s not really meant to have one. The whole point is to be a period piece, a historical drama (with some comedy) meant to depict Victorian theater life. This is done extraordinarily well. What it does not do is leave the viewer with any satisfaction on the level one normally expects at the movies. It’s easy to say the film is highbrow and artistic, which it certainly is, but that doesn’t necessarily excuse it from its obligation to entertain. Not that a film must pander, but indeed, who goes to the movies just for a history lesson? Theater buffs will rejoice in the film’s splendid re-creation of a marvelous period in theater history. Others will no doubt find the film over-long and under-cooked.

Cradle Will Rock

0

Tim Robbins is a man passionate about his work, both in front of the camera and behind. He has a way of engaging the audience in his cause, rallying them behind him no matter what the subject.

Usually, that is. Unfortunately, his large-scale re-creation of a little-known event in theater history has some sterling performances and tells an interesting story, but ultimately is too confusing and emotionally ineffective. Robbins’s passion is still there; there’s just too much going on for us to march in line behind him.

It’s 1936, and the Works Progress Administration is keeping theaters in business during the Great Depression. There’s a great deal of wariness over communist content in the plays, though, particularly a pro-union piece called “The Cradle Will Rock,” written by a down-and-out playwright (Hank Azaria). Before it can be performed, the theater is shut down by the military, forcing its cast and crew to go elsewhere in search of a place to do their show.

There are too many characters and subplots in the film, leading one to think it’s building up to something great … but then it never gets there. The performance of “The Cradle Will Rock” seems to be a major event for the characters, but the audience remains unattached.

Great performances are delivered by Vanessa Redgrave as a wealthy theater supporter; Bill Murray as an alcoholic former vaudevillian; John Cusack as Nelson Rockefeller; several others, also, too numerous to mention. The film has humor but mostly maintains a tone of urgency, a call to fight against injustice. Big-time theater buffs may find the historical aspect interesting, as it examines issues of censorship and responsibility in art. But most people will find it too long, too ambitious and too unfulfilling in the end.

Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo

0

The commercials for “Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo” do the film a serious injustice, making it look shallow and stupid when it’s actually fairly sweet, not awfully crude, and with more of a message than you’d think.

The plot is explained in the ads only slightly faster than it unspools in the movie: Deuce (Rob Schneider), a hapless aquarium cleaner, is asked by his gigolo acquaintance Antoine (Oded Fehr) to watch his luxury condo and take care of his expensive fish for a few weeks. Deuce accidentally destroys the place and has to come up with $6,000 to fix it all before Antoine comes back. How to make that kind of money that fast? Take over Antoine’s gigolo jobs, of course.

We’re then treated to several scenes in which Deuce meets women whose odd personality and physical traits are meant to be funny. One’s freakishly tall, one’s obese, one has Tourrette’s Syndrome, one has narcolepsy — you get the idea.

The twist is that, while the commercials make us think that’s going to be the thrust of the film — “Hey, look at this schlub who wants to be a gigolo and has to have sex with these comically nasty women!” — the film’s point ACTUALLY turns out to be that these women really just need someone to pay attention to them. They need a boost to their self-esteem. Deuce never has sex with any of them.

And that’s where the movie succeeds. Despite being produced by Adam Sandler, who frankly shouldn’t be permitted to produce carbon dioxide, let alone a movie, “Deuce Bigalow” actually has heart. Someone realized that Schneider cannot carry a film by himself, and so he’s given a very likable, nice character who honestly just wants to help these women feel better about themselves.

In other words, while movies like this tend to rely on the merits of the lead actor to provide the humor — meaning that if you hate the actor, you’ll hate the movie — “Deuce Bigalow” relies on the supporting cast to provide the humor, and Schneider to provide the likability.

There’s a fantastic “Matrix” reference thrown in purely for the fun of it, and the requisite potty humor. But not a lot of it, actually. There’s also far less sexual innuendo than you’d think, considering the film’s subject matter.

But, again, that’s just it: The movie isn’t really ABOUT sex. It’s about finding something attractive about everyone.

This is no classic, by any means, and I don’t mean to make it sound like more than it is. But it’s a funny, good-natured film that doesn’t just go for “sweetness” because it’s supposed to; it actually means it.

The Shame Companies

0

I have an idea that will change the social order among single people and bring about more marriages, in addition to ridding Utah of its single biggest capitalist racket: diamond stores. Perhaps world peace will also be achieved, but that is not my primary concern.

Utah — and especially Provo — probably has more diamond stores than any place in the world. And for good reason: Utah is often nicknamed “the marriage capital,” although a more accurate nickname would be “the engagement capital,” since there are far more engagements than actual marriages.

In fact, at BYU alone — and I can say this without the least degree of exaggeration — EVERY SINGLE FEMALE STUDENT has either been engaged once and broken it off, or else WILL become engaged and then break it off. No BYU woman ever gets married on the first try.

(If you are going to write to me and tell me that you were the exception to that rule and that you take great offense at my generalizing, you should realize up front that I don’t care.)

One problem with the diamond stores is that they’re a huge rip-off, charging poor college-aged men outrageous prices for engagement rings that may or may not result in actual marriages.

Another problem is that they’re so omnipresent as to be irritating. The No. 1 example here is the Shane Company, and its owner, Tom Shane. If you’ve listened to any radio station in Utah for more than two seconds, you’ve heard one of his commercials. He’s got that nasal voice with that grating Utah accent (note to Utahns: Stop telling me you don’t have an accent, because you do), and he drones on and on about who-knows-what. There’s no music, no acting, no nothing. Just a guy with all the charisma of a horseshoe reading a script about the Shane Company and their diamonds.

Can’t this place afford to HIRE someone to do their commercials? I mean, it’s not like we’re talking about some little mom-and-pop operation, where the owner also has to be the advertiser. This is a place that encourages men to spend their life savings on engagement rings — and yet there’s not enough profit to hire a voice-over? Come on.

Whatever Tom Shane’s reasons for continuing to do his own commercials, he obviously doesn’t realize that every man, woman and child in Utah despises them. Never mind that the business he’s in preys upon people’s sentimentality and uses social pressure to force them into making outrageous purchases — even if he were in a more respectable business, such as kidnapping or cock-fighting, it would still be ludicrous for him to ignore common sense and go on inflicting his seizure-inducing monotone upon the undeserving public. Where is this man’s decency? Have we no reprieve?

So there are too many diamond companies, and their commercials and advertisements are everywhere, and they stay in business because men keep trying to get married but often wind up having to buy a second, or even a third, engagement ring for someone else after fiancee No. 1 drops out, citing “it just doesn’t feel right” reasons. (Why didn’t you check the “feeling” of it before you said yes? Was the light shining off the engagement ring so blinding as to overpower the Light you were TRYING to feel?)

My proposal (get it?!) is to do away with engagement rings altogether. When a man proposes marriage, he should get down on one knee, take the woman’s right hand, and give her … a check. A check made out to her for the sum of whatever a decent engagement ring costs, but with no signature. The deal? The day she says “I do,” he signs the check and she can buy whatever the crap she wants with it.

For the next couple months, until they get married — and they WILL get married, with all that loot on the line — she can carry the check around and show it to her friends. She can call the zeroes in the dollar amount “karats,” if she wants to, and the more “karats” on the check, the more the guy loves her, or however that works.

There, I’ve solved it. Thank you and good night.

Picasso at the Lapin Agile

0

In 1904, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso — both destined to be the biggest names in their fields in the 20th century — were on the verge of their greatest work.

What if they had met, and somehow sensed they were about to change the world through their science and art?

That’s the premise of “Picasso at the Lapin Agile,” a wiggy comedy by Steve Martin that is every bit as cerebral and inventively odd as the comedian who wrote it.

The setting is a Paris bar owned by Freddy (Max Robinson). Picasso (Jonathan Hammond) is apparently a regular customer. On this particular night, Einstein (Sean Arbuckle) comes in, planning to meet someone. The thing is, he told her to meet him at a different bar. But according to his line of thinking, the probability of her coming to this bar on accident is just as great as the probability of her going to the right bar on purpose — so it doesn’t matter where he waits for her.

That gives you a pretty good sense of the type of ridiculously silly, yet often marvelously layered and intelligent humor used in the play.

Another example: Germaine (Joyce Cohen), Freddy’s waitress and girlfriend, makes predictions about the 20th century, every one of which is dead-on accurate. Tossed in on her list, just for the sake of oddness, is that “cruelty will be perfected.”

Hammond plays Picasso as as swaggering self-parody, a man so sexy he can hardly stand himself. He’s a womanizer, but he gets away with it because he can draw. His strutting and preening are hilarious.

As Einstein, Arbuckle is a good-natured, slightly scatterbrained physicist. He and Picasso are at odds at first, until they realize that what they each do is beautiful in its own way.

The question becomes, If these will be the two big names in the 20th century, who will be the third? These things always come in threes, after all. A loud, clownish inventor named Schmendiman (Frank Gerrish) says it’s him, but his main project is an “inflexible and brittle building material made of equal parts asbestos, kitten paws and radium.”

The third corner of the triangle is revealed later, at a moment when both the play and the great-looking set (designed by George Maxwell) suddenly become more detailed and meaningful than you’d previously thought.

The play comments on talent, genius and celebrity, and hints at which one is most important in the 20th century. It’s a fitting end to a century that had much fun and frivolity, but which, upon closer inspection, had quite a bit to chew on, too — just like the play.

Sweet and Lowdown

Woody Allen’s faux-reality-based story about 1930s jazz guitarist Emmet Ray, complete with “experts” discussing the details of his fictitious life, is an enjoyable, insignificant little comedy with an almost hauntingly dark undertone to it.

“Sweet and Lowdown” aspires to nothing more than making you smile, occasionally laugh out loud, and maybe recommend it to a friend.

Sean Penn plays Emmet Ray, the second-best jazz guitarist in the world, after Django Reinhardt (though some critics say Emmet’s the best, a fact which he points out whenever possible). Much is made by other characters of Emmet colossal ego, but it’s actually quite a bit more complicated than that. He’s always telling people what a great artist he is, but he usually seems more sweet and gently pitiable than arrogant.

This is a man whose idea of fun is going to the dump to shoot rats with a pistol. He takes dates there, in fact. He’s fond of stealing small items for no reason, too. He’s a man who enjoys drinking and having sex, which causes no small amount of conflict with the people who pay him to perform in their nightclubs and would like it if he’d show up on time and sober.

Most of all, Emmet loves his music. He really is a great guitarist, and if he supresses his feelings in real life, it’s only so they can come out all the sweeter in his playing.

He falls in love with Hattie (Samantha Morton), a mute girl who innocently falls for him, too. Morton makes more of her non-speaking character than many have done in speaking a thousand lines, perfectly conveying the sadness inherent in loving someone who loves his art more than he loves you.

Penn is quite endearing as Emmet Ray, too. Though not often considered a comic actor these days, Penn displays great energy and conviction in his performance, making Emmet far more likable than he might have been otherwise.

Emmet’s ups and downs, tragedies and triumphs, are shown in a breezy 90-some minutes. The point? Don’t look for one. It’s amusing, and it has a great old jazz soundtrack. What more do you want?

Holy Smoke

Jane Campion (“The Piano”) fosters Kate Winslet’s post-“Titanic” desire to do nothing but weird stuff in her disjointed, humor-so-subtle-it’s-not-funny “Holy Smoke.”

Winslet plays Ruth Barron, a young Australian woman who, while visiting India, has gotten tangled up with what is apparently a cult of mystics and bamboozlers, though it might just be an ordinary Indian enlightenment movement. Her friend, Prue (Samantha Murray), scurries back to Sans Souci, Sydney, to alert the family, and her asthmatic, delightfully scheming Mum (Julie Hamilton) goes off to India to find her.

She tries to lure her back by telling her that dad (Tim Robertson) has had a stroke and is dying. When this fails to convince Ruth, Mum has a REAL asthma attack and must be flown, emergency-like, back to Australia. Ruth goes with her and is, to say the least, a bit angry to find Dad golfing instead of dying.

Meanwhile, the family has already sent for PJ Waters (Harvey Keitel), an American who is supposedly the best in the business when it comes to de-programming brain-washing cult victims. All they have to do is get Ruth to agree to spending three days alone with him, and he’ll fix her.

The film’s first problem comes here, when Ruth agrees WAY too easily to this system. If she were a little unsure of her new-found faith, one could see her going along with this, in a moment of spiritual weakness. But Ruth is fully committed to her spirituality, and agreeing to be de-programmed by PJ is ludicrous.

Nonetheless, off the go to an isolated cabin in the outback. There’s some mumbo-jumbo talk about religion and spirituality for a while, with neither character saying anything terribly insightful. Next thing you know, Ruth is starting to crack, and she’s burned all her saris and is standing outside buck naked and urinating, and demanding to have sex with PJ.

Is this supposed to be funny? It certainly is humorous when viewed in the right light, but the dramatic musical score suggests that this is an important psychological moment, despite the absurdity of 1) Kate Winslet peeing and 2) anyone DEMANDING to have sex with Harvey Keitel. (It also results in PJ saying, the next day, “I’m sorry, Ruth, I shouldn’t have slept with you,” which is as hackish as dialogue gets — again, unless it’s supposed to be funny, which the film isn’t really clear on.)

There are also moments in which PJ is dressed as a woman, due to Ruth having dressed him that way. Again, the music says it’s serious, but the scene says it’s funny. The result is that it’s neither, because we’re not sure how we’re supposed to take it.

There is some certain humor in Mum and Dad’s behavior (upon learning that the top cult expert will cost $10,000, Dad says, “Well, how much will the No. 2 guy cost?”) as well as in some smaller moments here and there with Ruth’s concerned but inept family.

Half-way through, the film stops being about religion and faith and starts being a weird romance. That never develops very strongly, either, though, as we not only don’t buy Keitel and Winslet as a couple, but it’s over too soon and too unsatisfyingly anyway.

In all, it’s a hodge-podge of a movie, uncertain of its theme and unbalanced in its attitude.

Agnes Browne

0

First there was “Angela’s Ashes,” a portrait of working-class Ireland that was dismal and bleak. Now there’s “Agnes Browne,” which, if anything, suffers from forcing itself to be upbeat. All these Irish-film makers need to get together and figure out how to make one somewhere in the middle.

It’s 1967 Dublin, and Agnes Browne’s (Anjelica Huston, who also directed) husband has just died, leaving her with seven children to care for. With the help of her best friend Marion Monks (Marion O’Dwyer), a sort of matronly Betty Rubble figure, the two sell fruit in the town each day, along with several other female vendors.

Early on, Agnes borrows money from loan shark Mr. Billy (Ray Winstone), who is somewhat more menacing than his name. When she gets her widow’s pension and pays him off in full, he’s angry that he won’t be able to come around each week and collect interest off her anymore. Which is fine, since she has no intentions of dealing with him any further anyway — until her rebellious little boy Frankie (Ciaran Owens) gets caught up in ditching school and playing cards all day, in the process of which he finds himself indebted to Mr. Billy, which of course involves poor Agnes, too.

The focus is Agnes, though, and her life — crammed into 90 minutes, of course, which may be the problem. About two minutes are spent on oldest son Mark’s (Niall O’Shea) puberty crises; another two on daughter Cathy’s (Roxanna Williams) first communion; another few on the long-haired, doughy French guy Pierre (Arno Chevrier) who wants to date Agnes. Has it been long enough since her husband died, though? Apparently, because she not only goes out with Pierre, but kisses him at the end of the date, too. There’s no time for mourning; we’ve got to get back to the fruit vending scenes, so Agnes and Marion can talk about sex some more!

Huston is stalwart, as you’d expect, in the lead role; indeed, it’s sort of a generic stoicism that is no more dramatic or impressive than what we’ve seen in plenty of other movies about women who have to be strong under adverse circumstances. She and O’Dwyer do have a nice chemistry together, though, making their characters’ friendship an endearing and sweet one.

As mentioned earlier, “Agnes Browne” often tries too hard to be funny, starting with the very first scene, in which Agnes and Marion go to the welfare office to get Agnes’s widow’s pension and engage in a series of lame word-play gags with the clerk that sound like a bad Abbott and Costello routine. At the funeral, the whole entourage accidentally goes to the wrong grave and must then run across the cemetery to find the right one, a situation that could be funny, but that here just seems forced.

There’s also a “Brady Bunch”-style save-the-day cameo by Tom Jones that is just plain embarrassing — far too absurd to be uplifting.

