Home Blog Page 69

Guys and Dolls

0

“Guys and Dolls,” playing at Orem’s SCERA Showhouse through April 10, is a mixed bag of a show, bolstered by a few great performances and some fantastic sets and costumes.

Frank Loesser’s musical, in case you’ve never seen it, is about a bunch of New York gamblers and the women who love them, or something like that. Nathan Detroit (played solidly by David Whitlock) runs a nightly craps game that must always be held in different locations, due to pressure from an overzealous cop (played underzealously by Ethan Barnes). On this particular night, he must come up with $1,000 to pay a guy in exchange for using his garage.

Enter Sky Masterson (Dallyn Vail Bayles), a big-shot gambler always willing to take a risk. Nathan bets Sky $1,000 that Sky can’t convince the local Salvation Army icebox Sarah (Hailey Jones-Smith) to go to Cuba with him. This leads to a Sky/Sarah romance, while Nathan’s own 14-year romance with dancer Miss Adelaide (Jayne Luke) is faltering due to Nathan’s inability to make a commitment.

I don’t know if characters like this ever really existed, or if they actually talked and dressed the way they do here. All the men speak with unfailing politeness, rarely even using contractions, and all are dressed to the nines, as they say. In fact, the dazzling costumes (by Tina A. Barnes, Karen Lundquist and Mary Louise Scott) are a spectacular addition to the show, complementing perfectly the comic strip-colored sets (by Teri T. Griffin).

And measuring up to the sets and costumes are some very fine acting performances. The best thing about the show is Jayne Luke, whose Adelaide is a sheer delight to watch. Everything she does bespeaks class and professionalism. David Whitlock’s Nathan is not far behind her, nor is Steven Craig Dunford, as gambler Nicely-Nicely Johnson. (His solo in “Sit Down You’re Rockin’ the Boat” gives him a chance to shine at center stage, proving he’s capable of more than a supporing role.)

Dallyn Vail Bayles and Hailey Jones-Smith, as Sky and Sarah, have fantastic singing voices, but zero chemistry as a couple. Sarah’s part is supposed to be prim and proper, except when she lets loose in Havana, and she fills it well. But Sky comes across as lifeless, with little charm or charisma. Their scenes together tend to drag, though the great vocal performances do help some.

Raymond Robinson’s choreography is lively and energetic, and almost too ambitious for the enthusiastic chorus of a dozen or so men and women called upon to perform it.

Jerry Elison, who directed the show, also has a supporting role as Sarah’s grandfather Arvide Abernathy. His solo, “More I Cannot Wish You,” is unabashedly sweet and sincere.

“Guys and Dolls” has been around for almost 50 years, but when it’s done right, it can be as entertaining as ever. This production stands up admirably and is well worth seeing.

Something’s Afoot

0

Billed as a “parody” of British murder mysteries, the Grand Theatre’s production of the Broadway flop “Something’s Afoot” seems to be more interested in retelling those old stories than in making fun of them.

The musical is set on a dark and stormy night in a secluded mansion owned by an eccentric millionaire. Lord Rancour, whom we never see, has invited six guests for the weekend, most of whom, along with the hired help, start getting killed. The question is, which of the 10 people present is responsible for the murders?

Based loosely on Agatha Christie’s “Ten Little Indians,” this version could aptly be called “Ten Little Idiots.” They mill around, fretting about the murders, making lame accusations at one another, and occasionally bursting into song.

Miss Tweed (Sharon Lynn Kenison) is the amateur sleuth of the bunch, and it is her theories and suspicions that fuel most of the action. Uninvited guest Geoffrey (Mark Gollaher), a college boy, also shows up and begins wooing Hope Langdon (Melinda Cole Welch) — who, we learn, is the illegitimate daughter of two other guests and a possible heir to the Rancour fortune.

There is also, of course, a greedy nephew (Shawn A. Maxfield) and a French woman (Darla Davis). (Well, mostly French. Her accent seems to come and go.)

These are all stock characters, which is perfect for a parody. The problem is, the show is never very pointed in its satire, and one is liable to forget that it’s supposed to be one. Just when you’re getting annoyed by the two-dimensional, generic characters, you remind yourself, “Oh, yeah. It’s a parody. They’re supposed to be like that.” Any show where you have to remind yourself that it’s a parody probably isn’t a very good one.

To its credit, the actors perform with a great deal of enthusiasm and dedication. All are committed to their absurd characters and never let up for a moment.

J. Chad Davis’ set is perhaps the best thing about the show. Its multi-doored, paneled look is perfect, and there are a number of clever booby traps and devices hidden throughout — things fall from the ceiling and pop out of walls; one character is even devoured by a large vase!

The music is mostly forgettable, with only one or two songs standing out, and some of them actually slowing down the action. (For example, 15 minutes are spent at the very beginning just to establish that “we’ve been invited for the weekend.”) Indeed, there’s no reason the show even needed to be a musical — though the lecherous song sung by the caretaker (Neal Barth), “Teeny Little Dingy,” is a naughty gem full of double-entendre, nearly making up for everything else.

The laughs are here, but not in abundance. The show has its moments, and the way it ends is rather daring and unusual — but overall, it’s nothing spectacular. Don’t pass up a chance to see it, but don’t knock yourself out getting there, either.

Forever Joseph: Joseph and His Amazing ‘Forever Plaid’ Dreamcoat

0

A show that mocks the most over-done shows in Utah — “Joseph and the Amazing Yada Yada Yada” and “Forever Plaid” — has the potential to be a delicious satire. And Desert Star Playhouse’s production of “Forever Joseph: Joseph and His Amazing ‘Forever Plaid’ Dreamcoat” lives up beautifully to that potential.

A witty, iconoclastic parody, “Forever Joseph” brilliantly combines the two shows. Donny Osmond (Paul Thomas Murphy, the best performer in the DSP stable), is now so caught up in his famous role that he’s actually telling people his name is Joseph. His sister Marie (Gaynl McAllister) is jealous of his career revival, and she drops him in a well in the desert, hoping to get rid of him. (You have to love a show that casts Marie Osmond as the villain.)

Enter three of the four Plaids (Kenneth Wayne, Chad Wainwright, Rick Miller). While the male-harmony group was on its way to perform a big gig, a car accident sent them to the afterlife instead. Now, the Plaids have come back and have the chance to do the one big show they never got to do in life. (That much is just like the original “Forever Plaid.”) Except one of their members, Billy Clinton (“No relation,” we’re told) didn’t make it, which leads to the best joke in the show:

“He was bad, and so he doesn’t get to perform at the Desert Star Playhouse. He has to go to the OTHER place: Hale.”

The three Plaids find Joseph in the well, and the four set out to do a show. They meet up with the governor of Utah, who performs the same function as both Potiphar and Pharaoh in “Joseph.” Only instead of being an Elvis impersonator, Governor (Scott Holman, also director and co-writer) looks and sounds like Michael Jackson. He gets the three Plaids and Joseph the jackets they want — did you ever notice that both “Joseph” and “Forever Plaid” have characters whose main goal is to get a special coat? — but they are stolen by the conniving Marie, whose show back in Branson, Mo., is flopping without Donny.

Most of the music, accompanied by the venerable David Len Allen (also a co-writer), is parodies of songs from “Joseph” and “Forever Plaid.” “Any Dream Will Do” becomes “Either Show Will Do” (as in, “If you’re a theater in Utah that wants to make money — either show will do); “Plaid’s” “Perfidia” becomes “Four Idiots”; “Those Canaan Days” is “Those Branson Days,” which Marie sings accompanied by wooden cutouts of Osmond brothers.

Murphy is great, as always, as Joseph. His too-short rendition of “Close Every Door” is a hysterical little nugget of dead-on parody. In a world where overacting is the rule, Murphy tends to be understated and sublime, and we love it.

Holman is also quite good as the Michael Jackson character. Watch him when he’s not the focus of attention is see if he’s doing something weird. I bet he is.

The night I saw the show, Julie Ann Christensen and Kaycee Raquel filled in for roles they don’t usually play, due to another cast member having pneumonia. Unless it was a brief pneumonia, you can assume these two will continue playing the roles. Christensen, in particular, is lovely as the Narrator, and Raquel played the Governor’s wife like a trouper, considering she was apparently filling in on short notice.

A few of the show’s gags fall flat — I swear, is the Desert Star ever going to stop doing Enid Greene jokes? — but when you’re swinging at everything, you’re going to strike out a few times. Most of the show is a hilarious success. What’s more, two of my viewing companions have never seen “Joseph” or “Forever Plaid,” yet they still thoroughly enjoyed this parody. Another hit for the Desert Star Playhouse.

Five on a Honeymoon

0

Ruth Hale, matriarch of the vast Hale Center Theater empire, has written numerous plays, but few so witty and unusual as “Five on a Honeymoon,” cowritten with husband Nathan and playing at the Hale Center Theater in Orem through March 29.

The show begins with a “Brady Bunch”-style theme song, and we meet the characters: Connie (Debbie Lloyd), an over-protective mom whose husband has died; Chris (Brent Whitlock), her authoritarian new husband; and her three spoiled-rotten kids Nedra (Ashley Radebaugh), Debbie (Cassandra Hill) and Junior (Verdon Walker). With a push-over mom, stern father and precocious kids, you know you’re on a collision course with wackiness!

And there is much sitcom-style goofiness going on. There’s the wacky neighbor kids Mooney (Andrew Allman) and Drag (Nathan Abbot), and a feisty old grandma (Ruth Hale her own self). Everything wraps up in a preposterously convenient manner at the end, everyone learns a Valuable Lesson, and there is much hugging all around.

What saves “Five on a Honeymoon” is that it is self-aware: The show KNOWS it’s cheesy, and revels in it. Aside from the theme song, there’s also sitcom-esque music at the beginning and end of each scene, as if to remind us, “We know that joke was lame. See, it was lame on purpose!” The show is a parody of dumb ’70s sitcoms like “The Brady Bunch” — and yet it somehow manages to BE one, too.

Of course, just acknowledging that your script is half-baked doesn’t necessarily excuse you from it. Some of the dialogue here is bad — not a parody of bad dialogue, but actual bad dialogue. Teen-ager Nedra’s hippie boyfriend Mooney says, at one point, “My little doll does as she pleases, you see?” And Nedra herself says, of step-father Chris’ nephew Johnny (Ryan Radebaugh), “He’s an Idaho yokel who leaves me cold.” Who would say that? Even in a play that is mocking lame TV shows, how could anyone talk like that?

There is much humor in this show, particularly from the outspoken grandma and the no-guff-taking Johnny (“She’s a determined little heifer, ain’t she?” he says in regards to Nedra). Those two have most of the best lines spread between them, though everyone else gets a moment or two to shine as well.

The plot is exactly what you would expect; the conflict is that Chris wants to teach his step-children the value of work, whereas Connie wants to go on raising them as lazy, selfish slobs (character traits which she turns out to possess even more than her oafish children). The kids don’t like their new dad — I counted, and Nedra says “You’re not my father,” or a variation of it, four different times — until he purchases their love via a boat and takes them on vacation. (I have only slightly over-simplified it.)

As mentioned, there is hugging at the end, everyone winds up happy, the people who are supposed to fall in love actually do, and the show ends with a recurring joke recurring yet again, with the appropriate music to punctuate it. It’s a silly, harmless show with some solid laughs and genuine entertainment value.

Victor/Victoria

0

If you’re a female singer down on your luck in 1930s Paris, the obvious thing to do is to go to gay nightclubs, pretend you’re a man, and do a killer act as a female impersonator.

At least, that’s what Victoria Grant (Toni Tennille — yes, of “Captain and Tennille”) does in “Victor/Victoria,” the national touring company of which is at the Capitol Theatre through Sunday.

Naturally, everyone who thinks she’s a man remarks on what a great job “he’s” doing impersonating a woman, and the act becomes a smashing success. (Apparently, there was a big market for female impersonators in pre-war Paris. What, weren’t there enough actual women?) Only one person knows her secret: Her gay accomplice Carroll Todd (Jamie Ross), who put her up to it as a way of earning money for both of them.

The trouble comes when Chicago Mafioso King Marchan (Dennis Cole) sees the act and doesn’t believe “Victor” is a man impersonating a woman. He thinks Victor is really a woman. He’s right, of course, but his reason for thinking it is purely selfish — he finds himself falling in love with Victor/Victoria, and he can’t accept the idea that he might be falling in love with a man. Victor has GOT to be a woman!

Victoria is equally attracted to King, but of course can’t let on because she’s supposed to be a man. Carroll seems attracted to him, too, but then, Carroll seems to be attracted to all men. In fact, the basis of his relationship with a character who eventually reveals himself to be gay is pretty much just that they’re both gay. If gays are easily offended by outrageous stereotypes — and this show plays them to the hilt — then they shouldn’t see this show.

It’s all in good fun, though, and “Victor/Victoria” is brilliantly funny. Stealing the show is King’s ditzy girlfriend Norma (Dana Lynn Mauro), a dumb blonde who manages to take the role beyond what we normally see for this type of character. There’s still no depth, but Mauro makes Norma into by far the most entertaining, hilarious character in the show. (On opening night, she received more applause at the curtain call than anyone else, including the “star” Toni Tennille.)

One noteworthy scene has about seven characters sneaking around two adjoining hotel suites, hiding from each other in closets and under beds as they try to find out information about each other. Everything is timed and choreographed perfectly, with doors opening and shutting at just the right moments. It’s an amazing sequence.

And all those doors are an indication as to what this show really is: a farce. The acting is generally broad, the characters enthusiastically flat. The show hints at a message about being yourself and accepting who you are, and there is some stuff about gender roles. But none of it really hits home. Tennille is more of a singer than an actress, though she performs well enough to keep the show afloat. (Her superb supporting cast helps tremendously, too.)

Ultimately, the show is thoroughly entertaining and fun, point or no point. Robin Wagner’s sets are lively, and Dan Mojica’s choreography is excellent. For a couple hours of goofy, far-fetched amusement, it’s hard to beat this.

Marvin’s Room

0

Provo’s Theatre Company’s “Marvin’s Room,” playing through March 20, reminds us that a good sense of humor and a strong will are needed to get through life’s challenges.

Gentle and good-hearted Bessie (Debra Shepherd) has been taking care of her bed-ridden, dying father Marvin (whom we never see) for 20 years, and her semi-senile Aunt Ruth (Ruth Allred) for about as long. She’s happy in this calling, but then life delivers a major kick in the pants: She gets leukemia. (Playwrighting 101: Cancer = instant sympathy from the audience.)

This leads to a reunion with her estranged sister Lee (Terra Allen), who has to be tested to see if she’s a match to donate bone marrow. She comes down to Florida with her two sons, the mildly sociopathic Hank (Brandon Klock), and the bookwormy Charlie (Nathan Broberg).

The result is lots of reconciliation, lots of tender moments, and a few nice laughs, too: The family — and the play — uses humor to deal with all this. The mental institution in which Hank has been staying (seems he burned the house down a while back) is referred to exclusively as the loony bin or nut house; Ruth’s electronic implant to control her back pain also occasionally causes the garage door to open; Ruth allows Marvin to think that various real people are actually hallucinations, because it’s easier than explaining who they are.

The two main reconciliations we’re supposed to notice are between Lee and Hank, and between Lee and Bessie. These do come, more or less, and they are nice. But the best scenes are between Bessie and her 18-year-old nephew Hank — whom she has never seen before. He sees her as just another authority figure at first, but he warms up to her. They have two scenes together, and both are sublimely touching.

Shepherd is initially too simple as Bessie, but she eases into the part as time goes on. Klock’s Hank is quietly rebellious and well-acted. Allen gives Lee some attitude and believable personality, and Allred plays Ruth as a ditzy, bubbly, lovable old gal.

The show has some nice moments — particularly those scenes with Shepherd and Klock — and ultimately has a gentle emotional impact on the audience. It doesn’t quite jerk any tears (although I think it’s supposed to), but you’ll remember you saw it, anyway. The pace drags at times, and the music between scenes is inexplicably unconnected to what’s going on, making it a little odd. But overall it’s a reasonably well-done, good-natured production.

Stomp

0

The national touring company of “Stomp,” performing at Kingsbury Hall through Sunday, is living proof that less is sometimes more … and sometimes it’s less, too.

“Stomp” is not a traditional theater experience. There is no storyline or dialogue, nor are there any characters. Instead, eight performers tromp around the stage using brooms, trash cans and anything else they can find — including the proverbial kitchen sink — to create percussion, rhythms and interesting sounds. It’s sort of a dance show, sort of a music show, and sort of a Pringles commercial.

The performers are E. Donisha Brown, Paulo Dos Santos, Andres Fernandez, Coralissa Gines, Jim Holdridge, Mignon A. Mason, Cameron Newlin, Ana Sofia Pomales, Matt Scanlon, Carlos “Peaches” Thomas and Dan Weiner. Only eight perform in any given show, however, and the program gives no indication which ones they are — and, with no photos in the program, we have no clue which performer is which, either.

This minimalistic show has been astoundingly popular all over the world, and there is certainly a great deal of talent exhibited in it. However, there is a great deal of talent exhibited in rebuilding a car engine, too, but that doesn’t make it entertaining to watch. Parts of “Stomp” are truly ingenious and clever, even awe-inspiring. For one number, four cast members hang from ropes and swing back and forth across a wall of odd items (pots, pans, toilet seats, etc.), banging them as they go to make distinct sounds. There is precision in the swinging, the banging and the sounds, and it’s quite impressive. Other numbers feature the sounds and rhythms of the jungle, which is highly energizing to hear. Every cast member dances and moves with great skill, and the timing of the percussion is virtually flawless.

However: An interesting idea and good talent do not a great show make. After a while, we begin to take for granted how clean the rhythms are, and we are no longer particularly impressed by it. I found myself thinking, “Great drum beat. When does the music start?” It’s like movies that expect you to love them just because they have great special effects: Great special effects are the rule now, not the exception. You can’t ride just on that. The same holds true here. Yes, the performers are talented and the rhythms are intricate and well-choreographed. But so what? There needs to be some substance.

The producers of the show realize this, to some extent. The show is only slightly over 90 minutes long, and there are attempts at humor sprinkled throughout, in the hopes of adding some variety. Unfortunately, most of the humor is self-referential, establishing the show’s format and then messing with it. (For example, a guy is shaking a box of matches to make noise, and then the matches fall out. The other cast members look at him with disdain, as if he has ruined the show. Variations on this joke abound. Get your funny bone ready! Ha-ha!)

“Stomp” has moments of grand entertainment; just not enough to sustain an entire show. Worth the $20-$37.50 that tickets cost? Only if you really, really like music created by whacking on trash.

Sports Illust-hated

0

I don’t wish to cause a mass outbreak of shock-induced coronaries and seizures, but apparently The College Times has recently been guilty of poor journalism.

I hope you were sitting down when you read that. As editor in chief of BYU’s Daily Universe, I am well-versed at discovering incidents of poor journalism — indeed, it’s how I spend a good part of my mornings — but even I was shocked and appalled to see last week’s College Times feature an article and picture on the subject of Sports Illustrated’s new swimsuit issue. I felt I should make my voice heard, especially when some College Times guy called me and asked me to.

The swimsuit issue came out last week. By now, it can be found on newsstands and under teenage boys’ mattresses everywhere. In case you are unfamiliar with this annual collection of soft-core journalism, its purpose is to acquaint the reader with the latest styles and fashions in the world of breasts. Some of the photos also feature swimsuits, though just barely. No one even pretends that the photos of mostly nude models, their wafer-thin bodies strewn around the beach like so much driftwood, are at all related to sports. You obviously couldn’t swim competitively in these outfits, and the models are clearly not athletes, unless you consider the 100-yard dash to the bathroom after a meal to be a sport. The swimsuit issue exists solely to make money for Sports Illustrated by arousing its male readership, a feat which cannot be accomplished in a normal issue, considering most of the photos are of sweaty male basketball players.

There’s no doubt the swimsuit issue is tawdry and of very little redeeming social value. But is it actually harmful? Well, no, but as any long-time resident of Utah County can tell you, whether something is harmful or not is by no means a factor in determining whether or not someone will be offended by it.

Case in point: a letter written by one Kelly Crockett and published elsewhere in this issue. Kelly Crockett was quite upset to see Sports Illustrated featured in The College Times. She lists the “Top 10 Ways Sports Illustrated Disrespects Women.” The list mentions that SI features minimal coverage of women’s sports (perhaps this is because there is a minimal EXISTENCE of women’s sports); that the swimsuit issue portrays women as mere “body parts — breasts, buttocks, and crotches” (she has omitted legs); and that the swimsuit issue is “numbing men to women’s humanity.”

I will not deny that men are pigs in general, and specifically for looking at the swimsuit issue. And certainly SI is not beyond reproach as a news organization for presenting the issue. But let’s not forget something here: No one’s putting a gun to the models’ heads. These women are, of their own volition, being paid a lot of money and flown to exotic locales so they can spend a few hours lying in the sand and having their photos used as currency in prisons for the next year. Apparently, they either like this arrangement, or else the lack of nutrients flowing to their brains has rendered them unable to think of anything better. The models are paid well, treated well, and photographed well. Many of them wind up signing less exploitative deals with legitimate companies like cosmetics manufacturers, all thanks to their appearance in SI. If anyone is demeaning women, it is the women themselves who pose in these magazines — again, no one, male or otherwise, is making them do it.

To summarize: Men are shallow because they look at the swimsuit issue. Sports Illustrated panders to the lowest common denominator by publishing it. Certain beautiful women, eager to cash in on their natural beauty, are presenting themselves as sex objects.

You had to read this column to learn all that? You need to get out more.

The Joy of Going Somewhere Definite

0

“The Joy of Going Somewhere Definite” continues Salt Lake Acting Company’s proud tradition of doing odd, interesting plays.

Written by Quincy Long as a radio play, “Somewhere Definite” retains the use of sound effects (impressively performed by David Evanoff and Melissa Gessel) while the actors pantomime their props. The stage and costumes are simple, so you could close your eyes and not miss much — the dialogue and sound effects tell you enough.

That by itself is pretty cool, though not enough to carry a show on its own. Indeed, a few of us found ourselves distracted, looking at the sound effects artists instead of the actors because we wanted to see what objects they were using to create the sounds.

Fortunately, the play is intriguing on its own merits. Three out-of-work loggers (William C. Moore, Don Glover Jr. and William Stockholm) are drunk off their butts in a bar in dead-of-winter Minnesota. They find a guy drunker than they are (Tom Vick) and decide to take the semi-conscious guy home with them. Through a series of acts fueled by alcohol and stupidity, the stranger winds up shot, half-frozen and almost dead — even though the loggers are honestly trying to help him.

They track down the guy’s wife, who has apparently left him, in a convent, where they utter some truly offensive and blasphemous profanities. (I’ve watched about 100 plays in the last 18 months, and I’ve never heard anything like this.) Marie (Kristin Louise Kahle) agrees to talk to her husband — not that he’s really capable of speech at this point — because she sees how earnestly the brain-dead loggers want to save the stranger’s marriage. In the end, things get pretty screwed-up — not in a farcical, silly way, but in a painfully real, dreary kind of way.

The main characters are drunk for 95 percent of the play, which prevents any real character development. The sole exception is Harvey Keitel look- and soundalike Raymond (William C. Moore), who winds up making a pass for the stranger’s wife and revealing a few things about his past. The lack of development doesn’t prove to be a problem, though, as we are amused by them enough to watch them, even if we don’t know who they really are.

The play is occasionally a comedy, and structured like a very dark one (accidentally shooting an unconscious man HAS to be played for laughs, or the audience will revolt). But it has serious moments, too, especially in the second act, when the theme is revealed. That theme, as best as I can figure it, is that people will go to extraordinary lengths to attain lasting peace, even though lasting peace is more or less unattainable. Cheery, no?

Not that this is a depressing play. On the contrary, it’s entertaining and interesting. You look on in bemusement, fascinated at what you’re seeing. In the end, one feels satisfied, even if one isn’t quite sure what to make of it all.

Richard III

0

When they put their minds to it, the folks at Pioneer Theatre Company can slap together a mighty fine show. William Shakespeare’s “Richard III,” playing through Feb. 27, is a triumphant addition to an already marvelous season at Utah’s premier theater.

“Richard III” is a daunting play to perform. It’s Shakespeare’s second longest, after “Hamlet” (PTC has trimmed it down a bit); it’s rather dark and moody, and not a real “crowd-pleaser”; and it has about 12,000 characters to keep track of, some of which have the same names as other characters. Furthermore, the story is not familiar to the average theater-goer like, say, “Romeo and Juliet” is.

But director Charles Morey steps up to the task admirably and leads us through the murder, intrigue, madness and more murder with expert skill.

The story: Our main character Richard (Patrick Page) is a jealous, murderous, mildly deformed wacko — a “poisonous, bunchbacked toad,” as one character perceptively calls him. He has the first lines of the play, and in those lines he informs us that he has already killed and will kill again. He kills his way to the throne of England, knocking off brothers, nephews, wives and anyone else whose death he thinks will benefit him. He lies, steals, and — did I mention this? — kills constantly. A poisonous toad indeed!

And yet, we find ourselves somehow on his side — or at least not totally against him. He pops off one-liners and has a charisma that makes him oddly likable. His slightly hunched shoulder and weak legs that cause him to take an embarrassing fall now and then make him sympathetic. Near the end, when he proclaims, “No creature loves me and if I die no soul will pity me,” we feel sorry for him. His mother’s (Libby George) declaration that he was a menace to her and all society from the moment he was born makes us realize he never was good, even though we want him to have been. We want him to be a true tragic hero — someone who was good at one point but succumbed to his “fatal flaw.” Richard’s fatal flaw was being born — and his physical handicaps suggest he couldn’t even do THAT right.

Those physical handicaps are symbolic of the handicaps upon his conscience, of course. The old maxim that “he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword” holds true here, but Morey takes it to another level. Richard uses “the sword” to get through life, figuratively leaning on it as a crutch, a way of getting what he wants. By the end, his legs give out on him completely and he is forced to use two swords as crutches — a literal representation of the way his whole life has been. Only when those crutches are knocked out from under him — literally and figuratively — can the monster be destroyed.

Page plays Richard with remarkable finesse and apparent ease. To make a madman like this a sympathetic character for any length of time requires an actor of consummate talent, and Page fits the bill nicely. His schizophrenic midnight rantings are particularly good, and by the time he’s offering his kingdom in exchange for a horse, we know he’s completely lost it. Page takes us through all of this step by step.

George’s performance as the Duchess of York, Richard’s mother, is also outstanding. The aforementioned pivotal scene between her and her problem-child son packs an emotional wallop, and George looks and sounds like she’s torn from the pages of history. Later in that same scene, Richard and Anne (Jessica Walling), the wife of one of his dead brothers, have a dialogue that is also intense, almost draining.

The performances all around are quite good, making the play surprisingly accessible. The Elizabethan English loses its meaning occasionally as some actors get too frenzied and rapid in their delivery, but for the most part, there is little difficulty following the action as long as one pays attention.

“Richard III” is not performed very often, and you’re not liable to see a better performance of it anywhere anytime soon. All the more reason not to miss this production.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

0

The Hale Centre Theatre in West Valley makes use of a fantastic stage, detailed costumes and energetic performers to make its production of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” a cut above the other 4,000 productions of that show going on this year.

You know the story by now. Based on the story in Genesis, Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber’s fluffy, light-hearted musical tells of Joseph, sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. He rises to power under the Elvis-like Pharaoh and winds up being the means of saving his now-penitent brothers from starvation. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Lloyd Webber’s tunes are catchy and lively, making this a musical that actually bears a few repeat viewings. And the large cast in West Valley sings and dances with enthusiasm and vigor, making use of every inch of the theater-in-the-round stage.

The stage, in fact, is the real star of the show. It looks like your basic turntable, except that it also raises and lowers. Furthermore, it’s divided into four wedges and a centerpiece, all of which can rise and fall independently of the others. This means any number of different levels can be created whenever necessary, and with the rotating stage, actors can be displayed to all parts of the audience without having to turn around themselves.

The Narrator (Ronica Symes) is likable and down-to-earth, adding a nice, homey feel. She begins by singing to a few children selected from the audience — a cheap trick to win the audience’s sentiment, but it’s an effective one. (Seeing children smile melts ANYONE’S heart.)

Cary Charron has a marvelous singing voice as Joseph, and he displays more acting skill than one generally sees in that role. Of the several productions of this show I’ve seen, this is the first one in which Joseph and Jacob’s reunion at the end actually has any emotional power. Charron is also less toothy and tan than many other Josephs we’ve seen, making him seem less superhero-like and more realistic.

Gordy Villarini hams it up big time as the Elvis-like Pharaoh, though his singing is largely incoherent. (Is there a rule that all “Joseph” Pharaohs have to be so intent on imitating Elvis that you can’t understand them? I’ve heard the real Elvis sing, and as I recall, he was intelligible.) Villarini even stops the music to do an extended bit with the audience, milking the Elvis thing for all it’s worth, and then some.

Kurk Davidson’s costume design is a hit, too. No corners are cut and no expenses spared in dressing everyone like whatever part they’re playing. The brothers are in full cowboy regalia in “One More Angel in Heaven,” and the go-go dancers during “Go, Go, Go, Joseph” look every bit the part, complete with plastic headpieces in lieu of wigs (a very cool touch). And of course there are loincloths aplenty.

Mearle Marsh’s orchestrations are also quite good, and a little different from the prerecorded music we’ve heard in other productions. It’s still prerecorded — where would they put an orchestra if they had one? — but it sounds crisp and original. (Believe me, once you’ve seen this show a few times, the slightest variation in the orchestration is welcome.)

Hale Centre Theatre does a few things differently, but there’s reason for them — they’re not being different just for the sake of being different. The jokes are good, the sight gags are fun (watch Benjamin try to resuscitate the innocent goat whose blood is used in the Joseph kidnapping), and the props and set pieces are entertaining.

There’s not room to mention every cast member’s name, so we’ll have to credit them as a group: They’re good. Even performers with small parts work their stage time with zeal and energy, adding up to a show that is an all-around success. (The show is double-cast; this review refers to the Monday/Wednesday/Friday peformers.) Even if you’ve seen “Joseph” before, don’t miss this one. It may go down as being the definitive production — at least until next year, when 10 more theaters do it.

Snide Farewells

0

This is the last edition of “Snide Remarks.” Festivities will commence in the BYU administrative offices within the hour.

Believe it or not, some people have not found the column very funny. I don’t deny them this right; in fact, many of the things these people write do not amuse me, either. But some of these people don’t just find the column unfunny; they find it downright offensive, so offensive that they make sure to read it every week so they can continue being offended. (You think I’m kidding about that, but I’m not.)

And often, these people write letters. Of the 67 columns I’ve written for The Daily Universe, approximately one-third have inspired angry letters, many of which appear to have been written by monkeys whacking randomly on computer keyboards. Here is some of the most pleasant and delightful hate-mail I’ve received recently.

Back in September, I told incoming freshmen that they could ignore that signs that say “Construction area; Do not enter; $300 fine.” I also mentioned that all the construction workers smoke, and that the freshmen shouldn’t be alarmed by this.

Somehow, a construction worker managed to read this column, or have it read to him, and I received an e-mail with the subject line “Don’t you have anything better to write about? You Weenie!” The e-mail read, in part:

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if someone wants to smoke it’s their own business…. We would appreciate a public apology for the remarks made in your column pertaining to the construction workers here on campus.

OK, I apologize. I’m sorry we have construction workers here on campus.

In October, I wrote my fourth semi-annual first-hand report on general conference. In this column, I gave my thoughts as I sat in the Tabernacle, watching one session. I did not make fun of general conference, nor did I make fun of any general authorities. There are people who will tell you otherwise, but trust me: I, Eric D. Snider, am the No. 1 authority on what I, Eric D. Snider, am making fun of, and I can assure you I was NOT making fun of church leaders or conference. (I will probably get even more letters now, from people who will still insist that I DID make fun of those things. I have no more patience for these people.)

Anyway, all the column was meant to show was that sometimes I, as an imperfect person, allow my mind to wander when I’m trying to pay attention to something important. But I got this e-mail, from a woman who read the column on a “Mormon humor” mailing list:

Nope, not funny. [She means the column wasn’t funny, not conference. Well, she probably didn’t think conference was funny, either.] Sounds like conference was a bore. It was inspirational for me…. I’m sorry it was only funny, or a bore for you.

I asked this woman why she was on a “Mormon humor” mailing list if she doesn’t like humor regarding Mormons, but I got no response. Her letter was typical of several I got, each more self-righteous than the last, from people who were shocked and appalled that anyone could find something so ungodly and evil as HUMOR in general conference. If only there were a way of convincing people that humor is sometimes OK, even in a religious setting! If only President Hinckley would occasionally say something funny…!

Nearly two weeks after the general conference column was published — long after the statute of limitations on getting offended had expired — the letters-to-the-editor people received an e-mail from someone who described me as “childish and apostate.” Evidently, this man has some kind of special insight into the souls of people he has not met. I am envious of this gift (but he probably already knew that).

Next: In a column about freakish roommates, I warned against people who think that having served their missions in “some exotic, backward country like Zimbabwe or Alaska” means they should force their roommates to try some of the native cuisine, even if this includes bugs. This statement upset someone from Zimbabwe, which turns out to be a real place. She wrote:

You referred to my country as backward. Maybe you thought you could get away with such a comment because you didn’t think there were any students from Zimbabwe at BYU. [Yeah, the same way I figured there wouldn’t be any students from Alaska, either.] You don’t know jack about my country so don’t call it backward and don’t insult our food.

I hope she doesn’t mean to suggest that they DON’T eat bugs in Zimbabwe, because they do. I had a roommate who served his mission there, and he was always trying to get us to eat these huge bugs, just like they did over there. I’m not saying that’s ALL they eat; I’m just saying they do occasionally eat them, perhaps only on special occasions, such as when they are starving to death. Admittedly, that’s all I know about Zimbabwe, besides that it’s in South America. If that one tidbit of information doesn’t equal jack, then I guess she’s right in her assessment that I do not know jack. Perhaps she could teach jack to me.

The next week, I mentioned how if you’re from Hawaii, you’re supposed to begin your sacrament meeting talks by saying, “Back in Hawaii, we always say, ‘Alooooooo-ha,'” and then you make the congregation scream “Aloha.” This led me to mention things that people traditionally say at the start of their talks in other places, such as South-Central Los Angeles (“Yo, yo, homeys, whassup?”). This time, the girl from Zimbabwe wrote a letter to the editor in which she went on and on about something else and then said:

I also found part of his article about sacrament talks very tasteless. Making people from Hawaii, South Central LA and Payson look stupid isn’t funny. [Counterpoint: Yes it is.] Students at BYU come from different backgrounds and cultures. We should be embracing our differences, not allowing them to be mocked by ignorant people like Eric Snider.

If I can make Hawaiians look stupid merely by suggesting that saying “Aloha” in church is silly, then I am apparently more powerful than I thought. Bow down to my awesome might!

And so I guess that’s it. Overall, writing the column has been very enjoyable, and I appreciate everyone who has read it and managed to find something amusing in it. I also appreciate the people who wouldn’t recognize “amusing” if it bit them in the butt. So much of the world is serious and dramatic; let’s not forget to notice the funny things, too, and appreciate them for the spice they add to this big pot of stew we call life.

To Eric Snyder: I love stew. How dare you make fun of it?

Class Struggle

0

In its ongoing attempt to provide an education that will be useful and practical in terms of day-to-day living, BYU has recently added several new courses to its catalog. Since “Snide Remarks” is, at its heart, a public service column — it recently won the Nobel Peace Prize, for example — I thought I’d share some of these new classes with you.

Sociology 366: “The Self-Righteous Stare.” Teaches the right time to give fellow students BYU’s patented Self-Righteous Stare: upon seeing someone purchase caffeine, upon seeing a man with facial hair, upon hearing someone admit to having seen an R-rated movie, etc. Emphasizes that prior to giving the Stare, one must already feel superior. Prerequisite: Sociology 365, “How to Feel Superior.”

P.E. 129: “Register for This Class, Get an ‘A,’ and Forget About P.E. for the Rest of Your Life.” Emphasizes the need to register for a P.E. class. Discusses various methods of registering: e.g., over the phone, with an add/drop card, etc. Attendance, studying and/or learning not required. Prerequisite: You must have a name.

Statistics 221.5: “Forgetting Everything You Learned in Statistics 221.” Once students have spent an entire semester going to Statistics 221 nine hours a week, plus doing another 10 hours of homework, it becomes necessary to take this course, designed to help students purge the frivolous and unnecessary statistics information from their brains so they can go back to thinking about other things. Focus is on talking to friends, going on dates, and watching TV. Failure to take this course may result in that useless information staying in students’ brains forever, which may result in students obtaining the only job in which a knowledge of statistics is helpful: that of a statistics teacher.

Sociology 182: “Freshman Behavior.” For beginning BYU students, this course discusses how to behave in such a way as to let everyone know that you are a freshman. Topics include: wearing high school letterman jackets, going to Garrens shows, going to Homecoming dances, walking around the library with those headphones as you take the “library tour,” wearing shorts in the winter, quoting Monty Python sketches. Prerequisite: high school, or its equivalent.

English 201: “Old, Boring Literature.” Stories and poems written several thousand years ago, featuring themes and characters so archaic one wonders if indeed they were even written by human beings. Several papers required, all of which must be at least as boring as the texts they analyze. Any ancient literature which may prove to be interesting or valuable will be skipped. Prerequisite: English 115, “How to Read.”

American Heritage 100: “What, You Didn’t Pass the A.P. Test in High School?” Focuses on things about American history that you already knew.

Theater & Media Arts 109: “Being a Theater Person.” For theater majors only. Discusses how to make every-day events such as not finding a parking space seem melodramatic; how to walk around the HFAC reciting lines and/or singing songs at full voice, hoping people will notice you; how to avoid taking any non-theater classes; how to determine the fine line between looking “cool” as you wear only thrift-store clothes, and looking “poor” as you wear only thrift-store clothes; and how to convince your spouse that he or she should get a regular job and support you because you refuse to do anything other than act for a living. Prerequisite: Theater & Media Arts 108, “Getting Attention.”

Theater & Media Arts 201: “Quoting Movies.” Helps students put lines from “Princess Bride” and “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” into their everyday vocabulary, thus enabling them to converse with other BYU students. Films such as “Tommy Boy” and the “Star Wars” trilogy are also discussed. Includes a unit on the proper time to say “Inconceivable!” with a lisp, and the ongoing debate over whether they are the Knights Who Say “Neek!” or the Knights Who Say “Nee!” Prerequisite: Communications 203, “Thinking You’re Funny Just Because You Say Something That Was Funny in a Movie.”

Communications 313: “Writing for The Daily Universe.” Explains how to write for the campus newspaper. Includes various incorrect spellings of the prophet’s name (Hinkley, Hincley, Hinkcley, Benson) for use in headlines; tips on how to write front-page “teasers” that in no way resemble the stories they are teasing; methods of making photos blurry; and guidelines on placement of stories (death of Mother Teresa: page 14. “Internet” becoming popular: page 1). Prerequisite: basic knowledge of the English alphabet (may be waived).

Forever Plaid” and “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

0

Hale Centre Theatre West Valley is doing Utah’s big sell-out shows — and you can use the term “sell-out” however you want — simultaneously.

“Forever Plaid” is being performed on weekends in the HCT Black Box Theatre, while “Joseph” is on the mainstage every night. Both shows are double-cast, so your mileage may vary.

“Forever Plaid” is the story of a fictional male-harmony group that was killed in 1964, just before they might have made the big-time. Now they’re back from the Great Beyond to do the one big show they never did in life: “Forever Plaid” is that concert, full of popular non-rock tunes from the late ’50s and early ’60s.

Casting is important for this show. It’s not enough just to have good singers: For the show to have appeal, the four guys’ personalities need to come through. The cast I saw — consisting of Sanford K. Porter, Tim Y. Jones, Andy Leger and Bart Olsen — did a fantastic job at making the production a cut above the rest.

Porter plays Frankie, the group’s leader, as a grinning but sincere game show host type. As Smudge, Jones excels at rhapsodizing over the beauty of 45s and LPs — a moment in the show that is often tossed aside as unimportant.

Usually, it is Sparky who emerges as the most memorable Plaid. Leger is great in the role, with a wide-eyed, Joey-on-“Friends” sort of innocent dumbness about him — but this time it’s Jinx who is most endearing. Olsen plays the character with a perpetually worried, soft-spoken sensitivity — I kept thinking of Charlie Brown — and his show-stopping performance in “Cry” gives the show its heart and soul.

Casting for “Joseph” is not nearly as important, at least not the way the show is usually produced. As long as the title character is handsome and toothy and everyone can sing, the rest of the responsibility falls on the flashy special effects, large-scale sight gags and as many sinewy, loincloth-clad striplings as you can fit on the stage to bring in audiences. Hale Centre’s production has all of that.

It also has above-average orchestrations (by Mearle Marsh) and vigorous choreography (by Marilyn May Montgomery, who also directed). It’s a fast-paced, almost perfunctory production, screeching to a halt only in the two usual places: Pharaoh’s Elvis impersonation that for some reason requires him to ad-lib a few Austin Powers-worthy pick-up lines to the women in the audience (“Your name must be Campbell, because you’re mm-mm-good”); and the brothers’ “Those Canaan Days,” which employs the logic that if a joke is funny when it lasts five seconds, it must be 10 times as funny when it’s dragged on for 50. There’s also an ill-conceived “Close Every Door” reprise at the end that sticks out like a sore thumb.

The theater’s amazing Technicolor revolving stage increases the show’s fluidity and impressive visual appeal. First-timers in particular will enjoy this production of what really is a delightful, high-spirited show. “Forever Plaid”: A “Joseph”: B+

Sweeney Todd

0

Stephen Sondheim’s dark masterpiece “Sweeney Todd” is not an easy show to do, but UVSC has pulled it off pretty well.

Set 150 years ago in London, the musical tells of the barber Sweeney Todd (Andrew McKee) who has just come back to town after being falsely imprisoned by the evil Judge Turpin (Mark Wilson). Seems the judge took a fancy to Sweeney’s wife and needed to get rid of hubby so he could have her to himself. Well, Sweeney’s pretty ticked off now — even moreso because his wife is dead and their daughter, Johanna (Amber Edson), is now in Turpin’s clutches.

His plan of action is to kill the judge and his sidekick, the jovial (but apparently still evil) Beadle (Cameron Cahoon) by luring them to his barbershop and then slitting their throats. But as anyone who has ever committed vengeful murders can tell you, plans tend to go awry, and this is no exception: Sweeney decides to take revenge on the entire town instead. Now, any man who wanders into the shop, Sweeney kills ’em. What’s more, he slides the bodies downstairs to Mrs. Lovett’s (Courtney Young) bakery, where they are made into meat pies.