But Marion and Agnes have some real laughs between them, particularly in a driving-instruction scene where the two giggle at everything like a couple of schoolgirls. It’s that sort of whimsy that director Huston no doubt wanted to permeate the whole film, but that only manifests itself occasionally in this entertaining but uneven bit of trifle.

The End of the Affair

Neil Jordan’s screen adaptation (which he wrote and directed) of the novel “The End of the Affair” takes place in the ’40s, and has the look and feel of the old weepers made during that time.

Then there’s the puzzlingly graphic sex scenes, reminding you that these are the ’00s, and people like to see Ralph Fiennes and Julianne Moore naked.

A case could be made for the idea that those scenes HAVE to be that graphic in order to fully show the depth of their adulterous relationship (Fiennes’ character, a novelist named Morris, is good friends with the woman’s husband, Henry Miles). But for that to be the case, the sex scenes would have to show real love, not just the kind of lust that passes for love in movies these days.

Morris and his partner, Sarah Miles, keep going on about how they love each other, but all we see is that they have sex. Everything else is muted, covered-up, hidden from sight. They’re not just having an affair behind her husband’s back; they seem to be doing it behind ours, too.

After the affair is over, Henry has reason to suspect Sarah is stepping out on him. Having no idea that Morris and Sarah ever dallied, he confides his suspicions in Morris, and Morris has a private detective check it out. He’s not so much interested in it for Henry’s sake as for his own: Who ELSE would she have an affair with, after ending her relationship with him?

The story is non-linear, using flashbacks and different characters’ points of view on the same scenes to tell the full story. There’s no question that Jordan can evoke the moody atmosphere of war-time London, with bombs dropping in the background as our two heroes fornicate, but ambiance is not enough to make a movie work.

Neither is excellent acting, which this film is full of. Fiennes’ angry spurned lover is invigorating to watch as he rages against anything and everything. But all in all, the film is too old-fashioned to appeal to a modern audience, yet simultaneously too smutty to appeal to people who like old ’40s-style tearjerkers. I suspect Jordan worked this dichotomy on purpose, which means we should praise him for being difficult — at least difficult is better than ordinary — but we should pity him, too, for shooting himself in the foot.

Mis-Mashed Potatoes

0

The big controversy at Thanksgiving had to do with the mashed potatoes.

Despite being from Southern California, we’re a pretty traditional, conservative family. We don’t divorce each other very often, and there’s very little in the way of feuding or murdering. So you can imagine that Thanksgiving, being the most traditional of holidays, would be especially “normal” for us.

And it usually is. We assemble at someone’s house, stopping first to steal some folding chairs from the church, and the women make the food while the men watch football. Those of us who have been gone for a while feign interest in what the cousins are doing now (“So … prison, huh? How was that for you?”), and everyone makes fun of everyone else while we pick at the food and get shooed out of the kitchen. After dinner, everyone lies around and dozes, and we use Grandpa’s camera to take pictures of him sound asleep with his mouth wide open. Then we play football in the street until someone hits a car window, at which point my dad says, “That’s all for me. I’m going inside,” and flees the scene like a frightened bunny. It’s your Basic American Thanksgiving.

The problem this year arose when we decided to have the festivities at my Aunt Beth’s house. Beth has always been my favorite aunt because we’re kindred spirits in many ways. But everyone else lives in Riverside County, which is best known for its gangs and drugs, while Beth and her family live in Orange County, an Oz-like fantasy world where the “seedy underbelly” consists of one homeless guy whom the police will shoot on sight if they ever catch him out being homeless. (It’s no coincidence that Disneyland is in Orange County: Orange County IS Disneyland.)

We think that moving to Orange County is what made Beth decide to do non-traditional things with food. Ordinarily, this is fine. Let her try her little variations at normal family gatherings, where we can just not eat it if we don’t like it (or, if you’re in my immediate family, insist you don’t like it without even trying it).

But when it comes to Thanksgiving, things need to remain traditional. Beth was talked out of glazing the turkey with cough syrup, and someone persuaded her against making the stuffing out of Legos, and we thought we were safe. What else is there to mess with?

The mashed potatoes. We didn’t think of this. I mean, what can you do with that? Mashed potatoes consist of potatoes and butter and milk. They’re so easy to make that even I, with my limited culinary skills, can order them at a restaurant, provided someone else is paying.

But word on the street was that Beth was planning something with the mashed potatoes. My mom talked her out of it — or so we thought.

The day came, and I was hovering in the kitchen, keeping on eye on the mashed potato-making process. Beth saw me watching and said, “Potatoes, milk and butter. That’s all.” I nodded approvingly and moved out of the kitchen. I should have known that someone with whom I was a kindred spirit would be more devious than that, because my mom reports later seeing Beth put sour cream in the mashed potatoes.

Why sour cream? Why not! Sour cream is nothing but fat and calories, two things that — believe me — no one at THAT dinner table needed any more of. And it’s not like mashed potatoes, a wonderful food to begin with, need the added flavor of what is essentially milk that has gone bad. So we can’t explain Beth’s motives, or why she tricked us.

Actually, being kindred spirits, maybe I do know why she did it: stubbornness. She didn’t like the family telling her how to cook. It was her house, after all. We should have been more appreciative. I bet that homeless guy wouldn’t have minded sour cream in the potatoes, if he could have gotten in a mouthful before the cops gunned him down.

A Christmas Carol

0

Seeing “A Christmas Carol” is a tradition for many people, and Hale Center Theater Orem’s 10th annual production of it does not vary much from the traditional.

In fact, I can think of virtually no differences between the show this year and the show last year, except for the cast members.

Which is perfectly fine. Even though we know the story, and even though parts of it drag on — like the entire fourth act, when Scrooge doesn’t realize that Christmas Future is showing him HIS death, even though someone who knew nothing about the story could have figured it out in three seconds — it still has power to touch hearts in the end.

Scrooge’s redemption and the jubilant attitudes of the townspeople of old London (gorgeously attired in costumes by Mary Ann Hill) are a great mix, and Hale Center’s intimate setting draws the audience right into it.

William Bisson is a fine Scrooge: not particularly mean, just difficult and grouchy. Ted Lehman’s adaptation of the Charles Dickens novel is written such that Scrooge begins feeling penitent almost immediately, so his “change of heart” is not really the focus. That’s a structural problem of the script, but Bisson does as well as he can to make Scrooge a three-dimensional character.

In fact, the script has a number of problems. The voice-over narration in the beginning goes on too long, as does the aforementioned fourth act. So does the scene in which Scrooge’s nephew Fred (Vic Groves) plays a guessing game in which the answer is obviously “Scrooge,” but his dim-headed party guests take forever to figure it out.

But this is irrelevant. “A Christmas Carol” isn’t a play anymore so much as it is a pageant. We go because of the warm Christmas feelings it gives us, not because we want thought-provoking, carefully plotted theater.

And like I said: That’s perfectly fine. The Christmas caroling between scenes is beautiful, as is the pre-recorded accompaniment by Cody Hale (who also plays Bob Cratchit and sings a beautiful rendition of “What Child is This?” just after Tiny Tim’s death). As a production, it’s pretty good. As a yuletide tradition, it’s fantastic.

The Last Night of Ballyhoo

0

In “The Last Night of Ballyhoo,” the non-practicing Jews of 1939 Atlanta don’t care much for the Jews who actually live their religion. They’re known contemptuously as “the other kind” of Jews, the ones foolish enough to be orthodox when the hip thing to do is act like a Christian.

The Freitag household is a prime example of this, what with a Christmas tree in the front window and all. They consider themselves Jews, but only by tradition.

Adolph Freitag (David Phillips), a never-married middle-aged fellow, lives in this house with his widowed sister, the loud and crotchety Boo (Karen Baird), and with his widowed sister-in-law, the sincere but bubble-headed Reba (Michelle Evans).

Boo’s daughter Lala (Carolyn Stone) lives there, too, frittering her life away because college was too hard. Not so for Reba’s daughter Sunny (Colleen Hansen). She’s smart, sensible and doing fine at Wellesley, making her narrow-minded cousin and aunt extremely jealous.

Life for the family turns upside-down when Adolph brings home a new employee, Brooklyn-born Joe Farkas (Christopher Clark). Joe is a practicing Jew who even knows Yiddish slang, and while he’s not exactly appalled at the Jack-Jews he encounters, he doesn’t understand them, either. (“Are you people really Jewish?” he asks Sunny.)

The big event is Ballyhoo, a week-long festival where all the Jews in the South get together for fun and games, culminating in a big dance at an exclusive country club — the kind of club where “the other kind” aren’t allowed. Not realizing this, Joe invites Sunny to the dance, while Lala goes with the obnoxious and bleating Peachy Weil (Matt Biedel).

There’s social commentary here, about how people within a specific demographic group can even discriminate amongst each other. But the commentary is toned down by a light-hearted, even fluffy script, and a production that comes off as light-weight. Christopher Clark as Joe is the only one who gets any emotions; everyone else is there either to fill out the ensemble (which they do nicely, particularly the sweet Michelle Evans as Aunt Reba), or to provide contrasts.

It’s those contrasts that drive home the point of the show; the attitude is unmistakable. The characters who are most vocal in their contempt for “the other kind” — Aunt Boo, Lala and Peachy — are the ones who are the most grossly absurd, personified by the buffoonish jackassery of Peachy. (Even their names prevent us from taking them seriously.)

The show is well-acted and moves along briskly. Clark and Hansen have some degree of chemistry together, though Sunny’s “this is just how I grew up” explanation seems too simple a resolution for a show that could have a lot more to say.

Saying something doesn’t seem to be director Laurie Harrop-Purser’s point, though. Providing a warm, easy-going comedy for the holidays is what’s on the agenda, and to that end, the play succeeds.

The Last Night of Ballyhoo

0

Christmas, 1939, in Atlanta is the setting of “The Last Night of Ballyhoo,” being performed at Pioneer Theatre Company through Dec. 19. But “Ballyhoo” is no ordinary Christmas play. For one thing, all the characters are Jewish. Well, they’re all mostly Jewish. Their degree of Jewishness is in fact the central issue of the play.

Alfred Uhry’s gentle comedy, directed by Susan Gregg, takes place in the home of wealthy businessman Adolph Freitag (Robert Elliott). Living with him are his prim sister Boo (Darrie Lawrence) and his sister-in-law Reba (Sherry Skinker), as well as Boo’s daughter Lala (Mandy Fox) and Reba’s daughter Sunny (Michelle Six). Sunny is a smart, pretty college student home for the holidays; Lala is a little ding-headed and goofy, and rather jealous of her cousin.

The whole family is Jewish by heritage, but keeping one foot in the mainstream of Atlanta society. They have a huge Christmas tree — but no star on the top, because that symbolizes Jesus’ birth too strongly. (“Nice Hanakkah bush,” notes one character wryly.) One would never know they were Jewish at all — in fact, one of the things Lala is jealous of Sunny for is that Sunny is blessed not to LOOK Jewish.

None of this fence-sitting is a problem until Adolph brings home his new employee Joe (Harry Bouvy), a Jewish fellow from a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn. He has lived his whole life being openly Jewish and is somewhat surprised to see people hiding it. Lala likes Joe, but Joe goes for Sunny instead, and the ensuing conflicts all come to a head on the last night of Ballyhoo.

Oh, right. Ballyhoo. It was a series of annual Southern Jewish society affairs held during the first half of this century. Single Jewish people would go there to meet other eligible bachelors and bachelorettes and hopefully find someone to marry. It would last several days, culminating in a big ball, at which everyone was always impeccably dressed.

These Ballyhoos were sponsored by the ritzy Jewish social clubs, some of which were rather exclusive, prohibiting even other types of Jews. (Reform-owned clubs wouldn’t allow orthodox Jews, for example.) With Joe being more orthodox than Sunny and her family, there’s trouble, and everyone has to take a long, hard look at their values.

The theme of “Ballyhoo” — embrace your heritage and don’t be afraid to be who you are — is conveyed well enough, and the acting is all superb, with some very endearing characters being established. Elliott stands out as Adolph, and the matronly Lawrence, with her well-moneyed old lady Southern accent, is splendid as Boo. Jordan Matter, appearing as Lala’s Ballyhoo date Peachy Weil, plays the character as an obnoxious moron. His and Lala’s scenes turn into a surreal “Saturday Night Live” sketch, with Matter braying like an idiot and annoying the crud out of everyone. This is intentional, I think, as his character is meant to be a small-minded bigot that the audience is supposed to dislike.

The play is a comedy, though never knee-slappingly funny. Its humor is gentle and playful. The show is amusing and light-hearted, with enough reality near the end to give it the depth it needs.

Official Garrens History

0

The Garrens Comedy Troupe was formed in November 1992 by Eric D. Snider, then a freshman at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Eric had done a lot of sketch writing and performing in high school, and before he even arrived at BYU, he was already deluded into thinking that he could start his own comedy troupe.

There were two ways to perform regularly on BYU campus: pay exorbitant amounts of money to rent a room, or become a club and use rooms for free. The club route seemed to be the way to go, and after the paperwork was completed, Eric and fellow dorm resident Braden Jacobs held auditions. The name “the Garrens” was stolen from Joyce Garren, who was the Head Resident at the dorm in which Eric and Braden lived, and whose name they liked. It had nothing to do with her as a person (though it turns out she was great); they simply liked her name. The first cast consisted of Eric and Braden, along with Lincoln Hoppe, Ken Craig, Julia Burden, Jenni Smith, Marc E. Shaw, Dave Shipp, and Jason Ball. Contrary to urban myth, the group was not started by “a bunch of friends who got together to form a comedy troupe.” It was started by Eric, with help from his friend Braden, and then they held open auditions, which were attended by total strangers (except, technically, for Marc, whom they sort of knew beforehand).

Assisting behind the scenes the first season were Shawn Gooden and Paula Rissinger. Shawn was Eric’s roommate and played the piano between sketches; Paula worked the lights. Both of them helped out quite a bit with other sound-related issues throughout the season. Paula stayed with the Garrens for a few more seasons; Shawn stayed only for the first season before leaving on an LDS mission.

The first Garrens performance was January 22, 1993. Admission was free, and it was repeated (again for free) the following night. The next week, admission was set at $1, and the Garrens did shows every week through the semester, performing in 2084 Jesse Knight Humanities Building. Nearly every show in the 300-seat auditorium sold out.

The shows consisted of 10-12 sketches, plus four or five improvisations. Being a writer by nature, Eric focused on the written and rehearsed sketches rather than on the improvs; this focus would slowly change over the next few years, to where there would be about an equal number of sketches and improvs, and often more improvs than sketches. The rule was quickly established that if a sketch went well, it could be repeated the following week, but not anymore after that until the season finale “Best of the Garrens” show. This kept the cast members constantly writing new sketches. Halfway through the season, they began performing “The 9:34 Show,” which was an all-improv show held immediately after the regular one. This only lasted for that season; it was revived (sort of) for the Winter 2000 season, when the Garrens were doing shows at 7:30 and 9 and wanted to do an all-improv show at 10:30 p.m.

Right from the start, the Garrens were successful, particularly among freshmen, who tended to live on campus and not have cars or very much money. (Three of the cast members were freshmen, too, which may have increased their peers’ interest in the show.) The material of the first two or three seasons focused on BYU- and Mormon-related humor. The Garrens took care not to be sacrilegious or disrespectful and rarely crossed that line; generally, they were just playful and mischievous. Many of the jokes of that first year were not terribly clever or original; they were jokes that had been circulating in the fringes of BYU/Utah pop culture forever. But they had never been acted out in public before, and there was a certain outrageousness to making jokes on stage that had previously been made only in the back of Sunday School class.

After the first season, Eric and Braden both left BYU to serve as missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Lincoln Hoppe and Jenni Smith were left in charge, and the group continued. Auditions were held to replace the departing cast members, a practice that continued every semester until the directors could no longer handle it because so many people were showing up to try out. (Eventually, open auditions were held infrequently, the directors preferring to hand-pick new cast members from among people they know. There were no open auditions from Fall 1995 until Summer 1999.) Admission was raised to $2, and the Garrens began doing two performances of the same show each Friday.

The third season, beginning in January 1994, featured a shift in focus. The Garrens began to leave behind the BYU and Mormon humor and branch off into other things. Those subjects were often still in the periphery, but they were no longer the focus, and they were frequently not there at all. This was primarily due to the fact that most of the good jokes had already been used, but was also due to an increased maturity in the audience. Freshmen still enjoyed the show, but now there were more upperclassmen coming. Since there is almost universally a two-year age difference between freshman and sophomore males at BYU (because nearly all of them go on missions for two years after their freshman year), this gap between freshmen and upperclassmen is a large one. As the audience got older, the Garrens had to adjust. Lincoln was still running the show, with Ken Craig and Dallen Gettling assisting. At some point, the rule was made that sketches would only run one week, regardless of the audience response. Also, the Garrens moved to 151 Tanner Building, and eventually to 205 J. Reuben Clark Law Building, where they stayed for four years before moving to the Wilkinson Student Center’s Little Theater in late Fall 1999.

Joel R. Wallin joined the group in Fall 1994. Joel had been in Comedy Sportz, a professional improv troupe, in California, and had a tremendous amount of improv experience. The position of Improv Trainer was created, and Joel was put into it.

During this time, the Garrens decided they could afford an official Sound Guy, and they hired Howard Tayler, older brother of second-season Garren Randy Tayler, who was on an LDS mission at the time. Howard remained with the group until 1998, when he left to concentrate on other things and the Sound Guy duties were taken over by Mike Masse.

Also in late 1994, the Garrens found it impossible to exist as a BYU club. BYUSA was getting antsy over the fact that this “club” was having a “fund-raiser” every Friday night and making several hundred dollars each time. The Garrens’ collective neck was being breathed down rather heavily, so the club was disbanded and its members instead became an official business, with Lincoln, Dallen, and Ken its owners. Now that they were not affiliated with BYU, the Garrens had no place to perform. Fortunately, they were able to sign a contract with the Student Leadership Involvement Center (SLIC), a division of Student Life, who in effect hired the Garrens to perform at BYU every Friday, just as they always had. As far as the public knew, there was no change. This deal with SLIC (eventually just called Student Leadership) is how the Garrens operated up to the end. The price of admission went to $5, and went no further.

LOVE AND MARRIAGE

The Garrens have inspired romance as well as laughter. In the summer of 1995, Ken Craig and Katie Fillmore got married, the only couple to meet and marry as Garrens. They left the group together at the end of 1995. Matt Morrill, who was a Garren during the second season, returned from his LDS mission in 1996 and married Jjana Valentiner. They had met as Garrens but were no longer in the group when they married. Aaron Johnston and Lauren Keller, both former cast members, got married in September 1999. Also in 1999, Ken and Katie Craig had their second child, a boy, and they named him Garren….

RETURNING GARRENS

Braden Jacobs, who had been assistant director when the Garrens began, returned from his mission in July 1995, but he promptly got married and had no time to even consider involvement with the Garrens. Eric D. Snider, the creator and previous director of the group, returned in October 1995 and began performing again in January 1996, the Garrens’ seventh season. Randy Tayler, a second-season Garren, also returned at this point and rejoined; Marc Shaw and Aaron Johnston (from the third season) returned that summer and were back in by fall. Those are the only freshman male Garrens to rejoin the group after their missions; in fact, from 1994 until 1999, there were no freshman male Garrens, primarily because the group wanted people who would be around for a while and not take off for two years. Marc "Sparky" Monson, Bill Doolittle and Dan Evans all broke that streak when they were cast in Fall 1999. (There was even a high-school student, Stephen McCuen, who joined that semester — another first.)

Other Garrens occasionally left the group and rejoined later, including Eric D. Snider, Randy Tayler, Joel R. Wallin, Jjana Valentiner Morrill, Becky Baird, and others.

MUSIC AND THE GARRENS

The Garrens were always been a musical bunch. Excellent singers, dancers, and musiciansabounded in the cast, so from the first show, music was a part of the performance. (When singing, the Garrens often referred to themselves as the “Gadianton Rockers,” a take-off on a band of thieves in the Book of Mormon called the Gadianton Robbers. Marc Shaw came up with the name.) Nothing other than the piano and/or guitar was ever used until the third season, when, with Chris Dowdy on bass, Lincoln Hoppe on guitar, and Lincoln’s brother Brent Hoppe on drums, an unofficial band was created. After that, songs would feature whatever instruments were necessary to achieve the total effect, and audiences always loved it. Shawn Rapier and Randy Tayler have played drums at times; pianists have included Eric D. Snider, Matt Morrill, Garrett Batty and Joel R. Wallin; Ken Craig played bass after Chris left, followed by Joel; Lincoln has almost always played guitar; and nearly everyone has sung.

Occasionally, extra musicians were called in for special purposes, particularly Mike Massé, who was almost an “honorary Garren” due to the number of times he played guitar, bass or piano for the Garrens. (In fact, Massé wound up as the Garrens’ new sound guy, making his Garrens connection even stronger, when Howard Tayler left in 1998.)

Several of the most popular musical numbers were assembled on a cassette called “Preserving Songs Only a Mother Could Love,” which the Garrens produced in summer 1994. This tape was of a necessity recorded very hastily, and if you have a copy, hang on to it, because you can’t buy it anymore and the Garrens most certainly will not be re-issuing it.

The Garrens did, however, release an album called “Songs of Love and BYU” in 1999, which included several newly recorded items as well as digitally remastered versions of some of the items on that old cassette.

The standard was to do parodies of existing songs, although Eric, Randy, Aaron, and Marc all contributed entirely original songs. In the beginning, lyrics usually focused on BYU life or LDS culture. Now, they seem to be about dating and relationships (though of course there are exceptions to this). Noteworthy parodies have included “Cola” (“Lola”), “Gumby” (“Zombie”), “A Whole New Ward” (“A Whole New World”), “Sweet Home Provo Utah” (“Sweet Home Alabama”), and “Lucky Charms” (“Open Arms”).

In 2000, a new trend was established: Each show ended with an improvised musical. Based only on a title the audience would make up (often "The Sound of [Something]" or "My Fair [Something]"), Eric would improvise piano music while the cast would create a musical. These were generally longer than regular improvs — around 10-12 minutes — and were extremely popular. Where it had once been a dilemma to find something strong enough to end the show with, this was no longer a problem once the musicals were established. All but six performances in 2000 and 2001 ended with musicals.

THE GARRENS AWAY FROM BYU

Eric’s original vision of the Garrens did not include touring around the country. He was not opposed to doing outside shows, but he didn’t particularly seek them. The Garrens’ first off-campus gig was halfway through the first season, when Cove Point Retirement Village hired them to do an hour show for the residents there. The audience claimed to enjoy the show, and the Garrens received $25 and a lovely thank-you card.

Later that season, the Garrens began a relationship with Vocal Point, then Provo’s premier a cappella group. Vocal Point opened for the first “Best of the Garrens” show, and the Garrens opened for Vocal Point at their big show in the Provo High School auditorium. The Garrens also made an appearance at the annual “A Cappella Jam,” a show featuring five of the best BYU a cappella groups. This began a long-standing tradition of having the Garrens perform with a cappella groups. There is no obvious connection between sketch/improv comedy and a cappella music, except that in this case, both were extremely popular at BYU.

Over the next few years, the Garrens would perform with several local a cappella groups, particularly Extempo, which was started by some of the founding members of Vocal Point. The Garrens even started their own a cappella group (“The Clueless Singers”), which lasted just long enough to record “Happy Together,” which appears on the “Garrens Comedy Troupe Live!” CD, as well as on the compilation “Acappellagram." (It was "covered" by a cappella group InsideOut, who re-titled it "Stalking Song," on their 2000 album "Experience.")

The Garrens performed at every major college in Utah, plus some of the minor ones. They went to colleges in Washington state, and were represented at National Association of College Activities conventions in Illinois, Washington, and California. They were in high demand for Christmas parties and other functions. They performed at 2 a.m. for local high schools’ all-night “Grad Nite” parties. They did many, many shows on BYU campus besides their regular weekly shows, including freshman orientation every year. In their first season, they filmed a half-hour show for the local “Cougar Cable” TV station.

In Summer 2000, the Garrens took up residence at Provo Theatre Company, Utah County’s only semi-professional theater and purveyors of plays that you don’t see performed much anywhere else. The Garrens performed all-improv shows after the regular Saturday night performances of whatever PTC was doing at the time. In fact, the last Garrens performance ever took place there on March 24, 2001.

THE GARRENS PROGRESSED AND GOT BIG AND THEN ENDED

As far as anyone can determine, the Garrens were the first comedy troupe in BYU’s hundred-year history. There were at least two knock-off groups, one of them short-lived and the other (Divine Comedy) more enduring but never performing more than once a month. The Daily Universe, BYU’s student newspaper, dropped the “Comedy Troupe” part when referring to them, calling them simply “The Garrens” because most students knew who they were. The Garrens Web site (formerly located at http://www.garrens.com), in existence since 1996, was quite popular.

In May 1996, they recorded a CD in front of a live audience. Unlike the cassette two years earlier, the CD was extremely professional in the way it was performed and produced (by Howard Tayler, the aforementioned sound guy), and it has sold well, thanks in part to portions of it being played on “The Dr. Demento Show,” a nation-wide radio program devoted to comedy.

In September 1999, the Garrens released a second CD, called “Songs of Love and BYU.” Several tracks from the now-impossible-to-find cassette were included, as well as new recordings of newer songs. Eric D. Snider also released a solo CD in 2000 that featured songs he’d debuted at shows, as well as some spoken-word things recorded live at BYU performances.

In January 1998, the Garrens celebrated their 5th anniversary with a huge show full of the best sketches from the previous half-decade. All the former cast members were invited to return for the event, and each of the six sold-out performances of the show featured two group improvs, with all the Garrens, past and present, who were there at the time, performing in them.

A similar show was done in January 2001, celebrating the 8th anniversary. The best sketch from each of the eight years of the Garrens’ existence was performed, with original cast members reprising their roles where possible. Several former cast members returned for this, and more than 1,000 audience members were in attendance.

In 1999, the Garrens branched out. A Salt Lake troupe, consisting of Garrens past and present who lived in that area, began performing weekly shows at a theater in Murray, Utah, while another chunk of the ever-growing cast started doing shows Saturday nights in Spanish Fork. Both of these “away” venues lasted a few months, with varying degrees of success. (The Salt Lake troupe, under Lincoln Hoppe’s direction, broke affiliation with the Garrens in November 2000 and became the Skinny Lincolns. They continued to perform in the Salt Lake area after the Garrens disbanded.)

In the fall of 1999, with both attendance and show quality dropping (and surely the two were inter-related), owner Lincoln Hoppe tried something bold: He split the Garrens into two casts in order to let them alternate weeks of performance, allowing them more time to prepare for shows. For about two years prior to this point, a Garrens show would run for two or three weeks, the idea being that word-of-mouth would get more people to come see the identical show the next week. Having two casts meant going back to the old system of doing an entirely different show every single week, thus encouraging regular attendance.

Splitting the cast meant hiring someone else to direct whichever cast Lincoln didn’t direct; that someone was Garrens founder Eric D. Snider, who had quit the group officially two years earlier. Eric brought back with him his sketch and song-writing skills (which were more plentiful than his performing abilities), and it wasn’t long before new “classic” sketches had been created. “The Seventh Sense,” a parody of the hit film “The Sixth Sense,” became an overnight sensation when it was performed on Sept. 24, 1999. A parody of pop sensations The Backstreet Boys, in which five Garrens dressed, danced and sang like them and then were interviewed by a host who got them to admit they were actually the same people who had been in every male-harmony group in music history, was also quite popular. A parody of Ricky Martin’s "Livin’ la Vida Loca," in which Eric dressed as, danced like and sang like the popular Latin star, followed a few months later, along with a similar talk show-style interview in which Ricky claimed to be from Utah. ("My full name is Ricky Martin Harris.") Both of those song/sketches were performed in the 8th anniversary show.

The two-cast system lasted through Winter 2000. After that, it was combined into one cast again, with Eric as director. Lincoln had already relieved himself of directing duties and was focusing on his Salt Lake City group.

Near the end of the Fall 1999 season, the Garrens were kicked out of the J. Reuben Clark Law Building, which had been their home for about five years. The given reason was that the loudness of their shows disrupted law school activities, but the more realistic reason was that law school officials don’t like anyone using “their” building except for law school people.

The Garrens, therefore, moved to the Wilkinson Center, to the Little Theater (room 3380) — which, ironically, was the room they were originally scheduled to use for their very first shows, back in January 1993. This theater had a little more than half the seating capacity of the law building, which meant fewer tickets could be sold. But it also made the shows more intimate, and decreased sound-related problems. The Garrens quickly adapted to the new space, and to accommodate the audience, started doing three shows a night (7:30, 9 and 10:30), with the last show being an all-improv show. (After the Winter 2000 season, the last show was changed to the Garrens “Late Night Show,” in which the regular show from 7:30 and 9 was performed a third time, but with the option of sketches being added or dropped, new, experimental material being tried out, and other general wackiness that might not be tried in the “regular” shows. The idea caught on, with enthusiastic audiences pouring in to the 10:30 show expecting to see the Garrens really let their hair down. Which they did.)

By mid-February 2001, Eric was nearly completely burnt out. He had lost six cast members that semester to BYU’s production of "Richard III," rehearsals for which took up the entire semester. This, along with continuing miscommunications with Student Leadership, combined with general over-work in the Garrens department, made for an increasingly distraught Eric. All of those forces gathered together (along with Garrens financial difficulties and the departure of business manager Alicia Lewis) to cause the Garrens to end in March 2001. March 2 was the last on-campus show, though no one knew it at the time. A few more weeks of all-improv shows were performed at Provo Theatre Company, as a commitment had already been made there. Then the group rode out into the sunset, leaving a lot of laughs behind.

Thanksgiving, Sort of

0

Since we’re talking thankfulness (I assume that’s what the other columnists are writing about this week; I only read Heloise, because I frequently find myself with leftover scraps of fabric for which I need clever hints on making useful), I’d like to mention that I’m thankful to be out of Provo this weekend.

Oh, dear, that sounded like a slam against Provo, and I didn’t mean it to be. I’d better hurry up and clarify before the angry letters start coming– oh, shoot. There’s one already. Man, you angry people are fast!

(Speaking of angry letters, I got quite a few about my hunting column two weeks ago. Several of these letters pointed out that I was wrong when I said deer were harmless, and that a deer could actually hurt you pretty bad if it wanted to.

Of course. Hunting is done out of self-defense. Thank you for explaining, those of you who wrote letters, many of which contained correctly spelled words.)

Anyway, all I meant was that since most of my friends are college students, Provo can be a bit boring during Thanksgiving weekend, so I’m glad to be out of town. The rest of the time, of course, Provo is a fine place with all manner of exciting activities, including 12,000 movie theaters, 8,000 of which are currently showing “Pokemon.”

I’ve also noticed a lot of people heading down to Johnny B’s Comedy Club to watch the hypnotism show. Many of these people, after seeing just one show, inexplicably return again and again and again as if by some uncontrollable force. Odd.

I saw one of these shows once, and I can sum it up in one word: creepy and strange. The whole point is that the hypnotist can make people’s inhibitions come down. Things they would normally feel embarrassed to do in front of others, they have no problem doing while hypnotized. And that idea is unsettling to me. I mean, there’s a REASON we have inhibitions. (By “we,” I mean “most people.” I have no inhibitions, as anyone familiar with The Naked Story can tell you.) There’s a reason most people are embarrassed to sing in public, for example. It’s because they suck. Why mess with that? Are we so short on professional entertainers that we have to start using mind-control to recruit new ones? I personally know about a hundred amateur performers (actors, singers, strippers, etc.) who would like to be professionals, and who are actually GOOD at it. Let them have a shot. Once we’ve used them up, then I guess we can start drafting the civilians.

I read somewhere that women are more susceptible to hypnotism than men are. Men like to think this means that their minds are stronger than women’s, but as usual, the men should just take out the trash and quit trying to analyze things. The reason men are less susceptible to hypnotism is that most hypnotists are men, and guys have trouble subjugating themselves to other guys. A woman hypnotist could get the men to do anything. In fact, I think hypnosis is at the root of most male/female relationships. The women tell the men what to do, and the men do it. They even use post-hypnotic suggestions: Every time a woman is angry, the man automatically buys her flowers, without even thinking about it. Every time a woman cries, the man automatically apologizes. And so on.

But back to my original point, which I believe was Thanksgiving. I like turkey. Yummm. I’m glad some courageous hunter faced the angry, snarling beast and shot it for me. Hoorah!

Children of Eden

0

Combining singing, dancing and acting in a way BYU has not done in years, “Children of Eden” is an emotional, exuberant piece that leaves its audience in high spirits — a truly uplifting work that entertains as well as it enlightens.