Most of the music is in a minor key and almost tuneless; the plot is macabre; the main character is indefensibly twisted and arguably more evil than the people he sought revenge after — it’s the feel-good hit of the season! You can see why it’s difficult to make a show like this enjoyable.

But UVSC succeeds pretty well. A solid performance from McKee as Sweeney helps tremendously. The makeup makes his eyes seem hollow and sunk back into his head — he almost looks like the monster he is. But he has a winning smile, almost belying the insanity that lurks beneath and giving the character dimension. Young’s Mrs. Lovett is wonderful, giving the show life, variety and a little comic relief. Sweeney and Lovett have a marvelous chemistry together as she initially goads him on and then tries gamely to bring him back from the brink of disaster.

Edson’s Johanna and Joseph Stone’s Anthony (Johanna’s suitor) have fabulous singing voices and make their subplot — the only glimmer of hope in the show — stand out.

The main problem with the production is sound. The actors aren’t miked, and they are often drowned out by the 10-piece orchestra (led admirably by Sean Jackson). In a show that is almost all singing, and much of it intricately rhymed, we need to be able to hear every word.

The show is not for everyone, perhaps. The man behind me at Saturday’s performance said it was “morbid” (he said this in a regular speaking voice, by the way, and several times throughout the show, which made me wonder if he was raised in a place — perhaps on a foreign planet — where talking out loud during a theater production is acceptable). Morbid may not be the right word, but it is a little disturbing (although, frankly, I was more bothered by the guy behind me talking incessantly than I was by the play’s content).

But ultimately, the dark themes are necessary to make the point: that revenge and hate can consume a person. It’s a powerful message, and one that can only be driven home effectively through extreme measures. “Sweeney Todd” does have its fun, light moments — watch Sweeney sing sweetly about Johanna’s beauty as he slits men’s throats, for example — and it’s not oppressively dreary. It’s an enjoyable theater experience, performed well by the UVSC cast.

Requiem for a Hyundai

0

Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to inform you that Pedro is dead.

Pedro was my 1987 Hyundai Excel whose passenger door only opened from the outside and whose hood was horribly disfigured as a result of an accident that occurred prior to my owning it, and also as a result of my doing somersaults over it as a means of impressing the easily impressed.

In the 2 1/2 years I owned him, Pedro provided me with good, reliable service for a total of about 10 minutes. Actually, he may have run well for longer than that. Perhaps he performed properly for the auto mechanics who, in a bizarre automotive joint-custody situation, had possession of him 11 months out of the year.

It may comfort you to know that Pedro died quietly in his sleep. Unfortunately, he fell asleep while I was driving him. I was on the freeway when Pedro suddenly stopped making any noise, and despite my heartfelt cursings and beatings, he refused to start again. I knew without even looking that whatever was wrong, I couldn’t fix it, so I set out on foot in search of a working pay phone. (Finding a pay phone is easy. Finding a WORKING one, well, that’s something else.)

I found a phone, deposited a quarter and dialed the number to my apartment. Then the phone told me I had to deposit another dollar. This is because I was in Orem, and my phone number in Provo started with the new 812- prefix that was all the rage at that time, and the phone didn’t recognize it yet. It thought 812- was long-distance. (What a stupid phone.)

So I hung up, but the phone refused to give me my money back. This caused a great rumbling of anger to boil up in me, and I called the operator to ask for a free call. This she gave me — but there was no one home at my apartment. So I thought I’d try one of my friends. Not thinking, I put in a quarter and tried to dial. The phone not only didn’t connect the call, it also didn’t give me my money back. And this was all the cash I had. I can say with great confidence that I was now more angry than anyone has ever been in the history of the world. No longer caring the repercussions, I began to beat on the phone with the receiver, hoping to break something, anything. Snapping my wrist in two with the force of my beatings would have been sufficient. I just wanted there to be breakage.

Well, nothing broke. They make those pay phones pretty sturdy, and my wrists are thick and meaty. In retrospect, I can understand why the phone didn’t break. I mean, if you’re going to manufacture non-working pay phones, it stands to reason that you’re going to make them strong enough to withstand the fury that will surely come each time someone tries to use them. Otherwise, they’d all be broken after one day.

After I’d exhausted myself trying to destroy the phone, I walked a small distance to UVSC, in the hopes that they not only had telephones — they just got electricity last spring, after all — but that they had a courtesy phone, too. As luck would have it, there was a courtesy phone (a push-button one, even!), and I was successfully picked up by a friend.

Once I got home, I called a tow truck. Naturally, I had neglected to leave the keys in the car, which meant I had to go back out there again and meet the tow truck guy. We arranged a meeting, and I told him to tow Pedro back to a mechanic’s place right across the street from my apartment. (This is so I can look out my bedroom window and make sure they’re actually working on the car, as opposed to just sitting on the hood, smoking. This is what they usually mean when you call and they say, “I have two of my best men on it right now.” They mean there are two guys literally ON your car, listening to country music on your radio.)

The tow truck got there faster than I did, and by the time I arrived, the mechanic and tow truck guy had already determined that Pedro was not worth saving. Seems he had been burning oil — and who among us hasn’t done that at one point or another? — and once he had burned up all his oil, his engine had seized up. It was the automotive equivalent of a massive coronary. The only way to fix Pedro would have been to give him a new engine, which would have cost more than he and I were worth put together.

So the tow truck guy and I pushed the dead Pedro across the street to my apartment complex’s parking lot, where he sat, decomposing, for a good two months while I figured out what to do with him. All the wrecking yards I called wouldn’t pay more than $25 for him, and I didn’t figure it was worth $25 to have to sit around all day waiting for a guy to show up to haul my piece of junk away. So I considered pushing Pedro into a BYU parking lot and letting BYU tow him off. Then, when the towing yard called to say they had my car, I would just tell them to keep it, like a wealthy philanthropist. But I figured rather than towing it, BYU would probably just give me 10,000 tickets. Even after the car had sat there for weeks and weeks, the BYU traffic “officers” would keep piling more tickets on. Some of them would probably make it part of their daily rounds to stop by and give Pedro another ticket. Then they would walk away, whistling, thinking they were doing such a marvelous service, as they headed up to the Wilkinson Center to ignore all the cars parked in the red zones and give tickets to the ones that had been parked for 16 minutes in the 15-minute zones.

And besides, there were no BYU lots close enough to push the car to. Then we got word that my apartment complex was going to pave the lot across the street from us. They sent around a notice that any car left in that lot during this certain week would be … TOWED. My friends and I, under cover of darkness, pushed Pedro across the street to that lot and left him there. He was eventually towed, and now I imagine he has been recycled — reborn, if you will — perhaps this time as a good car, or maybe a can of tuna.

So let us not mourn the passing of Pedro. Let us remember instead that he was a piece of junk, and that we got him for free from our parents in the first place, and that we have replaced him with a brand-new car on which we will be making payments well into the 22nd century, and which is already having engine trouble. Then let us wish we could just buy a bicycle.


 

[ This column, which you’ll notice is not terribly funny, was written out of necessity more than anything else. Pedro died in July 1998 — six months before this column — but people who read the old columns about him would occasionally e-mail me and send their regards to him (what, I’m a message service for my freakin’ car?). It was awkward to have to explain to everyone that Pedro didn’t exist anymore, so I figured this column would get the word out.
UVSC was Utah Valley State College. (I wrote a song about it.) It’s the “other” college in the Provo area, constantly (and deservedly) living in the shadow of BYU. It used to be a technical school; then it became Utah Valley Community College; here it had been a state college for a few years; and then it achieved its final form as Utah Valley University. The perception was that it’s easy to get into UVSC, that classes were simple, and that it was only a school for BYU rejects. As with most stereotypes, many of these perceptions were quite accurate, and UVSC was the butt of many a joke back in the day, less so now that it’s a semi-legit university. ]

A Man for All Seasons

0

BYU Theatre, on a seemingly unstoppable winning streak this year, has scored again with “A Man for All Seasons,” playing through Feb. 6 in the Margetts Theatre.

Director David Morgan has compiled a marvelous cast with not a weak link in it, and the play — despite being extremely dialogue- and message-heavy — moves along briskly, almost lightly.

It is the 1520s, and King Henry VIII (Chris Clark) is no longer satisfied with his wife Catherine. He wants to dump her and marry Anne Boleyn (whom, history will show, he later beheaded anyway), but the Catholic church won’t let him. So he has begun spreading the word that his marriage is not valid in the eyes of God anyway, citing a Bible verse that makes it wrong to marry your brother’s widow, which Catherine was. And if the Pope won’t let him divorce her, and forces him to stay in this “sham” marriage, then the Pope must be off his rocker, which means the king is under no obligation to follow him, which means he is free to start his own church — the Church of England, as it came to be known.

Enter Sir Thomas More (James Claflin), the king’s new chancellor and friend. More is the most moral and upright of men, a truly good-hearted individual who even allows his daughter to marry a Lutheran, despite his own personal allegiance to the church of Rome. He is a cautious man, avoiding even the appearance of disloyalty or disobedience.

So when the king wants to know More’s opinion on this whole “Church of England” thing, it gets messy. Actually, the king knows his opinion — everyone does, just by inference — but More has been careful not to SAY it. As long as he doesn’t, he’s safe from treason charges. He won’t even tell his loving, long-suffering wife (Tavya Patch) or his loving, long-suffering daughter (Emmelyn Thayer), just in case the king hauls them in and forces them, under oath, to say what they know: If they don’t know how More feels, then they can’t tell anyone.

For this silence — and for his refusal to sign a loyalty oath (and, more maddeningly, to even say WHY he won’t sign it) — More is cast in prison by the scheming Cromwell (Scott Christopher). And yet he never backs down from his principles. This is frustrating at times, as we wonder if it’s really worth it all. As he is in prison, his family is starving. Where do you draw the line? Does loyalty to God always override loyalty to family? These questions are not completely answered, and that’s the point. “A Man for All Seasons” is written like an ethics textbook case study (in fact, it WAS a case study in the ethics class I took), and there are no right or wrong answers. What is right for More isn’t necessarily right for everyone else — the point, ultimately, is to obey your conscience.

James Claflin is fantastic as Thomas More. The character never fails to be believable and genuine, with just a hint of enigmatic charm. Chris Clark has very little stage time as the king, but he makes that time count, rocking the theater with the charisma, energy and wit that have become his trademark as an actor. His scene with More is the moment at which the audience becomes hooked, and the play never lets up from there.

Ryan Rauzon is solid as More’s son-in-law Roper, and Chris Kendrick — another excellent local theater personality — is dignified as always in his portrayal of Chapuys, a Spanish dignitary who also seeks to know More’s mind.

Tavya Patch and Emmelyn Thayer wind up with little to do as More’s family — until the jail scene, when they bring forth a whole play’s worth of emotion. Watch as More’s wife (Patch) is whisked away, and we realize he will probably never see her again. Watch his forced cheerfulness as he says, “Goodbye, my love” as she is sobbing, being pulled away by the jailor. That one devastating moment works powerfully because of the superb acting skills of those two performers — skills that run through the entire cast.

The play’s ending is not entirely happy, but it doesn’t seem sad, either — and I guess that’s the point. A man standing up for his beliefs is admirable, noble and magnificent, never sad or pathetic. The idea of such dedication to one’s own morals almost seems quaint in this day and age, but “A Man for All Seasons” makes it sound like a good idea again.

Life’s Little Competitions

0

I am not a competitive person. I don’t even like to play Solitaire on the computer, because I feel like the cards are mocking me when I lose. Also, the very name “Solitaire” implies that it is a pastime for lonely people. This is for people who can’t even get someone to play a GAME with them, never mind go out with them or get married to them. Really, even if you win at Solitaire, you’re still a loser.

Anyway, I’m not into competition or sports. They just don’t appeal to me. In fact, I was kind of hoping the NBA lockout would never end — not because I dislike basketball, but because I was amused at the prospect of Utahns having to find something ELSE to care about. Maybe some of them would have found religion.

As with most things I don’t care much for, my lack of interest in sports is largely because I don’t understand them. Take these “extreme sports,” for example. I was recently watching ESPN-2 (“Where We Make the Little Quote Marks with Our Fingers When We Say ‘Sports'”) and I saw a show called “Extreme Bloopers.” It was 30 minutes of people injuring themselves, usually by falling off a bicycle and landing crotch-first on a railing. (Why are we so amused by people hurting their crotches? Do you realize that if it were not for this fascination, “America’s Funniest Home Videos” never would have existed, and Bob Saget would have faded into oblivion much, much sooner than he did? Do you realize that YOU’RE responsible for that? You kids today, with your crotches…!)

Anyway, while I enjoy watching people get hurt as much as the next guy, I was perplexed by these “extreme sports,” and even more perplexed by the “bloopers” that arose from them. Most of these activities were things that I can’t imagine anyone doing WITHOUT getting hurt. One event had guys riding bicycles on snow. How dumb is that? I assume they rode bicycles only because they had not yet learned to ride unicycles, and that they rode on snow only because there were no icebergs nearby.

And those bicyclists on those ramps and railings. I realize the railings facilitate the coolest-looking stunts, but any man will tell you that a railing is the LAST thing you want to have around when you come tumbling off your bike. You want a huge cushion of pillows and marshmallows, not a steel bar, which happens to be the object in the universe that crotches are most irresistibly attracted to. You send a guy hurtling out of control, and nine times out of 10, he’ll wind up running smack into a steel bar.

But I have digressed from my point, which I have forgotten anyway. Oh, yes. Competition. Many of us, even here at kind and gentle BYU, are competitive. Some people have become so competitive, in fact, that they have incorporated little contests into their everyday lives. In the short space I have here, I will address one such contest: The one to see who can walk the slowest.

I apparently missed the day when this contest was officially begun, but as near as I can figure, it involves walking as slow as you possibly can, especially between classes and in crowded areas. And guys, I hate to say it, but the girls are beating the pants off us in this contest. Walk through a heavy-traffic area of the bookstore any time of the day, and you will surely see the following: two girls sipping Zuka Juices (Zuka: Swahili for “vile combinations of fruit juices that you could mix in your own sink or toilet for one-tenth the price”), walking side-by-side (so no one can pass them, naturally) at a pace that indicates they have NO place to be, EVER. These are people who, judging by the rate at which they are casually strolling, would apparently be content to wander around the bookstore FOREVER, sipping their Zuka Juices and talking about “Party of Five.”

One tactic that has been used frequently by people trying to win the slow-walking contest is to stop walking altogether, right in the middle of a crowded sidewalk. Sometimes this is done because two guys have not seen each other since “the mission” (or “the mish,” as it is sometimes called by people who think it’s cool to call it that). You can identify them because they call each other by their last names and because they do that fake man-hug, which is really just putting your arms around the other guy and smacking him hard enough to fracture his vertebrae, because we all know that an actual HUG would be, like, the gayest thing you could ever do.

The other time you see people stop in the middle of pedestrian traffic is when two girls feel a need to talk to each other. This is a bit tricky, because scientists have not yet identified a time when girls DON’T need to talk to each other. You could take two girls at random — even ones who don’t know each other, or who speak different languages — and they would find something to talk about. (Or, rather, they would find words to say. “Something to talk about” might be stretching it a bit.)

I feel that stopping as a means of winning the slow-walking contest should be against the rules, and that anyone who does it should not only be disqualified, but shot. Maybe we could make the shootings a game — for example, if they can escape our crack team of sharp-shooters, they can go free. That would get ’em movin’.

Of Mice and Men

0

I’m not sure what possessed Carlisle Floyd to write an opera version of John Steinbeck’s “Of Mice and Men,” but the result, while awkward in a few places, is nonetheless mostly effective and satisfying.

Being staged through this weekend by the Utah Opera at the Capitol Theatre, “Of Mice and Men” stays scrupulously close to the book on which it is based; there are no deviations from the plot with which you are no doubt at least vaguely familiar already. George (Stephen Bryant) and his gentle-giant friend Lennie (Michael Hendrick) are running, having lost another farm-hand job due to Lennie’s not knowing his own strength. Seems poor Lennie is often killing things accidentally, simply because he pets them and squeezes them too hard, and people have a difficult time with that.

All Lennie and George want is to buy a little farm together and live out the American Dream (albeit without wives or children). Lennie wants to pet the rabbits, and George wants to relax for the rest of his days in an idyllic setting. It’s a pleasant dream, and one that they’re fixed on. As life becomes dreary — and this opera is intentionally, powerfully dreary almost with reprieve from beginning to end — their dream of their little farm brings Lennie and George happiness.

The two find jobs at a ranch owned by the grouchy Curley (Michael Myers), who enjoys ignoring his sympathetically trashy wife (Diane Alexander) and berating his hired help. Trouble begins when Curley picks a fight with Lennie, which ends in Lennie crushing Curley’s hand like a potato chip. Trouble continues when Curley’s Wife (that’s the character’s official name) decides to leave her suffocatingly boring life on the ranch and head out to Hollywood to be a star, except she stops to let Lennie touch her soft hair, and somehow her neck winds up broken.

And that’s when it gets really sad. The entire show is grim and desolate, right down to the sets and costumes. (Even the dresses worn by Curley’s Wife, while rather colorful, seem muted and desperate.) The music fits the atmosphere — or, perhaps, the music CAUSES the atmosphere — filling our ears with jarring chords, odd rhythms, and dissonant sounds. At no point will you tap your toes, nor will you walk out humming anything. In fact, there really aren’t even any “songs,” much less any arias, in the opera — it’s all one long continuous piece of music. And it’s all dreary.

No one has any hope. In fact, fellow farm-hand Slim (Jeffrey Buchanan) encourages George NOT to have hope, because every farm-hand has the same dream, and it never comes true. Still, George is adamant, insisting he and Lennie will be different.

Nonetheless, the two characters who show the most hope — Curley’s Wife (when she decides to leave) and Lennie — are the two who wind up destroyed, never realizing their dreams.

Or maybe it’s the opposite. Maybe the only way to actually get what they hope for is to leave this desolate, awful world. Indeed, as George describes the mythical farm to Lennie one last time, and Lennie finally “sees” it, that’s when the music finally stops being intentionally ugly and becomes beautiful. In his mind, Lennie is truly there at the farm, finally at peace with himself and the world, and finally out of trouble once and for all.

The story is a powerful one anyway, of course — the popularity of the novel and the two movies based on it bear that up — but the addition of music heightens it. The themes of hope and hopelessness are pinpointed, and the tale is as effective is it was in print.

It is occasionally awkward to hear the characters sing about ordinary, mundane things — we’re used to operas being about fantastic, fairy-tale subjects, not everyday things like this — but only in passing. In the end, the story is rich and lovely, and the performances outstanding.

Hamlet: This Ain’t Exactly Shakespeare

0

Usually, when I recommend a show at Murray’s Desert Star Playhouse, it’s with a disclaimer: “See this show if you don’t mind some eye-rollingly bad jokes and if you want a silly, sort-of funny evening out with the family.” I’ve seen the last 12 shows there, and while we generally enjoy them, we also recognize that we’re not usually talking about cutting-edge comedy here.

But with the current show — “Hamlet: This Ain’t Exactly Shakespeare” — I can recommend it without reservation: This is a funny show. Not funny in a dumb way (though there is a little of that), and not funny in a you-don’t-get-out-much-do-you? way (though there is a little of that), but deliciously, uproariously, even intelligently FUNNY. It is hands-down the best of the last 12 shows at this theater.

The show opens with a bang, as Jamie Victor belts out a fantastic parody of “On Broadway” (“In Denmark”) in which she brings us up to speed on what’s going on: Prince Hamlet’s father has died, and his brother (Hamlet’s uncle) has married the queen. Hamlet (Paul Thomas Murphy) is upset by this, and he soon learns, thanks to a visit from his father’s ghost, that the new king, Pernicious (Ben E. Millet) — it’s Claudius in Shakespeare’s version — was responsible for the old king’s death. Hamlet vows revenge and gets into an even deeper funk.

So far, the plot is pretty close to the original. This being the Desert Star Playhouse, though, our heroes need to be black-and-white, with no gray areas. So Hamlet can’t kill Boloneus (Gordon Johnson) (I know, it used to be Polonius), even in a fit of rage. Instead, Pernicious the Bad Guy does it and frames Hamlet. Also in this version, Ophelia (Julie Ann Christensen) doesn’t die, nor does Queen Gertrude (Lynda Robyns), nor does Hamlet. And the ending is definitely a happy one, complete with a group hug — quite a departure from the death-filled Shakespeare. (The show freely admits its alterations in the closing number, “All’s Well That Ends Well.”)

The show is full of non-stop laughs, thanks largely to Murphy’s performance as Hamlet. He is understated, almost subtle — rather unusual for the broad Desert Star — and his expression indicates he knows as well as we do that the show is nuts.

Assisting him tremendously is Scott Holman, who plays Horatio. The two make a great comic duo, especially in the hysterical graveyard scene involving Yorick’s skull — one of the funniest single scenes I’ve ever watched.

And though her character is somewhat in the background, Jamie Victor’s Helga — the minstrel who comes to sing for the royal court (instead of the full acting troupe in Shakespeare’s version) — is delightfully funny. Victor has a huge lunatic grin on her face much of the time, and she’s got more energy than an atom bomb. Watching her bounce around is sheer joy.

As mentioned, there are some typical Desert Star-style jokes here, the kind where they walk up to you and smack you in the face with them. To wit: “You can trust me. I’m as trustworthy as the president of the United States!” (Get it?!) But there are also some legitimately clever parts — many of them, in fact. Like this exchange, dealing with an air-headed character: “I’ve never been so insulted!” “Sure you have, you just didn’t get it.” Or the song sung just before intermission, to the tune of “That’s Entertainment”: “Make a call on your cellular phone/Move your car from the handicap zone,” etc.

In all, “Hamlet: This Ain’t Exactly Shakespeare” is fast-paced, loopy fun, full of energy and zeal and one joke after another. You don’t have to know the original show to appreciate this parody; all you need is a sense of humor. They don’t come much funnier than this.

Season’s Bleatings

0

Christmas is a time of giving, a time of sharing, and a time of fudge. But it is also a time of quandaries and dilemmas. Christmas this year with my family was no exception, as we had our fair share of difficult decisions to make. I would like to share some of them with you here.

(Perhaps you’re asking why I’m talking about Christmas now, as opposed to last month, when it was still the Christmas season. To this I merrily respond: Shut up! Who asked you?)

My Christmas dilemmas, as jotted down during a part of the Christmas break when I felt particularly grouchy:

The dilemma over whether I should go to the mall. As I write this, I’m home for Christmas, and I still need a couple things. But it’s Dec. 23, and the LAST place I want to be at this point in the calendar is a Southern California mall. Lake Elsinore, Calif., doesn’t even have a real mall. It’s an “outlet center.” Outlet centers are just like malls, except all the stores are conveniently NOT located all together inside one huge building — which means that you not only get pushed and shoved while walking from one store to another, but you get rained on, too. Also, outlet centers are more expensive than malls, which is something I never conceived as being possible. Also, there’s no Santa Claus at outlet centers, nor any other thing even remotely symbolizing goodness, charity or kindness. Plenty of fat people, sure, and many of them with beards, but no Santa.

Here in Lake Elsinore, Calif., we are very proud of our outlet center (by “we” I of course mean “not me”). Since the rodeo moved out of town, it’s the closest thing we have to cultural refinement. People come from miles around to shop here, I guess because it’s trendy. Certainly not because of the low prices or the absence of white trash, that’s for sure.

The dilemma over who, at Christmas dinner, will have to sit next to the uncle who has stopped showering. I am not making this uncle up. He exists, and he stopped showering a while back. (Perhaps it goes without saying that he has stopped shaving as well.) Things kind of went south for him, and now he’s decided to stop showering. Well, I don’t know if he “decided.” Maybe it wasn’t a conscious decision. Maybe it just got away from him for a few days, and then he fell out of the habit, the way people stop jogging, or keeping a diary: “Oh, I really should start showering again. I was very devoted to it for 35 years or so, and then I got side-tracked, and whoops! Now I smell like a goat.” Whatever the case, it’s sort of sad, but it’s more funny, and it’s even more gross. I mean, he doesn’t shower. That’s, like, one of the most basic things we as humans do. At Thanksgiving, the rule was that whoever was not technically part of the family — for example, the fiancees — had to sit by him, but I doubt the fiancees will put up with that this time around.

The dilemma over whether to actually read the Christmas family newsletters we get in the mail, or just deposit them directly in the trash. You know these things? You get them from people you never hear from the rest of the year, and with good reason: You don’t care about them. Then they send out these long-winded form letters detailing all the family members’ so-called achievements for the year (“Bethany plays soccer!” “McKay is in Webelos!”), hastily wish you and yours a merry Christmas and a happy New Year, and then get back to their lives. And to all this I say: Who cares? I mean, who really cares? If we were interested to know how young Brandon did in the pinewood derby, we would have been in touch back in May, when it happened. The fact that we didn’t send a card when Tammy graduated from Primary should be an indication to you that Tammy’s age-based accomplishments don’t mean much to us.

The dilemma over Christmas commercials I don’t like. I am a big fan of Santa Claus, and I mean the REAL Santa Claus: the fat guy who lives at the North Pole and makes toys. I do NOT mean the guy who is shown on TV commercials getting in shape, riding a motorized sleigh, talking on cell phones, or shopping at Radio Shack.

I also don’t like Christmas commercials in which religious Christmas songs such as “Silent Night” are turned into rock ‘n’ roll songs. Are we still supposed to think this is clever or cool, that someone has managed to write a rock arrangement of a Christmas song? Because it’s not impressive anymore. “Silent Night” has exactly three chords in it, as do most rock songs. All you have to do is convert it to 4/4 time, play it with an electric guitar, and bam! There’s your blasphemy.

Don’t get me wrong. It’s not the idea of playing a religious song in a rock setting that bothers me; I don’t think any genres of music are necessarily the “wrong” way to express religious sentiment. But these commercials always use the religious music but ignore the religious message. They use the music to represent generic “Christmas feelings,” and, what’s worse, they use it to sell things. I was shocked and appalled a few weeks ago to hear a rock version of “Silent Night,” which made me start thinking of the lyrics — which are about the baby Jesus and the angels that sang and the peace and salvation that were now on earth — and then realizing the song was being used in a commercial for a fitness club. I highly doubt the ad people WANTED me to think about Jesus when they played the music. They just wanted me to think about Christmas, and about how cool this gym must be for playing such a “hip” version of a sacred and meaningful holiday treasure. Franz Gruber, who wrote the song, would be rolling in his grave. In fact, at the resurrection, I hope he comes up throwing punches at the dozens of godless morons who deface his song year after year. Then I hope all those insensitive advertising jerks spend a few eons in Hades, where they are forced to listen to the version of “Jingle Bells” in which dogs are barking the melody. (I am certain that whoever recorded that song will also be there.)

Dilemmas, schmilemmas. I feel a lot better now.

Slime and Punishment

0

I’ve been working on my sympathy lately. This is because I’ve occasionally been accused of being insensitive and heartless by certain people upon whom I will wreak horrible, deadly vengeance as soon as I get around to it.

There are a lot of people to have sympathy for these days. Just over Christmas break, in fact, we bombed the crud out of Baghdad; Clinton got impeached by the House; and those two BYU football players got suspended, one of them eventually expelled. Unfortunately, the only ones I can work up any sympathy for are the football players.

See, with Hussein, it’s just hard to feel sorry for the guy. I mean, he’s misbehaved for as long as we’ve known him. No one has ever trusted him. He has lied to the world countless times, and the only question is, Why did it take so long for him to be punished? Oh, wait. Sorry. Replace the word “Hussein” with the word “Clinton.”

Hasn’t this guy always seemed like a weasel? He’s got that sleazy “trust me” voice, like a used-car salesman, or a politician. And he’s apparently used his high political standing to gain personal satisfaction. Proof: What woman would sleep with him if he weren’t powerful? He’s fat as a house, he’s not handsome, and he’s full of crap. If he weren’t the governor of Arkansas or president of the United States, he’d be living in a trailer park, drinking beer and watching “Cops.” In fact, I don’t think his sexual dalliances are nearly as disturbing as the lack of taste demonstrated by the women he’s slept with. At least JFK — the other lousy president who had a lot of affairs — was kind of classy.

Many of the commentators have tried to excuse Clinton’s adultery by saying that ALL U.S. presidents have had affairs. I find this excuse flimsy because 1) even if it’s true, that doesn’t make it right, and 2) my brain automatically rejects the notion anyway because of some of the images that accompany it. (Are you aware that William Howard Taft weighed over 300 pounds?)

So I can’t really feel sorry for Clinton. I feel bad for his wife and daughter, both of whom seem genuine and dignified. I feel bad for the American people for having to put up with him (although, I hasten to remind you, it’s not like a bunch of aliens flew in and elected him) (twice). But he kind of brought all this on himself, you know? He made his bed and now he has to lie in it, not that lying has ever been a problem for him.

And Hussein — do we even NEED to feel sorry for him? He certainly doesn’t invite sympathy. Even after we bombed the dickens out of his city, he was telling the Iraqis that THEY were victorious. That’s like LaVell Edwards telling the football team they won the Liberty Bowl.

Which brings me to those two football players, who, as I mentioned, are the only ones I feel sorry for. In case you missed it, they were suspended from school due to Honor Code infractions, and they weren’t allowed to play in the Liberty Bowl (not that it would have mattered). One of them was ultimately expelled from BYU. And the reason I feel sorry for them, and not for Clinton or Hussein, is that the football players never denied doing anything wrong. They received their punishment, they accepted it, and they seem genuinely sorry. Clinton and Hussein both have serious difficulty even admitting they’ve done something wrong, let alone show remorse for it. Sure, Clinton has apologized something like 8,000 times in the past few months — but that was only after he spent six months denying he had done anything. (“I didn’t do anything wrong. And for what I did wrong, I’m sorry.”)

Ironically, if the football players HAD denied any wrong-doing, we probably would have believed them. After all, it was the Honor Code Office punishing them, and we all know that mere innocence does not necessarily protect you from being punished by the Honor Code Office. No, the important thing there is that someone has TOLD the Honor Code Office you’ve done something wrong. Whether or not you actually did it is irrelevant. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies only in America, after all, not here. (The same goes for the principle of “you have the right to face your accuser, or at least know who he or she is.”)

[In an effort to appease some faculty members and get the column published, the preceding paragraph was modified to read as follows. Note that a couple things in this second version are more clear, not that it helped…:]

Ironically, if the football players HAD denied any wrong-doing, we probably would have believed them. After all, we’re dealing with the Honor Code Office here, and most students are aware that just because the Honor Code Office punishes you for doing something doesn’t mean you actually did it. The important thing is that someone TOLD the Honor Code Office you did it. Whether it’s true or not is irrelevant. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies only in America, after all, not here. (The same goes for the principle of “you have the right to face your accuser, or at least know who he or she is.”)

HONOR CODE OFFICE: A person whose name we’re not going to tell you has informed us that you were smoking crack on your apartment’s balcony.
STUDENT: My apartment doesn’t even HAVE a balcony!
HONOR CODE OFFICE: Oh, right, like we’re going to believe a crack-smoker. Where were you smoking the crack, then?
STUDENT: I’ve never smoked crack.
HONOR CODE OFFICE: Don’t play games with us. You’re obviously a crack-smoker. We can tell by the way you’re lying when you say you’re not a crack-smoker.

It occurs to me now that rather than having Ken Starr investigate Clinton, we should have had the Honor Code Office do it. Compared to them, Ken Starr seems underzealous.

HONOR CODE OFFICE: Mr. President, we’ve been told that you had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
CLINTON: Well, not exactly….
HONOR CODE OFFICE: And since you did, that means you must have been lying when you said you didn’t.
CLINTON: I didn’t really lie….
HONOR CODE OFFICE: So you’re lying now?
CLINTON: No, I’m just saying —
HONOR CODE OFFICE: Stop lying.
CLINTON: I’m not lying.
HONOR CODE OFFICE: What you’re saying goes against what we already think. Therefore, you must be lying.
CLINTON: You’re right. I’m lying.
HONOR CODE OFFICE: Yes, but only because we say you are.

An American Daughter

0

Thanks to a bit of cosmic luck, Pioneer Theatre Company’s production of Wendy Wasserstein’s “An American Daughter” is opening at a time when some of its main plot elements seem to be torn from today’s headlines.

Smart and solidly liberal Lyssa Dent Hughes (Joyce Cohen) has been nominated by the president to be the new Surgeon General. All she needs now is the confirmation. Before that can happen, though, as a vacuous TV news reporter follows her around for a fluff piece, it comes out that she once semi-inadvertently skipped out on jury duty. She also makes a couple of remarks that, out of context, sound like she’s ripping on stay-at-home moms and old-fashioned, “traditional” families.

If there’s any phrase that clearly bespeaks the tone of the 1990s, it’s “media frenzy,” and that’s what ensues after the breaking of “Jurygate.” Friends and family are called upon to stick up for Lyssa, and she agrees to do a follow-up interview to try to set the record straight — with mixed results.

Surely the ways in which this plot seems real need not be explained. But ultimately, the play is not about media hype and sensationalistic journalism (which is nice, because those things have been done to death). It’s about the point in one’s life when you think, “What have I DONE with myself?” Nearly everyone in the play, to some extent, struggles with this question. Lyssa begins to wonder if she’s accomplished everything she thought she had. Her best friend, African-American-Jewish Judith Kaufman (Angela Bullock), despises men but wants a baby — and is distraught at being unsuccessful at it. Lyssa’s husband Walter (Geoffrey Wade), thanks to an astonishingly, jaw-droppingly stupid maneuver, may have irreparably damaged his marriage. Lyssa’s father, conservative Sen. Alan Hughes (Robert Peterson), has just gotten married for the fourth time.

Is anyone satisfied? Many of them have the things that seem like they SHOULD guarantee happiness — social and political success, families, careers, money, etc. — but still they wonder what they’ve really accomplished.

“An American Daughter” is a grown-up play, where kids are heard and not seen. There is humor, but it is intellectual and not silly (the delightfully gay Morrow McCarthy (Chris Mixon) tells a bitter Judith: “Your non-practicing heterosexuality is eliminating your joie de vivre“). The script is smashingly intelligent, without seeming snooty — much like the characters themselves. No broad strokes with these people: Even the vacuous TV guy (Ron Nummi) and the flamboyant homosexual have some real edges on them, not two-dimensional cut-outs like you’d see in a more wacky comedy. This is a smart, thought-provoking play.

A Christmas Carol Part II

0

At the end of “A Christmas Carol,” we are told that Scrooge has changed his miserly ways, and we are left to assume that Bob Cratchit will forgive him for all the years of mistreatment. But what if it’s not that easy? “A Christmas Carol Part II,” the Road Show-style lump of silliness going on at Salt Lake’s Off Broadway Theatre through Jan. 2, explores those very issues.

Written by Bob Bedore, who also plays Bob Cratchit, “Part II” takes place a year after the story we’re familiar with. Scrooge (Eric Jensen) has indeed changed — but not necessarily for the better. Instead of being stingy, he now gives money to everyone who asks for it, including swindlers and con-artists. All you have to do is mention ghosts and chains, and Scrooge will be frightened into giving you whatever you want. He’s gullible and naive now, and everyone’s taking advantage of him.

Taking the most advantage of him is good ol’ Cratchit. Seems he’s still pretty bitter about all the meanness he got from Scrooge all that time, and he’s not about to forgive and forget. With the aid of his now-gargantuan Tiny Tim (Robert Bogue), he plans to embezzle clients’ money, make it look like Scrooge did it, and then take over the business.

Scrooge gets another visit from Jacob Marley (Cody K. Carlson) — watch for the amusing joke about Jacob’s face appearing in the office door’s window — and then from the three ghosts from before. Each of them tries to help Scrooge learn that giving out of fear isn’t the way to go — he needs to give out of love.

It’s a good message, and one that has not been beaten to death already. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way of writing the script, Bedore forgot to put very many jokes in. The last show at this theater, “Dracula vs. the Wolfman,” which Bedore and Jensen wrote, was hysterical, packed full of pop culture references, amusing characters and great sight gags. “Christmas Carol,” though, seems weak and tired. Bob’s elaborate lies to Scrooge become very tedious, and with only one or two exceptions, the songs — all familiar Christmas carols with new lyrics — don’t really even TRY to be funny. They come across as slow and cumbersome, slowing down the pace of the show dramatically and adding nothing to it.

There are certainly some funny bits, particularly when things go wrong and the actors have to improvise (many are also members of the Quick Wits improv troupe), but overall, the show plods along wearily. Bogue makes the most of his Tiny Tim character, playing him as a slow-minded over-grown half-wit, with very amusing results. Also, Jensen plays Scrooge very well, and he has proved his comic abilities in this past. Here, you can just see him itching to bust out and DO something, but unfortunately the strained jokes in the script give him little opportunity.

Add to that the two jokes stolen directly from TV — one, about “the exact moment his heart breaks,” from “The Simpsons”; another, about “he’s got my nose,” from “Cheers” — and you’ve got a show that, while long on good intentions and great potential, comes up short on actual entertainment and originality.

Another Letter to the Editor

0

EDITORS’ NOTE: We sigh wearily at even having to do this, but let us point out that this column is a PARODY of letters to the editor. The ideas herein are expressed for satiric purposes, and NOT because the author necessarily feels that way.)

Dear Editor:

I was shocked and appalled to pick up The Daily Universe today and discover that all the R-rated movies were omitted from the movie listings. I dare you to show me any quote from any general authority in which we are specifically told not to see R-rated movies. Wasn’t it part of Satan’s plan to force us all to be a certain way and take away our free agency? And by not printing R-rated movie listings, and by telling us we’re not allowed to read any other newspapers, and by denying us access to the Internet to check for ourselves, isn’t The Daily Universe instituting Satan’s plan? It makes me feel mad, yet at the same time, very angry.

I am sick, not to mention tired, of people ripping on President Clinton. The man is our president! He deserves respect. The article printed in your paper last week in which it was implied that he may have had some kind of sexual relationship with a woman not his wife was totally uncalled for, and completely unfounded. Where on earth did you find apostate sources who would say such a false, not to mention untrue, kind of thing?! I expect more from the Lord’s university, as well as the Lord’s student-produced newspaper produced in the Lord’s Wilkinson Center. I do not have time to look up a scripture to quote here, but rest assured that I could.

And as long as I’ve got your attention, let me mention that as I walked across campus the other day, I noticed that the statue of the family outside the Smith Family Living Center (or “S-F-L-C,” as it is often disrespectfully called by some apostate people) is highly offensive (and, I might add, liable to offend people). While BYU has well over seven students who are from the remote island nation of Concuman, not a single one of the three people in this statue family is of that nationality. How can the sculptor ignore the diversity we have at BYU and insist on making all three members of the family of the same race? It’s the kind of ignorance you read about in certain passages of scripture, which I mention merely to remind you that I have read the scriptures. Such ignorance amazes me, but more importantly, it also surprises me. I expected more from the Lord’s sculptor. I won’t stand for it, nor will I take this lying down. I suppose I’ll have to sit.

Speaking of sitting, what’s up with the apostate people who insist on sitting down at sporting events, who then get mad at the rest of us for standing up in front of them and cheering? Last week, right after reading my scriptures, I attended the BYU men’s kickball game, and whenever the team captain would roll the ball, me and my friends would all stand up and jump around and scream like morons for a few minutes. Then we would sit down for approximately two seconds, at which point we would jump up again. And the elderly gentleman behind us, who I believe was apostate, who was confined to a wheelchair and had to use a respirator, had the nerve to ask us to sit down and be quiet, which he did via a hand-written note, because he was too weak to talk. What, does he think he owns the place? I couldn’t believe his rudeness, nor will I forgive him for it, nor should I even HAVE to forgive him. I dare you to show me even ONE place in the scriptures, which I read frequently, where we are told to forgive others. I was disappointed to see such rudeness coming from the Lord’s elderly person.

And while we’re discussing sports, let me mention another problem: apostate people who get mad at you for booing our football team when they do poorly. As a tithing-payer (tithing is mentioned several times in the scriptures; I should know, for I have read them), I feel I own most, if not all, of the stadium. So why shouldn’t I be allowed to turn on my own team if I want to? I suppose next you’ll say that when my wife accidentally burns dinner, I shouldn’t boo her, too? It makes me shake my head and sigh the way people can be so blind. Many of these blind people are also unseeing.

I recently saw President Bateman walking across campus wearing socks that were not blue. I was so surprised, I almost dropped my scriptures. I cannot believe this man can one minute encourage us to wear blue to the football games, and the next minute walk around wearing something that is not blue. I call for his immediate impeachment, unless this is not possible, in which case I call for a McDonald’s combo meal #4.

Another thing that shocked and appalled me was your apostate “humor” columnist’s so-called “humor column” from eight or nine “weeks” ago, in which he made fun of a thing I like. Now, I’ve always found “him” to be funny before, but this time he went too far, and now I’ve decided he’s not funny, and in fact he never was. How dare he make fun of a thing I like! To do such a thing is unconscionable (I looked that word up just now; it means “bad”), not to mention blasphemous, sacrilegious, unholy, profane, unconscionable, and bad. If you’re going to keep printing such trashy garbage, I am going to stop buying your free paper. I expect that sort of thing from Howard Stern or Satan, but not from the Lord’s humor columnist. My sense of humor was blown off in a boat explosion several years ago, and that’s why I don’t find anything funny, but so what? Show me one place where any general authority has ever said anything funny, or any place in the scriptures where we are told to be cheerful. There are lots of places, aren’t there? And that’s exactly my point.

I thought it was in extremely poor taste to run a “theater review” in which your “reviewer” said something negative. How can anything be bad? What kind of weird world do YOU live in?

I was further dismayed and horrified to read an “article” in last Tuesday’s Daily Universe with the “headline,” “Divorced Utah Democrat — in that order.” Why are you spotlighting “people” who have been divorced? Do you want the rest of the world to follow in their perverted “footsteps”? Is that the kind of agenda you’re pushing now “?” You sicken me to the point that my stomach has turned itself inside out and is working its way up my esophagus.

Another thing that sickened me, and also made me feel sick, was when I was “driving” the other day on campus, while I was reading my scriptures. This apostate girl next to me cut me off, so I honked my horn politely and politely screamed an obscenity at her, politely. Then this girl had the nerve to make an obscene gesture at me! How would her bishop — who I assume signed her ecclesiastical endorsement, although it would not surprise me if a low-class individual like this girl actually forged his signature, after killing him with her bare hands — feel about this? I weep for the future of this great nation if this is the sort of $*&@!% the young people are doing. I was shocked, appalled, saddened, disgusted, mortified, humiliated, outraged, indignant, pompous, self-righteous, Pharisaical, nit-picky, hypocritical, unconscionable, bad, and embarrassed to call myself a BYU student. I was a lot of things. I’m still some of them now.