With music and lyrics by Stephen Schwartz (“Pippin,” “Godspell,” Disney’s “Pocahontas” and “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”) and book by John Caird, “Children of Eden” uses biblical stories — mixed with clever humor and joyful light-heartedness — to present universal truths about family and children.

The first act deals with Father (Dallyn Bayles) — he’s not called “God” until the second act — creating the Earth and Adam (Matthew Herrick) and Eve (Joy Rodgers Gardner) with it. His reason for wanting kids? “They will keep me company, they will keep me young,” Bayles sings as the Father, his rich, powerful voice booming with authority and love.

There’s a reason they avoid calling him “God”: He’s not quite perfect. He’s more a parental prototype, the First Dad: Adam and Eve are later heard to tell Cain (Jason Celaya) and Abel (Paul Canaan) the exact things that Father once said to them, and to make some of the same mistakes.

Herrick and Gardner have stunning voices, and their fumbling to be good parents is achingly poignant. This is the only show in recent memory that had audience members already crying by intermission, instead of just at the very end.

The second act begins with a decidedly lighter tone, and while it gets more serious as time goes on, it never reaches the heights (or depths, if you will) of emotional heartache that Act One had. This is not a flaw, however; in fact, it’s better that way, what with Act One being so overwhelming.

Act Two has Noah (Norris Chappell, Jr.) dealing with a rebellious son: Japheth (Carlos L. Encinias) insists on marrying outside the faith. (In the Bible, it was Ham who did this, and while all the other liberties taken with the Genesis account are fine in the context of story-telling and artistic license, this one seems strangely arbitrary.)

It is Noah who learns what the parents all along have been reaching toward: that while they want their children to be happy, they have to let go and let them make their own mistakes. The Father character learns this, too, and the show’s finale is transcendently powerful, as is the whole show.

A talented cast of dancers and singers perform as supporting characters, animals and pieces of scenery, and they do it with fantastic grace and fluidity. From the show’s first moment until the last, there is movement and beauty all over the stage. For once it is difficult to say which element of the show is most accomplished: the acting (directed by Tim Threlfall), the singing (music director Randy Boothe) or the choreography (by Rebecca Wright Phillips). All are breath-takingly magnificent, and blend together in a manner rarely seen in this valley.

“Children of Eden” is easily among the top five shows produced anywhere in Utah this year. See it, and prepare to be blown away.

Felicia’s Journey

0

“Felicia’s Journey” is probably the quietest, gentlest movie about a serial killer ever made — which just makes it all the more unsettling.

If you weren’t paying attention, you’d think this was a quaint little Jane Austen movie, with genteel men and down-on-their-luck women mingling in a drearily picturesque London, having each other for tea and saying witty things to their butlers.

But, no, it’s about a guy who kills women and buries them in his backyard. Jane Austen never wrote about that (but she should have).

Bob Hoskins is Joseph Ambrose Hilditch, a caterer who is the very personification of polite subservience. His mother was a famous TV chef, whose domineering role in his life is what made him what he is now.

Joseph runs into Felicia (Elaine Cassidy), an Irish gal who has come to England to find her boyfriend, who left to find work, not knowing that Felicia was pregnant. Turns out he wasn’t just leaving to “find work”; he was leaving her altogether, which puts the mom-to-be in a desperate situation.

Joseph takes her under his wing, helping her run her errands and driving her around town. Mixed with this, we see brief flashbacks of Joseph’s previous interactions with desperate young women, and numerous television clips of him being made uncomfortable on his mom’s cooking show.

Hoskins is entirely in control as this character; indeed, the character himself seems to be the most controlled, reserved person you’ve ever seen, quietly doing his job and speaking in soft, gentle tones. If there is rage or fury in him, we don’t see it — and therein lies the terror.

This is a movie that scares you, but you don’t realize how much until it’s nearly over. The suspense and tension build so subtly you hardly notice it, until you discover your hands clenching the arm rest and wonder how they got that way.

As has been proven time and time again in movies, what is NOT shown is scarier and more provocative than what is shown. All of the violence here is left to our imaginations, as we’re left to fret over what MIGHT happen to Felicia.

All About My Mother (Spanish)

0

Pedro Almodóvar wrote and directed “All About My Mother” with apparently one thing in mind: to show the us the minds and feelings of women. Note, as we discuss the story, how ineffectual, useless or altogether absent the male characters are.

The first male is Esteban (Eloy Azorín), the 17-year-old boy whose mother, Manuela (Cecilia Roth), is the madre of the title. He’s a strong character, an intelligent boy who wants to be a writer — and then he is hit by a car while seeking the autograph of legendary actress Huma Rojo (Marisa Paredes), who’s playing Blanche in “A Streetcar Named Desire” in a professional Madrid theater.

With her son dead, Manuela goes to Barcelona, whence she came. She never told Esteban who his father was, but his journal indicates he really wanted to know, regardless of how unpleasant the story may have been. Now she’s going back to find the guy herself, mainly because he never knew she even had a child and she figures he ought to know, now that the boy is dead. (Or something.)

That “guy” turns out to be Lola (Toni Cantó), a transvestite with whom Manuela once associated, along with Agrado (Antonia San Juan). Seems all three of them were prostitutes, and Lola and Agrado had special features: They were men who had had varying degrees of work done to become women, but stopped half-way (lady-top/man-bottom) in order to please the customers who like that sort of thing.

Lola has recently left town, though, stopping first to rob Agrado, who is thrilled to see her old colleague Manuela. The two get themselves to a nunnery, where the kind-hearted Sister Rosa (Penelope Cruz) agrees to help them find legitimate work. Manuela winds up taking Rosa into her own apartment when Rosa turns out to be a) pregnant and b) HIV-positive.

Meanwhile, Manuela goes back to the theater where Esteban was killed, wanting to meet Huma Rojo for purposes of closure. She winds up becoming Huma’s personal assistant, and caretaker of Huma’s lesbian lover and co-star Nina (Candela Peña), who is usually so doped up on something, she can’t even stand up straight.

See any men here? The most prominent man is Agrado, and he’s pretty much a woman now. Even traditional male roles in society are played by women: Huma and Nina don’t have a man anywhere, and the deadbeat Lola is the father of Rosa’s baby, too. The only other men are various cold doctors and Rosa’s senile father (Fernando Fernán Gómez) who doesn’t even recognize her.

“All About My Mother” tells us all about women in general, in all their roles: mothers, fathers, caretakers, workers, sex objects, actresses, and everything else. The main point seems to be that for whatever reason, in this man-dominated world, women are often unable to just be themselves. Huma asks Manuela if she can act, and she says, “I can lie very well, and I’m used to improvising.”

Huma (a variation of the Spanish word for “smoke”) is not her real name; she took it as a stage name as a result of her smoking habit, which she started because she emulated Bette Davis. Agrado’s name comes from the Spanish word for “agreeable” — Agrado is always trying to make other people happy. In fact, that’s what all these women are trying to do: make others happy. Whether by prostituting themselves or performing onstage, all of these women are actresses in one way or another, living lives not their own and hoping to find joy vicariously through the joy of others.

Cecilia Roth is incredibly strong as Manuela (a female variation of a man’s name, notice), easily carrying the movie on her shoulders. Manuela’s sadness over the death of her son permeates the film, giving it an aching quality that resonates deeply. There is humor through the tears, though, and “All About My Mother” — through all its vulgarity and surprising intelligence — succeeds in a number of gentle, gratifying ways.

Toy Story 2

0

“Toy Story” was a tough act to follow, but “Toy Story 2” succeeds in every way — the rare sequel that is just as it good as its predecessor, mainly because it doesn’t just rehash what we’ve already seen, but adds to it.

The first film was innovative (the first full-length all-computer-animated movie) and had a clever idea to play with: What if kids’ toys really do come to life when no one’s around? The interaction among them was heartfelt and warm, not to mention uproariously funny.

So while the first film let us see the secret world of toys, the second film had to do more than that. No longer would we be amused merely by seeing Mr. Potato Head talking to a Slinky Dog; there’s gotta be something else to catch out attention.

And there is. “Toy Story 2” is so full of sight gags, clever in-jokes and gentle satire (so gentle you could probably miss it) that it’s sure to be a favorite among children and adults alike.

Young Andy’s favorite toy, Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), is suffering from wear and tear as his arm starts to come off at the seam — a reminder of his own mortality, as it were. Then, while Andy’s away at cowboy camp, Woody accidentally winds up in the yard sale box, where he’s greedily stolen by a loser toy collector (Wayne Knight, “Seinfeld’s” Newman, acting very Newman-ish here). Seems “Woody’s Round-Up” (read: “Howdy Doody”) was once a very popular kids’ TV show, and the merchandise sold in conjunction with that show is hot property. And a Woody doll is all the collector needs to complete his set, which he plans to sell for tons of money to a toy museum in Japan.

At first Woody wants to return to Andy, of course, until his fellow “Woody’s Round-Up” toys convince him otherwise. In particular, Jessie (Joan Cusack) says that she, too, was once loved by a little girl. But when the girl grew up, she abandoned Jessie. Now, she’s just glad she’ll be on display somewhere so children everywhere can admire her. It’s the next best thing to actually being loved.

(The song that accompanies her story — the only full song in the film — is called “When She Loved Me,” and it is a truly poignant number, adding a layer of depth beyond the norm for a cartoon.)

Woody realizes Andy’s love for him will wear off someday, too, and he agrees that going to Japan is the best thing. Meanwhile, Buzz Lightyear and the other toys have set off to rescue him. On the way, they find themselves in a toy store, leading to a meeting with Tour Guide Barbie, who points out the huge inventory of Buzz Lightyear dolls. (“In 1995, short-sighted retailers didn’t order enough to meet the demand,” she says in reference to the real-life shortage of “Toy Story” toys when the first film came out.)

One of the Buzz toys gets out of his box and infiltrates the group, imprisoning the real Buzz for “breaking regulations.” The new Buzz is an amusing reminder of how naive our Buzz was when HE was fresh out of the box four years ago.

The action and jokes are non-stop, as Buzz and the gang follow Woody and Jessie (and old Stinky Pete, the prospector toy) to the airport. Watch for Buzz to get a luggage tag stuck to his rear end reading “Butte” — as in Montana.

Watch for about a thousand other great jokes, too, some of them so subtle you may miss them. The videos we see of the old “Woody’s Round-Up” TV show are hilarious take-offs of 1950s kiddie programs. There’s a brief “Jurassic Park” reference (don’t forget, one of the toys is a Tyrannosaurus Rex), and a hysterical “Star Wars” turn of events with the fake Buzz and his arch-enemy.

These references and inside jokes aren’t meant in the cynical, self-referential way that many comedies nowadays do things. Despite them all, the movie is still as sweet-natured and innocent as anything, with fantastic voice work from Tom Hanks, Joan Cusack and Tim Allen, just to name three of about a dozen. A feeling of child-like adventure and fun permeates the film from start to finish. Burn your “Pokemon” tickets in a very hot fire, and then go see “Toy Story 2.”

The World Is Not Enough

0

In this day and age, when movies are often winkingly self-aware, and when the James Bond archetype has already been properly deflated by “Austin Powers” and others, it’s nice to see the new Bond film is not unaware of its pop-cultural environment.

That is to say, “The World Is Not Enough” is basically your standard Bond film — full of impossible stunts, bad puns, and James having sex with anybody he wants to — but with the added twist of KNOWING the 007 series is a bit of a dinosaur, and acknowledging that to the audience.

For example, when Bond (the ever-dashing Pierce Brosnan) runs into an old friend, the friend says, “Hello, Bond, James Bond!” — the movie’s way of saying, “Yeah, we KNOW he always introduces himself that way.”

Bond also gets taken to task for his constant destruction of everything he touches, and he may have met his match with Q’s replacement — played with typical snotty hilarity by John Cleese. (“You’re Q’s replacement? So you must be R,” Bond says. To which Cleese replies, “Ah, the legendary 007 wit … or half of it.”)

Don’t worry, though; the James Bond series hasn’t become a self-parody. All the customary trappings are still intact; we’re just not expected to take them all so seriously. He does introduce himself as “Bond. James Bond” once, and he orders a martini “shaken, not stirred.” There are cool gadgets (x-ray eyeglasses!), cool vehicles (including a kickin’ boat used in a spectacular opening-sequence chase), and the usual double-entendres (Bond as he proposes sex with a lady doctor, simultaneously undressing her: “Let’s skirt the issue.” Get it? Skirt?!).

The plot is the same as always — kill bad guy; save world; fornicate with girl. The evil super-villain is a gem of an idea, but his full potential is never tapped. His name is Renard (Robert Carlyle), and due to a bullet lodged in his skull, he can’t feel any pain, which means he can withstand any number of dreadful things that would make lesser super-villains wince. It’s a chilling idea, but it’s hardly used in the film. Too bad.

Another missed possibility is when Bond’s boss, M (Judi Dench), is kidnapped. Now it’s personal for Bond — but M hardly ever seems in much danger before Bond rescues her, and the whole thing seems like a mild distraction, rather than the earth-shaking Bond crisis it could have been.

It’s almost like director Michael Apted is afraid of straying too far from the Bond formula, except for occasionally joking about it. The result is a film that is typical Bond: amusing, entertaining and fun, but nothing spectacular.

Cross-Town Revelry

0

Of course the only reason life even continues to exist at this point is that Saturday is the BYU vs. University of Utah football game. Surely you are more excited about this than you have ever been about anything in your entire life.

This will determine, once and for all (or until next year), who is superior: the Self-Righteous Long-Shorts-Wearers of BYU, or the Coffee-Swilling Apostates of U of U. Both teams will be putting their best men on the field, which is more difficult than it sounds, as it involves moving court dates and hastening parole-board hearings.

Going to BYU is very different from going to the U of U. Following are some differences in the admissions process. I’d like to give credit to my pals Chris and Lisa for contributing some of these, because even though my alma mater is BYU, I still try to avoid plagiarism whenever I can.

BYU ADMISSIONS OFFICER: OK, I’ll need your ecclesiastical endorsement, your application, and a letter of recommendation from a general authority.
POTENTIAL STUDENT: Here you go.
BYU: (examines documents) Oh, I’m sorry. He’s “emeritus.” We need a current general authority.
STUDENT: Does that “Work and the Glory” guy count?
BYU: Of course.

* * *

U OF U ADMISSIONS OFFICER: OK, I’ll need your application, your Social Security number, and your rejection letter from BYU.
POTENTIAL STUDENT: (fishes crumpled-up papers out of his pocket) Here you go.
U OF U: This says your Social Security number is 373-5050. That’s not enough digits.
STUDENT: (stares blankly; scratches self)
U OF U: Is that your phone number?
STUDENT: You mean they’re not the same?

* * *

BYU: I see you haven’t shaved today. As a student, you’d have to shave every day, of course.
STUDENT: I understand.

* * *

U OF U: Can you grow that goatee out any more?

* * *

BYU: I’ll have to ask you some personal questions. Did you see the movie “The Titanic”?
STUDENT: Yes.
BYU: Did you close your eyes during the naked part?
STUDENT: So tightly I burst a blood vessel in my sinuses.

* * *

U OF U: Did you see the movie “Titanic”?
STUDENT: Yes.
U OF U: What was your favorite part?
STUDENT: The naked part.
U OF U: Yeah, that was awesome.

* * *

BYU: Are you LDS?
STUDENT: No…
BYU: (getting a frowny face) Hmm…
STUDENT: But I play football.
BYU: (dancing a merry jig) You’re in!
STUDENT: Shouldn’t I read the Honor Code first?
BYU: (quickly stuffing papers down his own pants) What Honor Code?

* * *

U OF U: Are you LDS?
STUDENT: Depends on who you ask.
U OF U: You’re in. Cigarette?

The Ride Down Mount Morgan

0

The regional premiere of Arthur Miller’s “The Ride Down Mount Morgan” at Salt Lake Acting Company is a polished, professional affair — and I do mean “affair.”

Nine years ago, wealthy businessman Lyman Felt (Tony Larimer) got bored with his wife, “good ol’ Episcopal” Theodora (Joan Mullaney) and had an affair with a much younger woman, Leah (Jeanette Puhich). He told Leah he had divorced Theo, thus freeing him to marry her. In reality, the divorce didn’t happen, and he’s been married to both of them for nine years, successfully leading a double life.

All of this we learn in flashbacks, as the play unfolds in Lyman’s hospital room following a car accident. Both wives, along with Theo’s daughter Bessie (Emily Sandack), have come to see him, thus bringing all of Lyman’s lies (Miller was not very subtle in naming the character; his last name, “Felt,” is appropriate for the old lech, too) to light.

“Please just let me die!” Lyman half-prays as he realizes his two wives are in the waiting room, discovering his dishonesty. It’s a humorous moment, and one of many in this tragic comedy directed by Meg Gibson.

The situation is played for laughs for a while — almost inevitably, since the predicament is classic farce material — but then settles into a fascinatingly staged back-and-forth between the present, as each of the wives decide what they want to do with Lyman, and the past, as we see what led him to do such a thing. (In one hysterical scene, we see Lyman’s absurd, amoral fantasy about keeping BOTH wives, as the women, dressed in tight leotards, dance around his hospital bed and giggle about the delights of sharing a husband.)

Larimer is fantastic as Lyman, a man who has supressed his conscience almost out of existence. He’s a thoroughly despicable man, yet we don’t hate him. We pity him, and even relate to him. After all, who among us hasn’t tried to evade responsibility? Who among us, if we did something so colossally wrong, wouldn’t at first try to deny the reality of it as a defense mechanism?

Mullaney’s Theo tends to be a bit flat and melodramatic, and not quite believable. Puhich, too, as Leah, has moments of hollowness (“I’m still in mid-air,” she says early on of the recent developments, but it doesn’t sound like she means it), but she grows into the part as time goes on.

But despite minor weaknesses, the play astounds with its moral questions and fascinating storytelling, holding the audience’s attention without ever letting go. Jim Craig’s light design adds considerably, too, as does Rick Margitza’s music.

Les Miserables

0

When the national touring company of “Les Miserables” comes to town, it’s not a question of whether it’s good or not. It’s just a matter of naming which performers stand out the most.

The touring production is designed to be exactly the same as the Broadway version. (Interesting side note: I saw it on Broadway in April and it was, inexplicably, exactly 10 minutes shorter than when I saw it at the Capitol Theatre on Tuesday. I honestly cannot figure out how that happened, unless the song tempos were faster in New York. Capitol’s intermission may have been a bit longer, too.)

The production is flawless from a technical standpoint; whether all the actors really have their heart in it is something else. Ivan Rutherford plays Jean Valjean, and his vocal performance is outstanding. (“Bring Him Home” got the longest sustained applause of opening night.) However, he lacks a certain stage presence. Instead of presiding over the show, commanding any scene he’s the focus of, he seems a mere participant.

He is overshadowed by the great Stephen Bishop, who plays Valjean’s pursuer Javert with personality and gusto. From the first moment he comes onstage, one is immediately forced to pay attention to him.

Likewise, Tim Howar’s Marius is handsome and effective in his role as rabble-rouser and lover. Cosette (Regan Thiel) seems more a minor character than ever, as her scenes with Marius are passable, but without any great emotion.

The emotion is with Eponine, played by Sutton Foster. Perhaps more than any other performer, Foster completely immerses herself in the role, singing “On My Own” with amazing fervor and passion.

Aymee Garcia and J.P. Dougherty earn their laughs as the comically ugly Thenardiers.

Minor squabbles with performances aside, the sweeping grandeur of this beautiful show comes through loud and clear. It’s a story about forgiveness, redemption and, most of all, love: “To love another person is to see the face of God,” the cast sings at the end, and having just seen three hours of material leading up to that, you can’t help but agree. Unlike “Phantom of the Opera” — the other big-time musical often spoke of in the same breath as this one — “Les Miserables” is short on spectacle and long on depth and meaning. It’s a brilliant, beautiful show. Don’t miss a chance to see it.

Little Women

0

The Grand Theatre’s production of “Little Women” — the theater’s first non-musical show in quite a while — is as quaint and charming as the classic novel upon which it is based, and almost entirely devoid of conflict.

Taking place over five years in 1860s Massachusetts, we see the four March girls grow up and find husbands (except for Beth, who dies instead). There’s tomboy Jo (Amy Caudill), artistic Amy (Elizabeth Edmiston), motherly Meg (Nancy Peterson) and sickly Beth (Marilyn Alldredge), though it’s difficult to tell any of their personalities apart, since they — along with everyone else in the play — speak so politely and perfectly as to almost seem unreal.

Indeed, the cast has trouble with the proper, formal language at first, though they grow into it (and the audience gets used to it) by Act II. By the end of the play, the constant use of “shall,” and the way everyone simply bursts with thoughtfulnes, kindness and pleasantness, seems normal. (I found myself holding open doors and nodding politely to passersby on my way out of the theater, and others were doing the same.)

The play works carefully to avoid any conflict, presenting this family like a Civil War-era version of “Leave it to Beaver.” Even when Jo’s mentor Professor Bhaer (Bryan P. Jacobs) rails against the newspaper she has secretly been writing for — a perfect opportunity for at least some inner turmoil, as Jo cares deeply for this man and his opinions — the issue passes without further mention.

Family friend Laurie “Teddy” Laurence (Justin Utley) declares his love for Jo, and she rebuffs him. That scene is emotionally gripping, thanks especially to all-around great performances from Caudill and Utley, but it doesn’t wind up changing their friendship, and he finds happiness elsewhere anyway.

Even when Beth dies, she has the courtesy to do it offstage.

Despite there being very little dramatic tension and a plot that is as gently moving as a mountain brook, the play charms and moves its audience.

“Little Women” has nothing to prove, no stunts to pull, no gimmicks. It’s just an enjoyable, sweet-natured show sure to soothe the souls of all who see it.

Anywhere but Here

0

“Anywhere but Here” is a movie about a teen-age girl who has to help her mom grow up.

Films in which the parent is more irresponsible than the child have been done before, but this one manages to seem fresh and realistic, thanks to earnest and genuine performances from Natalie Portman as the teen-ager, Ann, and Susan Sarandon as her mom, Adele.

The movie starts with the two of them driving from Wisconsin to Beverly Hills. Adele, dressed too young for her age and full of blind optimism, wants to get out of the dead-end town she grew up in, and she’s taking her daughter with her. (Seems mom wants her girl to be an actress, though Ann herself has no such ambitions.)

Adele gets a job in the Los Angeles School District, and Ann tries in vain to adjust to life away from everything she’s ever known. She alternately hates her mother and gets along with her, all the while struggling to find something stable in life to hold onto.

Portman’s performance is wrenching and powerful, as one by one Ann’s chances for a “normal” life slip away. Watch her search for her father, who abandoned the family years ago. Watch her lose her extended family and friends. Watch her get more and more desperate for understanding, culminating in a love scene with a boy named Peter (Corbin Allred) that is at once awkward, hilarious and poignant.

In fact, that’s the whole movie: funny one minute, making you cry right along with the often-crying Ann the next.

Sarandon does wonders with her character, too, though she is not quite as fleshed-out as Ann. Adele, despite being flighty, impulsive and irrational, never seems like a villain who is ruining her daughter’s life. Certain incidents that point up her own self-delusion, as well as her love for her daughter, make her nearly as sympathetic as Ann.

“Anywhere but Here” is almost perfect, but not quite. There is little sense of time when the film opens, as Adele dresses out of style and their car is old. (We eventually figure out we’re in the ’90s.) And the bittersweet ending doesn’t seem quite right. Ann has been stripped down to nothing, emotionally, and we expect she will be rebuilt, but the final scenes don’t necessarily indicate that. One senses that logically, everything will be OK for her now, but we don’t quite FEEL it the way we felt her loneliness before. It’s like the pendulum has swung all the way to one side without swinging sufficiently to the other side, too.

Still, the film is warm and wonderful, relying on the strengths of its powerful actresses to engage the audience from start to finish.

Oh, Deer

0

It’s hunting season, which means a lot of dumb animals will be shot, usually by their fellow dumb animals, who were actually aiming at deer.

Hunting is a major part of Utah “culture,” and it fascinates me. I’m from Southern California, where there’s plenty of gunfire, but not usually aimed at wildlife. (That’s because there IS no wildlife, the last tree having been replaced by a Circle K well over a decade ago). So I’m unfamiliar with the urge many Utahns have to go out and shoot deer, elk, moose, non-Mormons, and whatever else it’s legal to shoot at.

In some areas of Utah and neighboring states, schools even let out for a few days, to allow the boys (you know none of the girls are involved) to go hunting with their dads. In places where the school board is not quite so enlightened, fathers will just pull their sons out of school, apparently figuring that whatever the boy might have learned in the classroom that day, he can learn it better squatting in the woods with half-drunken men, listening to bawdy jokes and firing bullets at things.

I should stress that I have no problem with the killing of deer and other woodland creatures for the sake of eating them. I’m not a vegetarian, and I don’t care much for the self-righteous, pasty-faced, bony-armed, malnourished people who are. I love meat, and I recognize that in order for me to eat it, someone has to kill it. (Someone generally has to cook it for me, too, and I usually try to get them to pay for it as well.) What disturbs me is when people ENJOY the killing. It’s one thing to kill an animal for food; it’s quite another to make a sport of it, to track an animal for hours, to lie motionless in the dirt until you get a clear shot, then to kill it and brag to your buddies about how many “points” it had. Does the fact that people consider this FUN bother anyone else besides me? I mean, what’s the big thrill here? Shooting something defenseless? Do you realize that even if a deer DID attack you, 1) you would probably deserve it, and 2) all it could do is lick you to death?

The hunting mentality is particularly distressing in light of the recent news story that more people in Salt Lake County die as a result of shootings than of car accidents. This alarms me because it means that as reckless as people are with their cars, they’re even more reckless with their guns.

As for me, I can’t even go fishing. (Fishing-related deaths were not mentioned in the news story.) Even if I’m going to toss the fish back, I can’t bear the thought of piercing a fish’s lips with a sharp hook. I remember being lied to as a child about how fish don’t feel pain in their mouths, so it doesn’t bother them when they’re hooked. It wasn’t until I was much older that I realized the lunacy of this idea. Every other animal in the world has nerve endings in its mouth; why would fish be any different? Do you suppose that after millions of years of being caught, fish’s mouths began evolving nerveless?

Actually, the evolution thing isn’t that crazy. Perhaps it’s only a matter of time before deer start being born with bright orange colorings on their chests, causing them to look like hunters. Of course, they’d probably still get shot, unless their hooves also evolved to look like they were holding beer cans.

The Cherry Orchard

0

BYU’s production of Anton Chekhov’s “The Cherry Orchard” is as dismally comic and comically dismal as one expects from the Russian playwright.

Directed by Barta Lee Heiner, the cast is practically a Who’s Who of BYU theater. Their collective talent and experience are brought to bear as they manage to make their frustratingly indecisive characters come across as sympathetic and likable.

Liubov Ranyevskaya (Emmelyn Thayer) has returned from France to find her cherished estate on the verge of foreclosure. Practical businessman Lopakhin (Javen Ronald Tanner) suggests leveling the orchard and selling off plots of land for summer homes, but Liubov and her brother, Leonid (James C. Bybee), are too sentimental to allow that.

Instead, they do nothing. In fact, no one does anything during the whole play, except for Lopakhin, who buys the estate at auction and triumphs in rising above his family’s heritage of serfdom. (Tanner’s performance as he revels in his success is nothing short of electrifying.) But Lopakhin fails to propose marriage to Liubov’s daughter Varya (Melissa Yacktman) when he has the chance, ultimately putting him in the same category as all the other family friends and hangers-on who populate the play: full of dreams but devoid of ambition.

These are people who would be profoundly unhappy if they cared enough about life to be unhappy about it. As it is, they engage in trivial conversations and ignore reality until the axes are actually chopping down the cherry trees, both literally and figuratively.

Thayer is convincing and tragic as Liubov, particularly in her Act II revelations about her past. One feels her pain and sympathizes with it, even while silently chewing her out for not acting to prevent it. Ary Farahnakian is characteristically loopy as comic-relief Yepikhodov, and Jjana Valentiner Morrill’s portrayal of Carlotta is mysteriously affecting. Her sleight-of-hand magic tricks make her the personification of all the other facade-laden characters.

The entire cast is strong, with Dax Craven’s poetic-but-cynical college student Petya and Bob Nelson’s stuck-in-the-past butler Firs adding more depth and emotional charge.

There is humor in the show, though the tone is overall dreary. Chekhov meant the ending to be anti-climactic and for the play as a whole to go nowhere. This production succeeds in both regards — an odd achievement, perhaps, but a difficult one to pull off while still making the play watchable. Kudos to a talented cast and director.

Forever Plaid

0

Hale Centre Theatre West Valley’s production of “Forever Plaid” asks the musical question: How many times have you seen this show already?

If your answer is “once” or “not at all,” then this show is for you. The Hale Centre’s in-the-round stage has been turned into a straight-forward nightclub environment as we listen to The Plaids — a deceased male harmony group from 1964 who get to come back long enough to do one big concert — sing great songs from the ’50s and early ’60s.

Songs like “Three Coins in the Fountain,” “Cry” and “Catch a Falling Star” are among the numbers on the agenda, and all four men sing exceptionally well.

If your answer is “I’ve seen it a bunch o’ times,” like many Utahns — only “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” beats it in terms of ubiquitousness — then this production may not do much for you.

While the performers are all great singers, none of them are really actors, and we see very little in the way of personality, which is usually what drives this show. Without ways of telling the characters apart, and sort of getting a feel for who they are, “Forever Plaid” becomes just a nostalgic concert.

Sparky (Bryon Finch) is the only one who stands out, with his goofy, expressive face and general silliness. He’s sometimes too over-the-top — but at least he’s doing something. Frankie (Dan Morgan), ostensibly the leader of the group, blends in somewhat weakly with the other three.

Even Jinx’s (David Weekes; double-cast with Todd C. Russell) break-out-of-his-shell solo in “Cry” fails to do anything more than amaze us with his vocal ability, though he does get a very funny moment later on with his step-brother Sparky as they reminisce about Sunday nights at home.

This is a glittery, slick-looking production, and well worth seeing if it’s your first time. But repeat visitors will realize that all four men are too old to pass for a late-teens/early-20s vocal group, and they’ll be sorry to see so much potential humor lost because too much attention is paid to getting the songs right, leaving characterization undeveloped.

American Movie (documentary)

0

“American Movie” is a documentary that proves something we need to be reminded of more often: Real life is funny, touching and interesting. You don’t have to manufacture wacky neighbors or kicks in the crotch; the people you see on the street are entertaining enough just being themselves.

Chris Smith’s documentary tells the story of Mark Borchardt, a resident of rural, white-trash Wisconsin whose dream is to become a filmmaker. Subtitled “The Making of ‘Northwestern,'” the movie begins with Mark’s film in the early stages. He quickly realizes, though, that he’ll never have enough money to make it unless he first makes some quick cash off the short film he never finished, called “Coven” (pronounced “cove-in,” because “cuv-in” sounds too much like “oven”).

So “Northwestern” is scrapped — we never even learn what it was going to be about — and production is re-started on “Coven.” Mark stars in it and directs it, and uses his friends and family as actors and crew members.

That’s where the comedy and poignancy of real life play out beautifully. He asks his mother, Monica, to be a Druid-ish extra in the gory horror film; she protests by saying she has too much shopping to do. His dad, Cliff, refuses to lend any more monetary support unless Mark cleans up the language. A scene in which Mark is supposed to ram another actor’s head through a cupboard door is positively hysterical, as the door has not been properly rigged to collapse when the head hits it.

Stealing every scene he’s in is Mark’s stoner musician friend Mike Schank. Nearly every anecdote he tells relates to drinking vodka and “partying.” He’s fabulously incompetent in every filmmaking capacity you can think of, but a pure joy to have around.

And then there’s Mark’s ridiculously old uncle, Bill, who has invested a large sum of money in the film, thereby earning the title “executive producer.” Mark’s relationship with Bill is the purest blend of humor and pathos, perfectly exemplifed when he has to give the old man a bath. The scene is incredibly funny, but very sweet, too: Here’s a 30-year-old adult, giving his elderly uncle a bath without a hint of condescension or unwillingness.

Mark himself is quite a prize as well, a perfectly non-photogenic loser with a personality so unsavory, it’s appealing. He describes himself as half-Christian, half-Satanist, and has a way with words that is funnier than he probably realizes. (His opinion on some of the bad writing in his own script: “There’s some corny dialogue that would make the Pope weep.” Whatever THAT means.) His passion for achieving his dream of making a movie is truly remarkable, as he works tirelessly at it for months; yet he somehow still manages to seem like the kind of guy who never accomplishes anything.

All of these “performances” are stunning for the sheer fact that they’re not performances. They’re regular people, being themselves, often to the point of being embarrassing, consistently to the point of being funny. Mark and Uncle Bill have a relationship that is both amusing and touching; “American Movie” connects with its audience in exactly the same way.