BYUSA Essay

0

Sometimes — if you’re lucky, maybe once or twice in a lifetime — an opportunity comes along that is so exciting, so rife with hope and potential, so full of magic and wonderment, that it makes your head swim with all the possibilities. The unmarried women on this campus were privy to such an opportunity this week, when BYUSA announced that one of the prizes to its essay contest was a date with Brian Bowers.

If you’re the type of person who doesn’t know who Brian Bowers is — for example, if you’re a BYU student — Brian Bowers is the BYUSA president. So you can imagine the shudder of excitement that must have run up and down the collective spine of BYU females when the possible date was announced. And lest you think the men have been denied an opportunity for a free date with a quasi-political quasi-celebrity, Vice President Karen Duffin has agreed to go out with the winner if the winner should turn out to be male.

The whole thing seemed a little odd to us in the quasi-news business. After all, the essay contest was supposed to be taken seriously. The theme, according to a BYUSA flier, was, “Write a 50-word story about a student that is building tomorrow’s future, capturing the spirit of BYU.” Never mind that it should say “a student who,” not “a student that”; the important thing is, it’s a reasonably serious thing to write about. So doesn’t attaching a goofy prize like a date with a student council representative diminish the potential good that could come from it?

Brian and Karen both say yes. They told me a few days ago that the dates were supposed to be just one of several prizes offered. At some point, someone took it upon himself or herself to make the dates the MAIN prize, and posters heralding that fact were displayed outside the library and near the Cougareat on Monday and Tuesday. “Win a date with Brian Bowers!” they said in big letters.

“It wasn’t ever supposed to be a big deal,” Brian said. “I was on the list of little prizes. Someone got the idea to make a big deal out of it.”

Karen put it more succinctly: “I’m so humiliated.” Both she and Brian have been auctioned off before in “Dating Game”-style activities, and they’ve had to sit in a dunk tank, too. (And you thought BYUSA representatives never did anything!) Agreeing to go on a date with the winner — mind you, it’s only if the winner WANTS to go out with them — just seemed like another embarrassing thing they needed to do in order to help the BYUSA cause. It certainly wasn’t their idea, and they certainly didn’t think such a big deal should be made of it.

Sharon Varga, public relations director for BYUSA, was surprised Tuesday to hear that the “Win a date with Brian Bowers” posters were even up. “It shouldn’t be the focus,” she said. “I didn’t know that poster was up there.” The original contest poster just had a list of prizes — $30 gift certificate, T-shirt, tickets, and an “optional date with Brian Bowers or Karen Duffin,” it said.

The essay contest, by the way, is part of BYUSA’s ongoing, comma-spliced theme: “We are built on yesterday’s heritage, we are building tomorrow’s future, we are one student serving the next, we are BYU.” Previous posters, which focused on the “yesterday’s heritage” part, featured a story about a dropout named Alma Richards who picked himself up by the bootstraps, went to Brigham Young Academy, and wound up winning a gold medal for track in the 1911 Olympics. Of course, he was almost disqualified when the judges found out his name was “Alma” and assumed he was a woman, but everything got straightened out eventually.

Touching, no? Anyway, the new essay contest is focusing on the “building tomorrow’s future” part of the theme, and the winning essay will be slapped onto posters and plastered all over campus. (Perhaps someone should write an essay about the over-use of posters and fliers at BYU.)

Brian and Karen are both great people, and they’ve been good sports about this rather embarrassing turn of events. Brian, despite being from Parma, Idaho, and a statistics major, seems well-rounded and personable, and Karen is as nice as they come. So you should not only enter the essay contest — take entries to 3400 ELWC, or e-mail them to lupdike@stlife.byu.edu; the deadline is next Thursday — but if you win, you should definitely go out with Karen or Brian, whomever you prefer.

Oh, and here’s my entry, focusing on someone who (“that”) is building tomorrow’s future, capturing the spirit of BYU:

“As the BYU sophomore walked across campus one vibrant fall afternoon, he was startled when a girl he didn’t know approached him and asked him out. He recognized her from his ‘Dating and Marriage in the Fulness of Times’ religion class, and he knew her name was something along the lines of Rebecca or Jennifer, but he did not know her any better than that. But this being BYU, where dating is the object and design of everyone’s existence, he happily agreed to the date. He and the young woman were engaged a week later, and married several hours after that. That courageous, date-happy young woman truly captures the spirit of BYU.”

A Tuna Christmas

0

Back by popular demand after last year’s successful run, Provo Theatre Company’s “A Tuna Christmas” is as funny, silly and poignant now as it was then.

The same two actors — Charles L. Frost and Duane V. Stephens — play 22 different characters, male and female, in the small town of Tuna, Texas, on Christmas Eve. Ed Gryska directs the show again, guiding us through the intersecting lives of 22 of the oddballs, rednecks and just plain folks who inhabit the town.

Last year’s production was so near-perfect, it would have been unwise to tamper much with it. Fortunately, little tampering has taken place. The set is different, and a few lines are changed — references are made to Donny Osmond and his ubiquitous “Technicolor Dreamcrap,” and there’s a sly nod to “Titanic” — but overall, everything is just as I remember it from last year.

Tuna, Texas, is a quirky, strange little town that is just like a thousand towns we know of. The residents, while odd and funny, are nonetheless only about one degree off from our friends and neighbors. People here have names like Garlinda Crump, Farley Burkhalter and Didi Snavely. The town has activities like the Klan-sponsored “Christmas family night and skeet-shoot.” Bertha Bumiller (Stephens) is a sweet, middle-aged housewife whose gentle nature has been taken advantage of by her drunk, philandering husband. Vera Carp (Frost) has won the town’s lawn-decorating contest 14 Christmases in a row, and she’ll be darned if she’s going to lose this one. Aunt Pearl (Stephens) is an old biddy with a limp, but she’s a feisty old gal, killing bluejays with a slingshot and orchestrating some mischief to keep the town on its toes. Didi Snavely (Frost), owner of Didi’s Used Weapons (“If We Can’t Kill It, It’s Immortal”) is a caustic, chain-smoking grouch whose husband is a drunk and whose mother is insane.

I could go on and on. The point is, these characters are REAL. They are necessarily drawn with somewhat broad strokes, but Frost and Stephens play them so realistically that the humor becomes even funnier. Rule One of comedy is that people relate better to — and therefore can laugh more with — real situations and real people. And “Tuna Christmas” follows that rule to a T, with brilliant results.

Not only are the characters real, they’re poignant, even touching. Watch town moron (well, one of them) Petey Fisk (Frost) tell his pet coyote, iguana and sheep about the first Christmas. Watch Aunt Pearl give the hooligan Stanley Bumiller a new life for Christmas. Watch Bertha and local DJ Arles Struvie share some candid moments and eventually slow-dance at the radio station. It’s all funny, but it’s kinda sweet, too.

The laughs are plentiful — I’ve never seen a play with such excellent verbal humor, full of wit, sarcasm and energy — but when the play decides to be a tender, it works fabulously. It’s not forced, nor is it maudlin, trite or syrupy. It’s genuine and wonderful.

Bertha — perhaps the most warm, endearing character in the show — sums it up perfectly when she says: “Sometimes you just have to laugh to keep from crying.”

There are a few visual jokes in the show, mostly related to the audience’s initial reaction upon seeing the outlandishly costumed Frost and Stephens, but by and large, the humor is verbal. The characters are snarky and quick-witted, talking about everyone behind their backs. Various people are referred to as being “loopy,” “a slobberin’ hippie,” “brain-dead,” and an “old hornfrog.” Someone “looks like death chewing on a cracker,” and someone else is “an over-heated downhill wreck.” Various senior citizens, we are told, are “older than Egypt,” “older than Alley Oop,” and “older than water.” Upon being frightened, someone “screamed like white trash at a tent meeting.” You get the idea.

Frost and Stephens are perfect in their many roles. They don’t do much to alter their voices from one character to another, but everything else — from costumes to mannerisms to inflection — indicates 22 completely different people. They are so effective, in fact, that it’s a little weird to see only two performers come out for the curtain call at the end. One almost wonders where the other 20 are, expecting them all to be backstage still.

For an evening of smart, riotously funny performances and just enough true “Christmas spirit” to put you in the mood for the holidays, you can do no better than “A Tuna Christmas.” Don’t miss it, because who knows if it’ll be back next year?

Ruinmates

0

Several weeks ago, I wrote a column featuring a list of questions that should be asked of potential roommates in order to weed out the freaks and losers from the normal people (“normal” being defined as “like me”). I got this idea from a questionnaire I filled out before I moved into the dorms as a freshman, in which they attempted to find out my living habits so I could be paired up with someone I didn’t like, in order to prepare me for my mission.

I suggested in that column that a similar questionnaire be used by all landlords at all BYU-approved housing so that bad roommates could be kept away. At the end of the column, I asked readers to e-mail me with suggestions for other questions that should be asked. About 130 additional questions were submitted, and the main thing I learned from them is that when in the privacy of their own apartments, girls are a lot grosser than any of us ever imagined.

I am not exaggerating when I say that 25 percent of the submissions I received are too disgusting to be printed, even in The Daily Universe (motto: “Nothing is Too Disgusting to be Printed”). And more than half of those disgusting entries came from women. They dealt with issues of flatulence (yes! Among women!), personal hygiene, bodily fluids and semi-fluids, and a host of other horrible things. I’m not saying the guys didn’t gross me out too, but you expect that sort of thing from guys. Women would have us believe they don’t even HAVE bodily functions, let alone deal with them in the manner described in some of my e-mail. [The gross entries can be found here. I’m not kidding, though. They ARE gross.]

Anyway, I also got some great suggestions that I CAN use. I’m not naming any of the contributors here because we don’t want to cause problems between them and the offending roommates. The exceptions here are Mike Noron and Matt Mossman, who wanted very much to have their names mentioned in the column, only the joke’s on them, because I misspelled both of them.

Several items were submitted by more than one person, suggesting an epidemic in some areas. I am proposing that these questions not only be asked of potential roommates, but that stipulations against them be added to the Honor Code. These include:

• “Do you insist upon listening to the same CD 12 times a day, every day?”

• “Do you require absolute silence in order to go to sleep, yet fail to be awakened by your 1,000-decibel alarm clock?” (A frequently mentioned corollary is the roommate who purposely sets his/her alarm for one hour before he/she intends to get up, thus giving his/her roommate the pleasure of hearing him/her hit the snooze button seven/eight times.)

• “Are you one of those people who doesn’t like a guy until one of your roommates expresses interest in him, and then all of a sudden you like him, too?”

The girls seemed VERY passionate on this subject.

For guys, the issue would be resolved thusly:

“Hey, you can’t ask her out. Didn’t you know I was going to ask her out?”
“Oh, OK. Sorry, dude.”
“No problem, bro.”
(Then they do one of those weird semi-handshakes like guys do, then one of them burps, and the matter is settled.)

Roommates’ dating habits are of major importance. Some observations:

• “Are you now, or do you plan on being, engaged to two women at the same time? Were you going to tell one, or both, that the marriage is off? Was the woman on the couch with you last week Contestant Number Three, or just a little something extra before you settle down?”

• “Is your idea of how to attract a man to stand in the middle of ward prayer and loudly complain about how nobody ever asks you out?”

• “Does your ‘social life’ consist of Internet chat rooms? Do you like to tie up the phone line for hours while you’re ‘chatting’ with your cyber friends, when others might be expecting calls from REAL friends?”

• “Do you insist on talking on the phone for a long period of time to your boyfriend, even though he only lives two doors down?”

• “Do you sleep all night, every night, on the living room floor with your girlfriend/fiancee?”

Then there are the minor — yet incredibly important — annoyances:

• “Do you insist on highlighting your entire textbook, instead of a few key phrases or sentences? Do you do this while your roommate tries to sleep, thus keeping her awake with the screech of your never-ending highlighter across the page?”

• “Do you insist on leaving the window open all night, even though it’s been snowing for the last two months?”

• “Do you, when rinsing and spitting after brushing your teeth, always spit one last time after turning the water off and then not rinse away the spittle?” (Only a girl could write that.)

• “Do you refuse to dry off the sink area after you use it, instead leaving huge pools of water all over the counter, some of them large enough to allow Olympic competition?”

And finally, a variety of miscellaneous random questions:

• “Do you have any life-sized posters of anyone that you feel it necessary to kiss several times throughout the day?”

• “Do you flip out if someone shortens your name? For example, if your name is Kimberly and someone calls you Kim, do you lecture them for five hours about how Kim is not your name, and why your parents decided not to call you that?”

• “Do you only buy food once a semester and manage to stay alive between shopping sprees by scrounging off your roommates’ food? Then do you brag about how fiscally responsible you are because you spend so little on food each month?”

• “Will I ever come home to find your homeless friend sleeping in my bed? If so, was he naked? If he wasn’t naked, was he wearing my clothes?”

• “Do you go through all of your roommates’ belongings, yet keep all yours securely boxed and padlocked?”

• “Do you like to stack up pyramids of empty Coke or Pepsi cans in the windows of the apartment, like frat kids do with beer cans at other universities?”

• “If you served a foreign mission, do you insist on blasting lousy music from that country all hours of the day?”

• “Do you think it is funny to speak to your roommates in the language you spoke on your mission, even though none of them speak it?”

• “Do you use the commitment pattern to deal with everything, including your roommate’s girlfriend leaving five minutes after curfew?”

• “Are you from California, and do you think California is so cool that you go on and on all the time about how cool it is, and about how it’s soooooo much better than Utah, and about how Utah stinks and California doesn’t? And if so, why didn’t you just stay there?”

Thank you all for sharing your frustrations with me. I hope you feel better. I need to go lie down.

Too Gross to Print

0
Too Gross to Print

As discussed in Snide Remarks #57, some people sent in some really gross and horrifying roommate stories. All of these, I have to believe, are true; I really can’t see anyone making this stuff up. I am quoting directly from the e-mails I received.

Before going any further, please understand that some of these entries are very, very gross. I cannot overstate this. In fact, the single worst thing I’ve ever heard in my life is contained on this page. Proceed with caution.

– “Do you collect every piece of gum you chew and add it to your massive gumball until it is the size of a volleyball and has more colors than Joseph’s Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat?”
– “Do your abnormal bowel problems cause large quantities of gas to accumulate in your intestines, which you relieve twice a day by sharing it all in your neighbor’s room while they are trying to study?”
– (from a girl:) “Have you ever felt it necessary or had the urges to leave any sort of feminine hygiene products around the house, used?”
– “Do you delight in flatulence? Do you like to share your joy (and your bodily functions) with others?”
– “Do you leave little wadded up balls of human hair in strategic locations around the apartment, including your roommate’s bed?”
– “Do you bleed on things and not wipe up the blood?”
– “Do you leave ANYTHING that was once part of your body and is not any longer anywhere where your roommate may have to deal with it (e.g., bodily fluids, hair, nail clippings, mucous)?”
– “Can you belch the entire alphabet?”
– “Do you poop more than four times a day?”
– “Do you have a rash on areas of your body which I do not wish to see?”
– “Are you compelled to pick your nose and then either a) wipe it on anything and everything which happens to be convenient, or b) flick it around the room just making sure it doesn’t land on any of your stuff?”
– “Do you relieve yourself in empty cocoa mugs while watching TV, because you’re too lazy to get up and go to the john?”
– “Do you call your roommates into the bathroom so they can marvel at the size of your turd before you flush it?”

What you are about to read is officially the worst thing I have ever read in my life. I’m not kidding. I know it’s true, too, because it happened to a friend of mine, and he explained the whole story in his e-mail. Expectant mothers and the elderly should not continue reading.

– “Do you leave your own turds hidden around the apartment, so that the place stinks like feces no matter how many times your roommates vacuum, and no matter how many air fresheners they put up, and so they find your excrement weeks later, say, under their bed, behind their books, and sometimes even find them immediately in not-so-discreet places, such as in the shower, or right smack in the middle of the bedroom carpet?”

Remember: No one made you read all this. I’m kind of sorry I had to type it.

Notice Me!

0

We have some serious problems at BYU, and I’m not talking about the rats in Lee Bartlett’s office. I’m talking about people who draw too much attention to themselves in public.

Of course you remember that I addressed this issue a few weeks ago. You probably took notes, in fact. But I have more examples to share. I feel that the more we discuss this important issue, the greater the level of awareness we’ll have, and the sooner we’ll be able to get back to addressing such weighty issues as Lee Bartlett’s office, which as you know is infested with rats.

When I wrote on this topic before, I mentioned the Stereo Girls, who forced everyone to listen to their music at the pool this summer. I forgot to mention, though, that there were also two girls at the pool who wore bikinis. Now, really. Who at BYU actually wears a bikini? From a societal standpoint, you might just as well show up with pierced nipples and a Mohawk. I’m not saying wearing a bikini is necessarily WRONG — although in the case of one of these girls, it definitely was — I’m just saying that around here, where it’s against the Honor Code, and against the rules that were posted at this particular pool, how could you possibly have enough self-confidence to wear one? Surely these girls knew that all the guys would be staring at them (except for one of them, whom we all tried not to look at); did they really want all the GIRLS staring, too, wondering why they were wearing bikinis? What possible advantage is there to wearing a bikini that would outweigh the disadvantage of being stared at the entire time? Maybe some people like being stared at, but I don’t. When I see someone staring at me, I assume there’s something wrong with either me or them, and it’s usually me.

I used to work at Denny’s, so of course I’m used to seeing odd-looking people. There is nothing inherently wrong with looking different from everyone else. One of the great things about this country is that you can do whatever you want and, provided you don’t go to the University of Wyoming, no one will harass you. I have no problem with people who want to look different.

The problem is when those people go out of their way to look strange, and then get upset when people stare at them. If you’re going to look like a freak, you have to expect to be treated like a freak. It’s one of the basic laws of life. I remember one night at Denny’s, a group of six guys came in dressed as women. These were scrawny, pasty-faced guys to begin with; as women, they were even more unappealing. The fact that they were dressed as TRASHY women did not help any. They wore black nail-polish and fish-net stockings and reeked of K-Mart perfume. I tried to imagine where they had been before coming to Denny’s — where does a guy go dressed like a cheap woman? — and then I tried NOT to imagine it, because some of the things I was imagining were bothering me.

I knew the guys, sort of; they came to Denny’s frequently, though they had always been men before. So I knew they were relatively nice people, and reasonable tippers. And yet seeing them like this really, REALLY disturbed me. It’s not that I was afraid of them now — I knew they were the same guys as before, and that they put on their fish-net stockings one leg at a time like every other guy — but their appearance affected my attitude toward them. They were so eerie-looking that I honestly couldn’t look at them for more than a few seconds at a time, in much the same way I can’t watch Adam Sandler for very long.

But it wasn’t just me. Everyone in the place was giving them funny looks. Even people who knew them well (though apparently not as well as they thought!) regarded them differently. I’m not saying we were right or wrong in thinking of someone differently based on the way they looked in public; I’m just saying that’s what happened, and that it’s human nature to do it.

My main point is that the guys were bothered by everyone looking at them like they were weirdos. But why? Surely they realized that dressing like women was different from the social norm. I suspect that to look different was one of the main reasons they dressed that way in the first place — or at least one of the reasons they came to Denny’s, instead of just going straight home from wherever they had been (I am NOT thinking about that, I am NOT thinking about that, I am NOT thinking about that….). I’m not denying their right to dress like women; I’m just saying that in so doing, they HAD to expect to be looked at funny. If you choose to do something weird, you have to expect weirdness in return. And frankly, you shouldn’t choose weirdness in public, because it makes you the center of attention when you have no reason to be.

And it’s not just dress and grooming that people use to draw attention to themselves. They also do it through their actions. In an example that may or may not be related to the last one, there are two guys in the Smith Fieldhouse weightroom who are always dancing. Not the Macarena or anything — it’s more of a fruity Broadway musical type of dancing, with actual steps that they seem to have picked up somewhere. One minute they’re doing manly things like squatting and benching; the next minute they’re prancing around like they’re in “Joseph and His Freakin’ Dreamcoat,” or whatever. Now, in other contexts, two guys dancing like pixies would be OK. For example, in a dance class, or at certain clubs in West Hollywood. But not in a weightroom. There’s a social protocol we have to follow here: You just don’t dance in a weightroom. Period.

It’s not that men shouldn’t dance (although a case could be made for that); it’s just that they shouldn’t do it in the weightroom. And it’s not that men shouldn’t dress like women (although a case could be made for THAT); it’s just that they shouldn’t do it at Denny’s. And it’s not that women shouldn’t wear bikinis (although a case could be made for that, very strongly with some of them); it’s just that they shouldn’t do it at a BYU-approved apartment complex.

And why shouldn’t they do these things? Because in so doing, they draw attention to themselves that doesn’t need to be drawn. They make other people HAVE to notice them. And I don’t know about you, but I already have enough things to notice and consider and think about, not the least of which is the army of belligerent rats that has taken control of Lee Bartlett’s office.

Joyful Noise

0

It’s only a matter of time before saying this becomes cliche, but “Joyful Noise” truly is joyful.

I can’t think of a better way to describe it. The play, written by BYU faculty member Tim Slover*, tells the true story of George Frederic Handel (Richard J. Clifford) and his struggles to write and perform his famous “Messiah” oratorio. The play was performed for enthusiastic crowds in March, and the same director, Bob Nelson, and much of the same cast have come together now for this restaging.

Mixed in with Handel’s story are several other elements. Singer/actress Susanna Cibber (Stephanie Foster Breinholt), once a noted performer in London, has become an outcast, thanks to a major sex scandal. She seeks for redemption and a chance to sing again, while at the same time Handel seeks to regain the favor of notoriously fickle London crowds, and to produce something that will really mean something.

At the same time, King George II (Cameron Deaver) is still in mourning for his wife, who was a big fan of Handel’s. Since her death, he has been uninterested in music, and Bishop Henry Egerton’s (Braden Gregory Bell) insistence that Handel’s music is evil isn’t helping any. Susanna’s old rival, the very catty Kitty Clive (Katie Foster), is tossed into the mix as well, aiding and abetting the Bishop’s crusade against popular music.

So there’s a lot going on, but at the center of it is Handel. Clifford, who was not in the first production, plays Handel as a blustery, prideful fellow, a “poisonous, puffed-up old hog,” as Kitty puts it. Clifford gives the character depth, though, particularly in the scene where he explains to Susanna his inspiration for setting Charles Jennins’s (D.C. Wright) libretto to music. Handel is a fascinating character, full of life, and Clifford nails the role.

Breinholt, too, is marvelous. She is not much of a singer (there’s not too much singing in the show anyway), but as an actress, she is consistently one of the best around. Her Susanna is a heart-wrenching character, full of honest emotion and real tragedy. Watching her slowly work toward redemption almost becomes the focus of the play, though it ultimately remains a complementary metaphor for Handel’s work. Her story and his story work together perfectly.

Also worthy of mention is Colleen M. Baum, who plays Handel enthusiast Mary Pendarves. The character is full of praise and flattery and some very amusing melodrama (“Cease, zealot!” she cries in an impassioned plea against the narrow-minded Bishop), and Baum plays her excellently. The character is not buffoonish, despite being there mostly for comic relief; instead, she adds layers to the play. I honestly think the play would suffer without her, and this production would most certainly suffer without Baum. She, Breinholt and Foster are three of the most talented actresses BYU has churned out in recent memory.

Every part is well-played. The actors are skilled and keep things moving at a brisk pace. One senses that one is watching a group of real professionals at work.

What makes the play effective is that so many of the themes are applicable to modern life. The Bishop is against “Messiah” because he considers it blasphemous to put the words of scripture to “common” (i.e., non-hymn) music. He is opposed to it, despite not having heard it. We chuckle at the irony — here is a Bishop opposing something that we now know to be one of the most religious and sacred works ever produced — and yet, how many of us have been against something without even seeing it, or even really knowing what it is?

At one point, Handel tells the Bishop, “You wanted something very badly, and so you thought God wanted it, too.” This sums up perfectly the motivation behind so many personal crusades that people embark on. Don’t know what “crusades” I’m talking about? Read the letters to the editor of any newspaper in Utah.

Susanna is blackballed mostly because of bad press and rumors, and because people are unwilling to give anyone a second chance, or even the benefit of the doubt. The applications here are obvious.

I could go on and on. Someone should, and probably will, write an in-depth analysis of all the intricacies of this play. It’s that complex, and that beautiful.

But it’s simple, too. The stage is simple, the lighting is simple, the message is simple. Ultimately, everything comes together. The work is performed, redemption is found, hearts are changed, and the audience’s emotions are stirred. The sincere worship of God inherent in “Messiah” becomes the all-encompassing summary of everything else that has gone on, and as the characters sing it in the final moments of the play, we see that the message of the music truly represents the message of all the plots and sub-plots, down to the last “Hallelujah!” of that famous chorus. I defy anyone to watch this play, become caught up in it, and not walk out of the theater filled with the joyful tidings of “Joyful Noise.” It is the sort of play that transcends ordinary theater and becomes an experience.

*Tim Slover was pressured to resign from BYU after having an affair with a fellow professor’s wife, an affair with a student, and at least one attempted affair with a student that was rebuffed and reported. The BYU Theatre Department shamefully kept all of this quiet and allowed false alternate explanations for Slover’s departure to spread.

Mall in a Day’s Work

0

As you are no doubt aware, a new mall has just opened in the East Bay part of Provo. This is being heralded as the greatest thing to happen to Provo business since Hogi Yogi built its first 12 stores here.

Of course, we already had the University Mall, and even though it’s technically in Orem, it more or less met our mall needs. So why did we need another mall? Is University Mall really that pitiful? The answer is yes, but that’s beside the point. The new mall is more “with-it.” For example, instead of calling it the Provo Town Center, the mall people named it the Provo Towne Centre. Someone decided a while back that spelling words in a “quaint” (that is, “incorrect”) manner adds a certain charm. I whole-heartedly agree. You think University Mall is good? Well, Provo Towne Centre is bettre! Just look how they spell their wordse! What more proofe do you neede?!

Naturally, the folks at University Mall are a little concerned that this new mall will take away their customers. It’s already taking away their businesses: JC Penney has defected and set up shop at the Towne Centre. The back-stabbres! The city of Orem — this is true, and not one of the lies I make up to support my beliefs — the city of Orem paid ZCMI $2 million just so they’d stay at the University Mall. Two million dollars! To give you a perspective of how much money that is, think of it this way: If you had $2 million, you could buy three pairs of pants at ZCMI (possibly four, if one was on clearance).

Once the dust had settled and everyone was where they wanted to be, I decided I should mosey down to the Towne Centre and checke things oute. I enlisted the aid of fellow NewsNet reporter Phil Stahle, who has an investigative mind and a keen eye for news, which I was able to overlook and allow him to associate with me anyway.

We found the mall to be quite aesthetically pleasing. Just outside the main entrance is a fountain in which two girls made of metal appear to be frolicking in the rain. Since it was raining in real life when we saw this, we were not as charmed as we might have been otherwise. This fountain doubles as a wishing well, apparently, as there was quite a collection of change in it. Phil told me the money probably goes to charity, but he also confided, on the condition that I not tell anyone, that he once had to make a very important phone call and had to steal a quarter from a similar fountain in order to do so. It must have been quite an important phone call, I remarked, in order to justify some kid not getting his new liver, or whatever. Phil said it was.

Anyway, the inside of the mall looks nice too. There are 80 stores, each specializing in such diverse things as clothing, fashion, and apparel. There’s also a place called Bath and Body Works. This store contains nothing but soaps, shampoos and other chemicals designed to mask odors. Phil and I figure that if you were running really late one morning and didn’t have time to shower, you could just walk briskly through Bath and Body Works and come out smelling sweet as a rose.

The mall is fairly large, containing two levels and all, and we’re both very lazy, so it wasn’t long before we were tired of walking. Fortunately, there is a bed store in the mall. It’s called Select Comfort, whatever THAT means, and the store’s entire inventory consists of the following: two beds. If anyone ever buys the beds, the store will have to close. (Judging by the prices of the beds, however, we don’t foresee this as being a problem.)

Phil and I were standing near the entrance of the store, wishing we could rest on the beds for a moment, when a salesman strode up and said, “Would you like to lie down?” Here is a man whose entire job consists of trying to get people into bed. He showed us their top item (as opposed to their No. 2 item, which was the only other thing in the store). This is truly a state-of-the-art bed. When the Vikings were first experimenting with using inflated elephant bladders as beds, they could have had no idea that they (the beds) would one day be so high-tech. The salesman had me and Phil lie down on the bed in a very platonic way, the way you would normally expect two professional journalists to lie down on a bed, and then he started pushing buttons that made the bed adjust to fit the contours of our bodies. It was quite relaxing, although it felt a bit like the bed was assimilating us.

Phil asked, “How many megs of ram does this thing have?” I thought that was pretty funny, and it was a nice tension-breaker, considering we were lying on a bed together.

There is one thing, we discovered, that the Provo Towne Centre lacks: a bookstore. Doesn’t every mall have a bookstore? Have they finally realized that the people who go to malls are teen-agers, and that teen-agers don’t read? At any rate, they do have a music store, which is where you would normally spend a lot of money, provided you had the consumer savvy of an eggplant. CDs and videotapes cost way more in mall stores than they do anywhere else, particularly in this day and age of joining BMG, getting 11 CDs for the price of one, canceling, then rejoining again and again.

Anyway, the main video this store was pushing was the new remastered version of “Gone with the Wind.” Phil pointed out that while they will always claim otherwise, no woman has ever actually sat through this whole movie. I agreed with him, and we felt secure in our blanket generalizations.

And speaking of electronics, we also visited an electronics store, where Phil was at first delighted to find a set of speakers that he could theoretically buy for his computer, which he claims to have built himself. (Yeah, right, Phil. And I built my car, too.) His delight quickly turned to rage, however, when he learned that the “sound card,” whatever THAT is, was not included. I’m serious about this: Phil was VERY upset. He had to go lie down on the magic bed again just to settle his nerves.

So what did we learn from our day (well, hour) in the new mall? That it’s a mall, pretty much. They’re all approximately the same; either you like ’em or you don’t. We’re just trying to figure out what kind of store we could open that Provo would pay us $2 million to keep here. Maybe the city could use a 13th Hogi Yogi….

Dancing at Lughnasa

0

In the small, intimate setting of BYU’s Margetts Theatre, the small, intimate play “Dancing at Lughnasa” is performed with warmth, humor and emotion.

Directed by Tim Threlfall, the play is the story of five sisters struggling through life in 1930s Ireland, as told by one of the sisters’ illegitimate son. Michael (David Raphael D’Agostini), now grown, serves as narrator, occasionally interacting with his mother and aunts, but mostly just observing.

Each of the sisters faces heartache and pain. Most notable is Michael’s mother Chris (Jannah Ferguson), who is very much in love with the slick, smooth-talking Jerry (James Royce Edwards), the father of her child. She’s in heaven when he’s around and miserable when he’s gone — yet she knows if she were to marry him, he’d only run off on her again.

In the meantime, Agnes (Carrie Lopez) and the slightly dim-witted Rose (Merilee Louthain) knit gloves for a living. Hard-working Agnes has never really known love (though she seems to have a thing for Jack), while Rose thinks she is in love with a man in town whose wife recently left him. Matriarchal sister Kate (Dianna Lynne Errico) thinks the whole thing is a bad idea, however.

Kate thinks a lot of things are bad ideas, in fact, and she usually turns out to be right. A prim schoolteacher and a staunch Catholic, she doesn’t approve of her sisters’ wild dancing and constant use of the radio, nor does she like the way her priest brother Jack (Marc E. Shaw), just back from Africa, seems to have adopted the “pagan” ways of the natives.

There is little in the way of plot in this play, but plenty of emotion and feeling. Music and dancing serve as metaphors for life’s pure joys: often fleeting and too short, but always good for lifting one’s spirits when things are tough.

This production glances over the heartaches of Maggie (Elary Allen) and Kate, but they’re there if you pay attention: Plain-looking Maggie’s childhood friend has married the boy SHE loved, and the fellow Kate was after marries someone else early in the second act. Five sisters, five heartaches, one radio.

All of the acting here is quite good, and the Irish accents are convincing — a little TOO convincing at times, as the words occasionally become unintelligible. Errico is particularly good as the outwardly strong Kate, and Lopez has a quiet dignity about her as Agnes. Edwards is a bit too smarmy as Jerry, and his “Wow-wow!” catchphrase becomes annoying after only one or two uses — but he provides strong contrast to Ferguson’s sweet and loving Chris.

Again, this is a play about characters and feelings, without a lot of action. Fortunately, the characters come alive thanks to strong performances and solid directing. Everyone can relate to at least one of the five sisters in one way or another, and that connection drives home the message of hope and determination.

How I Learned to Drive

0

Despite being about a man who has a sexual relationship with his teen-age niece, “How I Learned to Drive” is not quite as creepy as you might think.

Playing at the Salt Lake Acting Company through Dec. 13, the Pulitzer Prize-winning play uses humor and stylization to keep things from becoming a non-stop squirm-fest — though rest assured, the play can certainly make you squirm when it wants to.

The central character is Li’l Bit (Shauna Scott), a teen-age girl of Southern heritage whose real name we never learn. In her family, everyone receives nicknames based on their genitalia — hence grandfather Big Papa (Tobin Atkinson) and mom’s brother-in-law Uncle Peck (Eric Robertson). Offensive, sure, but the family background — which is revealed, as is the rest of the story, piece by piece via flashbacks and narrations — goes a long way toward explaining Li’l Bit’s complicated situation.

She occasionally seems to be the aggressor in the relationship with her uncle, using him to fulfill her need for a strong male figure (her father was not around); it is not until the end of the play that the oldest flashback is shown, demonstrating how the whole thing began with a driving lesson, and making it clear that Peck is to blame for it all.

Or is he? This is a complex play, without much black-and-white. Li’l Bit is a victim, to be sure, and Peck is the filthiest of scoundrels whose own motivations are merely hinted at — but they don’t always act those parts. Li’l Bit is sometimes a Lolita character, using her feminine wiles to get what she wants, and Peck is occasionally benign (yet with creepiness always lurking beneath the surface). Li’l Bit survives the ordeal and grows to adulthood, but by no means is there a “happy” ending, with her triumphantly overcoming everything she went through. Indeed, perhaps the most unsettling image of all is very near the end, when we are shown vividly how Peck continues to haunt the rear-view mirror of Li’l Bit’s mind.

Sound like fun so far? It’s not, of course — but it’s not an unpleasant evening, either. Three “Greek Chorus” actors (Tobin Atkinson, Teri Cowan and Kimberly Richardson) play the supporting characters, nearly all of whom are funny, sometimes cartoonishly so. Li’l Bit’s mom (Cowan) gives some truly hysterical advice on how a lady should drink (“Avoid anything with ‘voodoo’ or ‘vixen’ in the name”), and the three generations of women discuss men and sex with very amusing results. At one point, for reasons not fully explained, three supporting characters break out into an a cappella, fully choreographed rendition of “My Girl.”

The play is highly stylized, jumping back and forth in time and using “driving” as a constant metaphor. Since the actress playing Li’l Bit is a full-grown adult, seeing her fondled and manipulated by Peck is not as disturbing as it could be. And with Scott playing Li’l Bit at several different ages without so much as changing costumes, and most sets and props being only minimally represented, the play is thankfully “unrealistic” enough to help it go down easier.

Which is not to say “How I Learned to Drive” is not disturbing, unsettling, and occasionally graphic. It is all of those things. Robertson is vile as Uncle Peck, his monologue about fishing (which is a metaphor for his relationship with Li’l Bit) being one of the creepiest things I’ve seen in a while. Scott is excellent as Li’l Bit, too, particularly with the constant change in ages for her. The supporting actors also play their variety of characters with gusto.

The play is an hour and 40 minutes long with no intermission, and it feels like every minute of it. It is never particularly boring or dragging, yet there are times when you begin to wonder what more needs to be said. Many different aspects of the relationship are shown, and the audience slowly begins to understand the whole situation. By the end, you feel like you’ve been through an ordeal yourself, having seen so much of it from so many points of view.

Ultimately, the play is classy, high-quality theater. It is not sensationalistic, nor is it unnecessarily lascivious. It is a gripping story that, while perhaps not for everyone, will provoke thought in anyone who sees it.

Put Your Voter to the Wheel

0

Perhaps we in the media neglected to mention it, but there was an election last week. Judging by the number of students who showed up to vote, I’m guessing there must have been a really good “Simpsons” episode on that day.

Voter apathy has been an issue ever since voting was discovered back in ancient Rome, where democracy was soon replaced with drunken immorality and irresponsibile recklessness, which fortunately bears no resemblance to the United States of today. People stopped voting, the same officials stayed in office, and nothing ever changed. Well, except that the empire was destroyed and all the people were killed.

BYU students, in particular, seem to be uninterested in voting in local elections. Maybe they think they aren’t allowed to vote in Provo. Are they allowed to vote? Maybe they are; maybe they aren’t; I don’t feel like doing the research to find out. The point is, most of us DON’T vote in local elections.

Another reason many students don’t vote is that they don’t care about local issues. Frankly, I am shocked and appalled that so many students feel this way. I thought I was the only one. Really, I think we’ve proven to the people of Provo that we don’t care about local issues, except when they pertain to us specifically. Self-centered? Maybe; maybe not. Again, I don’t feel like doing the research to find out. The Daily Universe always dutifully covers all the candidates and the various races, but we are well aware of the fact that most of the readers couldn’t care less. We only do it so we look credible as a newspaper. Of course, spelling all the candidates’ names correctly would make us look even more credible, but that’s a step we’re not yet prepared to take.

That’s not to say that no students ever get involved. Some do. For example, last year, BYU student Joseph Anderson ran for — and won — a seat on the Orem City Council. Now the city of Orem has a BYU student’s input on local matters. Too bad nothing happening in Orem has anything to do with BYU. Just think how it would be if we got one of our fellow students on the PROVO City Council! I bet we’d see some changes in parking ordinances and what’s allowed to pass for an “apartment” in this town! (Rule #1: abolition of all cinder block.)

So I’m thinking that in this last election, I should have run for a spot on the Provo City Council. (That is, if there was a spot open. I don’t remember if there was or not, and no one sitting near me as I type this remembers either.) “You?” you say with incredulity. “What can YOU do?” The answer is: nothing. I can’t do anything. I’m barely capable of piling enough words together to equal one column every week; I certainly can’t provide any adequate leadership.

But it would appear that someone who won’t change anything is exactly what the people of Provo and Orem want. I base this on the fact that every time someone has tried to build something in this area, the local residents have protested it. A new Smith’s in west Provo? Neighbors don’t want it. The new mall in East Bay? The neighbors don’t want it. A half-way house in Orem for troubled youth? The neighbors don’t want it. Everyone seems to agree that a Smith’s, a new mall and a place to help youth are good IDEAS; they just don’t want them near where THEY live. Sort of how everyone agrees Utah should have more Democrats, so that things are more balanced, but nobody wants to be the one to actually BECOME a Democrat.

The most ludicrous example came just a few weeks ago, when Provo put stop signs at the intersection of Iriquois Drive and North Temple Drive. Traffic going north and south on Iriquois already had to stop; now cars going east and west on North Temple had to stop, too, making it a four-way stop. The reason for this was that many people would zip through the stop signs and run smack into cars — which were NOT required to stop — traveling on North Temple. There had been something like seven jillion accidents within the past two weeks, so the city very sensibly put stops signs there, figuring that if everyone had to stop, it would dramatically decrease the number of accidents.

And guess what. The local residents complained about the new stop signs. That’s right, they were upset by STOP SIGNS! Come on, people! It’s not like the city wanted to build a brothel, or a moat with crocodiles. They’re STOP SIGNS! They PREVENT DEATH! And yet the people don’t want them. “We like the sound of screeching tires, the smell of burnt rubber, the look of blood and matted hair caked on the asphalt!” is what they seemed to be saying. “Don’t take away our accidents!”

And so I have concluded that while we college students tend to be spontaneous, fun-loving, adventurous sorts, the rest of the people in Utah Valley don’t want anything to change, ever. Even if it seems like a good change, they don’t want it: “Good change” is an oxymoron. If it’s new or different, it must be bad.

So next year, I’m running on the “I Won’t Change a Thing” platform. Under my leadership, nothing will get better, nothing will get worse, nothing will get anything. We’ll just keep going the same direction we’ve been going, forever and ever

Of course, that’s only if I get elected, and since no one votes, I guess my chances of getting elected are pretty slim. So much for trying to do my civic duty. I’m going back to “The Simpsons.”

Good Kill Hunting

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.

From what I understand, deer hunting is a major part of Utah “culture,” and it’s fascinating to me. I’m from Southern California, where there’s plenty of gunfire, but not usually aimed at wildlife. That’s because there ISN’T any wildlife. (The last tree in Southern California was replaced by a Circle K well over a decade ago.) So I’ve never been hunting, and the whole hunting culture is foreign to me. This is why I mock it, obviously: because I do not understand it. (Surely you did not need to have THAT explained to you.)

Now, I do NOT have a problem with hunting because I think deer should not be killed. No deer has ever done me any harm, and the Elks Lodge gave me a scholarship, but nonetheless, the slaughter of either group does not bother me. Nor have I been influenced by Disney’s propaganda film “Bambi,” in which all hunters — nay, all HUMANS — are portrayed as cold, vicious murderers and all animals as holy, blameless creatures. (My problem with THAT film is that it’s a cartoon and yet it’s not funny, which defeats the whole purpose of making a cartoon.)

Of course, if hunters just left the dead deer to decompose in the woods, well, that would bother me, and I don’t think the other woodland creatures would appreciate it either. But I realize that hunters do not generally let their kills go to waste. This is evidenced by the numerous redneck-powered pickup trucks that I have seen recently coming out of the canyon with bloody carcasses tossed in the back. The hunters obviously intend to eat the deer, thus justifying their killing it in the first place.

One could say, “Well, why don’t they just go to the store and BUY some food, rather than going to kill it themselves? Isn’t that why we HAVE supermarkets: to eliminate the hassle of shooting your own meat, churning your own butter and synthetically engineering through the use of highly toxic chemicals your own Pop-Tarts?” One COULD say that. But one would be a moron. Don’t you feel stupid, one?

Because while the hunters do eat the deer they shoot, they also — and THIS is the part I have a problem with — they really seem to ENJOY shooting them. They brag to each other about how many “points” a buck had, and they’ll spend hours tracking an animal until it’s in a forest clearing, perhaps taking a sip of water or munching gracefully on a sprig of grass, and then BLAMMO! They shoot it right in the heart. This whole scenario is fun for hunters, and I don’t fully grasp why. Is it the thrill of killing something defenseless? I mean, you do 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.

I am certainly aware that watching movies in which innocent people are gunned down by heartless murderers can be extremely entertaining — I cite “Saving Private Ryan” as an example — but that’s in the MOVIES. Since when is it fun in real life?