The Insider

0

Director Michael Mann accomplishes a few clever feats in his new film “The Insider,” but the most amazing one is taking a subject that could easily be of no interest to most people — journalistic integrity behind the scenes at “60 Minutes,” involving a whole lot of talking and almost no big-time movie “action” — and turning it into one of the most engrossing, interesting movies of the year.

“60 Minutes” producer Lowell Bergman (Al Pacino) meets a man named Jeffrey Wigand (Russell Crowe), a recently fired tobacco-company scientist with damning information about his former bosses and their fellow smoke-blowing, “we-don’t-believe-it’s-addictive” companies.

At the risk of a lawsuit — he signed a confidentiality agreement with his former employer — Wigand agrees to blow the whistle on national TV. CBS gets nervous, though, fearing a lawsuit from the tobacco company, and won’t let “60 Minutes” air the piece.

Wigand’s life has already been destroyed, though, as he testified in a Mississippi court in addition to filming the “60 Minutes” interview — only now that the piece won’t be televised, he’s got nothing to show for his trouble.

It’s all based on a true story, but that’s not used as a crutch. Not once does the movie say, “Hey, this is what actually happened, so it’s not our fault it’s boring.” Instead, screenwriters Mann and Eric Roth, working from a Vanity Fair article, simply make the movie not-boring. There’s no need to rely on the “based-on-a-true-story” excuse, because this film is more riveting than most fiction.

Bergman is a bold, in-your-face journalist (he yells ominously at an uncooperative source, “I’m gettin’ two things: pissed off and curious!”) who also has integrity and compassion. It’s the kind of journalist most Americans think doesn’t exist anymore, yet rather than making him seem like an idealized Superman, Pacino plays him like he’s the most normal thing in the world.

Crowe, too, as Wigand, delivers a fine performance. His difficult decisions, his methods of dealing with the consequences, it’s all spread out there before us. We follow him every step of the way, and though he’s really just an ordinary guy, we’re 100-percent interested in what happens to him.

Again, that’s the wonder of this movie. It is, after all, a rather conventional story — Little Guy vs. Big Guy; moral dilemmas; etc., etc. — but somehow the direction and excellent performances make it seem so unconventional and engaging.

At 2 hours and 40 minutes, it is a little long. Several shots of nothing more than someone riding in a car or hitting golf balls go on much longer than necessary. But aside from that, this is a satisfying, compelling film, destined to be compared with that other journalistic-integrity movie, “All the President’ Men” — but the comparisons should be favorable.

Last Night

The Canadian film “Last Night” asks the question, “What would you do if you knew the world was going to end at midnight tonight?”

We’ve all wondered about that before, at least casually, especially when we’ve seen films like “Independence Day” and “Armageddon,” in which the world’s end seems imminent. But rarely has a movie provoked such deep thought as “Last Night” does, using extraordinary realism and sensitivity to make its audience REALLY consider the issue. Writing this, a week after seeing the movie, I’m still thinking about it. What WOULD I do? That kind of power to stay in your consciousness for so long is unusual in a film.

The movie follows several different people, whose lives intersect in various ways, during the last six hours of existence. Fortunately, we are never told why the world will end, or how the scientists know (it was announced two months earlier, apparently), or why the sun never setting is part of it; these questions would have turned it into a sci-fi film, which it doesn’t need to be. (Avoiding these issues also eliminates embarrassing questions like, “Midnight in which time zone? Is Toronto the center of the world all of a sudden?”)

Instead, this is a character drama, with the scientific facts intentionally ignored — not as a cop-out, but to keep us focused on the real issues. At the center is Patrick (Don McKellar, also writer and director), a divorced man who plans to spend the evening at home, alone. His parents and siblings don’t understand, but this is a deeply personal thing, he insists.

Meanwhile, Sandra (Sandra Oh) is picking up a few items for her final evening with her husband, Duncan (David Cronenberg). Among those items: guns. They plan to shoot each other at the stroke of midnight, so that Fate or whatever will not have claimed them; they will have claimed themselves.

Unfortunately, Sandra’s car is stolen (a common occurrence on the last day of the world — people who need one just take one, figuring the owners won’t have a chance to press charges, and probably won’t even care). She happens upon Patrick, who reluctantly agrees to help her get across town to her husband.

Providing comic relief is Patrick’s friend Craig (Callum Keith Rennie), who is doing what many people at least jokingly say they would do on the last night of the world: having sex. In fact, he’s been working hard for two months to make sure that he dies having fulfilled every sexual possibility that has ever occurred to him. This includes finally making it with an old high school French teacher he always had a crush on (Genevieve Bujold), and even attempting a homosexual encounter with Patrick, who politely declines in a very amusing, uncomfortable scene.

“Last Night” shows us many of the characters’ feelings, but only hints at others. One man is finally performing a piano recital, which a handful of people attend, including the aforementioned French teacher. We contemplate what would compell someone to spend their last living hour at an amateur piano concert, but we aren’t offered any insight into why this particular character did it. Closeups of her face as she watches suggest there’s something, but we don’t know what it is.

And I don’t know that this is even a downfall. There is a great deal of melancholy here, much aching and yearning. Why go to a piano concert? Well, why do anything? Why bother falling in love? Why bother experiencing pleasure? It’s all over soon anyway, and you won’t even be able to brag the next day about how much fun you had.

“Last Night” is an affecting film, arousing emotion and pity in a gentle, moving way.

Hit Me

0

I vehemently disagree with the notion that movie violence causes people to act violently in real life. In an unrelated matter, ever since seeing “Fight Club,” I’ve been trying to get someone to punch me in the face.

This has been much harder than you’d think it would be. At first my only condition was that I had to be allowed to hit the person back, since the whole point behind the exercise is to know what it’s like to be in a fight without actually getting in one. But I eventually had to drop even that one minor stipulation, and so I’ve just been asking people to hit me.

And even THEN I’ve had no luck. My first choice was my friend Other Eric. He was an obvious choice because 1) he saw “Fight Club” with me and could perhaps understand the reasons behind my request; and 2) despite the fact that he works out all the time and is very macho, he also has small, girlish hands that couldn’t possibly do any permanent damage, no matter how hard he hit me.

Other Eric refused to punch me, though, on the grounds that I’m his friend and he doesn’t want to hurt me — even though I’m ASKING him to, and even though his delicate, dainty fists are surely no serious threat to any living creature, and even though my being his “friend” did not prevent him from putting a CD of mine into his car stereo, knowing full well that this particular stereo has a history of not allowing CDs to come out again.

He’s come close a couple times to fulfilling my wishes; I think my constant mocking of his supple, womany hands has probably helped matters. But each time, just before he goes through with it, he chickens out and insists he can’t do it, bringing up that whole “you’re my friend” crap again.

So I asked Dave (you don’t know him), knowing he wouldn’t do it, either, because he’s just too NICE (a quality not normally associated with Other Eric, which is another reason I asked him first). And there’s really no one else I trust enough to hit me in the face without aiming directly for my nose, which I am certain would break irreparably at the slightest impact, possibly even if the impact were coming from the feeble, daisy-fresh fists of Other Eric.

Why do I want to be hit in the face? Can’t I just take everyone’s word for it that it’s unpleasant? Of course not. One of my major character flaws is that I rarely take anyone’s word for anything. (Another one is my tendency to harp on my friends’ physical imperfections.) “Fight Club” made me think about the fact that I’ve never been in a fight, and that for some reason, I really want to know what it’s like.

But I suppose I can see Other Eric’s point of view. We ARE friends, after all. Maybe that one punch would hurt our friendship, which would really be a shame, because there have been some excellent moments so far. Like the other night, we were in the video store when a man came up and asked our help in remembering the title of a movie. He said: “What was that Stephen King movie about the dog named Cujo?” We straight-facedly gave him the answer: “Cujo.” We then spent several minutes asking each other questions like “What was the name of that film where they were on the Titanic?” and “What was that movie where the guy went to the planet with all the apes?” Experiences like that, where two friends have the opportunity to ridicule a stranger behind his back, are to be cherished. Maybe I shouldn’t jeopardize that with my selfish desires to be punched in the face.

Come to think of it, I’ve learned more about life by NOT being punched. I’m going to go see Other Eric right now, thank him for being a true friend, and then shake his hand. I’ll be careful not to break any of his fragile, hairless fingers.


 

[ I don’t know if anyone else liked it or not, but I had a lot of fun finding ways of describing Other Eric’s hands. (Other Eric, by the way, was allowed to read a preliminary version of the column. He insisted I re-word part of it to make it clear he is a manly man, despite having the hands of a woman. He also insisted that I not say, in the column, that he insisted I say that.) ]

My Best Fiend: Klaus Kinski (German; documentary)

German director Werner Herzog’s movies are best known for occasionally starring Klaus Kinski. Klaus Kinski, meanwhile, is best known for being an insane maniac with diva tendencies. Together, they made quite a pair, working together on five films that would probably be little-remembered were it not for Kinski.

That working relationship, in which Kinski was psychopathic and Herzog put up with him, is documented in Herzog’s film “My Best Fiend: Klaus Kinski.”

As documentaries go, this one is second-rate, consisting of almost nothing but Herzog sitting in locations at which he and Kinski once filmed and reminiscing. He consults a few of Kinski’s co-stars, but none has anything terribly insightful to offer, and Herzog himself lets us down considerably. His films often used exotic locales and were filmed under arduous physical circumstances; why would he keep using an actor whom most people hated to work with and whom he himself often wanted to throttle? It’s suggested that the brilliance of Kinski’s performances was Herzog’s motivating factor, but there must have been more to it than that. Kinski was good, but not THAT good — and besides, this is a man who several times LITERALLY almost killed cast and crew members, and who was known to stand inches away from Herzog’s face and scream at him for hours on end. These were no Andy Kaufman-style shenanigans; this was a true deranged man. The greatest actor who ever lived couldn’t deliver a performance to make up for all that, as far most people are concerned. So what else prompted Herzog to overlook it? He doesn’t tell us.

It’s also unfortunate that Kinski died in 1991, making any insight from him impossible. It’s doubtful he would have participated anyway, but it’s frustrating to see him only in film clips and behind-the-scenes footage.

Kinski and Herzog met when Kinski, already an established actor and former sanitarium dweller, moved into the boarding house where a 13-year-old Herzog lived with his family. Kinski, 14 years older than Herzog, made a lasting impression by spending his first 48 hours locked in a bathroom, raving and destroying the place. Somehow from this Herzog gleaned that he’d like to one day direct the lunatic; an analogy would be if Steven Spielberg decided to make “Jaws” after having been bitten in half by a shark.

Kinski and Herzog’s best film together, “Fitzcarraldo,” was already the subject of a decent documentary, “Burden of Dreams” (which some consider to be better than the movie itself). For insight into the character of both Kinski and Herzog, you’d be better off watching that, as it’s told from a fairly objective viewpoint and offers more telling details than “My Best Fiend” does. For die-hard fans, though, Herzog’s strange little tribute to his cowardly, egomaniacal collaborator will no doubt hold some interest.

Grease

0

UVSC’s production of “Grease” is schizophrenic: energetic and enthusiastic during the musical numbers, slow and almost lethargic in between. Unfortunately, that lethargy brings the whole show down, giving an overall feeling of tedium.

But when the music starts, the cast kicks it into high gear, doing some fabulous choreography designed by Kathie Debenham (watch Nathaniel C. Shaw in his many non-speaking but well-danced parts). Great singing voices are the norm here, too, with nary a weak link in the whole cast, vocally speaking.

Seth Child is earnest and likable as rebellious greaser Danny Zuko. His attempts to appear tough in front of Sandy (Andrea Walker) are transparent, as he’s simply too sweet in his unguarded moments. (That’s not a criticism, either. I like Danny as a nice guy who tries unsuccessfully to seem tough, rather than as a tough guy with a soft side.)

Brittany Thompson is a standout among the Pink Ladies, playing Marty — the one with the boyfriend in the military — with uncommon flair. She doesn’t just have attitude or a one-joke persona: She has a personality.

Also worthy of mention are Aaron DeJesus as Danny’s greaser buddy Sonny and Heidi Boyd as Patty. Both actors, like Thompson, display a knack for performing and a real confidence onstage.

Direction (by James Arrington) is a problem here, as one feels unsure how to take the whole thing. Overall, the energy is low as one scene just sort of dribbles into the next. Also, the big school dance scene is a mess, as focus is supposed to keep shifting from one of the several couples to the next. In order to do this, the actors need to take command of the stage to let the audience know they’re the center of attention now. This rarely happens, though, and we wind up continuing to watch one couple that has stopped doing anything simply because we don’t realize that someone else has started. The effect is the feeling that a million things are going on at once, none of them strong enough to grab your attention.

Furthermore, “Grease” was intended as a parody of the ’50s, meant to show that the white-washed decade was not as pure and wholesome as it’s been made out to be. In order to accept the appalling ending — bland Sandy decides to become trashy in order to win her man — we have to realize that it’s meant as a satire. But no feeling of satire comes through in this production.

In fact, despite earnestness on the part of everyone, and highly praiseworthy performances from a few, it’s not just the satire that doesn’t come through: Nothing comes through. We don’t know if we’ve just watched an homage to the ’50s, a slice of life from the ’50s, or a parody of the ’50s. We just know we’ve seen some fun musical numbers and a lot of talking in between.

Music of the Heart

Director Wes Craven, best known for creating the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series, has moved from one cliche-ridden genre to another.

“Music of the Heart,” his “departure” film, tells the true story of Roberta Guaspari (Meryl Streep), an inner-city music teacher who has used the violin for more than 15 years to inspire hundreds of children to reach beyond themselves.

True or not, the story fits exactly in the mold of all the other “teacher faces insurmountable odds and makes a difference” movies: “Stand and Deliver,” “Lean on Me,” “Mr. Holland’s Opus,” etc., etc.

Is there a jaded music teacher (Josh Pais) who has lost his passion for teaching and is against Roberta? Yes. Is the tough-but-fair principal of the school (Angela Bassett) skeptical at first, but won over when Roberta dazzles her with her on-the-spot teaching prowess, right there in the office? Of course. Does Roberta actually utter the words, “You’re underestimating them”? Naturally.

Does funding for the program get cut? Does everyone rally together? Is there a big concert in Carnegie Hall? Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.

How cliche is this movie? In a scene taking place at Christmastime, Roberta is watching — what else? — “It’s a Wonderful Life” on TV.

Were it not for Streep’s excellent, believable performance, this movie would be a twisted wreck of trite dialogue and hokey, manipulative scenes. But Streep is a great actress, and she is particularly convincing in the classroom scenes: She looks, acts and sounds like a teacher.

In fact, just as a song can worm its way into our hearts even though the lyrics and/or music aren’t actually anything special — you know, there’s just something ABOUT the song – this film, too, is better than the sum of its parts. Despite the utter lack of originality and the unnecessary forays into Roberta’s personal life — one senses her boyfriends are included just because they were there in real life, too, and this is supposed to be a true story — the movie manages to be a little effective.

By no means is it brilliant film-making. But it’s not boring, either (thank Streep for that, not director Craven, who is waaay out of his element here in terms of constructing vivid scenes). And there are moments where you do feel the inspiring message that was supposed to permeate the whole thing.

In musical terms, this is a generic, three-chord Celine Dion radio hit: light-weight, unoriginal and sappy, but darn it, it almost makes you feel something.

Ad Nauseum

0

Tuesday is Election Day, which means the democratic process and its inherent beauty and drama are on the mind of every man, woman and child who works for a newspaper. The rest of the world, I think, doesn’t care.

Anyway, in the spirit of government and politics, I would like to propose a new law. You’ll notice that I am able to propose this law without littering signs that bear my name all over the city. For that alone, I deserve a Nobel Prize of some kind, perhaps in the field of Non-Littering.

Let me preface this proposed law by saying that I am not basing it simply on my own feelings and prejudices. There are many things I don’t like but wouldn’t dream of proposing laws against. For example, I’m opposed to anyone over the age of 10 going by the name “Jimmy.” This is clearly a child’s name and should be restricted for use only by children or retarded adults. But you don’t see me proposing laws about it.

Also, I would like to see a ban on same-sex divorces, because I’m tired of seeing all these fake marriages breaking up and making a mockery of the sanctity of fake marriage. (On what grounds would two men get divorced, anyway? “Irreconcilable differences”? Please. All men are the same. I assume that’s why they liked each other in the first place.)