Don’t you remember the episode of “Silver Spoons” where Grandfather Stratton took Ricky hunting? They found a deer, and Ricky was supposed to shoot it. Only he couldn’t, because the deer looked too precious, and besides, it was on loan from Animals for TV, Inc., and the trainer was standing just out of camera range, and I imagine he would have been QUITE disturbed if a member of the “Silver Spoons” cast had shot his star deer (although even I have to admit, that would have made for some great television). Eventually, Grandfather Stratton talked Ricky into shooting the deer, which he did, except, like a wuss, he didn’t kill it, so Grandfather had to finish the deed himself and everyone went home pretty depressed. The episode ended with a voice-over from Ricky Schroeder saying, “The deer used in the filming of this episode was not harmed in any way,” which seems kind of obvious, considering the deer was a terrible actor and did not even look hurt when it got shot.

As for me, I can’t even go fishing. Even if I’m going to toss the fish back and let it live, I can’t bear the thought of piercing a fish’s lips with a sharp hook. I recall that when I was a child, the grownups told me a lie — they told us a lot of lies, didn’t they? — about how fish don’t feel any 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 were finally blessed by Mother Nature and their mouths began evolving nerveless? And if that’s the case, why didn’t Mother Nature just nip the whole problem in the bud by making them smart enough to know the difference between real food and a plastic lure?

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, thus 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.

(Note: The jokes used in the writing of this column were not funny in any way.)

Humor Column: It’s Funny

0

People who know me can tell you that my brain never stops working, that I’m always thinking. For example, right now I’m thinking: “What did I do with that donut I had here a minute ago?”

But sometimes my thoughts are even deeper than that, such as when I recently came up with the marketing scheme that will finally give me the millions of dollars of disposable income I so richly deserve. I’ll tell you about it, but you have to promise not to steal it, OK? OK, I trust you.

It’s all based on the fact that men don’t like to shop. “Hey, that’s not news!” you’re saying, to which I respond: “I’m still getting to the point, so SHUT UP!”

I’m sorry I snapped at you, I’m just a little antsy because I’m so excited about my idea. See, men don’t like to shop, and everyone knows it, and yet no product manufacturers have ever taken advantage of this fact. And so men have to buy all this stuff they don’t want but have to use — toothpaste, shampoo, clothes, etc. — and they become increasingly dissatisfied with the American marketplace and with business in general, and that’s how militias get formed. “I’m sick and tired of having to choose among 10,000 different kinds of soap!” the men will say. “I’m moving to Montana!” Unless they are already in Montana, in which case they will say, “I’m going down to the 7-Eleven to buy a rifle!”

So if manufacturers really wanted to earn any loyalty from the men of this country, they would start selling products that cater to men’s needs and wants. Or rather, that’s what they SHOULD have done. I’m doing it now, so it’s too late for everyone else, nyah nyah nyah.

What I’m going to sell is a line of products designed and named specifically for men. It will be all the stuff men have to use, but don’t like to buy because of all the choices there are. For example, shampoo. Few men would disagree that shampoo is an item they must use if they intend to remain a functioning member of society — and if they DO disagree, then they greatly overestimate how much society is willing to put up with before it kicks them out — and yet men find shampoo-buying a hassle. Why? Because there are a million different brands and types of shampoo, including some that smell like fruit. How did someone decide that people’s hair should smell like fruit? You know what your hair should smell like? It should smell like hair. Having an unusual odor is the reason your hair gets washed in the first place.

And then there’s all the various things the shampoo allegedly does, or what kind of hair it’s for. There’s shampoo for dry hair, thin hair and oily hair, not to mention other varieties with conditioners, enricheners, herbs, spices and NutraSweet. Some shampoos claim to leave your hair “full-bodied,” while others say they “restore” things that somehow get lost in the day-to-day shuffle of being hair.

All this is wasted on men. Men don’t want their hair smelling like anything; they don’t know or care what kind of hair they have; they just want a shampoo that will get their hair clean. Period. But still, whenever they need shampoo, they have to look dazedly at all the options they have, staring minute after minute, trying to figure out what kind they’re supposed to get, and then they finally give up and buy whatever’s cheapest.

My line of products will start with shampoo. The name of the product will be — follow me here — “Shampoo.” The catchy advertising slogan will be: “It Gets Your Hair Clean.” The TV commercials, rather than lying about vitamins and minerals your hair needs and showing actresses using the shampoo so vigorously that it causes them to hyperventilate with excitement — instead of all this, the commercials will be five seconds long and will go like this: A man holds up a bottle of “Shampoo” and says, “Shampoo. It gets your hair clean.” The end. Then, when men go to the store looking for shampoo, they’ll see: “Shampoo.” They won’t consciously remember the commercial because of course men don’t remember anything, but subconsciously, something will stir. And when they see the slogan — “It Gets Your Hair Clean” — they’ll say, “Hey! This gets my hair clean. That’s exactly what I need!” And they’ll buy it.

There will be soap available, too, of course. Men don’t care about one-third moisturizing cream, or doesn’t dry your skin, or doesn’t leave a sticky film on you that won’t rinse away, or anything else. They just want something that will wash the dirt from their bodies. My product will be called “Soap.” The slogan will be: “It Washes the Dirt from Your Body.”

Other products in my line of hygiene products will include “Deodorant” (“It Makes You Not Stink”), “Toothpaste” (“It Cleans the Crap out of Your Teeth”), “After-shave” (“It Burns Your Face”), and “Hair Spray” (“You’re not Supposed to Use This; You’re a Guy”).

We’ll also have a line of clothing. The one thing guys dislike more than buying toiletries is listening to Celine Dion. I mean, have you ever heard that woman SHRIEK? My goodness, you’d think she was on fire or something. But the OTHER thing guys dislike more than buying toiletries is buying clothes. They just want to run into a store and grab the first thing that might fit them, whereas women will bring picnic lunches and camping gear and spend an entire DAY just in one store’s “socks” section.

So we’ll have “Pants,” “Shirts” and “Shoes.” The slogan for all three? “You Wear Them.” There will be no need for belts, because the “Pants” will all have built-in elastic, thus causing them to stay up no matter what. The elastic also means one pair of “Pants” will fit anyone. There will also be no need for socks, because the “Shoes” will have white socks in them, firmly attached. And ties will become a thing of the past, because when you buy a button-up “Shirt,” you’ll find that it has a tie attached to the collar, already tied and looking sharp.

As you can see, I’ve thought of everything. The only thing I need is a financial backer, just to get the ball rolling. Once we have the products out there on the market, I’m sure we’ll wake up one day soon and discover that we’ve become millionaires over– Oh, good, I found the donut. Forget I said anything.

The Count of Monte Cristo

0

Leave it to Salt Lake City’s Pioneer Theatre Company to take a looooong 19th-century French novel and turn it into a play that is powerful and rich with symbolism, but also smashingly entertaining.

“The Count of Monte Cristo,” playing at PTC through Nov. 14, was adapted for the stage and directed by Utah theater mainstay Charles Morey. Having the same man write and direct is dangerous, for it eliminates some of the checks and balances that normally exist. (The writer isn’t going to correct the director on some of his interpretations, for example.) And especially with a work as complicated as Dumas’ “Monte Cristo”! But Morey and his superb cast and crew pull out all the stops and present a marvelous, well-balanced show.

At first the play seems almost to be a shallow, frivolous tale of buried treasure and adventure, like it’s going to be a pirate story or something. (There is one sword fight, but it’s not of the swash-buckling variety.) Edmond Dantes (John Rensenhouse) is locked in prison, having been wrongfully accused and turned in by his former “friends.” The years he spends in jail turn him cynical and bitter, and he plots revenge. As is generally the case in these situations, an old man who has been in prison much longer than Edmond tunnels out of his cell into Edmond’s and teaches him stuff. In particular, he tells him where a treasure is bured on the isle of Monte Cristo, and that with that money, Edmond can do much good and learn forgiveness.

Well, forgiveness, shmorgiveness, that seems to be Edmond’s response. He escapes from the prison by pretending to be dead — they just toss dead prisoners into the ocean, and there’s actually a pit of real water built into the front of the stage! — and he swims to shore, gets the treasure and shows up in Marseilles, Rome and Paris as the Count of Monte Cristo. He’s dressed all in white, acts like a gentlemen, and very gently and cordially plots the death and anguish of all the people who wronged him (none of whom seem to recognize him, don’t ask me why).

And quite a list that turns out to be! There’s Mercedes (Gloria Biegler), his fiancee who left him in prison and married one of his traitorous friends, Mondego (Tracy Griswold), instead. There’s Danglars (Ross Bickell), a now-successful businessman whom the Count seeks to ruin. There’s Villefort, the state prosecutor who has a bit of a dark history that the Count intends on making public. In all, there are four whom the Count wants destroyed, and he will stop at nothing to meet his goals.

As Edmond (or “the Count”), Rensenhouse strides nobly around the stage, seldom lurking, seldom creeping. He is perhaps the creepiest of villains because he makes himself part of normal society, rather than being a raging psychopath. His plans are methodical, never enacted out of rage or sudden inspiration. And his access to old documents and disturbing information makes him reminiscent of the Phantom of the Opera: dignified, intelligent and extremely resourceful. Indeed, he is a super-villain, incapable of being fought because no one realizes until it’s too late that they need to be fighting ANYONE, let alone him.

The Count fancies himself the “hammer of God” — a phrase he uses several times. He sees himself as merely exacting justice upon those who deserve it, being an instrument in God’s hands. However, it is near the end that he realizes what he has really been doing, when Mercedes tells him, “Like Satan, you thought yourself equal with God.” The Count makes reference a few times to his “former life,” and having been “reborn.” Indeed, when he played dead and was tossed in the ocean out of the prison, that seems to have been his journey through death and back again — an unholy baptism, as it were. (He emerges from the water all dressed in white, and remains that way until the end — when his black deeds are so heinous as to show themselves in his now-black attire.)

And somewhere in all that, the play stops being just a cool, exciting story of revenge and becomes a powerful statement on justice, God and forgiveness. The Count cannot forgive; however, when he kills Mondego, Mondego’s son Albert (John Hansen) frankly forgives the Count. This is as hellish a torment as one can conceive.

In an all-too-rushed wrap-up, the Count sees the error of his ways and attempts to make amends, to finally use his vast wealth for good instead of evil.

“The Count of Monte Cristo” is a play that LOOKS fabulous. George Maxwell’s sets, as always, are amazing, with pieces flying up and falling down and sliding off — not to mention the cool water pit in the front! Linda Sarver’s costumes are beautiful and perfectly befitting the time period, as well.

Obviously a 3-hour play cannot entirely do justice to all the themes and plots presented in Dumas’ lengthy novel. But there are only a couple times where things seemed too rushed in the stage version, things you can be certain were developed more carefully in the book. The turnaround at the end is one example, but there are very few others. Overall, this production is fabulously entertaining, not to mention meaningful and important. It’s theater at its finest: well-acted and directed, with plenty of fun and excitement, and a bit of a “take-home” message too.

Space Invaders

0

Some people take up way too much space.

I realize this next statement is coming too late, because some of you have already gotten me wrong, but I’ll say it anyway: Don’t get me wrong. I’m not talking about taking up too much space PHYSICALLY. Large people don’t bother me; indeed, some of our most beloved and important American historical figures have been, to put it delicately, really fat. I speak specifically of people like U.S. President William Howard Taft, baseball legend Babe Ruth, and fictitious benefactor Santa Claus.

No, what I’m referring to is people who take up too much space SOCIALLY. That is, they draw more attention to themselves than is necessary. With celebrities, this is expected, and it’s even sort of OK. I mean, celebrities actually DO something — they entertain us in one way or another, thus justifying their omnipresence. But regular people are another matter altogether.

For example, this summer I spent a great deal of time next to my apartment complex’s swimming pool, basking in the sun and tanning my pasty white flesh. It was often very calm and relaxing out there, for about three seconds, at which point the Stereo Girls would come out. The Stereo Girls were a group of tenants who felt that, if they were going to be near the pool, they needed to be listening to music — surely you can see the logical necessity there — and, for that matter, everyone else at the pool needed to be listening to music, too. They couldn’t bring out a small portable CD player and listen to something quietly. No sir or madam, they would bring out an actual stereo — complete with separate speakers — and blast their music for all the world to hear.

Was it good music? As it happens, it generally was, although that is not the slightest bit relevant. It was usually the “City of Angels” soundtrack, which is a pretty good album, although it comes from a stupid movie. (“I’m going to give up being immortal because I’m in love with you. Whoops! You died. Now I have given up being immortal for no reason at all. What a moron I am. The moral of the story: Never take risks, never take chances, never do anything impulsive, never let love dictate your actions. I’m going to go kill myself now. Bye-bye.”) The point is, there is no reason that I should have even noticed these girls. But by blaring their stereo every single day for the entire summer, they took over what essentially should have been public property, socially speaking. They invaded territory that belonged to everyone, and staked it out for themselves.

It’s the same reason I don’t like it when people whistle. Whistling is a selfish act. If I wanted to hear music, I’d turn on the radio. Whistling is like saying, “Here’s the song that’s been stuck in my head all day; I’d like for it to be stuck in yours, too. Enjoy.”

Another example. I know someone whose special talent is that he is capable of feeling welcome and comfortable in places where no one has ever made any attempt to make him feel that way. Those of you who live in large apartment complexes know this type. They practice the Knock & Barge method of visiting: They knock on your apartment door and then barge in, usually while still in mid-knock, before you have a chance to hide. Then they sit down and watch whatever you’re watching, talk about whatever you’re talking about, and eat whatever you’re eating — all without having been invited.

Imagine! Most of us would feel uncomfortable doing that, except in certain select places where the residents have previously made us feel welcome. I believe we would call these people “friends.” But to be able to walk into ANY apartment in the complex and do that — well, THAT takes talent.

It also takes up a lot of space, socially speaking. People should not thrust themselves upon you and force you to be their host, and yet we have the Knockers & Bargers who do it anyway, imprinting themselves onto people’s minds and forcing us to think about them. I maintain that when someone knocks and barges and sits down on the couch and integrates himself into whatever’s going on, you are not obligated to be the “host.” You are perfectly within your rights to go on doing whatever you were doing, and even to ignore the person if you so choose. Perhaps it would not be too much of a stretch to suggest that, if the situation warranted it, you would be within your rights to kill that person. After all, you did not invite them in. They have already proven themselves quite capable of doing things on their own — inviting themselves in, asking themselves to have a seat, offering themselves some pretzels — so they can probably also entertain themselves without your assistance. Really, they don’t even need you. They just need your apartment and your stuff. If you ever left the door unlocked, you’d probably come home to find them on the couch in their underwear, like they’re Kramer or something.

So let us all take care how much space we take up, socially. Let us not force ourselves upon others. And maybe it wouldn’t kill us to lose a few pounds, too. I mean, come on.

Born Yesterday

0

“I’m stupid, and I like it!”

So declares Billie Dawn, a Broadway-dancer-turned-gangster’s-girlfriend in Garson Kanin’s ’40s comedy “Born Yesterday,” being performed at the Hale Center Theater Orem.

In this often light-hearted but ultimately heavy-handed romp, Billie (Alison Akin) is the main squeeze of the tough-talking, head-busting, senator-buying Harry Brock (David Phillips). When the two of them blow into Washington to purchase a few more Congressmen and stir up trouble, Harry realizes that Billie’s dimness and lack of social graces may be a liability to him (although he’s not exactly the Lord of Gloucester himself). So he hires “New Republic” journalist Paul Verrall (Shane N. Bayles) to tutor Billie in the ways of high society, grammar and current events.

Obviously, Billie and Paul fall in love. She gets smarter, speaking grammatically and realizing how much of the world she missed all this time because she was so busy being dumb. She realizes she’s been a major player in Harry’s shady business dealings, and that she’s been signing papers for him and his alcoholic lawyer (Stevan Davis; double-cast with John Lundwall) without knowing what they are.

Finally, she has to decide what kind of life she wants, and her decision doesn’t exactly make everyone happy, though the play ends happily … er, sort of.

See, while there is a great deal of good, solid comedy in this show, the script climbs up on its soapbox near the end and starts preaching to us. This production spotlights this preachiness, and the play winds up seeming like it’s supposed to be making a profound statement. This would be fine, except that the statement is: Corruption is bad for America. Well, duh. No one needs to be told that. We’re supposed to walk out of the play nodding our heads slowly in agreement, pondering what we’ve learned — but we haven’t learned anything we didn’t already know.

This is a shame, because there are some marvelous performances here. Akin is outstanding as the heart-meltingly beautiful, impossibly dumb Billie. She flits around the room, her mind obviously focused on nothing, speaking in a squeaky Brooklyn accent. She sings lyrics from “Anything Goes” and from the Gershwin song “They Can’t Take That away from Me.” (In one of the more subtle jokes, she sings these lyrics — “The way you hold your knife/The way you sip your tea” — but they come out as: “The way you hold that knife/The way I count to three.”) Billie is a sympathetic, lovable character, and the play is carried on Akin’s very capable shoulders.

Phillips does an excellent job as Harry, too. No one says “Shut up” better than New York tough guys, and Phillips does it with the best of them, speaking like Robert de Niro and buying favors and bossing people around like a guy you wouldn’t want to mess with. But he plays Harry as more than just a two-dimensional bully. When he tells his lawyer that he loves Billie, despite the way he treats her, he really seems to mean it.

Bayles is decent as Paul, though he plays the character a bit less earnestly and a bit more weaselly than he ought to. Paul should be a wide-eyed, idealistic, non-cynical reporter (if there are any like that); Bayles tends to hold the words in the back of his throat, then let them ooze out all whiny and drunk-sounding. Still, he provides a solid foundation for Billie to build on, and he’s a good actor.

The supporting cast is good as well, leaving no weak link in the show. Indeed, the only weaknesses are largely inherent in the script. The first act goes on too long and never really builds up to any high hilarity (though it IS funny); and there’s the aforementioned soapbox at the end.

But overall, the show is entertaining and charming, thanks largely to Akin’s extraordinary performance as Billie.

How to be a Gooder Speechist

0

I was sitting in church not long ago, pondering the words of the speaker, when suddenly an inspired thought struck me: I was in the wrong sacrament meeting!

I dashed out and found the right one, and then I sat down and REALLY got to thinkin’. It occurred to me that since we don’t have a paid clergy in the LDS Church, and since we rely on the regular members to give the sermons every Sunday, maybe there ought to be instructions on how to give those sermons. I mean, if we had a paid clergy, they would almost certainly have graduated from some kind of clergy school, with a degree in clergying, or whatever, and they would surely have learned how to give good sermons. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be worth paying. I mean, who wants a clergy that can’t even give a sermon? “Sit down, you lousy clergy!” is what we’d be yelling from our seats every week as they stuttered and stammered. “We’re not paying you!”

So anyway, here are some basic guidelines on how sacrament meeting talks should be done. The following tips should not be taken as official church policies.

HOW TO GIVE A SACRAMENT MEETING TALK

1. If you are from Hawaii, you are entitled to force the congregation to scream “Aloha” at you. This is an official church policy. You preface it by saying, “I am from Hawaii, and over there, we greet each other by saying [this is the part where you yell really loud] ‘ALOHA!'” And then everyone will yell it back at you, partly because you told them to, but mostly because they think it’s kind of cool that they get to yell in church.

If you are from someplace other than Hawaii, you are NOT allowed to make the congregation yell whatever it is you would yell to each other back home. For example, you may NOT say: “I’m from south-central L.A., and back there we greet each other by saying ‘Yo, yo, homey, whassup?'” (Also, do not use the greeting they use in Payson, which is: “Durn it, I got all the way out here to church and forgot I left Bessy strapped to the milking machine.”) (Also, do not use the greeting they use in Butte, Mont., which is: “Hello, fellow Butters.”) (Note to myself: Do an entire column sometime full of nothing but greetings people use in other places. It’ll be a killer.)

2. Always begin your talk by saying, “When Brother So-and-So asked me to give this talk….” This is an official church policy. Every talk must begin with an amusing little story about how Brother So-and-So called you on the phone, and you thought, “Uh-oh — I know what HE wants!” The congregation will be ever-so-delighted to hear of your nervousness, for they, too, have perhaps received ominous phone calls from that pesky Brother So-and-So.

3. Remember the true purpose of giving a talk: to make people laugh. This is an official church policy. I have sacrament meeting in the step-down lounge of the Smith Family Living Center. The lounge is divided in half by a portable, paper-thin fake wall, and another sacrament meeting is held simultaneously on the other side of the wall. The wall is pretty much useless, as we can hear everything that goes on in the other meeting, and I imagine they can hear us too. It’s a good thing there’s no rivalry between us, or else we’d never be able to plot strategems against one another. Anyway, one week they got started on time, whereas my ward started five minutes late, as is our tradition. That meant that while we were taking the sacrament — you know, the QUIET part of the meeting — the ward behind us was already into their first speaker. And I don’t know what this guy was talking about — I couldn’t make out his exact words — but he was very animated, and had a great delivery, and he was absolutely KILLING the crowd. He was knockin’ ’em dead. And it wasn’t just one joke. It was one line after another, each laugh building on the last. Evidently, the fellow’s brain told him he was at open-mike night at Johnny B’s; I can picture him going to Johnny B’s on open-mike night and giving his sacrament meeting talk. (“Listen folks, I wanna tell you — you ever try that repentance thing? What’s the deal with that?”)

So remember that that’s what you’re really up there for. You want people to know how funny you are. Plan a few one-liners in advance. Heck, go ahead and tell an actual, honest-to-goodness joke, like the one about how the Pope, President Hinckley and Pauly Shore went fishing together. (Punchline: “It’s not holy water anymore!”)

4. Remember that each sacrament meeting talk must have at least one quote from, or reference to, the book “Believing Christ” by Stephen E. Robinson. It is merely an oversight that 1) the book is not scripture yet, and 2) Brother Robinson is not a general authority yet. Quote from it, refer to it, base your whole talk around it. Even if there’s no time to read any scriptures, make sure you get in some good “Believing Christ” quotes. One can never hear the Parable of the Bicycle too many times, after all, and I’m sure Brother Robinson is just THRILLED that his book has supplanted the use of scriptures in sacrament meeting talks.

5. When quoting general authorities, refrain from mentioning which specific general authority it was, or in which general conference he said it. Merely say, “One of the general authorities — I think it was one of the apostles — said….” That whole “apostle” thing makes the quote sound more credible, and will cause the congregation not to realize that you are actually paraphrasing something that someone read out of a book at a zone conference once, and that you have no idea who originally said it, let alone whether it was an apostle, or even a member of the church.

6. Mumble.

7. If you have a personal experience that demonstrates the principle you are discussing, and which caused you to develop greater faith in that principle, and which may inspire others to greater heights of personal righteousness, refrain from sharing it. (For guidance on what kind of stories you SHOULD share, refer back to No. 3.)

These tips, if used correctly, will make your talk sound like a majority of the other talks being given, and will prevent you from standing out too much and appearing “different.” It all reminds me of the time J. Golden Kimball, St. Francis of Assisi and Richard Simmons went camping…. (Punchline: “Assisi? I thought you said ‘a sissy’!”)

Hotel Frankenstein” and “Shadowbrook Mansion

0

Lindon’s Valley Center Playhouse, long known for producing amusing, family-friendly shows, continues that tradition with its two Halloween shows: “Hotel Frankenstein” and “Shadowbrook Mansion.”

Running Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and appearing for its 17th year at Valley Center Playhouse is “Hotel Frankenstein,” by Michael Goodman. This well-written play is about Dr. Frankenstein’s modern-day grandson (Kevin Bennett) who, with Egor (Kent Flowers; double-cast on alternating nights with Doug Dial), plans to bring a monster to life using the brain of another person. By turning the Castle Frankenstein into a bed-and-breakfast, they lure in the vacationing Woodknocker family and plan to steal the brain of the father, Julius (Mike Bawden; double-cast with Mike Gray), a Groucho Marx-impersonating professional comedian who lives his life as if he were always onstage.

Complicating matters is the arrival of Dracula (Thom J. Engstrom; double-cast with Chad Robertson) and his wife, Natasha (Stephanie Gray), as well as the Wolfman, Lawrence Talbot III (Brad Andrus). Frankenstein enlists all of their help in planting a certain magical brain-transferring crystal (that’s about how well it’s explained in the play) onto Julius Woodknocker’s person, only of course things get messed up, and I won’t spoil the secret-surprise ending!

There are some charming performances in this show, mainly from Engstrom and Gray as the Draculas. They are both dressed gorgeously, and maybe it’s the European accents, but they have a certain sophistication and dignity about them that makes their performances stand out.

Also noteworthy is Michelle Backlund as the long-suffering Mrs. Woodknocker, and Bawden as her obnoxious husband. The Groucho lines take some real work to deliver properly, and while Bawden was still fumbling over some of them on his first night, he showed real promise in being able to make this very essential role quite funny.

Madeline Watkins is playing Mrs. McGonigal (the Woodknockers’ elderly traveling companion) for her 13th year, and her absurd costumes and Granny Clampett voice make her extremely enjoyable to watch.

On Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, you can see “Shadowbrook Mansion,” written by Valley Center Playhouse co-owner Jody Renstrom. This play is more unevenly written than the first, but the performance is more energetic and ultimately more entertaining.

Like “Hotel,” “Shadowbrook” has several famous Halloween monsters gathered together in one place. This time it’s the home of the mysterious Shadow (David Belliston; double-cast with Nate Oldham), who has invited the Wolfman, Egor, the Mummy, the Dracula family (they’re divorced and have two kids in this play) and a couple of witches to spend Halloween weekend with him. Turns out the reason is that he’s going to finally overcome the curse that turned him into a shadow, and simultaneously drink one of the witches’ potions to become immortal. (This is at first an evil thing he’s doing, but later on it seems good, don’t ask me why.) He needs all the monsters there because the potion requires various things from them, which he takes without asking.

This play is also a musical, with eight pleasantly annoying songs involving nearly every cast member and perhaps five different chords. The lyrics are mostly embarrassing (“We followed directions to a `T’/Then we started disappearing — oh my, oh me!”), but I found myself grinning anyway just because everyone seemed to be having so much fun singing them.

Matt Clayton’s performance as the Wolfman is the best performance of either show. He does several subtle wolf-like things, even when he’s still a regular guy, and demonstrates a real flair for comedy. Also quite good, once again, are the Draculas — Brett Merritt and Deborah Tevis, this time. Their little spats are funny (Mrs. Dracula says to her son, “You look exactly like your father. Perhaps it’s just a phase”), and their two children complement them perfectly.

Nearly everyone in this cast is energetic and committed to their goofy characters, making the play an entertaining little comedy with several subplots.

Dracula vs. the Wolfman

0

One night about a week ago, early in the performance of “Dracula vs. the Wolfman” at Salt Lake City’s Off Broadway Theatre, the Igor-like Renny Field (Russell Peacock) was applying for a job as Count Dracula’s (Eric Jensen) assistant. Dracula is standing at the top of the stairs, and Renny is down below. He pulls out his resume and is about to walk up the stairs to hand it to Dracula, when suddenly Dracula makes the paper levitate up to him instead. The audience was very impressed and made “Oooh!” noises. Dracula turned to them and said: “Pretty spiffy, huh, folks?”

The reason I specify that this happened “one night about a week ago” is that I have no idea if Dracula will say the same thing the night YOU go. In fact, he probably has no idea either. See, the Off Broadway Theatre is also home to the Quick Wits — an improvistaion troupe. And with many of the “Dracula vs. the Wolfman” cast members being taken from the Quick Wits ensemble, well, improvisation in the carefully scripted show becomes a part of life.

The night I was there, Peacock forgot a few of his lines and had to have Jensen whisper them to him. The audience was in hysterics. Later, Joan Johnson, as Olga DePsychic, forgot one of hers and had to make something up. Again, hysterics. A picture fell off a wall and Jensen danced around with it for a minute; Alexis Owen, as Mary Talbot (the Wolfman’s wife), accidentally knocked some candles over as she went upstairs, causing Peacock to ask her to “try not to knock over the scenery as you go up”; and when someone accidentally made a crashing sound backstage, Jensen remarked, “That’s some pretty big mice we got over there.” All hysterics.

But don’t worry — there’s plenty of funny stuff in the actual script, too, even if nothing goes wrong. The play, written by Jensen and Bob Bedore (who plays Jack Talbot, the Wolfman), is a loony Halloween farce, full of pop culture references, song parodies, terrible puns and perfectly executed one-liners. The plot has newlyweds Jack and Mary Talbot vacationing in Transylvania, where they wind up staying in the old Frankenstein Castle, which is now a hotel run by Dracula — only he’s posing as Dr. Acula, a psychiatrist, and Renny is his bellhop/secretary. (Absolutely the funniest thing I’ve heard in the last year is said by Renny during one of his free psychiatric sessions with Dracula. It has to do with a dream he had recently; you’ll know it when you hear it.)

A policeman, Harry Timms (Dave Hunsaker), warns the Talbots that both a werewolf and a vampire have been terrorizing the neighborhood recently. Jack doesn’t know yet that he, himself, is the werewolf; all he knows is that he disappears at night and doesn’t remember where he goes. And no one knows that Dr. Acula is the vampire — but Willy Van Helsing (Jeremy Thompson), grandson of the famous vampire hunter Dr. Van Helsing, suspects it strongly, and is determined to prove himself.

Dr. Acula falls in love with Mary Talbot — seems she reminds him of “Hazel,” an old lost love from years ago. So he wants to dispose of Jack so he can have her to himself, and we soon learn there’s more to the fight than that: Werewolves are apparently one of the few creatures strong enough to do battle with a vampire. And so there’s a showdown.

Along the way, there are fantastic comedy performances by every single cast member. Jensen, as Dracula, is a stand-out, making Dracula a funny and sarcastic character. Adding to the humor is that he looks and sounds so scary — making it that much funnier when he does something ridiculous.

Peacock’s Renny character is also amazing. Peacock has a shaved head and a goatee, making him look like a cross between the Three Stooges’ Curly and the guy from Metallica. The character’s voice is by itself chuckle-inducing, and Peacock throws himself so thoroughly into the part that everything he does becomes funny.

Many of the jokes in the play fall flat. Some of them are downright terrible; others are merely dragged out too far. But when you’re doing 12 jokes a minute, it doesn’t matter if even half of them fail — give it 10 seconds, and another one will come to replace it. I honestly can’t remember which jokes I groaned and rolled my eyes at; all I remember now are the ones that were home runs.

There is some genuinely biting satire here and there (“We must destroy that which we don’t understand!” someone yells in imitation of the local, easily frenzied townspeople), as well as some great physical comedy, and of course the inevitable improvising.

Three things keep this show from being perfect. First, there don’t seem to be any microphones onstage, and the theater is rather deep. I was in the second row and didn’t have any trouble, but it was often quiet — I’m guessing people beyond the ninth or 10th row couldn’t hear everything (and this is a show where you WANT to hear everything). Second, at 2 1/2 hours, the show is too long. Even for a “regular” comedy, that’s long — and for a slapstick, farcical parody-type comedy, it’s WAY too long. The first act drags a bit in places; the pace is stepped up big time after intermission. And third, the show occasionally gets too cute for its own good, with too many references to itself. Having the characters “know” they’re in a play, and letting them refer to the scene changes and the audience is funny once or twice, but this show does it about a dozen times.

These are minor concerns, though. “Dracula vs. the Wolfman” is overall clever, fresh, energetic, and hysterically funny. It’s the best Halloween comedy of the season. Don’t miss it.

Irreconcilable Differences

0

For many BYU students, the start of a new school year means getting new roommates. This is pretty much a random process, except in the dorms, where they purposely match up people they’re sure will hate each other, like they do on MTV’s “The Real World.”

Way back in 1992, just before I moved into Deseret Towers (motto: “Three in the Morning, Shmee in the Shmorning! Let’s Sing Loudly in the Hallways!”), I answered a questionnaire that addressed issues such as whether I was a “night person” or a “morning person” (Who thinks “morning people” are freaks, raise your hands? I thought so), what kind of music I liked, etc., so that they could put me with someone compatible. This did not occur, of course, but that is no longer relevant, because I have moved past dorm life. In fact, I have forgotten most of my freshman year altogether, except for the most important thing I learned during that time, which was how to shuffle cards.

Anyway, I propose a questionnaire to be used not just by the dorms, but by all BYU-approved landlords in determining which roommates should go where. People who answer “no” to most of these questions can be put together without any problems, whereas all the people who answer “yes” should be put together in one large, warehouse-size apartment, preferably at another university, if not in a different nation entirely.

QUESTIONS FOR POTENTIAL ROOMMATES:

Do you fail to grasp such basic human concepts as “modesty” and “nobody wants to see me naked”?

Do you have a genetic defect that causes you not to hear the call-waiting beep, resulting in people calling later and saying they tried to call earlier but the phone just rang and rang, all because you were talking to your girlfriend about nothing? (“OK, so I’ll come over. No, that’s fine, I’ll just come over there. Yeah, well, I was thinking I would come over. Should I come over? Yeah, I’ll come over. I’ll come over there. No, you don’t have to. No. No. No. No. No. No. No, I’ll just come over.”)

Have you ever, while addressing another human being, used the word “dude” more than three times in one sentence?

Do you refuse to care about how you smell unless you’re going out, thus allowing yourself to smell like the carcass of a dead leprous goat as long as you’re not leaving the house?

Do you like to get up at 6 a.m., turn on every light in the house, sing loudly in the shower, and never, EVER close your bedroom door so as not to disturb your roommate, who is still sleeping?

Do you like to say things that don’t need to be said? For example, if you are playing a computer game —

Do you play computer games?

— If you are playing a computer game, and something exciting happens, do you feel compelled to yell, “Ka-boom!”?

Also, if you are watching, say, “The X-Files,” and Mulder gets in a fight and then they show him lying on the ground all bloody and bruised, would you find it necessary to say, out loud, “Mulder got beat up, didn’t he?”?

Do you plan to use our couch to make out with a different girl every night for a period of five weeks, at which point you will have scammed on every girl in the complex, thus making you the Most Hated Man in the Ward, and thus closing off our apartment from all possible social ties?

Will I ever have to kick a pile of your dirty underclothing out of my way in order to reach the shower? Because you must understand that I would sooner set fire to it than touch it.

Do you prefer Jay Leno over David Letterman?

Do you have every episode of “South Park” memorized, and do you allow your conversations to reflect that fact? Please be aware that none of us are named “Kenny,” and certainly no one is going around killing us all the time.

Do you think every song on the radio sounds even better with you singing along, especially if you don’t know the actual words?

Are you a Heat Nazi, turning down the thermostat really low in the winter in order to keep utility bills at a minimum and frostbite at a maximum?

Do you like to cook a big meal, dirtying every cooking utensil in the house, and then leave everything — including the half-eaten food — on the counter and stove for several days, until hordes of rats come in from neighboring towns and take over the apartment, driving us out into the streets?

Do you think just because you served your mission in some exotic, backward country like Zimbabwe or Alaska, that this means you should force your roommates to try some of the “local cuisine,” even if the “local cuisine” includes bugs?

Did your growing up on a farm result in you having no knowledge of any subjects other than farming, resulting in you being a person who only talks about farming?

Do you still use the missionary blue planner as your primary means of scheduling events in your life?

Did any of these questions offend you?

OK, I know — I “forgot” some really important question. If you have suggestions for what else should be on this questionnaire — and if you’ve ever had roommates, I’ll bet you do — e-mail them to me at [my address was given]. I’ll collect the best ones and print them in a future column. Working together, I’m sure we can hurt the feelings of every roommate we’ve ever had. Thank you.

Master Class

0

Salt Lake Acting Company, known throughout the state for doing cutting-edge, critically acclaimed plays that you don’t see anywhere else in Utah, has kicked off its new season with a brightly sad production of “Master Class.”

Written by Terrence McNally (“Ragtime,” “Kiss of the Spiderwoman”), “Master Class” is a Tony Award-winning play with a clever concept. Its main character, fading opera diva Maria Callas (Anne Cullimore Decker) speaks directly to the audience as if we are all observers of the singing class for which she is the instructor.

Maria was once quite the thing on the international opera scene, beating the odds to sing all the major roles, and even having an affair with Aristotle Onassis. Now she is washed up, though she retains her pride and confidence — perhaps more of each than she really has reason to. She is still as self-centered as any diva — fortunate for us, because it means most of the play consists of her talking to us, in one-woman-show fashion, often ignoring, interrupting or speaking over her students.

Decker is perfect in the role of Maria. She is haughty, passionate, professional, beautiful, dignified, aristocratic, funny and, ultimately, desperate. Twice during the play, while her pupils are singing roles she once sang, instead of listening to them in order to give feedback, she comes center stage to talk to us. The arias remind her of her glory days: Lady Macbeth’s evil schemes in particular cause her to relive her own Machiavellian desires in rising to the top of the opera world. But like Lady Macbeth in Shakespeare’s play and Verdi’s opera, Maria doesn’t stay at the top for long, personal and professional tragedy intervening.

It makes for fascinating theater, even though there are virtually no props and no set pieces. Maria’s two long flashbacks, in which she replays conversations and re-enacts performances, are enthralling and captivating.

The weakness in this production, directed by David Mong, is in the supporting characters. Maria’s three students are played by people who, as actors, are excellent opera singers. It ultimately doesn’t matter too much because Maria is the focus anyway, but it is slightly unsettling to see second-rate acting from the characters who should be bolstering Decker’s performance, not detracting from it.

“Master Class” is intelligent without being stuffy. It is very funny in many instances, sad in others, but always dignified — even as Maria quotes Ari Onassis’ vulgar diatribes against her. References are made to icons of high culture such as Medea, Euripedes, Shakespeare, and several famous operas. It’s not for the casual theater-goer, but neither is it pretentious or self-important. Maria emerges as a person as real and as tragically humorous as any opera character.

Dracula the Vampire: He Loved in Vein

0

The story of Count Dracula is played for laughs, not chills, in Desert Star Playhouse’s production of “Dracula — The Vampire: He Loved in Vein.”

In typical Desert Star fashion, “Dracula” is a contradiction of itself. It’s full of bad puns, cheesy jokes and hoary vaudeville-type routines — but then, just when you think the play doesn’t realize how dumb it is, something truly clever and original pops up and you realize the play DOES know how dumb it is. In fact, it’s revelling in that dumbness, and it wants you to do the same.

This is a show that has Dracula (Scott Holman) saying things like “She’s down for the COUNT” and “You tried to double-CROSS me.” Most jokes are used as blunt objects with which to hit you in the head, with musical director David Len Allen using the piano for punctuation — just in case you didn’t realize it was a joke, he’ll trill some of the high notes for you, cartoon-style, as if to say, “Isn’t that funny?!”

And most of the time, it is, though you might admit it only grudgingly. There are references, mostly superfluous, to the Clinton scandal, “Titanic” and of course the I-15 construction. (I have seen the last eight or so productions at Desert Star, and I have yet to see one that did NOT have an I-15 joke.) It’s all endearing, cute and often very, very funny.

The play moves a bit more slowly than most Desert Star productions, taking place mostly in one location — the home of Dr. Seward (Paul Thomas Murphy). His dim wife Mina (Holly Casper) is rather upset at the recent strange behavior of her friend Lucy (Julie Ann Christensen), who has been taken under the spell of Dracula. (Everytime Lucy is referred to, by the way, Allen plays the theme from “I Love Lucy” — in a minor key. I don’t think the audience I was in ever caught the joke.)

Seward’s pal Dr. Van Helsing (Ben E. Millet) shows up to help, and he begins to suspect the work of vampires. He’s right, of course, and everything turns out pretty much the way it does in Bram Stoker’s original story, only it’s a little sillier here.

After the show is the “From ‘C’ to Shining ‘C’ Americana Olio,” a song-and-dance revue full of all-American songs and humor. The Olios are often the most amusing part of the evening at Desert Star, and this one features some of the best Clinton jokes I’ve seen anywhere (he sings “Devil with a Blue Dress” in reference to Monica Lewinsky, among other things). For a theater that delights in its own one-dimensional broad humor, the Clinton satire is clever enough to remind you that Desert Star KNOWS how goofy its shows are, and that they’re goofy on purpose. “Dracula” and the accompanying Olio amount to fun, family-friendly entertainment that lets your brain have the night off.

Oh My Heck, It’s Another Conference Diary

0

The reason there was no traffic this weekend is that it was general conference and everyone was inside watching it on TV, or at least pretending to watch it for the sake of their roommates.

But if you only watched it on TV, as opposed to being right there in the Tabernacle, well, buddy, you haven’t lived. Since you weren’t there (or at least I didn’t see you), I’ll give you my account of the Sunday morning session.

9:11 a.m.— Three NewsNet reporters — Adam, Samantha and Marissa — and I arrive at Temple Square, dressed professionally and ready to do our journalistic duty in covering conference. Adam promptly breaks the clip off his press pass.

9:14 — We enter the Tabernacle and sit in the press section. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has finished its rehearsal for the “Music and the Spoken Word” broadcast. Clay Christiansen is making a hideous noise on the organ by playing two notes on two different keyboards that were never intended to be played simultaneously. We wish he would stop. After, like, a million minutes, he finally does. What was he doing, tuning it? It sounded terrible, but he was doing it on purpose. Maybe he was trying to blow the rats out of the pipes, I don’t know.

9:42 — During the “Music and the Spoken Word” thing, announcer Lloyd Newell introduces an organ solo, and I silently hope it’s going to sound better than whatever that rat-blowing thing was. Newell says the piece is “the ever-popular ‘Prince of Denmark March.'” I am dubious as to the “ever-popular” part, but the piece sounds pretty nice. As I listen, I close my eyes and try to picture the Prince of Denmark marching somewhere, but instead I fall asleep.

9:48 — I notice that the journalist sitting in front of me has a cool little computer/planner/organizer thing. Through the time-honored journalistic practice of looking over the guy’s shoulder, I see that one of his tasks for Monday is to “call Elder Marlin K. Jensen.” He is also supposed to call a guy named Troy. To me, it seems more likely that he will accomplish the second task than the first.

10:10 — During his talk, President James E. Faust mentions some cows that were starving on his grandfather’s farm during the Depression. It occurs to me that I am also very hungry. “As hungry as a cow” seems like a good figure of speech to put into circulation.

10:13 — A cameraman from a certain Salt Lake TV station shows up, 13 minutes late and dressed like he’s about to go paint somebody’s house. He sets up his camera, shoots approximately two seconds of tape, then packs up and leaves again. Maybe he’s going to get something to eat. Maybe he’s “as hungry as a cow.” (See? It works really well.)

10:29 — Elder Neal A. Maxwell makes a joke about his almost-bald head, and everyone laughs.

10:36 — Elder Maxwell makes another joke, but this one has a lot of big words in it, and only the smart people get it. I am not among them. I believe it is safe to say that neither is Adam, who is still trying to fix his press pass.

10:38 — Elder Maxwell quotes the apostle Paul about people who want to “eat, drink and be merry,” and it occurs to me that I’m still hungry. “As hungry as a heathen” seems a little better than my previous attempt at a new colloquialism.

10:47 — Elder David E. Sorensen mentions “cattle” in some context. I briefly consider going back to the cow thing again, but decide against it.

11:02 — Sister Susan Lillywhite Warner begins to speak. I mean no disrespect toward Sister Warner, but how did “Lillywhite” become a name? Isn’t “lilly-white” an unflattering way of describing a person? How did that make it to namehood, while “Pastywhite” and “Sissyboy” are still considered rude?

11:17 — Elder Richard G. Scott begins to speak — on morality, oddly enough. Listening to him is not nearly as terrifying in person as it is on TV, because in the Tabernacle, there’s no way he can stare right at you, his words piercing your soul even when you haven’t done anything wrong. (Well, I guess he COULD stare at you, but he could only stare at one person at a time, and what are the odds it would be you? I mean, come on. Quit being so paranoid, man.)

11:25 — Adam continues to work on his press pass, but it seems doubtful that he is going to repair it.

11:30 — Elder Scott counsels young men to go on missions, and young women to “follow the inspired counsel of President Hinckley in the October 1997 conference” on the subject of whether or not they should go on missions. If you are like most guys, you probably remember President Hinckley’s counsel as being: “NO MORE SISTER MISSIONARIES!” However, that is not entirely accurate. (I believe his original quotation was not in all-caps.)

11:50 — The audience is surprised that President Hinckley has done a “question-and-answer” type of talk, and has even mentioned Larry King, and yet has not addressed the issues of President Clinton’s immorality or the editing of “Titanic.”

11:52 — Somewhere, for the 1,000,000th time, a journalist describes President Hinckley as “media-savvy.”

11:58 — Conference ends and Adam’s press pass is still broken. This is a major black eye for the NewsNet organization, even worse than last week, when we called all female BYU students “girls” in a graphic on the front page.

12:14 — We find the lunch provided by the church for all media personnel, and we gratefully partake. Good thing, because some of us were as hungry as … oh, never mind.

The General Authorities Song (5th version)

0

SINGER/PIANIST: Eric D. Snider

There’s Gordon Hinckley, Thomas Monson,
James E. Faust and Eugene Hansen,
Spencer Condie, F. Burton Howard,
Loren Dunn, M. Russell Ballard,

Dean L. Larson, Cree-L Kofford,
David Haight and John H. Groberg,
Richard Maynes, Carl Pratt,
Carlos Amado’s one cool cat,

Cecil Samuelson, Ronald Poelman,
Claudio Costa, Gary Coleman,
Merrill Oaks and Dallin Oaks,
Boyd K. Packer don’t tell no jokes,

Porter, Bruce and Porter, Aldin,
Marlin K. and Jay E. Jensen,
Dallas Archibald, Lee Tobler,
Harold Hillam and William Kerr,

Keith McMullin, Ned B. Roueche,
Yoshihiko Kukichi,
Dennis Simmons, Eran Call,
L. Tom Perry’s really tall.

Ben B. Banks and Robert Hales,
Jeffrey Holland never fails,
John J. Carmack, Sheldon Child,
Vaughn J. Featherstone is mild,

Athos Amorim, James O. Mason,
Angel Abrea, Russell Nelson,
E. Ray Bateman, Merrill Bateman,
Glen L. Pace is a great man,

Enzio Busche, John B. Dickson,
William Bradford, Lance B. Wickman,
John M. Madsen, Ray H. Wood,
David Burton’s really good.

Alexander Morrison,
David E. Sorensen,
Joe J. Christensen,
Andrew W. Peterson,
Val R. Christensen,
Ronald T. Halverson,
Earl M. Monson,
Then D. Todd Christofferson,

Neil Anderson, Neal Maxwell,
Dieter Uchtdorf knows his facts well,
Gene R. Cook and Richard Cook,
Richard Allred, Quentin Cook.

Then there’s Dennis B. Neuenschwander,
Whatever your name is, his is longer,
Joseph Wirthlin, Richard Wirthlin,
Who’s the Apostle? Well, the first one,

Donald Staheli, Steven West,
Richard Edgley, he’s the best,
Jack H. Goaslind, Monte Brough,
Lionel Kendrick’s hangin’ tough,

Lynn A. Mickelson, Craig Zwick,
Charles Didier’s hair is slick,
Henry Eyring, Richard Scott,
They’re Apostles; you are not,

Gordon Watts and Bruce C. Hafen,
Kenneth Johnson has me ravin’,
Don Ladd is very regal,
Francisco Viñas es mi amigo,

Robert K. Dellenbach,
Duane Gerard and Wayne Hancock,
Rex D. Pinegar, J. Kent Jolley,
I’ll change keys now just to stall-y.

Bryan Richards, Dale Miller,
When he speaks there is no filler,
James M. Paramore, Richard Turley,
Always friendly; never surly,

Melvin Hammond, Edward Brown,
Lynn G. Robbins goes to town,
Jerald Taylor, Earl Tingey,
Boy this song is fun to sing-y,

Hugh Pinnock, Robert Whetten,
Silly now this song is gettin’,
Give ’em a hand now if you please,
Those are the general authorities!

Springer? I Darn Near Killed ‘er!

0

I realize I am going against conventional wisdom in saying this, but I think “The Jerry Springer Show” is good for America.

In case you are not up on your “pop culture,” either because you do not watch television or because you are from Canada, I will explain who Jerry Springer is. He hosts a syndicated talk show, the purpose of which is to give regular, every-day people an opportunity to beat each other up. Where 10 years ago two guys involved in a dispute might say, “Let’s take this outside and settle it like men,” they now say, “Let’s take this to ‘The Jerry Springer Show’ and settle it like a couple of wet-diapered babies.”

Generally speaking, the show features a person who has some terrible secret to tell his or her love interest. The terrible secret is usually on the order of “I’m a night-club stripper,” or “I’m not actually a woman, but rather, an armadillo,” or “I’m a Unitarian.” They will tell the audience the secret first, and then their partner will come out and be the last person in the whole country to know, which, you can imagine, must soften the blow quite a bit. If there is a third party involved — the owner of the night club, or the head of the Unitarian church, for example — that person and the person who has been surprised on national television will usually wind up fist-fighting while the audience hoots and hollers and Jerry Springer stands in the back and discusses his upcoming book deal with his best friend and personal manager, Satan.

Many people have said that this show appeals to the base instinct, and that it’s moronic. And I agree with those people. I will state unequivocally that every single person who has ever appeared as a guest on “Jerry Springer” is stupid. There are no exceptions to this. For most guests, just the things they’ve done are stupid enough, but having a desire to go on TV and tell everyone about them compounds the stupidity exponentially (by a factor of four, if you want the exact equation). Then the way they behave when they get on the show — dressing like trash as if they had no idea they’d be on TV when they got up that morning, swearing at each other, throwing punches, saying, “Talk to my hand,” etc. — all of that makes the stupidity almost palpable, to where it almost becomes an entity, and you have to capitalize it (e.g., “The Stupidity oozed out all over the stage, and the janitors had to mop it up after the show was over”).

And as for the husbands, wives, boyfriends and girlfriends whose partners invite them to come on the show so they can reveal some big secret to them — what’s up with these people? If you are ever involved in a relationship in which the other person wants to discuss a matter of major import on national television, rather than just telling you what it is — RUN, do not walk, away from that relationship, for you can know immediately that whatever it is they have to tell you, it can’t possibly spell anything good for you.

(Actually, men, maybe it’s our aversion to discussing relationships that has driven the women to this: Knowing that if they say, “Let’s talk about ‘us,'” we will flee the scene, they are left with no alternative but to drag us on TV and thereby FORCE us to talk. It’s something to think about, at least for maybe one second or so.)

Anyway, back to the stupidity issue. This is why “Jerry Springer” is good for America: It helps us identify the stupid people in our society. Now, being stupid, in and of itself, is not particularly heinous, because most stupid people are also nice, which sort of makes up for it. But “Jerry Springer” people tend to be stupid AND belligerent, which is a bad combination. Because if someone is dumb, that already limits their potential to contribute to society. But if they’re obnoxious, argumentative and militant on top of that, well, that pretty much eliminates all hope of them doing anything productive other than working at traveling carnivals, or Denny’s.

And so by letting these people appear on TV, it helps us identify them. Many of them, if you were to see them on the street, would not immediately appear stupid. You might make the mistake of asking them for directions, or entrusting them with a secret treasure map, or something like that. But if you recognize them from their “Jerry Springer” appearances, then you know instantly — “Stay away from this person! He or she can do me no good, and I might even have to talk to his or her hand!” “The Jerry Springer Show” is sort of like “America’s Most Wanted,” alerting us to the people whom we should be on the look-out for.

Eventually, every stupid person in America will have either appeared on “The Jerry Springer Show,” or will have a talk show of his or her own. Then the rest of us can sleep easy at night, knowing that the stupid ones among us have been clearly marked and can’t cause us any trouble. I’m sleeping better already, even as I write this.

Joyce Baking

0

“Joyce Baking,” the full-length, student-written play opening BYU’s Pardoe Theatre season, may be eye-opening to people who have no connection with the university’s social scene, but tells those of us who live it every day absolutely nothing we didn’t already know.

What does “Joyce Baking,” written by Josh Brady and directed by Eric Samuelsen, tell us about the BYU dating scene? Well, it tells us that guys are jerks, though generally without meaning to be, and that girls are catty and back-stabbing, though generally without meaning to be. It tells us that religion is such a part of BYU students’ lives that they can slip in and out of a spiritual conversation in a matter of seconds, and even combine the sacred and secular in their speech patterns. (One girl insists that since she has no social life, her roommate needs to develop one and tell her about it, in order to perform “vicarious work for the socially dead.”) It tells us that being “nice” is often a liability: “You just have to get to know her to like her,” says one. “Yeah, ‘nice’ people are like that,” says the other.

And ultimately, “Joyce Baking” reminds us that for all the talking we do about the need to be more “charitable” and “Christ-like,” most of us actually do very little toward that end.

The play is the story of two BYU roommates. Joyce (Colleen Baum) is a returned missionary, nice and sweet, very spiritual and “good,” and a great cook. She cooks for everyone; that’s just what she does. Her roommate and best friend is Becca (Jjana Valentiner Morrill), a slightly less mature girl who has made social relationships her life’s work. She knows just how long to date a guy before she kisses him, how to orchestrate Joyce’s life and turn it into something good — everything about relationships except how to hang onto a decent one of her own. She dates losers because she lacks self-confidence, all the while exuding exactly the confidence she seems to lack.

Along comes Alex (Javen Ronald Tanner), a recently returned missionary whom Joyce becomes modestly, blushingly smitten with. She bakes for him in order to woo him — something not uncommon at BYU. And it seems to be working … at least for a while.

The play is a dead-on accurate depiction of the BYU dating scene. The characters talk and act exactly the way BYU students talk and act, and what is so noteworthy about the play is that there is absolutely nothing noteworthy about it. References are made to the exact TV shows BYU students watch, the exact things they do, the exact things they say, the exact subjects that are a part of their culture. Most of the laughs come not because we have seen something unexpected or unusual, but precisely because it is NOT unexpected or unusual. It’s the “it’s funny because it’s true” method of comedy. Had a million other plays already been written on the same subject, this one wouldn’t be funny, because we’ve all made many of these jokes ourselves already. (What returned missionary HASN’T pretended to use the “Commitment Pattern” on someone in a non-missionary setting?) But since the play is new, we’re laughing because we can’t believe we’re seeing our lives played out on stage in the Pardoe Theatre.

Tanner plays Alex as typical as they come, as far as BYU males go. His part isn’t written with a great deal of depth — the play is not told through his point of view, after all — but I imagine he comes across exactly the way girls perceive guys as coming across (which frightens me a little, being a BYU guy myself). Morrill’s portrayal of Becca is also very accurate as she bemoans the latest moron she’s dating, insists she’s fat (which she isn’t), and expertly guides Joyce through her relationship with Alex. Her character is perhaps the most complex of the three, and Morrill pulls it off well.

And then there’s Joyce. Colleen Baum is nothing less than astounding in this role, particularly if you’ve seen her in anything else. Joyce is so realistic, like a thousand girls I know — and yet the real-life Baum is not much like them at all. This speaks volumes of Baum’s acting ability, throwing herself into a character that might normally come off as one-dimensional. With Baum playing her, Joyce is more than just “nice” or “kind” — she’s sensitive and delicate, optimistic about the future and yet pessimistic about the present. She’s naive, too — hopelessly naive — and so sympathetic that one can’t help but adore her and feel as devastated as she does when things don’t go well for her.

This is a great play, but not because it depicts BYU life so accurately. Simply showing something the way it is doesn’t automatically make it funny; showing it and then skewing it a little is what brings in the humor, and “Joyce Baking” does some of that skewing. (Though there are a few too many “Hey, look, it’s real life, so it must be funny!” kinds of jokes, particularly with the running gag about Alex’s priesthood lesson.) But even more importantly, this show demonstrates the side of BYU life that is not so easy to depict, and that is not so easy to think about. The side that often goes ignored: that dating is painful, and that good people get hurt.

Ultimately, for as funny and entertaining as this play is, it is also sad and upsetting. Every BYU student should see it and then re-evaluate how he or she is treating the opposite sex. There’s an important message here, and I hope people see it through all the laughter.

Good-4-Nothing

0

Although the purpose of this column is not to give free advertising to businesses (the purpose of this column is to offend people), I would like to shamelessly endorse a particular business that I enjoy: Food-4-Less.

You already think I’m being sarcastic, but I’m not. I actually shop at Food-4-Less exclusively, and I love the place. Now, it’s not because of its product quality or store odor, because Food-4-Less actually falls short in these areas. What I like about Food-4-Less is that they don’t even PRETEND to have customer service. They don’t even pretend to LIKE you. And I find that refreshing. Because let’s face it, all businesses exist for one purpose: to make money. No business actually cares about you — they don’t even KNOW you! You’re a stranger. Do YOU like strangers? Of course not. They’re strange; that’s why we call them strangers. Why would a business be any different?

The thing is, in order to make money, businesses have to pull a few tricks to make you think they like you, because they’re afraid if you don’t feel loved, you won’t spend money there, that somehow your need for their product will evaporate unless you feel warm and fuzzy when you walk through the door. (“Well, I thought I was hungry, but then that cashier was rude to me, so I guess I’m not after all.”) And so we get all these supermarkets with commercials going on about how “It’s YOUR store!” and how they want to be your neighborhood grocer, and they want you to be their friend, and they want your kids to come over and play with their kids. But when it comes down to you actually NEEDING something, they’re completely worthless, and their disdain for you comes through loud and clear.

Food-4-Less makes it clear that they don’t care whether you live or die, let alone whether you shop at their store, LET ALONE whether you’re satisfied with your visit. And I honestly find such a blatant disregard for the customers’ feelings refreshing. Hey, if you’re going to have disdain for someone, at least show it openly, rather than pretending with all kinds of “special sales” and syrupy commercials. (If I hear “What’s on your list today? You’ll find it at Fred Meyer” one more time, I will put “crowbar” on my list, find it at Fred Meyer, and then go find Fred Meyer and beat him with it.)

At Food-4-Less, the policy on customers is: “You’re in our way.” There are forklifts and tractors driving around the store all the time, carrying huge boxes that could easily crush a human being to death. And they just want you to move over. There’s no “Excuse me, Sir,” or “Pardon us, Ma’am.” It’s just BEEP BEEP! Stand aside or be smashed by 10,000 boxes of Trix.

Also, at Food-4-Less there is only one checker. I don’t mean just one checker working at a time; I mean they only have one checker on the payroll, period. Her name is Loretta, and she works Tuesdays. If you shop there, you’d better hope it’s during a time that she’s working, because when she’s off, they have the stock boys acting as checkers, and these guys, honestly, couldn’t check out a library book, let alone your groceries.

Also, if you can’t find something at Food-4-Less, don’t bother asking someone who works there. They don’t know, and what’s more, they don’t care. Even if they did know, I suspect they wouldn’t tell you. But they don’t know anyway. They couldn’t find their own rear ends if they were on fire.

You may think I’m being sarcastic, but I’m not. I really like this attitude, because it’s OUT IN THE OPEN. When I walk through those Food-4-Less doors and get a whiff of that warehouse/produce/meat smell, I know what I’m in for. I know I’m on my own, and as a grown-up, I’m capable of surviving on my own. The problem with other stores is, they PRETEND to care about you, thus lulling you into thinking you can rely on them when you need them, only to discover, when the time comes, that they’re just as indifferent as the Food-4-Less people.

Food-4-Less is nearly unrivaled in its honesty, though there are some examples in other industries. For example, video stores. Scene One Video has a terrible selection, but the movies they do have — primarily the “Porky’s” series and the complete works of John Candy — are cheap. There’s a guy working there whose greased hair sticks up in the air four feet, and he looks like he just walked in from 1956. He’s weird, he’s creepy, and he frightens me — but the movies are cheap. And there’s no pretending.

At Blockbuster, as soon as you walk in the door, an employee will say, “Hello!” Even if he is all the way across the store, he will shout it at you like you’re old chums, because it’s company policy that every customer be greeted — screamed at, if necessary — in order to make you think they appreciate your business. (Perhaps if you think they love you, you won’t complain about the cost of new releases, or the fact that movies that have been on video for two years are still on the “New Releases” rack.) And while you’re looking for your movie, someone will always come by and ask if they can help you find something. Well guess what, Skippy: They’re in alphabetical order. I’m familiar with our alphabet; I think I can manage. Why don’t you go put all the copies of “The English Patient” (video release date: Summer 1997) back on the “New Releases” shelf, where they belong?

Or clothing stores. There’s no need to even discuss ZCMI (which stands for “Zion’s Cooperative Rip-Off Over-Priced Store That You Should Shop at because You’re a Mormon and We Have ‘Zion’ in Our Name”). But in the area of suits, the two ends of the customer hatred spectrum are Mr. Mac and Deseret Industries. At Mr. Mac, much like at Blockbuster, you will be harassed and accosted within seconds of walking into the store. You will be convinced that your salesperson loves you and is just tickled to death that you’re going on a mission, and he will help you find the most conservative, missionary-appropriate, expensive suits they have. Then he will send you on your way, all cheerful and happy and glad to have done his part in building up the Kingdom by clothing the missionaries.

Or you can go to D.I. There, of course, no one cares if you shop there, or if you buy anything, or if you just steal stuff. Whether you buy your suit at D.I. or Mr. Mac, either way, the suit is going to fall apart in three days. The difference is that at least at D.I. you only paid $6 for it, and no one pretended to like you when they actually didn’t.

My point? Businesses should be honest. They want our money, and it’s silly to pretend that anything else, like customer satisfaction, is higher on their priority list, because we all know the truth. And we don’t like being lied to. That’s why I shop at Food-4-Less exclusively: because they have what I need, and there’s no stupid mind games going on between us. They hate me and I hate them — but when it’s over, they’ve got my money, I’ve got my Ben & Jerry’s, and everyone’s happy. All without lying.

And, if I’m lucky, all without my being crushed by a palette of Wheat Thins.

1776

0

Why would you want to see “1776” — a musical about the signing of the Declaration of Independence — when you already know how it’s going to end? Because of the three hours of powerhouse entertainment that lead up to that end, that’s why. (Perhaps, in this era of “Titanic,” that’s not really a fair question anyway.)

And while we know the Declaration of Independence eventually DID get signed, perhaps few of us know the struggles that came before it. “1776,” being performed at Pioneer Theatre Company through Oct. 3, depicts those struggles brilliantly: humorously, engagingly and excitingly. There actually IS tension and suspense as to whether the thing’s going to get signed or not!

“1776” is told through the eyes of John Adams (Kurt Ziskie), the fiery delegate from Massachusetts who seems never to rest, relax or shut up. He is a man obsessed with freeing the colonies from Britain, and he won’t rest until he has convinced every other delegate of the same thing.

His major opponent on the issue is stately John Dickinson (Max Robinson) of Pennsylvania, who still hopes for reconciliation with the mother country, despite the war that the colonies are currently fighting (and losing). The rest of the colonies are more or less evenly split, with Adams trying to win them over one by one.

On his side is Benjamin Franklin (Benjamin Stewart), who is portrayed here exactly as we like to think of him: wise, funny and old. He falls asleep during Congress meetings (who wouldn’t, really?), leers at pretty women, and is fond of quoting himself. Stewart’s performance is the easy-going balance to Ziskie’s tightly wound Adams.

“1776” is full of conflict. Aside from the ongoing war, which is only referred to and not seen, there’s Adams vs. Dickinson; the Southern colonies vs. Thomas Jefferson (played with dignity and strength by Patrick Boll); one Delaware delegate vs. another; Adams’ longing to be back home with his wife Abigail (Victoria Mallory) — and EVERYONE’S got problems with Jefferson’s proposed Declaration, wanting to take out a word here or put in a word there. (Anyone who has ever tried to write something via committee will relate to the agony and absurdity of that scene.)

Though “1776” is a musical, it is not a traditional one. There is no overture, no big finale with the entire cast singing and dancing, and in fact, there are only 13 songs in the entire show (20 or more is typical). Most of the songs are funny, reinforcing the show’s depiction of the delegates are real men: argumentative, hot and sweaty (“It’s hot as hell/ In Philadel-/ Phia,” sings one lyric), prone to making bawdy jokes, and stubborn. Yet the show manages to show us our forefathers in a way that makes them seem real without tearing down our lofty images of them. Adams is obnoxious and loud-mouthed, Jefferson can’t write until he sleeps with his wife one more time, Benjamin Franklin is lecherous and doddering — but we still love them. If anything, seeing a more realistic portrayal of them just makes us admire them more, because we see them as real people, not as 18th-century superheroes whose faces we know only from looking at our currency. Ultimately, every man follows his conscience and acts honorably — whether he signs the Declaration or not — and we gain new respect for the men who founded our country.

The show, while generally light in tone, has some serious moments, too. The news from the battle’s front is never good, and South Carolina’s Edward Rutledge (Robert Bartley) sings a slap-in-the-face of a song about slavery and the hypocrisy involved therein. And the long scenes of debate over the issues are fascinating. The costumes are so real and the acting so good that you feel you’re watching the real Congress. Through humor, music and powerful performances, “1776” shows the importance of standing up for one’s beliefs, the importance of fighting for a cause, and most importantly, the basis on which the United States of America was created. It may not actually be your patriotic duty to see this show, but it sure comes close.

The Titanic Song

0

CAST:
SUNG BY: Eric D. Snider
LEO: Joel Bishop/Adam Boulter
KATE: Lauren Keller
CAPTAIN/CELINE DION/MISC.: Mark Berrett
CAL/ICEBERG/MISC.: Lincoln Hoppe
OCARINA PLAYER/MISC.: Joel R. Wallin

I saw “Titanic,” that big-budget chick flick
I admit, it wasn’t that dumb.
When the film was over and I went to stand up
That’s when I learned my butt was numb.

Three hours —
My legs have lost power!
I believe that this movie’s too long.
A watery grave,
When it was done I had to shave.
I was stuck in this film
And this film just goes on and on.

The movie’s getting sadder as there’s discomfort in my bladder
All this talk of “water” isn’t good.
The captain’s brave and deadpan, while I need a bedpan.
I had three Cokes; that’s more than I should.

Jack says that he loves Rose, so she takes off her clothes
It’s OK — it’s PG-13.
I guess it’s not a factor that Leo’s a lousy actor,
His talents aren’t the focus of that scene. (spoken: If you catch my drift.)

Kate Winslet
For an Oscar was nominated
Just because her clothes didn’t stay on.
Kate’s a ‘ho
For DiCaprio
There’s no morals in this movie —
And this film goes on and on.

(instrumental, during which the ocarina player goes insane and is shot)

Get my gun —
It’s Celine Dion!
Her dang song makes this movie too long.
She wails, she shrieks,
My ears ring for weeks,
Her song’s just like the movie —
They both just go on and on.

Landlord of the Flies

0

This week, let’s begin with a fascinating question. What would happen if you found the owner of a BYU-approved apartment complex, tied him up with baling wire, and forced him to explain why he charges so much more for rent than the apartments are actually worth?

Give up? It’s a trick question! You’ll never find an apartment complex owner! They’re secretive, magical little men who never appear in public, much like the Wizard of Oz, or Marlon Brando. Instead, they sit in their offices, dressed in clothes that are made of $100 bills knitted together, resting on huge piles of money while they make up excuses for raising your rent again. (Not that they actually have to GIVE excuses, of course; they just like to think them up. It keeps their walnut-sized brains from atrophying with underuse.)

But hypothetically speaking, if the aforementioned baling wire scenario were to take place, not only would you become a local hero, but you would also find out the real reason they charge so much: because they can.

As you know, if you want to go to BYU, you have to live in BYU-approved housing. The BYU-approved landlords know this, and so they can charge whatever they want, and you’ll have to pay it if you want to go to BYU.

In 1997, when I was a real journalist, my buddy Shawn and I did a series of stories about BYU housing, and how the prices compare to housing near other Utah colleges. On the average, BYU students pay about $200 a month during fall and winter semesters; students at U of U and Utah State pay between $125 and $160. (By contrast, “Snide Remarks” is FREE.) The apartments are of comparable quality, are comparably close to campus, have comparably weird roommates, etc. Why is it so much less at the other colleges? Because up there, the landlords can only get away with charging what the apartments are WORTH, as is common in a traditional capitalist society; down here, in university-forced modified-capitalism land, they could charge $10,000 per student per month, plus utilities (of COURSE utilities would be extra), and require a security deposit of one kidney and a lung, and we’d have to pay it.

BYU, of course, could do something about it. They already demand that men’s and women’s buildings be separate, for example, and there are a number of other requirements for approved housing, even down to the number of windows in each apartment. So they could just as easily tell the landlords, “Listen, Fat Boys. [Note: BYU would probably not use the term “Fat Boys.”] If you want to retain your BYU-approved status, you can’t charge more than $160 per student per month.”

And the landlords would go along with it, because being BYU-approved is a great benefit to them. With more students than apartments, it means their apartments, no matter how lousy, are always full, and they never have to advertise. (This is actually a good thing for all of us, because when they DO advertise, the ads are always dumb. Every single complex, no matter where it is located, will advertise that it is “close to campus.” Often, this is a bold-faced lie. The Glenwood, for example, is a lot of things, but “close to campus” is not one of them. I guess “close to Denny’s” isn’t very attractive as a marketing ploy, unless your target audience is drag queens and losers.)

But BYU refuses to enforce a rent cap, and so we’re stuck paying twice what the apartments would go for in the real world. But I don’t want to be bitter. I want to find silver linings on the dark ominous acid-filled clouds that hover over us like grotesque demonic harbingers of doom. So here are several dozen benefits we enjoy at BYU-approved apartment complexes that we could not enjoy elsewhere.

• CLEANING CHECKS. In the real world, such an invasion of privacy would be frowned upon, and the tenants would perhaps greet the cleaning checkers with gunfire. At BYU, though, many landlords find it necessary — again, because no one’s stopping them — to drop by every now and then and make sure you’re being clean. Clearly, an unvacuumed floor is only the first step on a road that leads to campfires in the closets and homemade gin being brewed in the bathtub.

• RANDOM, LUCK-OF-THE-DRAW ROOMMATE SELECTION. In the real world, you have some kind of say in who your roommates are, and how many you get, and if you even WANT roommates at all. Also, if a roommate is lousy, the person whose name the apartment is in can kick him out. At BYU, though, many places will cram a third bed into a room that would not normally provide adequate living space for one hamster, let alone two humans, LET ALONE THREE humans, and then put another roommate in that bed. Invariably, this “wild card” roommate is a freak and/or a weirdo, as you know. If you are lucky, he goes to his girlfriend’s house all the time. (Please do not ask me why the freaks and/or weirdos always have girlfriends when so many normal people do not, for I cannot explain it.)

• PRECIPITOUS, UNJUSTIFIED RENT HIKES, AND SUDDEN CHANGES IN POLICY SUCH AS: “EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, UTILITIES ARE NO LONGER INCLUDED IN THE RENT, AND YOU NOW HAVE TO PAY FOR A PARKING STICKER IN ORDER TO PARK IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE YOU LIVE, AND WE SPENT SOME OF YOUR DEPOSIT MONEY AT THE ARCADE SO WE NEED YOU TO GIVE US SOME MORE, OH, AND YOU ALSO HAVE TO START PAYING US $20 A MONTH FOR THE FREE OXYGEN YOU’VE BEEN SUCKING DOWN DAY AND NIGHT IN OUR APARTMENTS THAT WE’VE BEEN LETTING YOU HAVE FOR FREE, WHICH, YOU HAVE TO ADMIT, HAS BEEN PRETTY GENEROUS OF US.”

I know I said “several dozen,” but I guess I could only think of three, even when I was being sarcastic. Sorry. This column may not be all that good, but at least it’s close to campus. That’ll be $50, please.

Chicago

0

If murdering vixens, devious lawyers and scantily clad prison gals all set to a scorching jazz soundtrack is your idea of a good time, then “Chicago” is just the musical for you.

Playing through Sunday at Salt Lake City’s Capitol Theatre, the national touring company of the Broadway hit is sultry, sexy, funny and filthy.

Set in the ’20s and based on a semi-true story, “Chicago” is about a couple of murderesses: Velma Kelly (Donna Marie Asbury), a vaudeville performer who killed her husband and sister after catching them, uh, together; and Roxie Hart, a would-be performer who killed her lover after he threatened to walk out on her. These are not particularly wholesome gals, nor are their fellow inmates in the Cook County Prison — but as they all sing their “Cell Block Tango” and tell of how they killed their various partners (“They had it comin'” is a recurring motif), we lighten up a bit and take this for what it is: very dark humor performed by very talented actresses. (One of them tells her story and ends with: “I took the shotgun off the wall and fired two warning shots — into his head.” Another mentions pouring her husband a drink, then says, “Some people just can’t hold their arsenic.” Laugh! It’s funny!)

Sleazy lawyer Billy Flynn (Brent Barrett) comes on the scene then. He has made Velma into the murderess-of-the-week, adored by the press, and the prison matron “Mama” (Avery Sommers) — who sings “When You’re Good to Mama” with as much soul and skill as any professional actress we’ve seen recently — has already arranged for Velma to hit the vaudeville circuit again, once she’s acquitted.

Unfortunately for Velma, new kid on the cell block Roxie starts to steal her thunder, and her publicity. Roxie tells more and more lies to win the public’s support, aided and abetted by Flynn. This leads to one of the most amazing scenes in the show: Roxie sits on Flynn’s lap and acts like a ventriloquist’s dummy — even mouthing the words — as Flynn sings to reporters. He is quite literally putting the words in her mouth, and not only is the scene very funny, it’s also stunningly choreographed.

“Chicago” is stylistic, not realistic. Set pieces consist usually of just a few chairs, and the bit parts are played by men and women dressed mostly in tight black outfits — one guy plays both a police officer and Roxie’s imaginary boy toy, all without changing outfits. People tend to slink and slither rather than walk, and even some of the dancing is choreographed to appear improvised — just like good jazz is.

Plot and characterization take a willing backseat to style, hot jazz music and incredible dancing, not to mention some solid physical comedy. The actresses are gleefully unashamed to fling themselves around in whatever manner is necessary in order to get a laugh, though they still seem very cool in doing it. In fact, that’s what makes much of the show so funny: the performers are so committed and professional that when one of them bends over backwards (literally) for a laugh, we can’t believe she’s actually doing something so absurd. We expect absurdity in our TV sitcoms and our high school farces — not in our slick, well-produced Broadway musicals.

But absurdity abounds, accompanied by skillful singing, dancing and merriment, making “Chicago” a thoroughly entertaining piece of work — a guilty pleasure, to be sure, but a pleasure nonetheless.

See How They Run

0

The main problem with “See How They Run” at the SCERA Shell Outdoor Theatre is the venue itself.

The Shell’s huge space is great for musicals and other large shows. It is not good, however, for small, one-room farces like “See How They Run.” The stage is simply too big. Everyone is too spread out. Instead of it taking a character three steps, for example, to run across the stage and slam a door, it takes six steps. The extra space throws off the timing, which throws off the pace, which throws off the humor.

The next big problem is the delivery. Many of the actors have adopted a flustered, stammering delivery on many of their lines, particularly as the situation within the play becomes more exasperating. This is the opposite of what farce usually needs, which is crisp, quick dialogue. You want “set-up”/”punch line,” not “set-up”/”uh-uh-uh, punch line.”

Some of the stammering may be attributed to being under-rehearsed on opening night. Much of it, however, seemed like intentional character choices.

The play, written by Phillip King and directed by Robinne Booth, is set in an English vicarage in the 1940s. Rev. Lionel Toop (Scott Healy) has a new wife, Penelope (Miriam Latour), a former actress who is not as demure as the townsfolk — particularly the prim Miss Skillon (Booth) — would like the vicar’s wife to be.

While Lionel is out one night, Penelope runs into an old friend, Clive (Doug Shattuck), now a soldier with a few hours to kill. They embark on a perfectly harmless night on the town, with Clive dressed in one of Lionel’s priest outfits to avoid being recognized as a soldier.

As you know if you have seen farces before, two men dressed in identical outfits will soon be mistaken for each other, even if they have completely different body types. (Also in farces: People can be knocked unconscious by a mere slap to the face.) Eventually, there are as many as four priest-dressed men running around the place, with a visiting bishop (Ben Wake), another vicar (Jeremy Showgren), an escaped Russian spy (Josh Curtis) and a nosy maid (Melissa A. Smith) thrown in the mix.

Miriam Latour, at the center of things as Penelope, starts out with a very natural, realistic performance. As the situation grows more bizarre, however, she becomes sillier and less believable. Still, this may be an improvement over most of the others, who start as over-acted caricatures and stay that way.

Instead of putting normal people into an outrageous situation, Booth has directed her cast to be outrageous people trapped in an outrageous situation. There is also a lot of unmotivated blocking — characters moving around as they speak without any discernible reason for it, other than to fill out that monstrous stage.

“See How They Run” can be an extremely funny play, but this production never reaches the level of mayhem it ought to.

Should you go? The laughs are few. SCERA’s outdoor season will surely get better.

See How They Run

0

“See How They Run,” the daft ’40s farce by Philip King, is well-directed and hilariously acted at the Springville Playhouse. Director James McGregor has the pacing just as it should be, and the cast has no weak links at all, with the leads showing particular skill.

Oh, and they’re all high school students.

It’s actually the Playhouse Youth Guild — a division of the Springville Playhouse — that has put this show together, but the participants’ talents outshine those of many of their adult counterparts.

It helps to have a good script, of course, and “See How They Run” has a great one. The dialogue is fast and clever, with characters snarking at each other constantly, and with a zillion comic possibilities. Everything takes place at a vicarage in England. The Rev. Lionel Toop (McGregor) has to put up with a nosy, prim-and-proper (yet inappropriately flirtatious, at least with him) parishioner, Miss Skillion (Natalie Llewellyn), as well as a wife, Penelope (Heidi Tippetts), who is a former actress and is anything but the demure and quiet preacher’s wife he’d like her to be.

Penelope, in fact, is the star of the show, and Tippetts plays her with fiery, gleeful abandon. Physically and vocally, Tippetts has energy, power and above all, comedic timing. She and Llewellyn — who is also talented far beyond her years — make a great duo, sparring over one another’s perceived inadequacies. (Llewellyn also plays a hilarious drunk later on in the play.)

While the Reverend is out for the evening, an old actor friend of Penelope’s stops by. It’s Clive (Jeff Croshaw), who is now in the army and has a one-night leave. They want to go see a production of the play they used to perform in, but it’s out of the city, and Clive can’t leave. The solution? Hide his military uniform in a trunk that “nobody ever looks in” (of course someone immediately does), and dress him up in one of the Reverend’s spare priest outfits.

When they return, all hell breaks loose as two — and eventually three, then four — men dressed as priests (some of them actually ARE priests) show up at the house, each being mistaken for someone else. Clive just wants to find his uniform — which the back-talking maid Ida (Eva Tippetts) has inadvertently misplaced — and get out, while Penelope is enraged at what looks to be an affair going on between the Reverend and Miss Skillion. Oh, and there’s an escaped Russian prisoner (Michael Johnson) involved as well (he’s also dressed like a priest, naturally).

Like any good farce, there’s plenty of physical comedy here, and it’s surprisingly fresh and non-sophomoric. People run in circles, jump over unconscious guests, punch each other in the face and do a lot of fainting — and they do it all like pros. (The punches in this show, of which there are several, are particularly good. They don’t look like fake “stage punches” — they look REAL. It may seem like a small thing, but working out the choreography of a good stage punch takes more than just a couple minutes of practice, and many shows just throw them in without paying attention to the details. This show goes above and beyond that.)

The play is hilarious from start to finish, with only a few lines delivered incorrectly, diminishing their humor. In the end, it doesn’t matter that Johnson doesn’t even ATTEMPT a Russian accent, or that there are two men each wearing clothes supposedly belonging to a man who is clearly not even close to the same size as they are. It doesn’t matter that Croshaw is often trying very hard not to laugh at himself. You forgive all this because 1) the show is so darn funny, and 2) the actors are clearly having the time of their lives. The enthusiasm and giddiness are contagious, and the show — entirely put together by high school students — is a rousing success.

Degeneration X

0

While you were out this summer wasting your time sitting by a pool or selling pest control door-to-door, the folks at the Daily Entertainment Network were hard at work making our generation look like idiots (not that this is difficult).

I draw your attention to a poll called the “Our Generation Study,” the results of which can be found at [I gave the link, but it is no longer valid. Sorry]. In this survey, 16,000 15-24-year-olds were asked to respond to certain questions pertaining to the defining news events, movies, TV shows and heroes of their generation.

This is not to be confused with another list that came out this summer: the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 best movies of all time. On this list, “best” is defined as “movies that people have heard are supposed to be ‘classics,’ and so they voted for them, whether they actually enjoyed them or not.” (Exhibit A: “Citizen Kane,” which was voted No. 1. Technically, it’s a superior movie, full of nice cinematography and good acting. It also happens to be extremely boring. But this is irrelevant, because it’s a “classic.”) The AFI list soon proved to be worthless when it was revealed that only 3,000 pre-selected “film industry” people voted (including — this is true — President Clinton, who voted for — this is not true — “Basic Instinct”), and that they only had 200 movies to choose from. And voting procedures aside, you can tell the list is worthless just by looking at it: “Birth of a Nation” made it into the top 50 despite the fact that it came out in 1915, is not available on video, and has probably been seen by fewer than 100 people in the United States who are currently living, but everyone voted for it because they’ve been TOLD that it’s a great movie.

Furthermore, “Tommy Boy” is not on the list AT ALL.

But back to the “Our Generation” poll. Before I begin complaining about some of the results of this poll, I would first like to complain about being lumped in the same generation as 15-year-olds. Do you relate at all to any 15-year-olds you know? Maybe I’m just getting cranky as I grow older and continue to be unmarried, but everyone under 18 is a punk as far as I’m concerned. Maybe this is because I spent all summer at BYU, and we were constantly barraged with thousands of teen-agers here for EFY and various BYU-sponsored boot camps. They would swarm all over the place, their hormones spilling out around them, forming a protective gelatinous blob that followed them wherever they went. They would shriek and giggle and yell, their voices changing several octaves as they did so, all the while never having a clue where they were going or what they were supposed to be doing. As far as I could tell, EFY had only one planned activity: a dance every night. Aside from that, the purpose of EFY seemed to be to give teens an opportunity to hang around Provo for a week, make out with strangers they’ll never see again, and then go home. They were especially fond of getting on the Wilkinson Center elevator on the first floor, but taking it only to the second floor. (It’s ONE flight of stairs, kids! You’re young, you’re healthy — TAKE THE STAIRS and quit wasting my time!) (There, see, you can see that crankiness I was talking about.)

Now, it’s not that I don’t like teen-agers. Well, OK, it is that. The point is, there were 15-year-olds voting in this poll, and as a 24-year-old, I can think of very few things that 15-year-olds and I would agree on, except that maybe a few of the more open-minded, mature 15-year-olds would agree with me that all 15-year-olds are idiots.

The results of this poll are odd. For example, under “Defining Moments of Our Generation,” we find such eclectic items as the Challenger space shuttle explosion (No. 1), the Oklahoma City bombing (No. 5), and the movie “Titanic” (No. 15) — two disasters, and a man making a billion dollars off a disaster.

Also on this list, at No. 12, is Kurt Cobain’s death. Frankly, I am tired of people saying that Kurt Cobain was the Voice of Our Generation, and that when he died, we all suffered a great loss. The only group that suffered a loss when Kurt Cobain died was the heroin industry, and they seem to have rebounded pretty well. Kurt Cobain was no more a “poet” than he was a hygiene fanatic. A “brooding genius”? Come on! He lived in Seattle. Have you ever BEEN to Seattle? It rains all the time. You’d be depressed too.

Next is “The Heroes of Our Generation.” Jesus Christ came in at No. 2, beating out Michael Jordan, but coming in behind Luke Skywalker. This makes me want to hide under the covers and never associate with humanity again.

Also on the “Heroes” list are Jerry Springer and Howard Stern, which I believe is a result of letting 15-year-olds vote, and also of the fact that the world is going to end very, very shortly.

The Pope, the Dalai Lama and Bill Clinton all tied for No. 18. Again, I have no idea how to analyze that.

In the “Most Important Movies” category, we find another odd combination: Tied at No. 8 are “Schindler’s List” and “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.” That’s right, “Schindler’s List” and “Ferris Bueller” are EQUALLY important. One of them is not more important than the other; they are of equal significance. Can you imagine two more opposite movies? One of them actually affected people, made them think, and influenced their behavior, whereas the other one was about Nazis.

Of the 20 films on this list, 10 are rated R, which means you haven’t seen them. Naturally, “Titanic” is on the list (No. 6); thank goodness there were enough people voting who WEREN’T teen-age girls, thus putting “Star Wars” at No. 1, where it belongs.

My question is, Where’s “Birth of a Nation”? I love that movie. Or, at least, I’ve been told that I do.

Hamlet

0

There’s a scene in “Hamlet,” being performed through Sept. 19 as part of the Castle Theatre Festival, that epitomizes both the brilliance of the play, and the greatness of this production of it.

It’s the scene where Hamlet (David Morgan) has hired a troupe of actors to perform a play similar to what he believes to have been the circumstances surrounding his father’s death. Hamlet watches the play, as he watches Claudius (Chris Kendrick), looking for a twinge of recognition and guilt to cross the king’s face. Claudius stares at the play, unblinking and unflinching. Hamlet’s friend Horatio (Chris Clark), hiding in the shadows, also watches Claudius. They watch the play; they watch Claudius; Hamlet glances at Horatio; he watches the king some more.