So the law I’m proposing, which I believe I will be getting to within the next couple paragraphs, is one I feel would benefit not just myself, but many people, especially myself. It is this:

Television stations may not air commercials after 1 a.m.

The reason for this is obvious, even to the stupidest of voters. After 1 a.m., your judgment is impaired. You are not capable of discerning which products being advertised are worth your money and which ones are simply crap. For example, I recently found myself up and about at 2:30 a.m. watching infomercials. One of them was for an 8-CD set of “classic country music” — songs from the ’50s and ’60s. The total cost was something like $140.

Now, you should know that I am not a country-music fan, and not for any philosophical reasons, but simply on the grounds that it’s stupid and I hate it. So during the day, I would not even continue watching the infomercial, let alone consider ordering the set.

But at 2:30 a.m., I began to think: “You know, I like some of these songs. Johnny Cash was one classy singer back then, and Hank Williams had some good stuff. Plus, I consider myself something of a music aficionado (I always use words like that at 2:30 a.m.), and having this set would certainly add variety to my collection. If for nothing more than historical purposes, I should buy these CDs and become more acquainted with the roots of country music, which are the roots of rock ‘n’ roll, and indeed the cultural roots of my entire generation.”

Fortunately, I fell asleep before any serious damage could be done, but you see the danger I was in. Hence the need for this law.

I would also like to see commercials in general start making more sense. Halloween is coming up sometime this weekend (either Saturday or Sunday, depending on which state you live in), which means for the last couple weeks, we’ve been seeing stores say things like, “Our prices are so low, it’s scary!”

My question is, how low does a price have to be for it to actually frighten you? I can see being surprised, or even shocked, at a low price. But to actually be scared of it? You’re walking through the store: “Oh, that looks nice, I wonder how much that cos– oh, SWEET ANGELS OF MERCY!” And you clutch your chest, stumble backwards a few steps and cower in fear. “Honey, let’s get out of here. That price is so low, it makes me feel a dark, evil presence. I fear Beelzebub himself might be behind this sale.”

It seems counter-productive, really, to have prices so low that you’re actually scaring your customers. Anything that causes fear and panic among potential buyers seems like a bad idea to me. But I bet if I heard it at 2:30 a.m., it might sound more reasonable.

Charlie’s Monument

0

Blaine Yorgason’s short novel about a man’s triumph over adversity and the effect of his love for a small town has been adapted into a musical play whose intentions are absolutely pure, but which stumbles slightly in its attempt to convey meaning.

“Charlie’s Monument” (at the Little London Dinner Theatre), with book and lyrics by Susan Evans McCloud and Marvin Payne and music by K. Newell Dayley, focuses more on the love story between Charlie (Davison Cheney) and Nellie (Kathryn Laycock Little).

Charlie, a Forrest Gump-y fellow with a limp and a missing arm, is orphaned and ostracized by a town that doesn’t want to be burdened by him. They give him a job sitting on top of the local mountain, allegedly watching for fires, Indian attacks or whatever, but really just to keep him out of sight.

He starts stacking rocks, monument-style, each rock representing his mood at the moment. Soon he is visited by the lovely Nellie Reeves, whose father naturally disapproves of her love for the deformed man, but whom she marries anyway.

Their courtship is really quite sweet. The fact that there are no other actors around, leaving them entirely alone at the top of that mountain, gives the love story a fairy-tale, other-worldly feel, as if the couple are the only two people on Earth.

Tragedy and sadness await them following their marriage, though, with Charlie left to triumph over it all, just as he has triumphed over adversity his entire life.

Cheney and Little play their parts exceptionally, and both have fine singing voices. Unfortunately, the songs tend to be of the highly forgettable “you’re gonna make it someday” faux-inspirational Neil Diamond variety, and the few minor characters played by the same actors serve little purpose other than narrative function. In most cases, just using a narrator would have been better.

Alas, this stage production glosses over what was originally the point of the story — Charlie’s monument, the huge stack of rocks that represents his love for the town, and the positive effect he had on its residents. We are TOLD, briefly, that he brightened the lives of others, but the only person we ever see him talk to is Nellie. It makes for a fine love story, but the idea of the rocks standing as a monument to his humble servitude for the town doesn’t come across.

Arsenic and Old Lace

0

The Villa Playhouse’s Halloween production of “Arsenic and Old Lace” plays up the show’s spooky elements more than its humor, making it an enjoyable show for anyone who’s never seen it, but a little disappointing to fans of the classic dark comedy.

The story is of two quaint little old ladies, Abby (Maureen Eastwood) and Martha (Esther Rae Barney), beloved by the town and known all over for their acts of charity.

Among their charitable acts is to find people who are lonely, without friends or family, poison them, and bury them in the basement. The town is not aware of this, obviously.

Such delightful comedy can come of such an absurd situation, especially when the old ladies are played with such cute grandmotherliness by Eastwood (reprising the role she played in last year’s Springville Playhouse production) and Barney. They both play their parts to the fullest, creating most of what humor exists in this staging.

Their nephew Mortimer (Kerry Murdock), a theater critic, spends most of his time being flustered after discovering his aunts’ dark deeds, and he tries to pin it on his insane brother Teddy (Dane Allred), a harmless dim-wit who thinks he’s Teddy Roosevelt. Mortimer is a difficult role, as he has pretty much just one emotion: flustered. Murdock gives it the ol’ college try, but he is far out-acted in his scenes with MinD Jensen, who plays his fiancee with flair, controlled energy and confidence.

The set, designed by W. Bill Brown Jr. (who also directed), is authentic-looking and beautiful. The mood music that plays almost constantly through the show effectively sets the tone when Mortimer’s murderous brother, Jonathan (Malcolm Phipps), arrives – but then it keep playing whenever he’s onstage, and it gets old (especially since it’s the same two minutes of music, repeated over and over).

Again, this production plays up the creepiness over the humor. This is unfortunate, as the humor, when played right, is abundant and outrageously funny. But for a Halloween show meant to deliver entertaining chills for the whole family, the show does OK.

South Pacific

0

SCERA’s production of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s grand classic “South Pacific” suffers from poor casting and some weak performances, but overall serves its purpose in entertaining the audience.

Consummate singer/dancer/actress Jayne Luke, marvelous in everything she does, is miscast as Ensign Nellie Forbush. The nurse is said in the script to be young and naive; in fact, one reason it’s assumed she wouldn’t fall for Frenchman Emile de Becque (Marvin Payne) is that “he’s a middle-aged man.” (Mitzi Gaynor was 28 when she played the role in the film version.)

In this production, though, they’re both middle-aged, and Luke is far older than her fellow nurses. And never mind that she’s also supposed to be “a hick from the sticks” but doesn’t even TRY a Southern accent; Payne’s French accent comes and goes, too.

Still, the two of them are strong performers, almost overcoming the problems inherent in the casting and in fact carrying the show on their shoulders for much of the way. The show’s message about blind racism, now a little dated (honestly, in 1999, who cares if an American marries a Polynesian?), manages to come across in the end.

The other standout is Shawn Lynn as the scheming Luther Billis. Lynn is an amateur actor, but his performance is professional. His “Honey Bun” number with Luke is a high point of the show, and he carries himself with confidence and talent throughout.

Dan Jarvis’s Lt. Joseph Cable is overly dramatic, delivering every line with too much passion. That said, he and Kris Wing as the native girl Liat make an extremely cute couple, and one gets a sense of the true love that develops between them.

The rest of the supporting cast is hit-or-miss, and mostly miss, unfortunately. All have good singing voices, but few can really act. Some scenes, like the “Bloody Mary” number, are energy-drainingly slow and unenthusiastic, as if everyone’s just going through the motions.

If you haven’t seen “South Pacific” in a while, this production may serve as nostalgia. A first-timer, though, is unlikely to fall in love with what really is, and should be, a true classic.

As You Like It

0

Shakespeare probably didn’t have the WWF in mind when he concocted the wrestling scene in “As You Like It,” but Pioneer Theatre Company’s version strongly resembles something you’d see in modern-day professional wrestling.

And it just goes toward proving what is essentially the main point when doing a Shakespearean comedy: If it’s funny, it works.

This production of the cheery farce, directed by Utah Shakespearean Festival regular Paul Barnes and populated by many of his fellow ShakesFest cohorts, IS funny, thanks largely to some great source material (naturally) and strong performances by people who know how to do comedy.

Sometimes Shakespeare’s funny plays wind up not-so-funny because snooty Shakespearean actors get cast in the lead roles, speaking the lines eloquently and with the proper American Standard dialect, but without any sense of comic timing.

Not so here. Carol Linnea Johnson is positively hilarious as Rosalind, the woman who poses as a man, befriends the guy she’s in love with, then lets him practice on him/her the way he would woo Rosalind if she were really there — of course not realizing that Rosalind IS there, and that his practice dummy is actually the real deal.

Johnson is the standout performer in the show, displaying tremendous comic agility in a role that requires energy, timing and control. She doesn’t go overboard, but she doesn’t let any opportunities pass, either.

Ty Burrell plays Orlando, the man who loves Rosalind. Burrell’s a fine actor, too, with an expressive voice and a flair for subtle comedy.

There are a total of four couples in this show, all of them courting each other out in the forest, where the Duke (Robert Peterson) is living merrily in exile, his brother (Anthony De Fonte) having usurped the throne. Priceless scenes abound: Pompous courtier Touchstone (Anderson Matthews) discusses etiquette with Corin (Thomas Carson), a simple shepherd. Orlando’s brother Oliver (R. Ward Duffy) meets Rosalind (in disguise) and her cousin Celia (Deanne Lorette), falls in love with Celia, and figures out Rosalind’s secret.

And of course every scene between Orlando and the disguised Rosalind is a gem of comedy, real battle-of-the-sexes stuff. As we see her trying to be both masculine and feminine at once, we see how silly both genders can really be.

Arsenic and Old Lace

0

It’s hard to imagine a play about two sweet old ladies who poison people and bury them in the basement being anything other than delightful. And the production of “Arsenic and Old Lace” going on at the Springville Playhouse is just that.

Abby (Maureen Eastwood) and Martha (Arlene McGregor) are two old sisters who live together in Brooklyn in the 1940s. They are known all over for being sweet, kind and charitable. (Abby remarks to someone early in the play, “This may not be very nice of me, but I’m beginning to think that Mr. Hitler is not a Christian!”) No one can imagine they would ever do anything sinister and evil.

But sinister and evil is exactly what they do — though, like everything else in this show, it’s played for laughs. Seems whenever they have a visitor who is all alone in the world, they put the person out of his or her supposed misery by slipping some poison into the elderberry wine. Once that’s taken care of, they have their nephew Teddy (George King), who thinks he’s Teddy Roosevelt, bury the body in the basement (or Panama, as the canal-obsessed Teddy thinks it is).

The twist here is NOT that the two sweet old ladies are actually murderers. No, the twist is that they’re murderers but don’t realize it. They see nothing wrong with what they do, and they make no attempt to hide it from anyone. This results in some very funny moments when Teddy’s brother Mortimer (Matthieu Kohl) finds out about the bodies and is quite flustered to discover that his aunts treat it with such nonchalance.

Complications arise when Mort and Teddy’s black sheep of a brother Jonathan (George Wallace) — a REAL murderer — shows up and commands control of the house. There are several cops, including a long-winded one who wants to be a playwright, and some potential zaniness as the aunts and Jonathan all try to hide various bodies various places.

The farcical elements are never played up quite as much as they could be, but there are plenty of laughs in the show. Most of them center around the two old aunts. Eastwood is a small, plump grandma with a voice like Granny on the Tweety-Bird cartoons (she even looks a bit like her). She rolls around the stage like a marble, cheerful and polite all the time. McGregor’s Martha is tall and wobbly, always looking like she’s about to fall over. The two make an excellent duo, complementing each other perfectly and making for a delightfully wacky couple of old ladies.

Kohl is exasperated and nervous as Mortimer — exactly the way most theater critics are, which is what Mortimer does for a living (though Mort seems more financially successful than the critics I know). King is also sublime as the loony Teddy. His character is purposely one-dimensional, but King plays it to the hilt.

Wallace is creepy as the rather monstrous Jonathan, but he is also stuck on one note and one emotion the entire time. It is ironic that Jonathan mentions being in the “diamond business” at one point, and Wallace sounds just like the droning Tom Shane in his Shane Diamond Company radio commercials — only LESS charismatic, if you can imagine. The third act, where he has a lot to do, moves very slowly and seems to drag quite a bit.

In fact, the whole play moves rather slowly. But it’s all worth it just for the two murderous sisters. Eastwood and McGregor play the roles with such energy, enthusiasm and commitment that you can’t help giggling at them all the time they’re onstage. Their talent keeps the show interesting and funny and well worth the few dollars it will cost you to see it.

Bringing out the Dead

Nicolas Cage has made a career out of playing semi-psychotic losers. Whether they’re comical (“Raising Arizona,” “Honeymoon in Vegas”) or serious (everything else), he has a knack for starting out just slightly off-kilter, and winding up completely deranged. Occasionally, he returns from insanity and rejoins normal society.

“Bringing out the Dead,” a visually stimulating but intellectually mediocre film from director Martin Scorsese, is one in which Cage gets to come back again. In fact, if the film is “about” anything (and that’s debatable), it’s about Cage’s character’s struggle to forgive himself and to return to himself.

Cage plays Frank Pierce, an EMT who made a mistake and allowed a girl to die. Now, she haunts him — not in a literal, “Sixth Sense” kind of way, but figuratively. He occasionally sees her face everywhere; other times, he doesn’t see her at all.

He’s up and down, that Frank, and so is the movie. It takes place in the crazy version of New York City we often see in movies, with the action centering around an over-crowded, unsympathetic hospital and Frank’s fellow EMTs, all of whom are also insane in one way or another. The city’s crazy, all the people are crazy, and Scorsese’s frenetic, rambunctious directorial style is crazy, too.

Yet the film has its calm moments. Lots of them. As Frank struggles with his inner demons, he befriends a girl named Mary (Patricia Arquette) whose father is in the hospital following a heart attack. She leads him to a drug-dealer’s apartment, where there is a great deal of peace and quiet — the best sleep Frank has had in a while. Yet he’s plagued by psychotic dreams in which he saves a bunch of lives even while still being haunted.

Should there be a time when everyone should die, when you should just let go? Eventually, that’s what the point is here: to let go of the past. As one character tells Frank, “No one asked you to suffer. That was your idea.”

Often bathed in white light, like the God that EMTs feel they are when they save lives, Frank is a man thoroughly burnt out with his job, begging to be fired so he can escape his torment. But then he has other moments of sheer humanity, when he wants to — and still feels he can — save people, whether that means saving their lives or letting them die.

The dialogue is often darkly funny, but somehow we expect more intelligence and meaning out of Scorsese. For all its flash and substance — and the film is undeniably interesting — it really doesn’t amount to much.

Cage is strong, as usual, in this role, though the sheer oddness of the film and the look-how-cool-I-am style of the director makes it difficult to connect with him. Even when he arrives at a resolution in his life, about all we can do is shrug our shoulders and say, “Good for him,” because we’re still busy trying to make sense of the whole meandering thing.

Drive Me Crazy

0

In last week’s column, I made the modest proposal that someone should run over just one BYU student with a car so as to teach the rest of them a lesson about darting out into traffic, which BYU students seem to enjoy as much as they enjoy looking for things to be offended by.

This prompted the greatest number of e-mails I have received to date, a vast majority of them agreeing with me (at least in principle; some writers balked on the actual “running-over” part). It seems this really struck a chord, even more than when I described certain elderly persons as having “gnarled, useless ears”; even more than when I said everyone in New York City is ugly; and even more than when I made jokes in connection with Education Week (a bad idea, since of course no Education Week speakers themselves ever make jokes or act in a light-hearted manner).

So apparently I wasn’t the only one fed up with BYU students’ street-crossing methods, wherein they look (or not) to see if a car is coming, and then proceed to cross regardless. A few people, though, sent e-mails disagreeing with me. The best one is reprinted here EXACTLY as I received it. Please read it carefully.

“Hey Bozo: Have you read the handbook latley? The law says that the pedestrian has the rright of way in a cross walk. No wonder Utah drivers get so many tickets in a state where the law is inforced. If you ever go to Oregon you had better obey the law. You better not be the one who hits soomeone or you be in jail for manslaughter.”

Signed, “A Driver who learned to driver in Oregon.”

Personally, I am soomeone who learned to driver in California, where it is also against the law to hit pedestrians. In fact, while I am no legal expert, I am fairly confident that most states have laws prohibiting the killing of another person. (Texas may be an exception to this.)

As this letter-writer so eloquently pointed out, if you hit someone with your car, “you be in jail for manslaughter.” I’ll have to revise my plan, then, because if I be in jail, I be seriously bummed out.

I’ve re-examined my hitting-a-BYU-student-with-a-car position anyway, having reflected upon the fact that Provo drivers seem to be at fault here, too. They pull too far forward, covering up the crosswalks, forcing pedestrians to walk around them. They also pretend not to see pedestrians, figuring that if they don’t make eye contact, the walker will assume the driver doesn’t see him, thus scaring him into not crossing. (Note: This does not work with BYU students, who will boldly and stupidly walk anyway.)

I’m also not pleased with Provo drivers’ stoplight behavior. Provoans are so used to being humble and meek that when the light turns green, they’re stunned. They can’t believe they’ve been chosen. They just sit there and look at it for a long time before finally proceeding. I can only guess what goes through their minds: “Well, the light’s green. But that can’t be right, can it? A green light? For us? We don’t deserve that. Those other people don’t have a green light. Why should we have one? Well, no one is else is crossing the intersection, so I guess it’s safe. But I still don’t feel right about this….”

So to be fair, while BYU students are imbecilic for walking out into traffic with little regard for common courtesy or common sense, Provo drivers are not blameless, either. In fact, I guess none of us is perfect, and never will be in this life, especially not without a spell-checker.

Charley’s Aunt

0

Comedy 101: Men dressed as women = funny.

Brandon Thomas’s classic play “Charley’s Aunt” makes abundant use of that fact, and the Hale Center Theater Orem production of it takes an already-solid script and uses some talented actors to make it even better — the funniest show this theater has done in two years.

(The show is double-cast. This review refers to the Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday cast.)

It’s 1892 and we’re at Oxford University. This is a time when young ladies do not associate with young gentlemen unless there’s a chaperone present.

Jack (Nathan Keith), wishing to woo Kitty (Clair Wilkins), is delighted to learn that his friend Charley (Ryan Radebaugh) has a long-lost wealthy aunt coming to visit. Since Charley wants to see a girl, too (Amy, played by Bonnie Beus), they invite both girls over, using Charley’s soon-to-arrive Aunt Donna Lucia as an excuse.

The aunt fails to show, though, and the girls are in danger of leaving. The solution? A third friend, Lord Fancourt Babs (Curt Doussett) is an actor and about to play a woman in a local production. Dress him up like an old lady, and there’s your chaperone!

Complications arise when the REAL Donna Lucia (Nancy Douglas) shows up, and when both Amy and Kitty’s guardian (Karl Young) AND Jack’s father (Spencer Anderson) start to woo the fake Donna Lucia.

This is a silly play full of silly premises, but these performers make it work. There’s hardly a slow moment in the show. In particular, Doussett is hysterical as Charley’s fake aunt. Looking much like Whistler’s mother, his character, Babs, alternates between playing the part with great enthusiasm (especially when the pretty young ladies take him into their confidence), and being thoroughly fed up with it.

The scene in which he has taken off his woman clothes and Jack and Charley must re-dress him is priceless. Doussett seems fond of ad-libbing, and his performance throughout the play is breathlessly energetic and convincing, without getting over-the-top.

Keith and Radebaugh as Jack and Charley make a good duo, too, acting their parts well but adding just a little 1990s-style comaraderie that makes their college antics seem relatable to a modern audience.

The Source (documentary)

One of the perks of the Internet is that you can find out embarrassing information about otherwise-respectable people. For example, Chuck Workman, who wrote and directed the thorough and professional Beatnik documentary “The Source,” also wrote and directed the 1985 comedy “Stoogemania.”

To be fair, he also did 1991’s “Superstar: The Life and Times of Andy Warhol,” which was every bit as thorough — and, in its way, perhaps TOO complete to appeal to the average viewer — as “The Source.”

Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac met in New York in 1944. They later acquired William S. Burroughs as part of their enclave of dissatisfied young people, and eventually all three wrote their seminal works: Kerouac’s “On the Road,” then Ginsberg’s “Howl,” then Burroughs’s “The Naked Lunch.” These were the leaders of the “Beat” generation, a term given several possible origins in the film, which interviews pretty much every living member of the Beat movement, and includes footage of the three leaders filmed before their deaths. “Beat” had to do with the rhythm of the drums, it had to do with being tired and burned-out (“Aw, man, I’m beat”), it meant pretty much whatever you wanted it to.

The point was, these were disillusioned young men. “The Source” paints them as only mildly angry, rebels with a cause, but a cause that was not well-defined. Where the Hippies (direct descendants of the Beats) had specific things like Vietnam and the various assassinations to stir them up, not to mention the support of practically every successful rock group of the late ’60s, the Beatniks had complaints that were more vague. (This at least partially explains why, as “The Source” points out, the Beatniks were largely ignored until the 1960s.)

The 1950s, the Beatniks maintained, were not the idyllic, “Leave It to Beaver” times that everyone seemed to think they were. There was the Korean War and the McCarthy hearings (both of which came and went in a relatively short period of time, in the grand scheme of things), and — most galling to these decidedly individualistic college students — rampant conformity spreading through America like a virus.

In a way, the Beatniks’ cause was more noble than the Hippies’. The Hippies were fighting tangible “evils.” People may not have agreed with them, but at least they could see their point. Furthermore, they wanted peace and love — hardly a controversial position.

The Beatniks were fighting things that people wouldn’t even acknowledge the existence of, let alone take a stand on: the paranoid aftermath of McCarthy, the glossing-over of the negative elements of society, that darned “conform or be a freak” mentality.

The Beatniks were clearly more literate and intelligent in their creative outlets than the Hippies, too. (Compare the absurdly banned “Howl” — ” I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix” — with anything Jim Morrison ever wrote, for example.)

“The Source” benefits from fine readings by Johnny Depp, Jon Turturro and Dennis Hopper, vividly re-creating the passion and furor of the original Beats’ words.

Where the documentary suffers is that, while it tells you the entire story, it loses steam about half-way through. Unless you’re already interested in the subject matter, “The Source” is unlikely to interest you beyond the first 45 minutes. Furthermore, with the Beatniks evolving into Hippies, which evolved into whatever they evolved into, it’s a story that lacks an ending.

Nonetheless, it’s hard not to gain an appreciation for a movement that is largely overlooked now, and that influenced pop culture more than many of us realize.

Show Me Love (Swedish)

Europe’s more liberal attitude toward homosexuality is brought to bear in Swedish writer/director Lukas Moodysson’s “Show Me Love,” a coming-of-age comedy about two teen-age girls falling in love.

Whether this openness is good or bad depends on your point of view, but one thing is clear: America doesn’t often make films on this subject that are anywhere near this realistic.

Set in the small, conservative town of Amal, the main character is Agnes (Rebecka Liljeberg), an awkward 14-year-old whose family moved to town two years ago but who has yet to make any friends. It’s rumored she’s a lesbian, and indeed, she is secretly in love with blond and beautiful Elin (Alexandra Dahlström), who has made out with a lot of guys but is growing tired of them.

Agnes’s parents force her to have a birthday party, despite her insistance that she has no friends. Sure enough, only her wheelchair-bound pseudo-friend Viktoria (Josefine Nyberg) shows up — and Agnes lashes out in wince-inducing cruelty toward her, frustrated as she is at her own isolation and lack of belonging.

Meanwhile, Elin and her slutty sister Jessica (Erica Carlson), seeking some kind of entertainment, go to Agnes’s party, where they are surprised to find themselves the only attendees. On a dare, Elin kisses Agnes to see if she’s really gay, but the kiss awakens feelings in Elin she wasn’t sure she had before.

Two of what must be the more common scenarios for this situation are examined with great sympathy and realism. Agnes, floored at having received attention from the object of her desires, meekly hopes for a more lasting relationship, though not daring to expect it. Elin, meanwhile, acquires a knee-jerk boyfriend (Mathias Rust) as a means of keeping her mind off these disturbing new emotions.

Liljeberg is a talented young actress, perceptively playing all of Agnes’s moods. Her despair at the flop her party turns out to be is heart-rending, and her tentative steps toward self-acceptance are vividly played. Dahlström, too, gives Elin the quirks necessary to make her real.

The film really is very simple. It takes place over just a few days, and the plot does not hinge around any one major event (except for that kiss, which happens early on). No external forces drive Elin and Agnes together; it is just the natural progression of things, right up to the end, when they literally and symbolically come out of the closet together. It’s a water closet, sure, but close enough.

Fight Club

The trailer for “Fight Club” was a great example of what a trailer should be. It established an interesting, quirky premise — two guys start a club where men get together just to hit each other — and then told us nothing else. We’re left to wonder, “OK, so they start a fight club — but THEN what happens?” Much better than the trailers that spoil the whole movie for you.

Having seen the movie, I now understand that this wasn’t just the film’s producers being coy: The film has so much to it, it’s actually ABOUT so much, they couldn’t have done the trailer any other way.

Oscar-worthy Edward Norton plays a lonely, insomniac nobody in a cookie-cutter, white-collar job. He truly is a nobody, too: We never learn his name (he’s listed in the credits as “Narrator,” which is one of his functions in the film). To find some purpose in life, he starts going to support groups for people with diseases he doesn’t have.

There he meets Marla (Helena Bonham Carter, looking absolutely unbathed), who’s doing the same thing. He also meets, on an airplane, a free-wheeling soap salesman named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). When Narrator’s condo is blown up by an arsonist, he moves in with Tyler in a condemned old house on the outskirts of town. By coincidence, Marla winds up being Tyler’s creepy girlfriend.

Then, just when the movie couldn’t get any weirder, Tyler and Narrator start a fistfight with each other just for fun. Soon it turns into a club, with everyone wanting to get together on Saturday nights to beat the crud out of each other. It’s all in good fun: Any fight participant can end the fight any time he wants to, and no one’s supposed to get permanently damaged. Just a way for men, repressed by society, to let loose with their natural instincts.

Which is ultimately what this movie is about. Tyler and Narrator, as inseparable pals, make a perfect pair, a living Id and Superego. Tyler helps Narrator get out of his depression and find friendship and acceptance — two things men in our day supposedly have no need for, even though they really do.

But what if men stopped being repressed and actually behaved the way their instincts tell them to? The fight club is the most basic outlet for such feelings; 100 years ago, when men fought all the time, it would have been unnecessary. So what happens now that we’ve been conditioned to think fighting is unacceptable? (“Most people,” the Narrator tells us, “will do anything to avoid a fight.”) Can you unleash just a little bit of primal rage without also unleashing a century’s worth of pent-up emotion and testosterone?

“Fight Club” answers that question, darkly, and the answer is no. Once you start, you can’t stop.

Tyler builds a frighteningly fascist army of fight club participants who work for him around the clock, engaging in amusing acts of mischief. (Newspaper headlines say things like “Police Seize Excrement Catapult” and “Fountain Befouled.”) It soon escalates into something far more disturbing — but, again, it seems to be the inevitable result when men’s inner urges are allowed to run free.

Director David Fincher (“The Game,” “Seven,” both of whose influence can be seen here) takes us on a twisted journey through the male psyche, full of flashbacks, freeze-frames, and eye-catching cinematography. Jim Uhls’s screenplay (based on Chuck Palahniuk’s novel) is clever and witty. There is delicious, ironic humor in Norton’s detached narrations, and the movie is undeniably funny — up until the last half-hour or so, when things get REALLY weird. It’s a compelling, entertaining film. Even when it’s nihilistic, pessimistic and macabre, it’s still eminently watchable and profound.

The Story of Us

Failed marriages have been the subject of many films, and while “The Story of Us” doesn’t add anything we haven’t seen before, it succeeds anyway thanks to Rob Reiner’s style of directing that is creative, yet still comfortably familiar.

Much of the movie is tension-heavy as Ben and Katie Jordan (Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer), married 15 years, find themselves on the brink of divorce. Through flashbacks and narrations, we are brought up to speed: They used to love each other, now they hate each other.

Well, it’s not that simple, but that’s about the gist of it, and herein lies one of the film’s major flaws: Ben and Katie’s reasons for growing apart are too generic. He’s spontaneous and carefree, while she’s rigid and disciplined. Such triteness (I mean, come on — it’s not a failed marriage; it’s just “The Odd Couple”) makes it hard for us to consider the situation realistically. And if we’re not suffering right along with these characters, the film’s got nothing else going for it.

(The movie even contains that classic line, used in every made-for-TV movie when a husband and wife are arguing: “Oh, what’s THAT supposed to mean?!”)

Fortunately, there are scenes of real connection, where Ben and Katie’s situation hits you square in the gut and makes you think, “My gosh, what if this were MY marriage?” Even never-married audience members can be made to feel that a breakup with their spouse would be the worst thing ever, thanks to a few well-crafted scenes and montages of happier times.

Reiner and Rita Wilson play the Jordans’ best friends, and they provide some much-needed comic relief in a film that is almost TOO tense for the first hour or so. Willis is still no great actor, but he does a good job as a mostly enraged husband who is tired of his wife being no fun anymore, and his freak-out scene in a restaurant is undeniably solid.

One would be inclined to think that, this being America, the movie will end happily. The Jordans seem so stubborn, though — almost hell-bent on breaking up, despite their differences being somewhat superficial and certainly not irreconcilable — that by the end, you could see it going either way.

Pfeiffer delivers a monologue in the last few minutes that will jerk tears among men and women alike, a speech that is at once terribly funny and achingly poignant. It is that scene that brings everything together, helping anyone who has ever been married to see themselves in one or the other of the characters.

In that sense, the genericism of the Jordans’ differences works, as it makes them universal, an Every Couple that anyone can relate to. That, ultimately, is the film’s greatest strength, helping us see that while hundreds of marriages break up every day, they are more than just statistics: There are actual people involved there.

That Run-Down Feeling

0

I’m not suggesting that ALL BYU students should be run over with cars; just one of them.

But let me backtrack a little. I graduated from BYU in April, and received my diploma in the mail shortly thereafter. Along with the diploma came a copy of my transcript, which is a highly amusing document full of whimsy and mirth, describing my exploits over the previous five years. You could tell what was going on in my life based on the grades I had. The first semester after my LDS mission, I had straight A’s. The semester I spent watching videotapes of “Mystery Science Theater” and eating at Taco Bell twice a day, I did much more poorly. So it was odd to get the diploma and transcript in the same envelope, because that meant I was holding my degree in one hand, and a list of reasons why I didn’t deserve it in the other.

Anyway, since graduating, I’ve become more keenly aware of how Provo residents view BYU students: They don’t like them. Sure, the businesses appreciate the students’ patronage, and yeah, in the backs of their minds, people must appreciate the fact that were it not for BYU, Provo would be as desolate and unexciting as Panguitch (town motto: “‘Panguitch’?! You Have GOT to be Kidding Me”).

But when you get right down to it, Provoans don’t like BYU students. They tend to be a frivolous, rowdy bunch, while Provoans are a conservative, quiet group who prefer to have their “Titanic” videos edited and their smutty check-out line magazines covered with tasteful cardboard.

And you know what? I’m starting to agree with the Provoans. Not about the videos and magazines, but about sensible things. Like the way BYU students cross the street.

See, a normal person desiring to cross the street will wait until there are no cars coming, and then proceed. If a car suddenly approaches, the person will take an extra spring into his or her step so as not to force the driver to put on his brakes.

BYU students operate differently, though. They follow this procedure:

1. Look both ways.
2. Is a car coming?
3. It doesn’t matter.
4. Start walking anyway.

Even with cars coming, they just START WALKING! And they do it at a leisurely pace, like they’re strolling down a country lane to the fishin’ hole on a Sunday afternoon with Huckleberry freakin’ Finn!

So you have to stop for them. Then they have the audacity to do that little “thank you” wave, as if to say, “Thanks for stopping!” Never mind that they darted out in front of you and gave you no choice BUT to stop; they’re thanking you anyway. This is because BYU students are taught to be unfailingly polite, or to at least fake it.

Which takes me back to my original point, which is that one of these BYU students needs to be hit by a car. It doesn’t matter who, as long as it’s someone who walks carelessly into the street, arrogantly confident that all traffic will stop for them. In other words, any BYU student will do.

All it would take would be for one such traffic-darter to get hit, and I guarantee, all the rest will stop darting. Word will get out. “We can’t cross the street in the middle of rush-hour traffic with impunity anymore!” they’ll say, followed by a mad dash to look up “impunity.” And then, all of life’s problems will be solved and I’ll be able to get some sleep. Thank you and good night.