Finally, when the play has hit too close to home, the king rises and leaves the room. Hamlet stops the play, everything is thrown into utter chaos, and for a few seconds he hurls himself into an insane revelry, giddy with mad delight at what has happened. The scene is intense, cathartic and brilliantly staged.

And so is the rest of the play. “Hamlet,” directed here by Loraine Edwards, is the most clear, lucid performance of a Shakespearean play that I have ever seen. The dialogue is still Elizabethan, but sometimes you forget that, so realistic and genuine are the actors in their delivery. They seem to understand what they’re saying, and what it means, and therefore so does the audience.

We see the characters’ reactions to each other, which helps us understand the nature of both parties. We see Hamlet’s grief over his father’s death, and his anger at his mother for marrying again so soon — and for marrying his father’s brother, at that. We see every emotion, passion and feeling that Shakespeare intended, all vividly and powerfully portrayed.

The show is just over three hours long, with one intermission. I honestly didn’t want the intermission, so caught up was I in everything that was unfolding before me. I knew the plot; I even knew some of the dialogue — and yet this performance seemed completely fresh and brand-new.

David Morgan is amazing as Hamlet. The character is extremely complex, but Morgan plays him completely realistically. He seems like… a guy. Just a guy that you might know, who has an extraordinary set of problems in his life. He saunters around the stage. He eats apples. He drinks. You wouldn’t know he’s one of the most famous characters in the whole history of English theater — because he just seems so real.

Trish Reading gives a marvelous performance as Ophelia, particularly in the scene in which she has gone insane. This scene can easily be overdone and melodramatic, but Reading plays it with grace and dignity — again, realism. And when her brother, Laertes (Jeremy Hoop), finds out that she has died, we see true heartbreak in his reaction.

Chris Clark, who is a sheer joy to watch in everything I’ve seen him do, adds a spark to Horatio, bringing him to life and giving him zest. Chris Kendrick is simultaneously noble and monstrous as Claudius, his great height and deep voice helping him make the villainous king a fascinating character to watch.

The climactic sword-fighting scene, choreographed by D.C. Wright, is stunning. Not only is the fighting well-done, but all the other commotion — various poisonings and stabbings and what-not — is perfectly timed and executed (pardon the pun), causing the play to end with the audience not only at the edge of their seats, but overwhelmed with the sheer sadness of it all, too.

One of the greatest tragedies about this play is that no one is seeing it! Audiences have been small for the first few performances. If you have ever considered seeing a Shakespeare production, see this one. If you haven’t considered seeing a Shakespeare production, change your mind and THEN see this one. It is not to be missed.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers

0

The Hale Center Theater Orem, once again defying the laws of physics, occasionally crams 24 very robust actors onto one tiny stage in the current production of “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.” It seems impossible, and yet director Syd Riggs and choreographer Brent Thomas Mills pull it off expertly, the stage never seeming cramped, despite the fact that, during one or two scenes, there are about 12 too many actors on it.

But that is not the only thing about “Seven Brides” that defies logic. In case you’ve never seen the play or the movie, it’s about a family of seven two-fisted fur trappers — brothers who brawl, argue, wrestle and just generally raise a ruckus as they try to make a living in the frontiers of the Wild West. The eldest, Adam (Erik Christensen), decides to go into town and bag himself a wife, which he handily does, in the form of the intelligent and feisty Milly (Jenn Webb). Why does a girl like her agree to go off and marry a sexist pig like him after only one meeting? Good question.

Even better questions emerge later, though, when the six remaining brothers, whom Milly promptly turns into civilized human beings (much to Adam’s chagrin), decide they want wives, too. They all go to a barn raising and win the hearts of six girls in town, wooing them away from their current beaus. How do they do this? By dancing, apparently. (The Wild West was evidently very different from the way we often think of it.)

Ultimately, Adam convinces his brothers the best way to get the girls to marry them is to abduct them from their homes, drag them back to the family farm in the woods, and cause an avalanche behind them so the townspeople can’t come rescue their daughters until spring. How could he possibly think that’s a good idea? Good question. Also, how could his brothers possibly go along with it? Another good question.

The title of the play indicates what eventually happens, of course, but everything in between is nonsensical — at least when summarized on paper. Somehow, when it’s performed onstage — and performed with the talent, enthusiasm and conviction displayed in this production — it all makes sense. You almost don’t notice the absurdity of six guys running around the stage with girls slung over their shoulders like bales of hay.

This show has several really great scenes. When Milly teaches the six brothers about etiquette and “Goin’ Courtin’,” the whole group dances around the kitchen table like there’s no tomorrow. And in the barn-raising scene, where the brothers try to win the hearts of the girls, the dancing is occasionally a bit off, but it’s still charming in its klunkiness. Even better is the ensuing brawl, which is as carefully choreographed as anything you’ll see, but with the feel of absolute reckless abandon.

It’s that kind of sheer joy and enthusiasm that makes “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers” work. Jason Garfield, Robert Land, Derek Call, C. Mo. Hanners, Trent Sutton and Justin Martin all give great performances as the brothers; Emilee Wager, Tara Paige Starling, Andrea Chapman, Becky Witham, Kris Wing and Katie Higbee aren’t given much chance to develop characters as the brides, but they are united in the giggly glee that pervades much of their stage time.

Worthy of particular mention are Jenn Webb as the headstrong Milly. Webb is small and pretty in frame, but energetic and fiery in her performance. She and Erik Christensen, as Adam, both have beautiful singing voices, carrying many of the musical numbers. Also, Justin Martin’s turn as youngest brother Gideon — the only one besides Adam whom the script provides with a personality — is funny and endearing.

The show is fun, fast-paced, sometimes raucous, sometimes sweet, always entertaining. The Hale Center Theater, and Syd Riggs, do it again.

A Freshman’s Guide to BYU

0

We thought it would be helpful to give the incoming freshmen a practical guide to living at BYU, what with all the big decisions you are now facing, such as whether to eat dorm food all the time, or to try surviving on vending-machine items, which are more expensive, but which may contain more nutritional value.

For you see, we have been through this already. We are a senior now, and not only does that entitle us to say “we” when we mean “I,” but it also gives us some insight as to how you, as a freshman, can make your first year at BYU a memorable, death-free experience.

The first thing you have probably realized is that you’re not in high school anymore. BYU is nothing like high school. And you probably recognize this as being a good thing. If you had wanted to go to high school some more, you would have STAYED in high school, or perhaps gone to Ricks.

You have probably been thrust into a “Y Group.” You were met by two unbelievably perky upperclassmen who have taken time out of their busy summer schedules (we’re kidding; they weren’t doing anything) to show you around campus and make you learn the Cougar fight song (which, by the way, you will be quizzed on in most of your first-semester classes). They have played fun “get-to-know-you” games, and they have promised to be your friends and guidance counselors to help you through your rocky first semester at BYU. You will never see these people again.

As you walk around campus, you may be concerned at first by how large BYU is, and how seemingly complicated it is to find your way from one building to another. Do not be alarmed, my friends. Due to the library construction, which is scheduled to be completed sometime in the late summer or early fall of the year 3281, by which time highly evolved monkeys will rule the Earth and will have either enslaved the humans or will be keeping them as pets — due to the construction, NO ONE can find their way around campus. Even the upperclassmen, many of whom have been students here for well over a decade, have trouble getting from one place to another.

Our best advice is, if you see a path that will lead you to the building you want to enter, take it. You will occasionally see signs saying, “Construction area; do not enter; $300 fine.” Do not heed these signs, for they are meant merely as jokes — quaint examples of the refined senses of humor possessed by all construction workers (all of whom smoke, by the way, so don’t be surprised). (We are just kidding, of course. About the signs, we mean, which you actually SHOULD obey. Not about the smoking, which is true.)

If you are living in Deseret Towers or Helaman Halls, it is important that you realize now that you will never accomplish anything of value in those buildings. You will make many friends, and have a great time singing loudly in the hallways at 3 a.m., and filling people’s rooms with crumpled-up newspaper, and throwing furniture off the roof, and playing computer games until your eyes require corrective surgery, but you will never get ANY studying done. The dorms are scientifically engineered to make studying impossible. As soon as you try it, one of your dorm-mates will come along and demand that you accompany him and a thousand others to Denny’s, where you will watch the freaks and weirdos and gasp in horror at all the people in Provo who are drinking coffee.

Which brings us to an important point: What is there to do in Provo? Some people would have you believe that Provo is boring, and that there is no fun to be had. Those people make us so mad that veins start to pop out of our forehead, and we have to go lie down for a while. There’s PLENTY to do in Provo. For example, there’s a lot of live community theater, which is occasionally not painful to watch. A bar called LeMar’s used to have female dancers who danced while only partially clothed, but the City of Provo recently made them stop. Still, the movie “Titanic,” in which the same sort of nudity is featured, played to sold-out Provo audiences for six months. (We do not seek to explain the motives of the people of Provo; we merely report them and, where appropriate, mock them.)

Speaking of movies, Provo also has a lot of movie theaters. These are places in which motion pictures — such as the ones you’ve seen advertised on television — are shown to members of the general public in exchange for money. There’s even a place called Movies 8, also known as “the dollar theater,” where movies cost — that’s right, you guessed it! — $1.50. Provo is full of movie theaters. Unfortunately, they are too far from campus to walk to, and you don’t have a car, so forget about it. Start crumpling up some newspaper, Sparky.

Scooter Wells, Boy Detective, and the Secret of Scull Cove

0

So pretty much what’s happening is, some people who are vaguely implied to be extra-terrestrials are disguising themselves as Nazis, and then as regular people, in order to get hold of a crystal that a high school science club discovered which, unbeknownst to the science people, is capable of destroying the world, which of course is what the aliens want it for.

Oh, sorry. I was going to do a regular lead, but I figured a plot summary, in this case, would get your attention better. It’s the musical/parody/melodrama currently being performed at Desert Star Playhouse in Murray, and it’s called “Scooter Wells, Boy Detective, and the Secret of Scull Cove.”

This Desert Star production is less of a parody and more of a goofy little story about an all-American high school boy named Scooter (R. Russell Durrant), his all-American cheerleader girlfriend Penny (Ginger Christensen), their obligatory nerd friend Bunky (Christopher Joseph Rogers), their obligatory rich-snob rivals Sylvia and Preston (Kaycee Raquel and Paul Thomas Murphy), and the obligatory aliens-posing-as-Nazis (Norman E. Plate and Layna Carter).

This production is also a little more self-aware than it should be. The dialogue is full of terrible puns and cheesy jokes, which are what we gleefully expect at the Desert Star. But these are a little worse than usual, and most of them are punctuated with pianist Anne Puzey doing a little trill on the piano — as if to say, “Wasn’t that funny? Eh? Eh?” This wink-wink, nudge-nudge approach merely points out that the jokes aren’t that great, and reminds you that they actually expected you to laugh.

The play improves greatly in the second act, though, when the plot swings into full motion and the show quits reminding you that it’s supposed to be funny. There are some truly funny moments, centered mostly around the big, intentionally silly set pieces. Scooter and Bunky go underwater at one point; there’s a car chase with pieces of scenery being dragged across the stage with strings; and a boat chase with a similar approach. In these scenes, the show is every bit as cheesy as it was before. The difference is that now, it doesn’t beat you over the head with its cheesiness; it just lets you sit back and enjoy it.

Another highlight is Rogers’ scene as “Mr. Molecule,” Bunky’s Freudally repressed alter ego. His costume alone is hysterical, but his song and dance make things all the more bizarre. It’s the sort of inspired lunacy we see when the Desert Star is at its finest.

This show also contains what may be the last GOOD joke about Dennis Rodman before all Dennis Rodman jokes become passe.

The cast is talented and energetic — sometimes almost painfully so, when you realize they’ve just put all their emotion into the worst joke you’ve ever heard. But they keep the show moving at a fast clip, never letting up for a second.

“Scooter Wells” isn’t the best show Desert Star has produced. But as usual, it’s family-friendly, allows for audience participation, and is an amusing diversion for a couple hours or so.

Singin’ in the Rain

0

The latest ambitious project at the SCERA Shell Outdoor Theatre is the stage version of “Singin’ in the Rain,” a show full of singing, dancing, romancing, and goofing around.

The cast at SCERA has big shoes to fill. “Singin’ in the Rain” is widely regarded as one of the best movie musicals of all time, and the film starred Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor and Debbie Reynolds — who can live up to any of that?

And yet some of these SCERA performers step right up to the plate and knock one out of the park. Jason Webb, one of the best actors in the valley, takes the Gene Kelly role as Don Lockwood, a silent-movie icon who is supposed to be in love with his co-star, but who actually loves another actress. That actress, Kathy Selden, is played by Melia Erdmann.

Webb and Erdmann have excellent, gorgeous singing voices, and Webb even looks a little like Gene Kelly, especially when he grins, which is usually. Both come across as so likable and genuine, it’s easy to be caught up in their Hollywood love story.

Playing Lockwood’s best friend Cosmo Brown is Jaelan Petrie. Petrie might have the toughest job here: performing the famous “Make ’em Laugh” slapstick sequence originally done so brilliantly by Donald O’Connor. Petrie doesn’t even try to run up the walls like O’Connor did, nor does he try to imitate O’Connor in too many other ways. Instead, he makes the part his own with some truly impressive pratfalls, gymnastics and acrobatic, energetic goofiness. Petrie breathes life into a show that occasionally drags a little.

Also worthy of mention is Jolene Sayers as Lina Lamont, Lockwood’s on-screen love interest who would like to be his off-screen lover too. The joke here — in fact, the basic joke of the whole show — is that Lamont LOOKS great, but has a terrible voice. This doesn’t matter in the Roaring ’20s, when movies don’t talk — but once sound comes in, it becomes a huge problem. Her adoring fans have never heard her speak before, and the studio knows that when they do, they’ll be wanting their money back.

Sayers is terribly funny as Lamont, particularly in the scene where a “talkie” is first attempted. Her intentional lack of dignity makes the character all the more annoying and stupid, and she’s a joy to watch.

Director Syd Riggs — who also did last summer’s major production of “Crazy for You” — achieves almost the same greatness with “Singin’ in the Rain.” There’s some great dancing from the ensemble, and of course good singing. Some pretty solid laughs, too. If there is a flaw with this show, it’s one that’s inherent in the script: Some of the songs range from being merely unmemorable to being downright lame. “Singin’ in the Rain” is a classic, of course, and “Make ’em Laugh” and “Moses Supposes” will stick with you. But beyond that, it’s only been 24 hours, and I can’t recall a single melody from any of the other songs (“You Are My Lucky Star,” “You Were Meant for Me,” etc.). The cast members sing them well enough; they’re just not very good songs, more generic than meaningful. (“Good Morning” is memorable, but only because the tune is maddeningly, irritatingly catchy. In fact, it won’t leave my brain, and I may claw my face off.)

But aside from that, “Singin’ in the Rain” is a gloriously entertaining, fun show. Don’t miss your chance to see community theater at its best.

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later

(Reviewed in 2002, with revisions in 2017.)

The onscreen title of this film is “Halloween H20: 20 Years Later.” I assume the “H20” means “Halloween 20,” not “water” — which means the full, unabbreviated title of this movie is: “Halloween Halloween 20: 20 Years Later.” Once again, a movie has made errors before it even starts.

It starts in Langdon, Ill., by the way, where Michael Myers shows up and kills some folks, including the woman who was the stupid nurse who let him out of the mental hospital 20 years earlier. Why would Michael want to kill her, as opposed to thanking her? It just goes to show that he’s not crafting his plans very carefully these days.

Take, for example, his behavior at a rest stop in Summer Glen, Calif. He needs a new car to replace his busted-down one, so he parks at the rest stop and waits for someone to come along whose car he can steal. Now, if you’re an unstoppable killing machine, do you really need to be so stealthy about auto theft? Wouldn’t it be a lot more time-efficient to go to a busy place to steal a car, rather than waiting who knows how long at a remote desert rest stop?

But the road of criticizing Michael Myers’ strategy is a long, winding one, and we ought not embark upon it. Instead, we must discuss the triumphant return of Laurie Strode, who was the main character in the original two films. She is played by Jamie Lee Curtis, who took time out of her busy schedule of doing 1,000 VoiceStream commercials per week to star in this movie.

How can that be, when we were told in no uncertain terms that Laurie Strode was dead? Well, it seems she faked her death and changed her name to get away from Michael, because they never found his body after it burned up in the fire at the end of Part 2.

Now, hold on a minute here, Hector. We met Laurie’s daughter, who was sad beyond belief about the death of her mom. We met her in Part 4; she was a tormented mute in Part 5; and she was a teen-age mother in Part 6. Are we to believe Laurie would fake her death even when she had a child to take care of? And that when that child was being pursued (and ultimately killed) by Michael, Laurie wouldn’t come back and try to rescue her?

Of course not. What we’re to believe is that the daughter never existed, because indeed, parts three through six in the series never happened.

That’s right: Michael was burned up in Part 2, and has not been seen nor heard from since. The incidents in the other movies did not occur.

I have a problem with this logic. If those movies didn’t happen, WHY DID I WATCH THEM? I watched them all. Sat here on the couch, took notes, wrote reviews, everything. Why did I do this, if the movies did not exist after all? I want my time and money back.

Anyway, “Halloween Halloween Halloween 20 20 20” is where Laurie Strode is now Keri Tate, and she’s headmistress at a private school where her mush-mouthed 17-year-old son John (Josh Hartnett) is a student. Since it’s Halloween, Keri is a bit freaked out, and John is very supportive, insofar as he plans to sneak away from a school-sponsored camping trip and have sex with his girlfriend instead.

Then Michael shows up and blah blah blah.

This film had a bigger budget than most of its predecessors (most of its predecessors combined, I mean), and certainly more star power. Curiously, this did not stop it from sucking.

There is a school security guard played by LL Cool J who wants to write porn for a living.

Also, just as in all the “Halloween” films, kids are out trick-or-treating at 1 p.m.

Also, when Keri Tate tells her boyfriend (Adam Arkin) about her horrible past, he responds, “That’s sucky.”

The one bright spot in this movie came when someone went to call for help and discovered Michael had cut the phone line. This always happens in horror movies, and it finally dawned on me while watching it this time that I wouldn’t have the first clue where to look for the phone line on a house. How does Michael always know where it is? Some kind of sixth sense? Is he like a divining rod for phone lines? The thought made me smile, briefly whisking me away from this tedious, unoriginal movie where people get killed only so we can be told later that they never existed.

Kiss and Tell

0

“Kiss and Tell,” the World War II-era comedy currently being performed at Hale Center Theater Orem, produces some of the biggest belly laughs I’ve had in a long time. And I watch a LOT of comedy.

Despite the title, this is no romantic comedy. Love and romance are certainly addressed, but it’s more of a domestic farce about petty personal disputes and the effects of rumors and gossip.

We meet Corliss Archer (Claire Wilkins), a 15-year-old girl who wants nothing more than to be older. When a soldier on leave (John Preator) drops by to visit, she is enamored with him, though once her parents tell him her age, any chance of true, serious romance is squashed.

Meanwhile, Corliss’ best friend Mildred Pringle (Kathy Wahlquist) is in love with Corliss’ brother, Lenny (Neal Gage), who is currently off to war. When he comes back for a 72-hour leave, they hurry up and elope before he is shipped off again.

Why elope? Well, the Archers and the Pringles are in the midst of a suburban feud — over something stupid, to be sure, and fueled by gossip, which plays a MAJOR part in this show — and there’s no way either set of parents would stand for it. The kids are all more level-headed, and they get along fine, but there’s no reasoning with the grown-ups.

The problems — and the aforementioned belly laughs — come when Mildred, now an adoring wife waiting for her husband to return, discovers she is pregnant. Since no one except Corliss even knows she’s married, she can’t very well announce that she’s pregnant (not in the 1940s, anyway). This leads to some hasty conclusions being jumped to by all the characters, and some top-notch acting on the part of everyone involved.

(Bear in mind that Hale Center uses two different casts. There’s one group Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and another Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. I saw it on a Saturday — but some of the M/W/F actors were filling in for their Tu/Th/S counterparts. So your actors may vary.)

It’s rare (and, indeed, dangerous) to have young people lead your show, but Claire Wilkins carries the play remarkably well as the head-strong, energetic Corliss. Assisting her with confidence and true comedic talent is Jeff Whitlock as neighbor and sort-of boyfriend Dexter Franklin. Whitlock is funny throughout the show, but in the scene when everything hits the fan, he shows a flair for frenetic comedy that is far beyond his years, beginning with a perfectly timed entrance. (His entrance alone is worth the price of admission. Trust me, you’ll know it when you see it.)

Also a stand-out is John Paulk as Corliss’ dad. His first few scenes have him making wry, amusing comments — sort of a laid-back casual dad. But when things get frantic, he blusters and blows with the best of them, demonstrating a good range of skill.

Nancy Douglas as Mrs. Archer, Joshua Freeman as a precocious Pringle youth, and Neal Gage as Lenny Archer all shine in their roles. Gage, though playing a minor character without much funny stuff to do, adds some real class to the show with a sincere performance that contributes one more layer to the already multi-textured show.

In short, this is an ensemble cast full of funny characters, thrust into well-crafted comic situations and reacting to them with gusto, energy and humor. Don’t miss this one.

Black Comedy” and “The Private Ear

0

Since it’s summertime, the BYU Theater Department has decided to let some of the kids go nuts and slap together their own show — a wise decision, given the caliber of the students involved and the quality of the finished product.

“Black Comedy” and “The Private Ear” are one-act plays set in mid-60s London and written by Peter Shaffer. Directors Chris Bentley and Adam Boulter obviously intended for the the two plays to fit well together, given their common author and setting; unfortunately, they have little else in common — “Black Comedy” is a farce; “Private Ear” is a poignant comedy/drama — and the difference winds up making the very good individual parts not add up to much of a whole.

The evening begins auspiciously. The Margetts Theatre is decked out in mid-60s paraphernalia, including several vintage couches placed throughout the audience where some of the chairs should be. Before the show officially begins, Jjana Valentiner Morrill performs a Christopher Durang monologue called “Mrs. Sorken,” in which the title character gives a perfectly daft and absurd history of drama and theater. Morrill is a kitschy delight in her time onstage, making it well worth getting to the theater 10 minutes early to see her.

Then comes “Black Comedy.” It begins with starving artist Brindsley Miller (Tom Hindmarsh) and his girlfriend Carol Melkett (Melissa Yacktman) in his apartment, discussing what is to take place that night: Not only is her strict military father (Javen Ronald Tanner) supposed to come visit so that Brindsley can ask for Carol’s hand in marriage, but millionaire Georg Bamberger (Matthew J. Morrill) is also supposed to show up and hopefully buy some of Brindsley’s art. Brindsley is poor, though, and doesn’t want his visitors to know it, so he has borrowed the elegant furniture of his neighbor, Harold Gorringe (Peter Brown), who is out of town and would be furious if he knew Brindsley had taken his stuff.

The play is already setting up some marvelous comic possibilities, but there’s also something else: The entire time Brindsley and Carol have been discussing this, the stage has been in total darkness. To them, however, the apartment is lit normally. Then, there’s a power outage in Brindsley’s apartment building. The stage lights come on, allowing the audience to finally see them — but to the characters, they’re now in darkness. The rest of the play is done that way, with the characters moving around as though in the dark, nearly bumping into each other, talking about people whom they think aren’t there, and getting away with things they couldn’t get away with if the other characters could see them.

The light/dark flip-flop is a brilliant gimmick, and it works beautifully. Some bits are choreographed masterfully, especially when Harold returns unexpectedly and Brindsley tries to move the furniture back to his apartment without him knowing it. Drinks are passed, chairs are lifted, and people move around, all barely missing each other and unaware of their close encounters.

Hindmarsh is excellent as the exasperated and frantic Brindsley, making the most of a physically demanding role. Other standouts in this ensemble of wackos include Emmelyn Thayer as Miss Furnival, a neighbor lady who, in the dark, decides to give up her “no-drinking” policy, culminating in a crazed, delusional monologue delivered atop a coffee table; and Joel R. Wallin as the German electrician with a maniacal laugh. Peter Brown is also particularly good as the outrageously gay and prissy Harold Gorringe.

“Black Comedy” is a busy, silly play, with a lot of activity and plenty of blink-and-you-miss-it bits of comedy. It is gleefully devoid of any depth whatsoever, and it revels giddily in its mindlessness.

After intermission, one might expect “The Private Ear” to be something similar, and in fact, it begins that way. Aaron Johnston plays a fellow named Tchaik (short for Tchaikovsky), and he’s nervously trying to get ready for a date that evening. Seems a woman he met at a classical music concert is coming over for dinner, and he’s terrified. His first few moments of frantically trying to iron his pants and get dressed hint at more of the lunacy we saw in “Black Comedy.”

This is not to be, however. “The Private Ear” turns out to be much quieter — a little too quiet, in fact, particularly in Javen Ronald Tanner’s performance as Tchaik’s friend Ted (perhaps Tanner is just tired from having yelled throughout much of “Black Comedy”). “Private Ear” suffers from a bit of a malaise, as much of the first 10 minutes are rather low-key and slow.

Tchaik has invited Ted to have dinner there, too, because Ted is a swinger and can show Tchaik how to behave in front of the lady. Unfortunately, Ted is a bit TOO smooth, and Tchaik is a bit too stuffy, and the woman (Emmelyn Thayer) winds up falling more for Ted.

The exact situation easily could be played for laughs, but it was not written that way. Instead, we see two very different characters, Ted and Tchaik, both of whom are at fault. Ted is too much of a bachelor, and Tchaik is too nerdy. But Johnston plays Tchaik as being so sweetly, endearingly, charmingly uncool that he easily wins over the audience.

“The Private Ear” has funny moments, particularly involving the opera records Tchaik forces his date to listen to, but it is overall a drama, and a rather sad one at that. All three actors turn in fine performances. The only problem is its forced connection with its polar opposite, “Black Comedy.”

Go see this show bearing in mind that you’re going to see two completely different plays. Both are excellent — one has an ensemble cast that has no weak link and is hysterically funny; the other is dramatic and heart-felt, with emotions attached to it — and together, they make for an evening of solid theater.

Mafia!

Jim Abrahams, director of “Hot Shots,” brings us “Mafia!” (or, as it is properly called, “Jane Austen’s Mafia!” which is actually quite a bit funnier). This film, a parody of Mafia movies in general and “The Godfather” and “Casino” specifically, lacks the manic energy of the best entries in the “so-stupid-it’s-funny” genre, but still manages to earn quite a few laughs with nearly non-stop sight gags and ridiculous situations.

The plot is negligible, and in fact, I just saw the movie, and I’m not sure I can exactly retell it. There are several long flashbacks, taking us back to various characters’ early lives on the streets of Sicily, or of Little Italy in New York, and they add to the muddiness of the plot. So intent is the movie on spoofing everything and being silly, it hardly even bothers to introduce a storyline.

What there is of it has to do with Godfather Don Cortino (Lloyd Bridges, in his final screen role) passing the torch on to his second son (Jay Mohr), which naturally upsets his oldest son (Billy Burke). There’s some retribution, and people get killed in various humorous ways, and Mohr has a girlfriend (Christina Applegate) who’s afraid she won’t fit in to the family (or The Family) because “I’m the Protestant chick who never killed anybody.”

The plot, of course is not particularly important. This genre of film, more or less created by Jim Abraham and the Zucker brothers with “Airplane!,” exists mainly to parody other films. “Mafia!” has taken some flack for parodying “The Godfather” 25 years too late. But that seems irrelevant. For one thing, it’s not like “The Godfather” is so old that people have forgotten about it. For another thing, “Airplane!” — widely regarded as the godfather of this genre — parodied disaster movies, but was released in 1981 — nearly a decade after the big slew of disaster movies struck — and “Top Secret” (one of the best of the genre, though underrated these days) parodied Elvis Presley movies and World War II movies waaaaay after THEY were popular.

Furthermore, “Mafia!” also takes cracks at “Casino,” “Goodfellas,” “Forrest Gump,” and “A Christmas Carol.” All the comedy eggs are not in the “Godfather”-parody basket.

So is the movie funny? Yes, though in a slightly different way from its predecessors. Prior entries in the genre often relied on witty dialogue as much as sight gags (from “Airplane!”: “Surely you can fly this plane.” “No I can’t, and don’t call me Shirley”), but “Mafia!” has precious little in the way of memorable, quote-worthy lines. The focus here is visual comedy, and while it excels at that — you have to read every street sign and look closely at every shot to catch everything — it’s still nice to have something specific to repeat to your friends afterwards.

The movie is chock-full of flatulence, vomiting and murder, though all of it is done in a non-realistic, humorous manner. Still, some bits are not for the faint of heart. There is some sexual innunendo, though no nudity or sex per se. It’s basically what a cartoon would be like if it were live-action and rated PG-13: silly and moronic, but a little more graphic than you’d want your kids to see on Saturday morning. Go in a light mood, though, and it’ll make you laugh.

Comedy of Errors

0

Any theater attempting to do Shakespeare has its work cut out for it. His language is foreign-sounding to the modern ear, and it takes real skill to deliver the lines in a way that sounds both honest and intelligible.

Plus, if you happen to be doing “Comedy of Errors,” as the SCERA Shell Outdoor Theatre currently is, the script is confusing as heck anyway, dealing as it does with two sets of identical twins, with each member of each set having the same name as his brother.

(Was that common then? Having twins and giving them both the same name? Wasn’t it confusing enough to have them LOOK alike? Did audiences in Shakespeare’s day roll their eyes, too, and say, “What kind of parents would do that to their sons?”? Just wondering.)

The plot: There’s a guy named Antipholus (Randy Honaker) who has become quite a well respected fellow in Ephesus, and who is never far from his personal servant, Dromio (Verdon Walker, Jr.). Along comes Antipholus’ long-lost twin brother — also named Antipholus (John Lundwall) — from Syracuse, with HIS personal servant, who is Dromio’s long-lost twin, and who is ALSO named Dromio (Thane Bingham). Only none of the four knows that they even HAVE long-lost twins, and, thanks to the wacky nature of farce comedy, they’re never in the same spot at the same time, so they never see each other and notice the resemblance.

Various people keep seeing one of the Antipholuses and mistaking him for the other, and soon even the servants are addressing the wrong men as their masters, and vice versa. It’s all extremely wacky, in a dignified, Shakespearean kind of way.

And that may be a problem. For try as it might to be truly zany and farcical, the SCERA production still seems eminently Shakespearean, with a touch of the Three Stooges forced in here and there.

SCERA’s production of “Comedy of Errors” is a mixed bag. It’s confusing, to be sure — that Shakespearean dialogue, coupled with the identity crises — but also fairly amusing in some parts. Often, you can identify the parts that are funny, but it takes so long to process what they’re saying that by the time you translate it, you forget to laugh.

Perhaps it can be blamed on the fact that it was opening night, but the audience I was in only laughed about a dozen times during the entire show. We were amused, and mostly entertained, but there wasn’t always much to make us laugh out loud.

(Two exceptions, without giving too much away: hand-held signs announcing who the twins are — the actors don’t actually look alike, you see — and an inspired bit of slapstick involving two apples.)

Shakespeare fans will probably enjoy this production, light-hearted as it is. But its fairly slow pacing and obtuse dialogue probably won’t convert any non-fans.

Saturday’s Voyeur

0

Whatever you’ve heard about Salt Lake Acting Company’s infamous “Saturday’s Voyeur,” it’s probably true.

Offensive and sacrilegious? Sure. Crude, gross, sexual and sophomoric? Oh, yeah.

Riotously, painfully, hysterically funny? Most definitely.

This year’s production — the “Titanic Technicolor 20th Anniversary Cruise,” as it is described — mocks in song and dance nearly every Utah news story of the past year, as well as the dalliances of a certain U.S. President, not to mention the crimes of a sperm-bank doctor from several years ago.

The show is mostly a parody of that ubiquitous Utah phenomenon “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.” Most of the music is from that show, with parody lyrics by “Voyeur” writers/directors Nancy Borgenicht and Allen Nevins. The plot follows Andrew Boyd Packer (a play on “Joseph” composer Andrew Lloyd Webber, and of course also on LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer), a Native American BYU student who is also gay. Andrew (Aaron Swenson) is resented by his fellow Young Ambassadors, who feel he is unworthy to be at BYU, so they lock him in the basement with all the banned Rodin sculptures, telling BYU President Merrill J. Bateman (Christopher Lazzaro) that Andrew has moved to Salt Lake to live the gay lifestyle (“There’s one less homo in Orem,” they sing, to the tune of “Joseph’s” “There’s One More Angel in Heaven”).

Eventually, Andrew is rescued and comes to the aid of U of U coach Rick Majerus (played brilliantly by Spencer Ashby), who has had some troubling dreams of late. He becomes Rick’s right-hand man, and when the Young Ambassadors find themselves in a slump, they come to Andrew (not recognizing him, of course) for advice.

Everything wraps up nicely, with gays, short skirts and various other forbidden things now being allowed at BYU.

Offended already? Then don’t go.

The subject of homosexuality is discussed abundantly in this show. Wendy Weaver (Marilyn Alldredge), the Spanish Fork volleyball coach who was fired for being a lesbian, is featured, along with her partner (Elizabeth Whitney). In one of the cleverer moments, Joseph’s multi-colored coat is compared to the gay flag and its rainbow of colors (and now that you mention it, they DO look alike…).

There’s plenty of straight sex, too, though, with Bill Clinton (Lazzaro again), Monica Lewinsky (Carolyn Stone) and the hideous Linda Tripp (Michael Boswell) acting out their story in the basement where Andrew is trapped.

A couple of popular characters from previous “Voyeur” shows make return appearances, those being Joe Waldholtz (Kenneth Wayne) and Dr. Cecil Jacobsen (Ashby again). Jacobsen, if you don’t recall, was convicted several years ago of using his own sperm to impregnate women when he worked at a fertility clinic. His song, to the tune of “Gaston” from Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast,” is probably the best-written song in the show — the words rhyme, it’s funny, it’s satirical — but it’s also by far the crudest, grossest part of the evening.

One could easily argue that the character shouldn’t even BE there, since he was in the news in the early ’90s and has been largely forgotten by now. In fact, I will argue that: This character shouldn’t be in the show.

“Saturday’s Voyeur” does not satirize Utah culture so much as it tosses it in a blender and then spits it out all over the audience — and I mean that as a compliment. Where true satire holds up something that is ironic or odd or just shouldn’t be, and then points out what’s wrong with it, “Voyeur” merely holds it up and shoots at it.

For example, just mentioning the nude Rodin sculptures that were banned from BYU is not satire, even if the opinion is expressed that the ban was silly. If they had pointed out the irony inherent in the fact that 90 percent of BYU students, while unable to see those nude sculptures, saw much more nudity than that, in living color, when they all went to see “Titanic” — well, THAT would be satire.

So “Saturday’s Voyeur” is more carefully orchestrated anarchy than it is satire, an iconoclastic punch in the mouth of Utah culture with something to offend nearly everyone. The fact that there is little in the way of a “point” or a “message” should be of comfort, though, for it reminds us that this is all in fun, and no harm is intended. Even though the show ends with anything and everything being permitted at BYU, one can hardly take that as being what the show REALLY thinks will or should happen; it’s just sort of a silliest-case scenario.

The cast is largely an ensemble, with most actors playing multiple roles, and no weak links in the cast. A few stand-outs are Alexis Baigue, who plays Rick Majerus’s ball boy, among other roles; Natalie Banks, who is perfect as the Rose look-alike in the opening “Titanic” parody; and Kori Hazel, who carries things along well as the Narrator.

Armageddon

In “Armageddon,” there’s a Texas-sized asteroid headed straight for Earth. The surface of this asteroid, where our heroes spend a surprisingly large amount of time, is a metaphor for the whole movie: visually stunning and almost beautiful, yet also loud, chaotic and inconsistent.

Smirk-faced actor Bruce Willis plays Harry Stanton, an oil driller who is commissioned by the U.S. government to supervise a space shuttle mission to the surface of the approaching asteroid. There Stanton and his men — a motley crew of two-fisted trouble-makers and “roughnecks,” as they’re called — are to drill a hole in the asteroid, drop a nuclear bomb in it, and take off again. They have to drill the hole, though: Merely detonating the bomb on the surface of the asteroid would do no good, which you already know if you’ve seen “Deep Impact,” which is basically the same movie as “Armageddon,” except that “Deep Impact” had more heart and not as many explosions.

One cannot judge the big summer blockbusters by normal movie standards, of course. Characterization, good dialogue and strong plots are the exceptions, not the rule, and so we’re left with only one measuring stick: Is the movie entertaining?

The answer is yes, I guess, sort of. “Armageddon” is a boiling pot of stew, full of lots of good things and a few bad things — but definitely boiling, all the time, at full speed.

Visually, the film is impressive. There are some moments of cinematography that are almost brilliant, and even some of the Shots of Things Exploding, of which there are many, are new and different, even to someone who has seen dozens of movies full of Shots of Things Exploding.

Yet at the same time, there are some scenes that seem to have been filmed in Confuse-O-Vision. The very intense yet largely incoherent sequence on a Russian space station is a good example of using lots of shouting, unstable camera work and a loud musical score to trick the audience into thinking something intense is happening, without ever really explaining what it is.

Ben Affleck, as the requisite brash young punk, out-acts Bruce Willis scene-for-scene, actually bringing in some emotion a few times and making something of his character. There are a few sweet moments of real connection with the audience, showing signs of smooth directing and a good screenplay.

Yet at the same time, there are also some embarrassingly dorky bits of dialogue (listen for Willis’ heart-felt speech about how he’s never failed to reach a goal when it comes to digging a hole), and some plot contrivances that will amaze and astound you with their sheer absurdity.

The film is best when it doesn’t take itself too seriously. The scenes in which the oil drillers are being trained as astronauts are completely ridiculous and illogical, but the movie seems to know that, and so they’re played for laughs. That is wise, because when “Armageddon” tries to be serious and dramatic, with people rushing around and grimly saying things like, “We’ve got to inform the President!” and “God help us all,” well, that’s when things fall apart.

It is impossible to take a movie like this seriously. Unfortunately, the movie tries to force us to do just that a few times too many.

It IS fun, and it IS entertaining. But it’s also too loud, too long, and at times too stupid. Even as a mindless popcorn movie, “Armageddon” is only so-so.

Calamity Jane: All’s Riot on the Western Front

0

While the Desert Star Playhouse usually presents melodramatic musical parodies where the broad, vaudeville-esque jokes are used to whack you in the face, the current production, “Calamity Jane: All’s Riot on the Western Front” focuses less on comedy and more on music and light-hearted fun.

One could criticize the show for simply not being very funny, but that would be unfair. When it tries to be funny, it is; it just doesn’t always try, choosing instead to tell an entertaining, amusing little story about the Old West.

The new Pony Express rider is Calamity Jane (Julie Ann Christensen), a rough-and-tumble frontier gal who is also a sharpshooter and who doesn’t put up with any garbage from anyone. (She also has a beautiful singing voice, by the way, which perhaps contradicts her tomboy-ish nature, but I guess that’s how musicals are, eh?) She comes in to the town of Deadwood and runs into her old flame, Wild Bill Hickock (Scott Holman), who unfortunately at this point is somewhat enamored with western fiction writer Ambrosia Hepsibah (Lynda Robyns).

Meanwhile, the local bad guy, Diamond Jack Butler (Dallas Forester) is scheming with the haggish Cimmaron Rose (Danielle Omer) and the dim-witted Grizzly Bear Gibbons (Christopher Joseph Rogers) to steal the gold mine belonging to the goofy Irish guy Paddy O’Leary (Paul Luscher).

Naturally, Jane and Bill wind up together, and they foil the plans of the bad guys, with help from the sissy-turned-tough-guy bartender Elmo (Christian M. Dives, and yes, there’s a “Tickle Me Elmo” joke). And they all live happily ever after.

While this is more of a fun Old West story than a comedy, there certainly are some very funny moments. At one point Wild Bill dons braids and a hat to do a Willie Nelson impression, and everytime Grizzly Bear Gibbons comes onstage, pianist David Len Allen plays “Bare Necessities” from Disney’s “The Jungle Book” — one of several subtle jokes provided by the pianist as he sort of narrates the show with his mood music and sound effects. (When they go down into the dangerous mine, he plays “Clementine” in a minor key — very funny, if you catch it.)

The chase scene in the mine, with two box cars supposedly chasing each other (it’s actually just one, and the characters keep quickly trading places) is also frenetic and wacky.

Following the show is the “Take Me out to the Ball Game Olio,” full of singing, dancing and shtick about sports. Here we find some of the smartest satire the Desert Star has done, in their song about returned missionaries at BYU, and the co-eds who just want to get married. It’s an old, tired subject, but the cast manages to infuse some new life into it with some creative lyrics.

Another highlight of the Olio: The five men do a cross-dressing impression of the Utah Jazz dancers. Men in drag are not automatically funny, but in this case it works.

Christian Dives, who is one of the better performers in his “Calamity Jane” role as Elmo, is unfortunately one-half of an atrocious performance of Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s on First?” His partner in this travesty is Christopher Rogers, who also was good as Grizzly Bear Gibbons, but who doesn’t even come close to measuring up to Bud Costello. Certain things are classics, gems, brilliant diamonds shining brightly in the annals of comedy, and they should not be performed by anyone other than their originators. In this case, it makes two otherwise fine actors look very, very bad, because they’re not nearly as good as their material.

Saturday’s Warrior

0

Omega Productions’ 25th anniversary revival of “Saturday’s Warrior,” currently playing at Salt Lake’s Capitol Theatre in preparation for an eight-city tour, is better than it could have been.

The LDS musical has taken a lot of abuse for the last quarter-century, some of it well-deserved, for being cheesy, trite, and full of doctrine that ranges from the merely hypothetical to the downright incorrect. (Pam dies and goes BACK to the pre-existence, where the as-yet unborn Emily still waits? I don’t think so.)

This image has not been helped by the video production released a decade or so ago which has become commonplace in many LDS homes and which is horribly overacted, accentuating every minor flaw in Doug Stewart’s script and lyrics and adding plenty more of its own.

The new production overcomes many of the obstacles that face it, thanks to some minor changes in the script and a major overhaul of Lex de Azevedo’s original musical arrangements, re-done quite well by Clive Romney.

Some solid acting, good choreography (by Kieri Coombs) and able direction (by Robert Manning) also contribute.

The show begins in the pre-mortal world (they called it the “pre-existence” in 1973), where several spirits are waiting to be born. In particular there is a family of eight, the oldest two of whom — twins Jimmy (Casey Reeves) and Pam (Kiri Price) Flinders — are about to enter this world. Also going is Todd (Mark Daniels), who has already proclaimed his love for Julie Flinders (Ashley Jepperson). And there are a couple of guys, Wally (Brian McFadyn) and Harold (Matthew Lewis), who are destined to be missionary companions 20 years down the road.

This long scene unfortunately resembles the aforementioned video in terms of embarrassing cuteness. In fact, it seems some of the actors studied that video carefully to learn how they should say their lines — a bad idea, to be sure. Some of the dialogue is cringe-worthy as written, but could be salvaged if delivered with some down-to-earth sincerity.

But there is none of that in the opening sequence, which is instead full of broad, obnoxious choreography, jokes that are swung around like sledgehammers, and some real ham-fisted directing.

Fortunately, the show makes a 180-degree turn with “Sailing On.” That number exemplifies what is good about this production, and how the rest of the show should have been, in that it is simple and understated. Jimmy and Pam sing while a few dancers move elegantly in the background. Throughout the show, when things are kept simple like that, there is much feeling, much emotion, and much humor. It is only when they try to make things “big” that they instead make things melodramatic and embarrassing.

McFadyn and Lewis as the two missionaries demonstrate some of the best chemistry — as well as some of the best singing ability — playing off each other with skill and creating genuine laughs — again, because they don’t try too hard to force the laugh out of us. McFadyn, particularly, is energetic and full of life in everything he does.

Reeves is solid as Jimmy, singing well and conveying his inner struggle as well as is possible, given the vagueness of the script in that department. Some work could be done to make him seem more sympathetic to the audience, as opposed to being somewhat non-descript, as he is now.

Surprisingly helpful in a supporting role is Fred Lee as younger brother Benjy. While many young actors, including some in this show, feel a need to yell every line with a self-aware “this-is-funny” attitude, Lee is honest and real in his performance. This young actor will do a killer job at lead roles when he gets a little older.

Jepperson plays the fickle “Dear John”-writer Julie with a whininess that is at first annoying, until you realize she’s doing it on purpose, at which point it becomes quite funny.

In the end, “Saturday’s Warrior” really is touching and inspiring. Theatrically, several scenes have flaws, and those do detract from the spirit that could otherwise be felt. (It’s hard to cringe at the ridiculousness of something and be inspired by it at the same time.) But ultimately, those flaws can be overlooked as the important message of the show and its uplifting spirit are conveyed by a cast that obviously puts its heart and soul into everything.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

0

Provo Theatre Company’s production of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” is one of about 1,000 such productions happening in Utah this year, so they want it to be different.

“Different?” you say. “How can you make ‘Joseph’ different?” Indeed, it’s not like the show has a tremendous amount of character depth or serious themes that one production can draw out more than another. What are they going to do, focus on the internal struggles of Isaachar? Help the audience see the true feelings of Gad?

What PTC has done is turn “Joseph” into a sort of pop-culture free-for-all, with jokes and joke-like bits strewn throughout the show. Joseph brags that his coat is from fashion designer Tommy Hilfiger; the Ishmaelites are dressed as I-15 construction workers; when Pharaoh is referred to as being “right-wing,” a picture of Rush Limbaugh is held up; when the brothers come to beg for food, Joseph says, a la “Seinfeld,” “No soup for you!” Oh, and there’s a “Titanic” reference. (Of COURSE there’s a “Titanic” reference. How could there not be?)

These modifications are unlikely to upset anyone. “Joseph” already takes some serious liberties with the Bible story it’s based on; so why not take liberties with “Joseph”? Composer and lyricist Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice intended for it to be a fun, zany show, and PTC director Charles Lynn Frost is merely taking that philosophy and updating it.

There are also some modern-day characters thrown in for extra laughs. In some cases, this works; in others, it doesn’t.

A case where it is genuinely funny is when the back-up singers come on dressed like the Spice Girls. At first this addition seems superfluous, until a few lines from a Spice Girls song are thrown in, blending in perfectly with the existing musical score. It winds up being funny simply because they don’t make a big issue of it. The show lets us be amused by it without hitting us over the head and saying, “Hey, look! It’s the Spice Girls! Isn’t that funny?!”

The other additional characters don’t work precisely because we ARE hit over the head with them. The Butler, in jail with Joseph, is played like Austin Powers, from last year’s hit film “Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.” This is an entirely irrelevant, Road Show-esque change. I imagine Troy Williams, who plays the Butler in this show, began doing his Austin Powers impression at a rehearsal, and Frost told him to play the Butler that way — never mind that his Austin Powers impression isn’t even very GOOD.

The other one is the Baker, also imprisoned with Joseph. Now the Baker is a woman — specifically, Linda Richman, from the “Coffee Talk” sketches on “Saturday Night Live” six years ago. Brice Hawks does a good enough job impersonating this character — but it’s not his character. It was Mike Myers’ character on “SNL” (come to think of it, Austin Powers was played by Mike Myers, too — what’s going on here?), and it was funny when HE did it. Having Hawks play the Baker as Linda Richman is, again, superfluous and not really funny. We’ve heard the “I’m getting verklempt” jokes before. On “SNL.” Six years ago.

Cory Bench is appropriately handsome, tan and toothy as Joseph, and he has a singing voice that is strong, even, and carries the show well.

Even better is the Narrator, played by Lisa Weight, who belts out everything she sings with gusto and finesse. Being detached from the goofiness of the action, Weight plays the Narrator with a great deal of class and dignity.

Other principals include Marc Haddock as a robust Jacob (a refreshing change from the bearded-and-old Jacobs we usually see), and Stephen Briggs as the Elvis-like Pharaoh.

The brothers are all played with energy and vigor, many of them excellent singers and dancers, and the cast does its best to dance around on that tiny PTC stage. Sometimes the choreography is awkward because of the limited space, but there are other times when it works well and is indeed impressive.

The whole show is kind of like that, in fact. Some things work really well and are inventive and funny — Joseph and Mrs. Potiphar’s strobe-light chase scene is original, as is having Joseph read books like “Prison for Dummies” and “Seven Habits of Highly Effective Jailbirds” while in jail — and other things just don’t work at all.

It seems that in an attempt to be something other than your run-of-the-mill production of “Joseph,” this one goes a bit overboard, adding more things and making more changes than are really necessary. (Like why is “Those Canaan Days” played as Jewish instead of French? It’s not any funnier that way — just different.)

Provo Theatre Company’s shows are always excellent, and this one is only slightly below the theater’s reputation. It’s meant to be a crowd-pleaser, and the opening night crowd was certainly pleased, so in that regard it fulfills its mission.

X-Files: Fight the Future

The makers of the “X-Files” movie have been insisting for months that the film would have its cake and eat it too.

They said it would answer questions that fans of the TV show have been asking for years, but that it would also be self-contained and not alienate people who have never seen the show.

Many of us who are “X-Files” junkies doubted that it could do both. We were wrong.

“The X-Files” (officially subtitled “Fight the Future,” though those words do not appear in the on-screen credits) is an enormously satisfying, exciting movie that yes, answers some questions we’ve had (about that black-oil alien stuff, and where it came from), and yes, is self-contained enough to appeal even to non-fans.

Except for that potential problem of turning off either the fans or the non-fans — and again, it’s incredible the way that turns out to be a non-problem — there was no way this film could miss. The same people who do the TV series did the movie, too, from the stars (David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson), to the writers (Chris Carter, who is also the series creator), to the guy who does the moody background music (Mark Snow, who makes the leap from small-time TV music to full-blown movie score admirably). Rob Bowman, a veteran “X-Files” director, directed the film, too.

So with all the same people involved, the movie winds up having everything the show has, only bigger. It’s smart, funny, exciting, confusing (yet ultimately satisfying), suspenseful, scary, gross, as well as being brilliantly scripted, paced, and photographed. The TV series has all those qualities, and the big screen only magnifies them.

The plot has Mulder (Duchovny) and Scully (Anderson) tracking down the roots of a cover-up, as some firefighters and a young boy have died of a mysterious virus. They are doing this free-lance, though, since the X-Files division of the FBI has been officially closed, and in fact Scully is being reassigned (“Salt Lake City, Utah,” she says glumly, drawing cheers from local moviegoers).

Fans will appreciate a few subtleties. Duchovny’s legendary deadpan performance is mocked when he, as Mulder, shows Scully his “panic face” — which looks just like his regular face. Fans who have long wondered if Mulder and Scully would ever express romantic love for each other will be glad to see them express more feelings than they ever have, and in fact, there’s a kiss, sort of … but I won’t ruin it for you.

Are all the questions answered? Heavens, no. But enough are answered to where fans will be satisfied. Imagine the coolest three-episode arc of the show, all crammed into one two-hour blockbuster of a movie, and that’s what you’ve got here.

And what about the non-fans? Mulder’s believe-everything attitude and Scully’s scientific skepticism are established with their first conversation, and everything else is set up pretty well, too. Whatever is confusing in the movie is that way on purpose, and the non-fans can rest assured that the fans are as confused as they are.

But in the end, things are wrapped up nicely (well, as nicely as things are ever wrapped up on “The X-Files”), and satisfyingly. “X-Files” is the most intelligent, least patronizing summer action film in years, and it’s refreshing to see Hollywood make a movie that isn’t dumb, and that doesn’t talk down to its audience.

Mulan

The last Disney animated feature to be a huge success was 1994’s “The Lion King.” The ones since then, while doing so-so at the box office, have failed to register with audiences for one reasons or another. “Pocahontas” was boring and stupid (pardon my bluntness), “Hunchback of Notre Dame” was too dark for kids, and “Hercules” was too light and airy, like eating cotton candy — you watched it, and the next day you forgot you ever saw it.

Fans of the franchise will be pleased to know, then, that the new “Mulan,” which opened last Friday, hearkens back to the days of “The Lion King.” In fact, “Mulan” has perhaps the best combination of humor and seriousness of any of the Disney cartoons. “Hunchback” was TOO serious, without enough humor to balance it; “Aladdin” and “Hercules” were very funny but with little depth; even the classic “The Little Mermaid” had little to offer in the way of serious themes or morals.

But “Mulan” has it all. It has very serious themes, but it is also quite consistently funny, demonstrating a perfect balance never before reached by the folks at Disney.

Mulan is the best cartoon heroine ever. She’s not a generically feisty, play-by-your-own-rules, who needs men? kind of gal like, say, Belle in “Beauty and the Beast.” She lives in China several hundred years ago, when women were true second-class citizens, expected to marry whomever was chosen for them, and expected to shut up when men were around. Mulan doesn’t really hate this sort of society — she’s not trying to change all of Chinese culture — she merely wants to know how she fits in to it.

When the Huns attack China, one man from every family must join the Imperial Army. To save her ailing father from what would certainly be his death, Mulan disguises herself as a man and joins the army. Assisting her is a wacky little wise-cracking dragon named Mushu (voiced by Eddie Murphy), who was summoned by Mulan’s ancestors, sort of, to make a hero out of her, thus proving himself a worthy guardian.

Mulan uses her brains — as opposed to the men’s brawn, which is what men usually rely on, especially in war — to save the day a couple times before her true gender is discovered. Later on, though, she saves the day — and China — once again, this time by making some of the MEN dress as WOMEN, deceiving the guards, etc., etc.

You get the idea: There are some skills that only men possess, and others that the women have, and to accomplish some goals, you need to use both. But the message here is deeper than a simply gender-equality issue. In the process of everything, Mulan truly finds herself, comes to accept her heritage, and brings great pride and honor to her family.

The theme of most of the Disney cartoons of the last decade has basically boiled down to “Just Be Yourself and You’ll Be Happy,” but none have demonstrated this as well and as poignantly as “Mulan.” And none have been as simultaneously funny, either. Parents should find this a joy to watch with their kids, and kids will love it, too.

The Rainmaker

0

“The Rainmaker,” written by N. Richard Nash, is a warm play about self-esteem, beauty and love, all symbolized by a drought and the promise of rain.

At the Hale Center Theater Orem, the presentation of this play is endearing and sweet, driving home most, if not all, of the things the script has to say.

At the center of the plot is Lizzie Curry, a young gal whose father and brothers want to see her married. You see, it’s the ’20s (or thereabouts; we’re not told, exactly), and getting married is what girls have to do if they want to be happy. Lizzie certainly wants to get married, but she considers herself plain and unappealing. Furthermore, she’s highly intelligent, and she refuses to stoop to flirting and cooing like the other girls do to get their men.

The town deputy, File, has a sort of nebulous fondness for Lizzie, and she for him, though it is mostly unspoken, and in fact woefully undeveloped in this production. We are merely TOLD that they may have feelings for each other, but it is not adequately demonstrated. (File’s character by himself goes pretty much undeveloped too, for that matter.)

And in the midst of all this, there’s a drought. Crops are dying, and so are the animals, and the Curry farm is in trouble. Along comes Starbuck, an allegedly charismatic man — again we’re TOLD he’s charismatic, though Gordy Villarini’s portrayal of him doesn’t really exude charisma; it’s more like watered-down superhero-like charm. Anyway, Starbuck pops in and announces that for $100, he can make it rain. He’s a con man, of course, but Lizzie’s father, H.C., and her little brother Jimmy decide to give him a chance.

Foolishness, you say? Not exactly. The whole idea here, as we soon learn when Starbuck takes a liking to Lizzie, is that everyone has to have a dream. Miracles don’t happen very often, but sometimes, you have to count on them to occur when necessary. Starbuck has always wanted to make it rain, but he’s never done it. The family wants it to rain, but there’s not much they can do about it. Lizzie wants a man to love her, and to settle down to a simple home life with a family of her own, but she’s convinced it will never happen to her.

Everyone has dreams, and what’s at issue here is whether those dreams are realistic. Noah, the sensible brother, played with power by Larson Holyoak, says everyone’s dreams are bunk: Starbuck can’t make it rain, Jimmy shouldn’t go chasing the town floozy, and Lizzie’s going to wind up an old maid. He calls it being realistic, and maybe it is. But, as Starbuck says, “You gotta take a chance. Relax, and let miracles happen.” In other words, sometimes you have to forget about being realistic and just start dreaming.

The drought is a metaphor for Lizzie’s desire for true love. During her first night back from a trip that was supposed to yield her a husband, she dreams of rain, not realizing that what she’s really dreaming of is love. Starbuck is the catalyst, helping her to see herself for the beauty she is, and making a very astute comment about his attempt to make it rain that also applies to Lizzie’s need for love: “Don’t ask questions, and don’t get sensible.” That is, sit back, be yourself, and let it happen. It applies to falling in love, to making it rain, to just about everything, really. The faithless Noah — and the word “faith” is used against him — doesn’t realize this, and his dreams, whatever they may have been, are stifled out of existence. Everybody else gets theirs.

Some parts are double cast; the Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday cast is the one referred to in this review. Holyoak, as mentioned, makes a good Noah; he’s in both casts, as is Jeremy Anderson as the energetic but simple-minded Jimmy. Anderson plays Jimmy pretty wound up, and the energy brings life to the show — Starbuck could use that kind of energy, in fact — but it makes Jimmy seem a little two-dimensional.

Tom Lamoreaux is believable and gentle as Lizzie’s loving father, and some of their scenes together are very tender. Kim Stone Wares’ performance as Lizzie helps this tremendously. She vividly portrays the numerous emotions Lizzie feels, often in rapid succession, and endears herself to the audience immediately.

Paul Hill seems mis-cast as File, being several years older than Lizzie, and much larger. This causes a lack of chemistry between the two, and makes it hard to get behind the idea of them being together. (Matthieu Kohl plays File in the Monday/Wednesday/Friday cast, and having seen him in another play recently, I can tell that he is much more suited to the role — of course, I haven’t seen DeLayna Anderson, who plays Lizzie in Kohl’s cast, so I don’t know what the chemistry between them is.)

As a whole, “The Rainmaker” is enjoyable and pleasant. The message is uplifting, and there are more laughs than you might expect in a “serious” drama. It’s a celebration of humanity, and of what makes us happy. Ultimately, the power to be happy is within ourselves, and the play reminds us of that.

A Couple-Watcher’s Guide

0

It’s springtime, and love is in the air, choking its victims with its vile stench and sucking the life out of every living thing it touches. So perhaps it is time to examine the various types of couples you’re likely to encounter during this love-filled time of year. I have gleaned this knowledge not from having had actual relationships myself, but from seeing my roommates have them, because they’re always having them right in front of me.

• The Phone Couple. This is a relationship wherein the guy and girl do not ever actually see each other, but instead spend 24 hours a day on the phone. I don’t know what there is to talk about; if they never see each other, how much reminiscing can they do? (“Remember that time yesterday when we were talking on the phone?”) And since they never leave their apartments — they’re always on the phone, after all — how much can be happening in their lives for them to discuss? These are the questions that plague me but which seem to be of no consequence to the Phone Couple.

• The Whisperers. Some couples, for reasons known only to themselves (or, perhaps, to no one), do not speak in normal tones to each other: they only whisper. I know a couple like this. I have never heard them have a conversation out loud. Once — I swear this is true — I overheard her whisper to him, “So I’ll make dinner at about 5, then?” Why does this require secrecy? Everyone knows she makes dinner for him sometimes (i.e., all the time). There’s nothing WRONG with that per se, except that it’s kind of subservient, and what does he ever do for her, you know? But still, why not say it out loud? Why act like it’s a big mystery? “Oooh!” people will say. “There must be some deep inter-personal relationship stuff going on if she’s whispering to him like that! They must be serious!” When all they’re doing is talking about food. I talk about food all the time, but it’s always out loud, unless I’m at the movies and I’m quietly whispering for whoever I’m with to pass me some of whatever they’re eating.

• The Touchers. Some couples, no doubt fearing their relationships hang by a thread, feel that if they are in the same room, they MUST be touching. Many mature, solidly grounded couples are capable of being in each other’s presence, carrying on a conversation, and actually not having any physical contact. And yet there are many for whom this is impossible. You see these couples walking across campus together, with their arms around each other, blocking traffic because they’re walking slow (it goes without saying that if you have your arm around someone, you HAVE to walk slow), and you think, “You know, would it kill you to take your hands off each other for FIVE MINUTES?!?”

• The Lucky Ones. These are the couples where you can tell it’s a good thing they found each other, because you can’t imagine anyone else wanting to date either one of them, either because they are physically unpleasant, or because they have the personalities of washcloths. These couples make normal people jealous, because they think, “That girl’s a freak. Why does SHE get a boyfriend?”

• The Inseparables, aka The Couch Couple. I seem to get a lot of roommates like this. It works in this wise: My roommate gets a girlfriend; she comes over; she never leaves again. They park their butts on the couch and stay there for hours at a time, and it goes without saying that they touch and whisper and say shmoopy things to each other. Sometimes they’ll take naps together there on the couch, which leads to serious questions of etiquette when you want to watch TV, but basic common courtesy dictates that you avoid waking them up. But then, it IS your living room, too, and it’s not like they can’t go take naps together somewhere else, like at a park or a bus station. But then there’s the issue of, Why do they have to take naps together anyway? Normal people get together so they can talk, or go on dates, or watch something. Who plans a sleeping date?

I saw a pair of Inseparables (I assume they were also a Couch Couple) in my biology class a couple years ago. The girl was actually in the class; the guy would come just to be with her. (Bear in mind, I was enrolled in this class, and I hardly went.) They would sit there, holding hands as she took notes with her other hand. They appeared to be freshmen, and I thought their love was kind of sweet, though obviously misguided, since he was probably about to go on a mission and of course there wasn’t a chance she’d actually wait for him.

And then I saw their hands: They were wearing rings on their wedding fingers. They appeared to be married! As freshmen! And then I looked closer and saw that their “wedding rings” were nothing more than CTR rings. Evidently, this couple was so positive they were meant for each other, they were wearing rings on their wedding fingers to show to the world their devotion to one another. And I just wondered how far they were taking this pretend-marriage thing (if you know what I mean), and if they had a pretend-divorce when she dumped him for an RM two weeks after he left the MTC. (Actually, I think these may have also been Lucky Ones, so maybe it lasted after all.)

* * *

This is the last edition of “Snide Remarks” for the summer. The column will return this fall. In the meantime, I’ll be sitting by the pool, watching the couples and smelling the love in the air. Or maybe that’s smog. Whatever it is, I’m smelling it. See you in September.

Two Snides to Every Story

0

Let’s talk about objectivity in journalism, and other fantasies. As a seasoned veteran in the world of journalism, I’m able to notice subtle differences in the way different newspapers handle the same issues. For example, The Salt Lake Tribune carries Ann Landers, whereas the Deseret News has Dear Abby, although I think they’re actually the same person.

The differences run even deeper when you get into actual news coverage. The Salt Lake Tribune has a reputation for being an “anti-Mormon” newspaper, probably due to its having been founded, in 1871, by Satan. The Deseret News, on the other hand, is owned by the LDS Church and occasionally their spin on things is a bit more LDS-flavored than it might be otherwise. And The Daily Universe — well, you know what The Daily Universe is like.

Here are some hypothetical news stories, and how the different papers might handle them. Enjoy my imagination!

***

NEWS EVENT: LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley addresses a group of students at Harvard University and subtly bears his testimony of Joseph Smith as he does.

SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, Page 12, three days later: “Mormon Prophet Tells Harvard ‘Accept Joseph Smith or be Burned'”
     By Peggy Stencher Flack
     CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — High-ranking Mormon leader Gordon B. Hinckley spoke at Harvard University yesterday, telling students that Joseph Smith, founder of the cult, was a true prophet. Mormons — or “Latter-day Saints,” as they are sometimes nicknamed — believe in a gold Bible of some kind which Smith apparently wrote with the aid of magic pixies.

DESERET NEWS, Page 1, the next day: “President Hinckley Speaks to Harvard Students; Missionary Referrals Skyrocket”
     By Jerry Jonestown
     CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — LDS Church prophet, seer and revelator Gordon B. Hinckley spoke dramatically and powerfully of the Restoration of the Gospel to a group of Harvard students yesterday. As usual, President Hinckley electrified the crowd with his dazzling display of verbal pyrotechnics. Nearby Massachusetts Boston Mission reported that several dozen missionary referrals came in as a result.

DAILY UNIVERSE, Page 1, the next day: “President Hinkley Talks”
     Associated Press
     CAMBRDIGE, Mass. — LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley addressed a group of students at Harvard University today, though he made no mention of BYU’s recent decision to leave the WAC.

***

NEWS EVENT: Several BYU football players are arrested for possession of marijuana, cocaine, and a nuclear explosive device. The BYU Honor Code office announces it will investigate whether or not to suspend them from school. Coach LaVell Edwards declines to comment.

SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, Page 1 of the Metro Section, the next day: “Athletes at Mormon-Owned School Arrested for Drug and Nuclear Possession”
     By Gordon Moron
     PROVO — Three BYU football players were arrested yesterday for possession of various drugs and nuclear devices. The school, which is owned by the Mormons, who pride themselves on abstaining from harmful drugs and nuclear weaponry, said it would not suspend the students right away. Coach LaVell Edwards, a Mormon, refused to talk to reporters, instead frowning in a surly manner as he turned away from the media personnel, many of whom were also Mormons, who were merely seeking after truth.

DESERET NEWS, Page 1 of the main section, the next day: “Non-LDS BYU Athletes Arrested”
     By Brad Crock
     PROVO — Three non-LDS BYU football players were arrested yesterday for possession of various harmful substances. The BYU Honor Code Office released a statement that said, “These students were not LDS. We don’t even know how they got into BYU. They must have snuck in, because we’re pretty sure we wouldn’t have let people like that in.” Coach LaVell Edwards, a high priest in the Oakmont 12th Ward in the Provo 3rd Stake, declined to answer reporters’ questions, saying he would rather wait until more facts were available, and adding that he preferred not to judge others, lest he too be judged.

DAILY UNIVERSE, Page 1, the next day: “BYU Atheletes Arrested”
     By Darren Kilcox
     Sports Editor
     Three BYU football players were arrested yesterday for possession of drugs and a nuclear device, which they intended to use to blow up the U of U at the big game this fall. Woo! Go Cougars!
     According to KSL-TV, the Honor Code Office issued a press release, though The Daily Universe did not receive a copy. It allegedly said the Honor Code Office would investigate the matter further.
     The Associated Press reported that coach LaVell Edwards declined comment.
     A report in The Salt Lake Tribune indicates that the three athletes do indeed play for BYU.

***

NEWS EVENT: India accidentally explodes a nuclear weapon that destroys the entire Eastern Hemisphere of the Earth, and every thing living on it.

SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, Page 1, the next day: “India Destroys Half of World’s Population”
     By William Law
     CALCUTTA — India exploded a nuclear bomb yesterday, killing all 2.5 billion people living east of Europe.
     There was no immediate reaction from the Salt Lake Olympic Committee as to whether the 2002 Winter Games will continue as scheduled.

DESERET NEWS, Page 1, the next day: “India Bomb Kills Many; Saints Urged to Pray”
     By LaDeeDee Jensen
     CALCUTTA — A bomb detonated in India yesterday killed over 2 billion people, including several dozen Latter-day Saints.
     In addition to the wreckage and carnage of having the entire Asian continent ripped apart at its very fabric, several LDS meetinghouses were also destroyed.
     Church officials are investigating whether the explosion was specifically targeted at the LDS Church.
     “Obviously this is a major tragedy for the Church,” said LDS Church spokesman Don LeFemur. “Oh, and also for the billions of other people who also apparently died.”

DAILY UNIVERSE, Page 1, the next day: “Cougareat Starts Selling Raisin-Oatmeal Cookies; Students Say, ‘They’re Nummy!'”

The Foreigner

0

Larry Shue’s “The Foreigner,” being staged at BYU’s Pardoe Theatre through June 13, is the last show of the season for BYU.

Fittingly, it’s also one of the best.

Set in a fishing lodge in Georgia over the course of three days, “The Foreigner” is a hysterical farce of grand proportions based on one simple premise: Charlie Baker (Marc E. Shaw) is shy. In his own words, he is “shatteringly, profoundly boring,” and his wife back home lets him know this by sleeping around. So when he has to stay at this lodge (with gorgeous set design by Karl T. Pope, by the way) while his buddy goes out on Army maneuvers, he is mortified at the prospect of dealing with the strangers who live there. As a solution, his buddy (Roger Nelson) tells everyone Charlie is a foreigner and doesn’t speak or understand English.

There aren’t too many foreigners in Tilghman County, Georgia, much to the delight of the simple and sweet Betty Meeks (Martha Henstrom), who owns the lodge — and much to the chagrin of the local bad guys, David Lee (Brad Montgomery) and Owen Musser (Cameron Deaver), who are involved in some very sinister activities.

And so once the stage is set — be patient for the first 15 minutes or so, as things get established — one hilarious situation after another ensues. First it’s the basic idea of people speaking freely about their secrets in front of Charlie, thinking he can’t understand them. Then it’s the dim-witted Ellard Simms (Aaron Johnston) trying to teach him English. Eventually, it’s all the good guys out-witting the bad guys, who really are evil, and perhaps more realistically so than you expect in a light-hearted farce.

In fact, this farce actually has a bit more to it than is typical for its genre. Charlie brightens the life of everyone he deals with. He lets dear old Mrs. Meeks think she understands his fake quasi-European foreign-babble, simply because it makes her feel better. He lets Catherine (Katie Foster), David’s fiancee, pour her heart out to him, even though he “doesn’t understand,” because she has no one else to talk to. And he lets Ellard think he’s succeeding at teaching him English because it makes Ellard feel smart.

Though he’s deceiving everyone, Charlie is not deceptive or malicious. It is only out of his pity for Mrs. Meeks, in fact, that he allows the charade to advance, not wanting her to feel dumb at having been tricked by his friend. And as things go on, he becomes more than just “the foreigner” — he becomes a real person to everyone, and also to himself. He slowly develops a personality — something, he says, he never had before. This is a farce with heart, believe it or not.

Which does not prevent it from being paralyzingly, achingly, devastatingly funny. This is a show that makes you LAUGH, loud and long and from the diaphragm.

Shaw, as Charlie, is one of the original members of the Garrens Comedy Troupe, a local sketch-and-improv group whose weekly shows are perfect training ground for this kind of silliness. Shaw has never carried a show before, and indeed his small frame and high-tenor voice might leave him destined only for supporting roles. But in “The Foreigner,” he proves his worth as a comedic actor, giving Charlie realism, depth and, most of all, humor. His monologue in which he tells a story in his “native language” (a weird hybrid of English and Russian, it sounds like) is a tour de force of comedy. Shaw can play the lead in any show he wants to; “The Foreigner” proves it.

Johnston, as the simple-minded Ellard, is also a member of the Garrens Comedy Troupe, and in fact for the last year or so has been the major reason to go see a Garrens show. With the Garrens, Johnston makes everything physical, throwing himself (often literally) into his roles with funny faces, pratfalls, accents and an insane amount of energy. Garrens devotees laugh as soon as he walks onstage — except that he rarely walks; he usually bursts. I swear, the man must have no skeletal system, the way he flings himself around.

That same energy carries over into “The Foreigner,” but with refinement, thanks to some careful directing from Charles Metten. Johnston plays Ellard dumb, but fast. He thinks quickly; he just comes up with the wrong answers. Here Johnston, like Shaw, shows his worth as an actor, and not just as a comedy troupe member. He demonstrates his ability to rein in his usually unbridled wackiness, and instead of bouncing off every wall in the room, he only bounces off the walls that need bouncing. No mindless Jim Carrey-style goofiness here. Goofiness, yes, but goofiness that’s perfectly suited to the style of the play.

Shaw and Johnston, friends in real life, have a natural chemistry and make a great comedy team. Their scenes together are sheer brilliant comedy.

Katie Foster, a BYU Theatre mainstay, is excellent as always in her portrayal of Catherine, a gal with a lot of problems. Foster plays her sympathetic and nice, and Catherine’s relationship with Charlie is both sweet and funny.

Ultimately, “The Foreigner” succeeds because it accomplishes its major goal: to make the audience laugh. It’s as simple as that. Look at the subtext if you want, examine the social commentary if you must, but do it after the show is over. While it’s going on, you’ll be too busy laughing.

Immersed in Baptists

0

You may have heard that the Baptists are coming to Utah this summer, and they’re holding a convention, and they want to save our souls, and yada yada yada. Some of you may be concerned about this, so I’ve prepared some helpful tips in talking to the Baptists when they come knocking on your door.

These tips are patterned after the many “How to Deal with Mormons”-type pamphlets that I’ve seen in my many years as a religious scholar and theologian.

First of all, you have to understand that while the Baptists may use some of the same terms we use, they understand them to mean very different things. For example, when they say “Christian,” what they mean is, “Anyone who believes only what the Bible says, and nothing more.” This comes from the verse in the Bible that says, “And they were called Christians; which meant they only believed the things contained in this book, even though this book hasn’t been written yet.”

There are other terms they use that may sound familiar but which have different meanings for them. “Soda,” for example, is what we in Utah commonly refer to as “pop.” Do not be confused by their trickery, as they will try to use these terms to throw you off guard.

When the Baptists ask you questions and try to draw you into a debate, remember not to be contentious. Instead, answer their questions politely, and explain your feelings on the issue. Here are some examples of how to respond to their questions:

QUESTION: Did you know that the Book of Mormon had a spelling error in it, and that they fixed it, and that therefore your church is not true?
RESPONSE: Why, no, I did not. Would you care for a glass of juice?

QUESTION: Did you know that Joseph Smith once held a job as a paperboy, and that therefore your church is not true?
RESPONSE: Oh, my. That is a shocker. I’ve just baked some brownies; would you like one?

QUESTION: Did you know that Brigham Young once muttered something in his sleep that sounded like “men living on Mars,” and that therefore your church is not true?
RESPONSE: Land sakes. It’s a beautiful day out, isn’t it?

QUESTION: Did you know that your church is not true?
RESPONSE: No. Please elaborate while I fix us some Postum.

Another thing the Baptists will do is use testimonials from former LDS people — supposedly “strong, active members” — who have now become Baptists. These testimonials usually go like this:

“My name is LaVerDeen Jensen. I was born in Beaver Fork, Utah, and raised in the Mormon church. I was a very active Mormon. I went to church every Sunday. Sure, I’ll admit, I usually sat in the back and made fun of the speakers, but I went, and I read and studied the Book of Mormon thoroughly, all the way from Third Lehi to Second Marconi. I was puzzled when my church leaders told me never to read the Bible, that I shouldn’t even TOUCH it because it had the cooties, until I realized that they never actually said this; it was merely something some anti-Mormons told me later. But still, in retrospect, I think they said it, and so it must have puzzled me.

“I held many high and powerful callings in the church, such as Hymnbook Coordinator and Chapel Cheerio Sweeper-Upper. I read books by my favorite general authorities, such as Jack Weyland and Steven R. Covey. But to get a fair and balanced view, I also read books by non-Mormon experts, such as ‘The Mormons: Satanic Cult, or Devilish Sect?’ and ‘The Mormons: Evil Empire, or Dark Ministry?’ and ‘The Mormons: Scum-Sucking Weasels, or Weasel-Sucking Scum?’ Reading these books helped me understand the church better, because they were written by experts — people who had never set foot in a Mormon church before, and who had never read the Mormon scriptures, but who nonetheless were experts.

“Then one day, I was watching CBS, trying to find out more about the programs on NBC, and I had my Amish friend over, giving me advice about what kind of car I should buy. Just then, my home teachers came by and said the most outrageous thing. They said the Mormon church believes in something called a ‘temple,’ which is a place where ‘ceremonies’ are performed. I had been a member all my life, and I had NEVER heard this! Why had the church leaders tried to keep this crazy and weird doctrine a secret from me? Is it because they knew as soon as I found out about it, I would leave the church? Must have been, because that’s exactly what I did.”

In conclusion, be nice to our visitors, and have plenty of baked goods on hand. Who knows, maybe we can bridge the gap between our two faiths through something as simple as banana bread. And even if not — mm-mmm, that’s good eatin’!

Erasmus Montanus

0

When informed that you are about to watch a 200-year-old comedy written by some Danish guy you’ve never heard of, you might suspect that you’re in for three hours of obscure jokes that didn’t translate well, and which were probably only funny 200 years ago, and that the term “comedy” will have been used very loosely.

At least this was my feeling as I entered BYU’s Margetts Theatre to watch “Erasmus Montanus.” I’d seen centuries-old “comedies” by well-known playwrights like Shakespeare that weren’t very funny, and I’d also seen “comedies” by obscure people like Thomas Dekker (“Shoemaker’s Holiday”) that also weren’t funny. But at least those were written in English! Something that had to be translated — ooooh, it didn’t bode well.

So you can imagine my sheer delight and child-like wonderment when “Erasmus Montanus” opened with the cast lip-synching “Da Da Da” (that catchy ’80s song in the Volkswagen commercial) while several people manipulated marionettes of farm animals and explanatory supertitles were projected on the back wall of the set. I could see immediately that the play was going to be nowhere near what author Ludvig Holberg or translator Gerald Argetsinger had in mind, and that this variation was a GOOD thing.

Director Eric Samuelson notes in the program that he and the cast “messed with the script bigtime.” They cut out two characters, changed the genders of three others, introduced a plot twist that changes the entire last act of the play, and changed many, many lines. All in the interest of making it funnier.

And make it funny they did.

“Erasmus Montanus,” as produced by the BYU Theatre Department, is hysterically, frantically, absurdly funny. It takes place in a backwoods town called Skunk Hollow, where the folks are simple and ignorant. Rasmus Berg (Ary Farahnakian) goes off to college and comes back educated — a little TOO educated, in fact. He now demands to be called Erasmus Montanus, speaks Latin all the time (translations are provided in the aforementioned supertitles), and just generally acts like a pompous jerk. Worse, he starts spreading the crazy notion that the earth is round! The townsfolk won’t stand for it, especially Mama Jeronimus (played with outrageous flair by Elary Allen), the town hairdresser and chief gossip. She usually makes her points not by quoting Bible verses, but by citing the reference and expecting everyone to know what it says. And now she won’t let her daughter Lisbed (Susan Kimberly Davis) marry Erasmus — not until he recants on this whole “earth is round” business.

What follows — well, what follows is irrelevant. Of course Erasmus and Lisbed wind up together in the end, and everybody’s happy. The destination is not the important thing; the fun is in getting there. The show features several lip-synched musical numbers, usually with Road Show-quality choreography (that’s intentional, I think). It’s mostly country songs that are used, expressing the current sentiments of the characters. The funniest of these numbers is Erasmus’ heart-felt rendition of “All by Myself,” in which he lip-syncs onstage alone, save for the presence of the farm animals — marionettes manipulated with great skill by Clin Eaton, Athena Madan, Emily Ireta Perez and Rachel Rawlins.

(The only complaint I have about the show is that those marionettes are often used downstage, near the front row. They’re low to the ground, too, which means anyone sitting further back than Row 2 often can’t see what they’re doing. This is a shame, because you miss a lot of jokes that way — especially when two of the animals relieve themselves, via water pistol, on Erasmus.)

Erasmus’ parents are played by Deric C. Nance and Genesis Eve Speer. Nance’s character doesn’t have much to do after the first 45 minutes or so, but when he’s onstage, he plays everything to the hilt, putting his entire body and voice into his country bumpkin character.

Playing the town mayor is Jjana Valentiner Morrill, a fiery, energetic actress whose scenes with the gaudily costumed Elary Allen are priceless.

Rounding out the cast are Julie Hawkins as the town schoolteacher, David Softley as Erasmus’ brother Jacob, and Steve Watts as an Army lieutenant who comes in to — well, don’t ask.

Softley’s performance is probably the deepest, which isn’t saying much when most of the acting is broad and silly. But in fact, it takes great skill to make anything seem real and believable when everything surrounding it has been odd and crazy. And Softley does just that as he tries to convince Erasmus that the value of knowledge is in its use. It’s an important character, one that needs to be played realistically, and Softley does a great job.

The show is just under two hours long, has audience participation (Lavell Edwards got dragged onstage for country dancing the night I was there), and seems to have some room for improvisation by the actors, which is always fun. Ludvig Holberg’s message may not get emphasized quite as much as he might have liked, but on the other hand, who wants a message? “Erasmus Montanus” is loony, wacky, outlandish and weird. It’s as if a romance/comedy/farce were made into a Warner Bros. cartoon. It would impossible to list everything about it that makes it funny; it would be easier for you to just go see it.

Godzilla

I walked into “Godzilla” expecting it to be an exciting, scary, summertime-popcorn-type of movie. While lots of media hype doesn’t necessarily guarantee quality, you can usually expect to at least be entertained when something is “The Most Hyped Movie of the Summer.” All that publicity usually means the film is at least FUN, if not too deep, and so I expected at least that from “Godzilla.”

And really, the idea of a huge monster loose in the city, stomping on and/or eating people, certainly has the potential for scariness.

You can imagine my disappointment — and the disappointment of the people who shared the theater with me — when “Godzilla” was over and we realized we had not been entertained.

“Godzilla,” I realize now, was a bad idea waiting to happen. The 22 old Japanese “Godzilla” movies were all bad, as was the most recent one, released in this country in 1985. (You had forgotten it, hadn’t you? That, too, was heavily hyped and turned out to be garbage.) Did anyone really think that someone could make a GOOD “Godzilla” movie?

A screenplay might have helped. The dialogue in “Godzilla” is nothing more than a series of cliches and weak one-liners. Granted, we don’t expect depth in our summer blockbusters. But we do expect lines better than, “You know how I get that bad feeling before something bad happens? Well, I’m gettin’ it right now!” right before a huge foot stomps down.

It would have taken some real ingenuity, I see now, to make this movie exciting. Because the basis of it — a huge beast loose in New York — is quickly made non-exciting by having Manhattan evacuated almost as soon as Godzilla appears. That means practically zero chance of anyone getting eaten or squashed — and besides, we quickly learn, Godzilla has no interest in such activities anyway. He (or she, it seems) only wants to lay his/her eggs somewhere. Godzilla isn’t a monster; it’s just a really big animal. That’s fine, but it automatically eliminates all possible suspense or scariness to know that the main “monster” isn’t on a rampage; it’s just looking for a hole to hide in somewhere. There’s no danger, as long as you get out of its way.

It’s a little hard to accept Godzilla as being a vicious “monster” anyway, since in most of the old “Godzilla” movies, he was the good guy, fighting other monsters and protecting Tokyo. Besides, he always looked so goofy in those rubber suits. All that, plus the fact that in this movie Godzilla just wants to nest in a subway tunnel, makes him a pretty non-scary monster.

So with those possibilities eliminated, we turn to the babies. Godzilla lays her eggs in Madison Square Garden, where they soon hatch, much to the dismay of the four main characters who are in the Garden at the time. These babies show a promising desire for food, and they do eat a couple of nameless French guys, which means that now, finally, there’s some real danger. Except that we’ve seen it all before: The babies look and act exactly like the velociraptors in “Jurassic Park.” They even hunt down the movie’s heroes from one room to another like in that movie. The difference? “Jurassic Park” was suspenseful. “Godzilla” never is, not for a minute, not even in the scene (another “Jurassic Park” rip-off) where Godzilla chases our heroes as they drive through the streets of Manhattan.

Matthew Broderick, a good actor, doesn’t belong in this movie. He’s too good to be wasted running around and gaping at big monsters. Maria Pitillo, as his ex-girlfriend-turned-wannabe-reporter, DOES belong in this movie. She’s ditzy and air-headed, and seems perfectly suited to say the awful lines given to her in the script. I’m not a woman, but I cringe on behalf of that gender when I see the way she and the few other female characters scream and whimper and act subservient.

The special effects are very good, but filmmakers need to realize we’re not impressed by that anymore. Making monsters look real has become the rule, not the exception, so you can’t expect a movie to be considered “good” merely because of its special effects.

Basically, “Godzilla” is ruined when, in the first 10 minutes, the title character has already appeared in New York, smashing things but not particularly desiring to hurt anyone. Right there, the suspense has been ruined, and it only gets more dull from there.

It’s too bad. The first “event” movie of the summer should, by all rights, be something fun and exciting. What’s unfortunate is not so much that this movie turned out poorly, but that anyone ever thought it WOULDN’T, considering it has a terrible script, no plot, and forty years of bad “Godzilla” history behind it.

Let’s just hope this isn’t the start of a long, boring summer.

Daylight Raving Time

0

Obviously the biggest crisis facing us as Americans these days is the evil government conspiracy known as daylight-saving time. This is evidenced by the following letter, which I read in the Salt Lake Tribune on May 2, and which is representative of several letters I have read recently in other papers:

“Well, here we go again with DST (Daylight Stupid Time). Just when we were able to enjoy getting up when there was light in the sky, we have to change our clocks to go along with this antiquated and asinine ritual. Why can’t we be sensible and get out of this ridiculous procedure? … It messes up our natural rhythm, just like jet lag does when we go to another time zone….”

The letter was written by Sharon Simonson of Salt Lake City, and I think she raises some very valid points. For example, prior to reading her letter, I might have thought that she had actual PROBLEMS in her life, like everyone else does. Now I see her deepest concern is that it is sometimes dark when she gets up in the morning. One wonders how she is able to find the courage to get up at all, what with such trials facing her.

(I also think it was very clever of her to refer to it as “Daylight Stupid Time.” This is almost as clever as the letter-writers who refer to President Clinton as “Slick Willie,” as though they were the first ones ever to think of it.)

Every April, when we turn the clocks forward and lose an hour of sleep one night, there are letters like this, and usually an article or two about how someone’s trying to pass legislature to get rid of daylight-saving time. This mainly occurs in backwards states like Mississippi and Utah. The reasoning is that the loss of sleep causes an increase in traffic accidents, that kids can’t pay attention in school, and that work productivity goes down — all because we lose that one hour.

My main problem with this line of thinking is that it’s stupid. Losing an hour of sleep does NOT cause more traffic accidents, nor do kids become narcoleptic. It just doesn’t make sense. It really doesn’t matter whether I get four hours of sleep, or eight hours. I would prefer eight, but I can still function either way. Who are these people who get EXACTLY the same amount of sleep EVERY SINGLE NIGHT, so that when they lose an hour one night in April all of a sudden they fall asleep at the wheel and drive their cars into ditches? The only people who would be THAT screwed up by missing one hour of sleep one night are old people, and they shouldn’t be driving anyway.

And speaking of driving, last week I talked about my car, Pedro, getting fouled up at Idiot Brothers’ Auto Repair, but I never mentioned what I wound up doing to get him all fixed. As a result, many of you have expressed concern over Pedro’s current condition. (By “many of you,” I of course mean “none of you.” I wrote this column weeks ago, before you even knew he was having problems.)

What I eventually did was take him somewhere else. This second place was much better than the first, insofar as it was conveniently located across the street from my apartment. The guy there told me that I (well, my car) had an oil leak, and I could actually believe him, because I had a long list of people who had requested I not park in their driveways anymore because of the huge puddle of oil that I (well, my car) always leave there. I told him to fix the oil leak.

Thus began The Process. When I have a car problem, I go in early in the morning and leave the car, which the mechanic sets out to work on. I also leave a large pile of money, which the mechanic uses to buy cigarettes. A few hours later, the mechanic calls and tells me he has discovered a new, different problem, more expensive than the first one, and that I really ought to have this new problem fixed, too, or else the car will never get out of first gear again so long as it shall live. I agree, and I bring in some more money. Time passes, and I get another phone call, this one nearly frantic, as the mechanic explains a wildly dangerous new problem, a problem that, if gone unfixed, will result in the decline of Western civilization. I pretend to understand what he’s talking about and gasp in astonishment that such a thing could be wrong with my car, and I bring down some more money. Then, a while later, I get yet another call, this time with the mechanic practically in tears as he weeps for the condition of my car. Usually this third call involves a car part that is evidently manufactured in Madagascar, because 1) the name of it is a word I do not understand; 2) it will take days for it to arrive; and 3) it will cost several million dollars.

And so the mechanics work all day long, hurrying to make sure Pedro is nowhere near being ready when the shop closes at 5. But eventually, he’s fixed, and he runs like new. Except in April, when he loses that hour of sleep.


 

[ Most people say “daylight savings time,” and most people would probably write it “Daylight Savings Time.” I learned this is wrong, and perhaps even evil, according to the AP style guide, which is what nearly all newspapers go by. It’s “daylight-saving time.” Not capitalized, and it’s “saving,” not “savings.” It’s amazing what you learn when you have to.
I’d been wanting to do the bit on daylight-saving time for quite a while, and I finally got my chance when I saw that letter in the paper. And fortunately, it sort of tied in with the whole car/driving thing, which I had left over from the previous week’s column, which is where it probably should have gone, except that then that column would have been huge, and this one would have been tiny, with only the daylight-saving time issue to discuss. ]

Mechanical Failure

0

I have a 1987 Hyundai Excel named Pedro who is an absolute piece of garbage. He knows it, too, and he seems to have a mischievous, pixie-like attitude about the whole thing, randomly breaking down or blowing up just out of sheer adolescent immaturity. Also, I’m pretty sure he’s possessed by the devil.

The most recent trouble started when Pedro began running sluggishly, refusing to go more than 60 mph on the freeway. At first I thought this was because he had been in Utah too long and was merely trying to fit in with the rest of the cars, many of which never go above 50, except in the Food-4-Less parking lot, where they go 90. But then I realized there was something wrong with Pedro.

And so I decided to take him in for a tune-up, mainly because I found a coupon for a place that would do it for only $24.95. I figured a tune-up might solve the problem, and even if it didn’t, at least the mechanic could tell me what the problem was.

The thing is, the place offering the $24.95 tune-up was a place I had not heard of, called “Idiot Brothers,” or something like that. (LESSON #1: Never go to a mechanic you’ve never heard of.) It was way down in south Provo, pretty much in the back of some guy’s garage, next to his outhouse. This made me nervous, but I figured: It’s just a tune-up. How can you do a tune-up incorrectly? (LESSON #2: You can do a tune-up incorrectly.)

Somehow, the Idiot Brothers managed to give Pedro a tune-DOWN by mistake. He ran worse afterwards, and now the air-conditioner didn’t work. I did not realize these problems until after I’d already left, of course, and the Idiot Brothers were already out back shootin’ possums and sippin’ sun tea with their sister-cousin.

Before I took the car, Idiot Brother No. 1 told me an elaborate story detailing all the things wrong with my car. My, was it ever a fanciful story! I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember “wheel bearings.” He said the wheel bearings were so bad that I shouldn’t even be driving it. He seemed REEEEAAAL worried about the wheel bearings. He said, “I shouldn’t even let you take the car.” And I thought: “Well, it IS my car. I can pretty much take it wherever I want.” But, oh, did he ever want to fix those wheel bearings!

(LESSON #3: Mechanics want to fix everything, including things that are not broken.)

(ADDENDUM TO LESSON #3: They have no desire, however, to fix the way they speak or groom themselves.)

To hear Idiot Brother No. 1 tell it, if I drove another mile, all four wheels were just going to fall off the axles, right there in the middle of the street. But that’s how it always is. Mechanics are so melodramatic. “If you take this car another 50 feet, the engine will burst into a ball of flame, and YOU WILL DIE!” is a typical mechanic statement. So you learn to take whatever they say with a grain of salt.

Anyway, I took Pedro and immediately noticed the aforementioned new problems — problems that did not exist prior to the “tune-up.” Also, I noticed a smell. My car smelled like Idiot Brother — sort of a B.O./cigarette/grease monkey combo, and it wasn’t pleasant.

(LESSON #4: When you leave your car at the shop, leave the windows rolled down.)

Once I realized the air conditioner had quit working, I was faced with a dilemma. I KNEW it did not need to be recharged, because it had just been recharged last winter. You see, last winter my heater quit working. (Winter is traditionally the time of year when heaters quit working.) So I took it to a place and had them fix it. Then, when I came back to pay for the work, they said I also had to pay for them to recharge the air conditioning. I said, “The air conditioning works fine. It didn’t need to be recharged.” They said, “In order to work on the heater, we had to discharge the air conditioning, and then recharge it when we were through.”

This has puzzled me ever since. Can you imagine such logic in other situations?

“Well, we were able to rotate your tires, but you’ll have to pay for new windows, too, ’cause we busted ’em all.”

“Mr. Johnson, as soon as the anesthesia takes effect, we’ll remove your appendix. But first, we’ll break both of your kneecaps with a sledgehammer.”

“We’ll have I-15 up and running in time for the Olympics, don’t worry about that. But while we’re at it, we’ll go ahead and tear up all the side streets, too, mostly just for fun.”

The point is, I knew the air-conditioner did not need recharging. I figured one of the Idiot Brothers had just knocked something loose, either accidentally or on purpose. I also figured that if I took Pedro back to the Idiot Brothers, they would scratch their heads, or perhaps each other’s heads, and say, “Golly, we didn’t work nowheres near the air-conditioner. But we’d be glad to recharge it for ya, either for money or cornbread!” And I didn’t want to go to the trouble of explaining everything to the Idiot Brothers, drawing pictures and watching them furrow their brows as they tried to comprehend the situation.

So I didn’t go back to the Idiot Brothers, and that’s pretty much where things stand. I learned a few lessons, I spent a few dollars, and I chalked a few things up to “experience,” which I hate. And Pedro’s attitude is worse than ever. Man, that car needs a good slapping.


 

[ I had mentioned Pedro on numerous occasions, but I had never devoted an entire column to him before. He had a lot of fans — I’m not kidding about that, either — so I thought this would be a swell little treat for them.
In the paragraph where I emphasize the backwoods-cracker-hillbilly nature of the Idiot Brothers, I refer to one of their kin as their “sister-cousin.” Originally, I had “mother-sister,” which I think is much funnier, simply because it’s a much more horrible thought, if you actually think about it. But someone in the review process objected strongly to “mother-sister,” so I changed it.
The line about the Idiot Brothers furrowing their brows as they attempt to comprehend the situation is semi-stolen from the 1997 “Simpsons” episode “The Secret War of Lisa Simpson.” Just so you know. ]

Hercules: It’s All Greek to Me

0

The Desert Star Playhouse in Murray produces melodramatic, family-oriented, cabaret-style, song-and-dance musical parodies, usually full of broad jokes, broad characters, and broad acting. Some shows turn out better than others; the current one — “Hercules: It’s All Greek to Me” — is one of the best.

Desert Star succeeds best when satirizing a more familiar story than that of Hercules, but that doesn’t turn out to be a liability here. The plot? Ancient Greek Hercules (played beefily by former Mr. Utah Rick Miller) wants to marry Deianira (Julie Ann Christensen), but due to the connivings of the evil Medea (Alison Henriksen), he must first perform three seemingly impossible tasks. He does them, of course, and they all live happily ever after.

What makes this show better than some others at the Playhouse is that the script, by Norman E. Plate and Beth Bruner, has fewer lame, cheap-shot jokes than usual, and far more genuinely witty, funny lines instead. The Greeks began the Olympics, and the Olympics are coming to Utah in four years — and yet only one very brief reference is made to them. That shows considerable restraint, especially at the Desert Star Playhouse.

In one scene, Hercules re-routes a river in order to clean out Medea’s palace (one of his tasks). As the palace is flooded with water and the entire cast floats past, some of them several times, we hear and see references to “Titanic” (complete with a dead floating body), “Jaws” (“That was no boating accident!” yells someone), “The Poseidon Adventure,” the Beach Boys, and the song “Old Man River” — all in about 60 seconds.

The show also contains references, at various times, to “Bye Bye Birdie,” “When Harry Met Sally” (I bet most people didn’t catch it, and I can’t explain it, ’cause it’s dirty), “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” Disney’s “Hercules” movie, the Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum,” Monty Python’s “bring out your dead” routine from “Holy Grail,” Harvey the invisible rabbit (it’s a horse in this show), and the Grecian urn bit from “The Music Man.”

Unlike most other Playhouse shows, which tend to hit you over the head with the jokes and which usually make only the broadest pop culture references, “Hercules” allows itself to be fast-paced and even subtle. It’s a hybrid of a very well-produced Road Show and “Mystery Science Theater 3000.”

Adding to the zeal and enthusiasm of the show — in fact, carrying the show in many ways — is Nicholas D. Bruun, a BYU student who plays Hercules’ trainer Philo. Bruun brings an energy and dynamic with him onstage that automatically improves everything else that’s going on. He throws himself into his parts with reckless abandon — stay for the post-show Olio, a ’70s tribute, just to see his frenetic disco dancing — and yet simultaneously obviously doesn’t take the whole thing too seriously. Rather than trying desperately to make you laugh, he just does his thing and lets the laughs come.

Two problems with this show: Diomedes (Jesse Dolce), son of Medea who also wants to marry Deianira, is inexplicably played as an over-the-top flamboyant homosexual. This is a cheaper laugh than the show needs, though it’s fairly typical of Desert Star mentality.

Also, Medea’s maid Thoula, while performed smartly by Amy Nattress, is written as a subservient animal. Really — Medea literally treats her like a dog several times, and it’s a little creepy, almost disturbing, to watch. It’s probably supposed to make Medea seem more villainness-like, but it seems so odd. (Still, it’s nice to hear Thoula refer to Philo, her new-found love, as “my own geek god.”)

“Hercules” is a fast-paced, very funny show, miles above the pie-in-the-face goofiness Desert Star usually serves up. See it and see what a good parody/melodrama is all about.

Guns Don’t Kill People … Oh, Wait, Yes They Do

0

One “hot topic” that has been in the news lately is the subject of gun control, and, more specifically, whether or not guns should be controlled. This is because of the recent tragedy in Jonesboro, Ark., which I am not going to make jokes about, and also because of the debate over whether people should be allowed to carry guns to Olympic venues in 2002, which I AM going to make jokes about.

Utah’s concealed-weapons laws are very relaxed, as you might imagine in a state where the first day of the deer hunt is more widely celebrated than Christmas. All you have to do is buy a gun, take some tests, pay a bunch of money, and BANG! You’ve got yourself a concealed-weapons permit. You are then allowed, by law, to carry a handgun with you pretty much everywhere you go.

Now, I’m not going to address the issue of whether ordinary, possibly stupid, citizens should be allowed to carry guns around, because that’s too easy. (The answer is no.) What we’re going to discuss is, why do they WANT to carry guns around? As usual, I think we can blame the media. After so many movies and TV shows in which everyday guys become heroes because they happen to have guns on them when they encounter hostage situations, this is the natural result. Gun-carriers honestly think — perhaps even HOPE — that they’ll walk into Winchell’s one morning right in the middle of a stick-up, and since they’ve got their trusty Smith & Wesson on their hip, they’ll be able to save the day and perhaps get a free cruller.

It is the same sort of fantasy I used to have about being a superhero, specifically Superman. I would imagine these situations in which whatever girl I was currently enamored with was in peril, and I would swoop in and save the day and we’d go make out somewhere. I think these sort of power fantasies are normal, but the difference is: I outgrew them. I haven’t imagined I was Superman since I was about 7. Now I imagine I’m Leonardo DiCaprio, which is a whole different set of issues.

My point is, in the land of Real Life, where we live, having a gun with you is rarely going to come in handy. I have a friend who recently obtained his conceal-and-carry permit, and he now carries his gun everywhere he goes except for the few places in Utah where guns are prohibited (federal buildings, airports, my car, etc.). His reason for wanting a gun with him at all times is that when he was 16, he was robbed at gunpoint. He wishes he had been carrying a gun at the time, because then the robber could have stolen that, too.

No, he figures he could have somehow used the gun either to prevent the robbery — “You’d better put down that gun in your hand, because I have a gun IN MY BACK POCKET, WHERE I CAN’T CONVENIENTLY REACH IT!” is probably how he would have frightened the criminal — or else, after the man began to walk away with my friend’s stuff, he could have pulled out his own gun and shot him.

As it is, my friend was robbed and immediately called the police, who quickly apprehended the bad guy, took him to jail, and returned my friend’s belongings to him. If my friend had had a gun with him, then perhaps the bad guy could have been shot. Or maybe my friend would have been shot. It doesn’t matter, as long as SOMEBODY gets shot, then the experience isn’t a total waste.

So should guns be permitted at the 2002 Olympics? First of all, I think it’s a moot point because 2002 is never going to get here. I mean, come on. We’ve been talking about how cool “The Year 2000” is going to be for like a hundred years, and has it ever happened? No. It’s not coming.

And even if it does, I doubt Utah will be capable of hosting the Olympics. I-15 will still be in the shambles it’s in now, and the only thing Utah residents will be able to focus on is the ever-burning question of whether or not Mormons are Christians, and they’ll probably just forget the Olympics are even coming. “Oh my heck,” they’ll say when all the foreigners start to arrive. “Was that THIS year?”

But assuming the Olympics do happen, then sure, people who have permits should be able to take their guns to the Olympic venues too, because there might be a crisis where guns will be needed. (But there will be POLICE OFFICERS there, and THEY have guns!) (Shut up!) Maybe the Olympic snowboarders will become so frustrated at the lack of drugs available that they will resort to terrorist actions, demanding 10 kilos of pot or else Orrin Hatch “gets it.” And don’t think a terrorist act couldn’t happen, because it did in Atlanta in 1996. That bomb went off in the park and Richard Jewell was promptly presumed guilty by everyone in the world. If there had been some law-abiding, gun-carrying citizens present when the bomb went off, then they could have shot Richard Jewell, instead of just falsely accusing him. Who knows, he might have preferred that.

Crazy for You

0

Music, dance and good old-fashioned fun just for the fun of it are celebrated in “Crazy for You,” the “new” Gershwin musical being produced at Pioneer Theatre Company through May 16.

“Crazy for You” was a Broadway sensation a few years ago when it premiered. All of the songs are from old George and Ira Gershwin shows of the ’20s and ’30s, while the script, characters and dialogue are all the modern inventions of talented playwright Ken Ludwig. The play is set in 1936, so you get the music of that era, combined with the typical Broadway-musical plot of that era, combined with some very snappy, witty dialogue that is more characteristic of the ’90s.

And of course the whole thing gets a very classy treatment at Pioneer Theatre Company, where even something as silly and fun as this somehow seems big and important.

The plot has New York banker Bobby Child (Stacey Todd Holt) having to go to Deadrock, Nev., to foreclose on an old theater. He falls in love with Polly (Nancy Anderson), who is the theater-owner’s daughter, but has to impersonate famous Broadway producer Bela Zangler (Max Robinson) in order to win her love, as well as put on a show to raise money to keep himself from having to foreclose on the theater. Naturally, the real Zangler shows up, Polly finds out, and everything gets all nutty.

The show is a joy from start to finish, with big musical numbers full of tap dancing and some very creative dance moves. (One scene has all the lights go out except for small lights attached to the cast members’ feet, so all we see is some well-choreographed movement of light. Very clever.) There’s plenty of singing, of course — those great old Gershwin songs like “Embraceable You,” “I Got Rhythm,” and “Someone to Watch over Me,” among many others — but there’s a lot of funny, broad dialogue too. The set-up/punchline one-two shot gets a lot of work in this show, with exchanges like:

“He’ll go to Deadrock over my dead body!”
“That sounds like a good route to me.”

Stacey Todd Holt is strong as Bobby. He sings and dances quite well, as does his co-star, Nancy Anderson. Pioneer mainstay Max Robinson is marvelously funny as Bela Zangler, and it is perhaps he who displays the most obvious knack for comedy in this show, though Holt gets big laughs with some of his physical shtick.

Even having seen this show twice before, I was still quite tickled by Bobby and Zangler’s scene together, in which they are dressed alike and sing “What Causes That?” It’s one of the quieter numbers in the show, but also one of the most charming.

A few aspects of the show are a bit more cartoonish than they ought to be. Sometimes Bobby’s physical stuff gets to be a bit TOO much, particularly early on, and the Fodors’ one-stroke characters seem out of place among the other, more endearing and real folks in Deadrock.

But these are minor complaints. The show is astounding even from a technical aspect, with huge set changes and about a thousand costume changes, all of them handled quickly and admirably. And those big dance numbers! Jim Christian’s choreography is a wonder to behold.

The show is occasionally a bit bawdier than one might expect, though never really downright crude. Aside from that, it’s suitable for the entire family, and is a swell way to spend an evening.

Michael McLame

0

One of the greatest things about America, besides Grandma Sycamore’s bread, is the fact that in this country, anyone — yes, ANYONE — can make fun of famous people.

For example, I recently performed a song making fun of Michael McLean, and I did it in front of Michael McLean, at a Michael McLean concert. This could not have happened in Russia or China, mainly because the Wilkinson Center ballroom is not located in either of those places.

The way this came about is that last year, I wrote a parody of Michael McLean’s famous song “Hold on, the Light Will Come.” Michael’s song revolves around the general theme that you should hold on, because whatever is messed up right now will get better. This obviously is not always the case, of course. Some things don’t EVER get better. However, this would not make for a very uplifting song:

“Might as well give up;
Things are as good as they’re gonna get.
Lots of people are better off than you,
And if I were you, I’d be pretty upset,
And perhaps vent my rage in acts of violence.”

So anyway, my parody is called “Hold on, the Light Will Change,” and it’s about being stuck at a really long red light. This is a common occurrence here in Provo, where some of the traffic lights do not even have green bulbs in them. The two major causes of pollution in Utah County? Geneva Steel, and my car, Pedro, having to idle at red lights every two blocks.

The song is relatively funny, and I do a nice little impression of Michael McLean, and I did the song several times when I was with the Garrens Comedy Troupe, before they threw me out. Michael got wind of the song, and when he knew he was going to perform at BYU a few months ago, he called up the Garrens beforehand and sued them.

No, actually, he invited them to come mock him publicly. Of course, the Garrens jumped at the chance and asked me if I wanted to sing the song again, and of course I did. The whole thing went off without a hitch, and Michael was a really good sport about it, even at the part where I said, as him: “A lot of people ask me which of my songs is my most favorite, and I tell them that’s a difficult question to answer, because they all sound the same to me too.” Like I said, he was a REALLY good sport. He’s a very down-to-earth LDS musician — not as cheesy as Janice Kapp Perry, and not as pompous as David Glen Hatch.

Being at his concert meant we got to hear some of his classic songs, many of which have been made famous by being featured in church videos that most missionaries have seen several hundred thousand times. Such repeated exposure prompts analysis of the songs.

For example, there’s Michael’s “Be That Friend,” featured in the film “Together Forever”:

“Everyone hopes to find
One true friend who’s the kind
They can count on for forever and a day.
Be that friend, be that kind
That you’ve prayed you might find,
And you’ll always have a best friend, come what may.”

OK, what exactly is he saying here? That if you try to be a good friend to others, you’ll always have a best friend, and that best friend will be yourself? Because THAT’S certainly not very comforting. Who wants to be friends with themselves? I hate me. I’m looking for someone who’s NOT me.

Or, is he saying that if you are a good friend, someone will be a good friend to you in return? Because I’ve tried this, and it doesn’t always work. Some people are perfectly content to let you do all the work at being nice and devoted and loyal, while they just sit back and borrow your car all the time, never giving anything in return, except for the occasional “You’re such a good friend!” remark that does not count for SQUAT. I mean, that doesn’t put gas in the car, does it? That doesn’t make up for the sleep I lost talking you down after your stupid girlfriend broke up with you without warning (well, except for the SEVERAL THOUSAND warnings I gave you, about how this girl is psycho, and she’s only going to hurt you, but you didn’t listen, did you? No, I’m a “good friend,” but not good enough to assume I know what I’m talking about and actually take my advice. I mean, come on Randy! What were you thinking?!?)

I’m sorry. Ignore most of what you read in those parentheses, especially if you are Randy.

Another song that Michael McLean is famous for is “You’re Not Alone”:

“You’re not alone,
Even though right now you’re on your own.
You are loved in ways that can’t be shown;
Your needs are known;
You’re not alone.”

This is a nice song, with a nice message, but doesn’t it seem like Michael was just choosing words that rhymed with “alone”?

“You’re not alone,
Even though you’re only skin and bones.
They can take a sheep and make a clone;
A telephone;
Now please don’t moan;
Or make a groan;
Or cast a stone;
Someday when you’re all grown,
We’ll go to Alabama and have some corn pone.”

But I have digressed from my point. What is my point? That I like songs. Bye-bye.


 

[ This column sat on the back-burner for quite a while before I finally published it. The concert at which I performed was in January 1998, and I wrote this shortly thereafter, but I was never terribly pleased with it, and besides, I kept having better things to write about. Finally, when the first week of spring term crept up on me without warning and I was suddenly without something to write about, I used this one.
My unjustified and heartless jab at David Glen Hatch has an amusing backstory — I wrote a negative review of one of his CDs, and he responded fervently — but the text of the review and our subsequent correspondence seems to have disappeared into the ether of the Internet.
This column marked the beginning of Wednesday publication for Snide Remarks. We had to move from Monday because during spring and summer terms, The Daily Universe doesn’t come out on Mondays. Wednesday seemed like a logical choice because it’s the day the most students are on campus.
I would also like to stress, one more time, that Michael McLean is a really great guy. He was such a good sport about the serious mocking we gave him, and I assume, if he were to read this column, that he would find it amusing as well. We ran into each other several times after this and always got along well enough. I like him.
In March 2001, I received the following e-mail:
Hi I am an lds member and I am very saddened to see that people like yourself have nothing better to do that to critize someone that has made such a difference in people’s lives. I do hope that you get your life together and come up with something more entertaining than ridiculing somebody with such talent. Like I said I have felt the spirit while listening to his music, some of us obviously have not . It is one thing to make fun of ordinary music artists, but it’s so disappointing when you ridicule someone with such an ability to uplift others. Just remember if you have ever read the BoM what the people were doing when the people were crossing the field with the iron rod. “THEY WERE MAKING FUN OF THEM”…..Sincerely……
… and then no name was signed, though the return line indicated it was someone named Carlos A. I didn’t know which column he was talking about, so I wrote back and asked. He replied:
I am talking about the Michael Mclean “Hold on the light will change article, now does it make sense?????
I wrote back that yes, I now knew which article he was talking about, but no, it still didn’t make any sense. The column made it clear Michael knew about the parody and had invited me to perform it. If Michael himself is not offended by it, why should anyone else be?
And of course the very notion that being LDS should make one immune from parody makes my head explode. LITERALLY!!!!! ]

Riverdance: The Show

0

You’ve probably heard that “Riverdance: The Show” is an incredibly popular celebration of Irish dancing and music, with top-notch performers dazzling crowds all around the world. You’ve probably heard that nearly all of the 3 million people, worldwide, who have seen the show have walked away from it amazed at just how entertaining it was.

The rumors are true. “Riverdance” is as good as they say it is, and then some.

“Riverdance: The Show” (that’s the official title — as opposed to “Riverdance: The Floor Wax”?) features a huge cast of singers, dancers and musicians, all of them at the top of their game. Michael Patrick Gallagher and Niamh Roddy are billed as the “principal dancers,” and they are quite good, but neither of them outshines the rest of the ensemble. “Riverdance” is truly a group effort, and every member of the group displays a stunning amount of talent.

The show is not all dancing, though that is what it has become famous for. There are also some songs and instrumental numbers interspersed with the dance numbers. Most of the show celebrates Ireland and Irish culture, though there are a few numbers whose influence is obviously foreign.

“Firedance,” for example, features soloist Rosa Manzano Jimenez in a dance that can best be described as Irish flamenco. Her costume is Latin American, and so are many of her dance steps, and the music is a fascinating combination between the two. Jimenez appears again later in “Heartbeat of the World,” and by the end of the production she has proven herself to be possessed of more charisma, character and emotion than the supposed co-star of the show, Niamh Roddy.

Roddy dances well, as does Gallagher her partner, but neither of them seem to have much personality. Perhaps the attention they must pay to their feet, which tap at a machine-gun pace, prevents them from displaying anything in their faces (except for Gallagher, who seems to have an open-mouthed smirk most of the time).

We will not criticize Gallagher too strongly, though, for his dancing skills are truly amazing. He leaps and taps around the stage flawlessly, demonstrating a talent nearly unparalleled in anything I’ve ever seen.

The show is probably supposed to tell a story; there is some mostly lame and disjointed narration read by John Kavanagh that pops up now and again. It’s mostly poetry on the order of “In dance and song we mourn our children; they carry us over the ocean,” whatever THAT means. It’s the only hokey, roll-your-eyes part of an otherwise very snappy, well-produced show.

Soloists Sara Clancy and Michael Londra sing magnificently, and the Russian Folk Ballet Company performs feats of acrobatic dance that will amaze you.

A highlight of the show is when three American street-type characters get into a tap-dancing showdown with Gallagher and two of his buddies. It’s sort of a good-natured Irish “West Side Story,” with both groups ably performing their particular styles of dance — and then imitating and mocking the other. (Watching the three tough-looking guys imitate the proper and dignified Irish dancing is hysterical, and it shows “Riverdance’s” sense of humor about itself.)

The best indication of “Riverdance’s” success is the fact that when it’s over, the audience is happy. The show is simply uplifting, joyous, fun, entertaining and powerful. People feel like dancing on the way to their cars. There is nothing questionable or in poor taste in the show. What you see and hear is a variety of remarkably talented performers, doing their thing flawlessly and accepting your applause and standing ovation at the end. The word “cultural” turns many people off, and that’s too bad, because while “Riverdance” is certainly cultural, it is also a show that can entertain even the most down-to-earth, non-theater-going person.

Loud Squawking Feedback

0

It’s the end of the semester, and it’s been a difficult school year for all of us, so I thought a nice way to kick off the summer would be to share some of the volatile, hate-filled e-mail I’ve gotten in response to things I’ve written. Surely there is no finer way of dealing with angry letters than by spreading the venom around to others.

Apparently, some editions of “Snide Remarks” have really annoyed people. And thanks to e-mail, you can now dash off epistles of fury in a matter of seconds, without giving yourself time to collect your thoughts, take a few deep breaths, and perhaps consult a spelling dictionary.

All of these letters are being reprinted EXACTLY as I received them. I have not added or changed anything, except for occasional parenthetical remarks that are obviously me talking.

First we have a gal who was writing to complain about how I made fun of Shakespeare in my Feb. 2 column, but who was also thoughtful enough to take a few moments to make fun of the way I look. I quote:

And ah, Eric, you ever think about putting a new picture on the front of your column? It only adds to the lameness of your not-so-funny article.

So we see the sort of constructive criticism that BYU students are willing to give. Here was a girl merely requesting that I obtain a new face. What smaller favor could there be?

Though I try to avoid it, I occasionally wind up using “sarcasm” in my column. And sometimes, readers like to “turn the tables” on me and use that sarcasm back at me. Here’s a letter written in response to my Jan. 26 column, in which I mentioned that women are far more obsessive about their weight than men are:

ha, ha, i’m still busting a gut from your last ‘snide remarks’ column. did you pick up on that sport, that was sarcasm? i found your article to lack humor and your focus on looks tends to be a bit high schoolish. am i wrong in voicing my opinion? … your sexist comments about women were very insulting, but i’m sure plenty of the ‘men’ at this institution would applaud you on your comments.

This e-mail, decrying sexism, was written by a man, thus demonstrating the time-honored BYU tradition of Getting Offended by Proxy. This is where a group gets made fun of, and they think it’s really funny, but people who AREN’T part of that group write in saying, “How dare you make fun of that group.” If I wrote a column making fun of blondes, the brunettes would get offended in their behalf, and the blondes would think the column was funny (assuming someone read it to them).

Another point on this last e-mail: When did it become OK to ignore all the rules of punctuation and capitalization when sending e-mail? I must have missed that memo.

But at least he used decent grammar. The women who got upset when I made fun of their precious “Titanic” — and it’s only been women so far — have apparently been so over-wrought with emotion and anger that they have almost forgotten how to even speak English.

What you are about to witness is, I swear to you, an actual e-mail, written by two freshman girls — it took TWO people to write this letter — and they were dead serious. Please brace yourselves. I have italicized my favorite parts.

Usually my roommate and I read your column and laugh, but this time, you went too far with your attack on Titanic. You for one, criticized girls for seeing movies over and over. They don’t just see Titanic, there’s a little known fact there that girls have feelings more than typical guys do, and they happen to enjoy movies that catch their attention. Some people have noticed Titanic more, it is a movie that not only shows a nice love story, which girls happen to love, if you haven’t noticed, it is also a history of a very important event in history. It is good for people to know this, and to see this history, to realize the mistakes that people make, in order that they are not made again. [Oh, THAT’S right. “Titanic” was an EDUCATIONAL film.]

So maybe the love story isn’t true, with Rose and Jack, but it added to the dramatics of an actual story, and we feel that it is important that people see this. If you are offended by the sex scene in it, I can see how that could be, that is not the whole movie. Having Rose sketched naked isn’t the whole movie either, and people seem to only see that, and not realize the truth. Many more points are shown, the actual sinking, the amount of deaths, and the prized things that were associated with it.

In your criticizing of Leonardo DiCapprio, it seems as though you are jealous of his looks, or of the fact that girls happen to enjoy seeing him act. This shows that possibly you are jealous of an actor, which would be quite natural of a guy who has been in tons of movies, and made more money than you will in your whole life. He also has more girls swarming over him than you could ever imagine. Sorry if you don’t like this movie, but we feel that maybe you shouldn’t be so critical of it when so many other people enjoy it.

There is little I can say about this letter. I responded to the authors and suggested that they were so emotionally involved in the movie that they had let their emotions do their thinking for them (something women are not generally known for). I said if they had disliked “Titanic,” they would have thought my column was funny, but since it was the emotional pinnacle of their entire lives, and since Leonardo is so cute, their emotions wouldn’t let them find any humor in it.

This time, the two girls wrote back separately. Here’s what one of them said, in part:

As for your comment that Leonardo’s acting talent being marginal, I see him in a whole lot more movies than I’ve ever seen, um, well, YOU in. So obviously he has a talent more than you do, hu? [Oh, brilliant argument. I don’t see him writing for any newspapers, do you? Hu? Hu?!]

How dare you say that I’ve ‘Let your emotions take over and dictate for you what’s funny and what’s not.’ You have no idea what my emotions said about that movie, or about your column. The main reason we wrote you an email was for what you said about the MOVIE. Not about Leonardo DiCapprio. [Like writing angry e-mail in defense of a movie is less crazy than writing in defense of an actor.] You ought to re-read things before you go and try and put someone down, which is exactly what you have done. … For myself, I will no longer read your stero-typic column, for I feel no need to see you find pleasure in putting others down. Isn’t BYU a place we come to build people up? I guess it is in all ways except for Eric Snyder’s opinion column.

I agree. This Eric Snyder person, whoever he is, should be stopped, and I’ll be the one to stop him, too, or my name isn’t Eric Snider.

The other girl said this:

Personally I don’t see how making fun of anyone or anything can be humorous to you. I guess I am just the type of person who doesn’t critisize. I am not critisizing your article, I am just commenting on it.

Thanks for the clarification.

There have been more e-mails, of course, in which people practice Getting Offended by Proxy. Some of them also participate in other BYU activities, such as Missing the Point, Not Getting the Joke, and Jumping to Conclusions, such as the conclusion that when the national anthem is playing, it is impossible to think patriotic thoughts and keep walking at the same time. But there’s no time for that now. I’ve got to get ready for summer, which is my favorite time of year, because winter really stinks.

Dear Eric:
How dare you make fun of Winter!
Sincerely,
Fall

Oleanna

0

Provo Theatre Company has a well-deserved reputation for putting on high-quality, professional shows, generally of a more light-hearted nature. This season has featured the farcical “Lend Me a Tenor,” the nostalgic “Forever Plaid,” and the hilarious “A Tuna Christmas,” to name a few, and this summer will bring “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.”

Let it not be said, however, that Provo Theatre Company cannot handle serious drama. The current production is David Mamet’s controversial “Oleanna,” and while the play doesn’t have Mamet’s infamous swearing, it does have all the elements of a typical Mamet work: realistic, plentiful dialogue, and conflict. BUCKETS of conflict.

There are only two characters: John (Carl Belliston) and Carol (Celesta Davis). John is a college professor, though we don’t know exactly what he teaches. Carol is his student, and her background and upbringing are unclear, becoming even muddier after the first act. We don’t know either of their last names, nor at which university all this takes place. All of the action takes place in John’s office over the course of a few months — or more accurately, the action takes place elsewhere and we see only the aftermath, in John’s office.

Such a set-up — one set, two actors, minimal action, lots of talking — could be a boring, disastrous flop were each of those elements not played to the hilt. Fortunately, they are.

Director Charles Lynn Frost keeps the set simple and sparse, but with one significant, symbolic twist: After each act, a faultline running down the floor of the stage gets tweaked, symbolizing the growing rift between John and Carol. For you see, after a seemingly innocent conversation regarding Carol’s grade, John’s desire to help her, and the nature of a college education, accusations begin to fly and a modern-day witch hunt takes place. The charges brought against John are so unfair, so appalling, so infuriating, that one cannot help but be riveted as he tries to talk sense into Carol.

Carol’s destructive actions are seemingly unmotivated, and her character is confusing, and she is portrayed this way on purpose. Watch her taking notes in the first act and see how naive and almost dim she seems. Then watch her in the second, and especially the third act, and see if she’s the same person. Is she? Was she merely pretending at the beginning? Or is she actually behaving exactly the same way all through the play, and we merely interpret her differently based on what we learn of her? The question goes unanswered, again on purpose.

For that is the basis of the play — interpretation. One can say or do something that is intended as harmless and meaningless, but it can be interpreted — misinterpreted, over-interpreted, whatever — by others to be quite significant. Can Carol really believe all the things she charges John with? Can she really have interpreted him that way? The audience is incredulous and outraged, along with John, that someone could possibly be so narrow-minded and cruel, and frustrated that our society is set up to give those insane accusations credence.

Not that John is without fault. On the contrary, he is pedantic, verbose, self-centered, hypocritical, and elitist. By the end of the play, you will fully hate one of the two characters, and there will come a moment — a very pivotal moment — when you will, along with one of them, wish the worst upon the other. This catharsis does not come, though, for the audience or for the characters, and we are left, with them, to examine ourselves and try to determine how we could have gotten so worked up to begin with.

That’s the nature of this play. It makes you think. The ending is not happy, but neither is it depressing. The play is forceful, powerful and engrossing, as it practically grabs you by the shirt collar and demands that you listen to it. It is not light-hearted, happy fare; nor is it for the casual theater-goer who likes to hear snippets of the dialogue and whisper to his or her neighbor the rest of the time. You have to WATCH “Oleanna,” and LISTEN to it. Fortunately, these actors and this director make it impossible to resist doing either. This is a drama not to be missed.

Yet Another Conference Diary

0

If you’ve never been to a session of general conference live in the Tabernacle on Temple Square, I highly recommend that you do so at some point in the next century, when I-15 is either finished, or when they realize they have no idea what they’re doing and tear down the freeway altogether.

It is not uncommon for the persons responsible for the various freeway closures to put up only half as many “detour” signs as necessary. They’ll divert all the traffic off the freeway with a couple of signs, and then whoops! No more signs! You’re on your own to find a part of the freeway, somewhere down the road, that you can drive on. Occasionally it is faster and more economical to simply go to Salt Lake Airport, fly to Las Vegas, rent a car, and drive up to Provo from there.

But we are not here to complain about the freeway, as entertaining as that may be. No, we are here to discuss my experience covering the Sunday morning session of general conference for NewsNet.

9:00 a.m. — Fellow reporter Kimber Kay, photographer Joel Hill and I arrive at the Tabernacle, which is about two-thirds full. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has just finished rehearsing for the “Music and the Spoken Word” broadcast, and they are milling around.

9:01 a.m. — I see Stan Crippen, who you don’t know, but who I know from back home. He taught at my high school, and everyone liked him. I will share an amusing anecdote concerning him later on.

9:04 a.m. — Elder Dallin H. Oaks and President Boyd K. Packer, the first Apostles to arrive, sit down and chat.

9:10 a.m. — The conversation seems to be lively, and I really wonder what Elders Oaks and Packer are talking about. I try to determine some way of finding out, but quickly dismiss the idea, since I am in the press section in the balcony, and they are down in the General Authority area, and there are several Men in Suits Wearing Earpieces standing between me and them. These Men do not look particularly threatening, but you can rest assured that they frightened me.

9:23 a.m. — Elder Neal A. Maxwell waves to someone. I wish he would wave to me, because I really like him, but alas, this is not to be.

9:25 a.m. — Kimber Kay laments the fact that the Tabernacle lacks a coat rack. Her coat goes on the floor, and I assume I will never hear the end of it.

10:00 a.m. — At EXACTLY 10 a.m., general conference begins. Dozens of bishops are in attendance, but do you think such obvious disdain for tardiness on the part of the Brethren will inspire these bishops to go back to their local wards and start doing things on time? All I can say is, “We’ll see” (i.e., “No”).

10:07 a.m. — During the opening prayer, the Men in Suits Wearing Earpieces do not close their eyes. Please do not ask me how I know this, as it will incriminate me.

10:10 a.m. — In his talk, President Thomas S. Monson quotes the lyrics to “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, Zip-a-dee-ay.” To my knowledge, this is the first time this song has been quoted in general conference. Naturally, since President Monson is saying it, it sounds very eloquent and poetic. I imagine he could read the TV Guide listings and make them sound lyrical. (Not that I am suggesting President Monson ever watches TV.)

10:14 a.m. — It occurs to me that it is very cold and drafty where we are sitting. It surprises me that Kimber has not mentioned this.

10:40 a.m. — This whole “Daylight Savings Time” thing catches up with me. I lost an hour of sleep and had to get up at 6:45 a.m. It is very difficult to stay awake, and Kimber has to nudge me once. I’m proud of myself, though, for not totally falling asleep, which, according to my dad, the aforementioned Stan Crippen once did in the Tabernacle, and when he did, he either dropped his pen and it rolled down the aisle and it was really loud, or else he was snoring and everyone could hear it. Both events happened — one to Stan Crippen and the other to my dad — but I don’t remember what happened to whom, and it doesn’t really matter anyway, does it? Suffice it to say that two persons were embarrassed, and neither of them was me.

11:02 a.m. — We sing a congregational hymn. As I stand up, I realize how uncomfortable those benches really are. Perhaps I shouldn’t have recently lost 15 pounds, because in so doing, I also lost my natural cushioning.

11:04 a.m. — Near the end of the first verse of “I Stand All Amazed,” a technical TV-type person motions to the conductor that this is to be the only verse sung, no doubt because of factors of time. It is highly unlikely that you saw this on TV, because the TV guy was ducking way down low.

11:06 a.m. — I notice all the dignitaries in attendance. I see people wearing clothing that is obviously from foreign lands; perhaps these people are ambassadors or national leaders. I also see Steve Young.

11:08 a.m. — Sister Margaret D. Nadauld tells the story about the 5-year-old twin boys, Adam and Aaron. Adam gets hurt, and Aaron helps drag him home, by which time Adam is no longer crying, but now Aaron is, even though he wasn’t the one who got hurt. Mom says, “Why are YOU crying, Aaron?” and he says, “Because Adam hurts.” The whole story makes me cry a little, darn it, though fortunately Steve Young does not notice.

11:59 a.m. — Conference ends, one minute early. Kimber and I race out the door because we have to hurry back to Provo to do a radio report on KBYU-FM (89.1), but of course the I-15 construction makes us late, and we have to hurry, and I slip and fall outside the Wilkinson Center and get mud all over my suit. But at least I got to go to conference.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

0

It would be difficult to do a bad production of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat,” but if any theater ever had two strikes against it from the outset, it’s Hale Center Theater Orem.

The theater has a very small acting space, and “Joseph” has a huge, very active cast. Plus, there’s audience on three, sometimes four sides in that theater, also making it difficult to stage a musical. (It’s hard to do a spectacle when there are no wings or curtains to hide behind.)

And yet, fantastically, despite these potential limitations, the Hale Center Theater does a bang-up job with the show. If you didn’t get to see the recent ultra-expensive Donny Osmond version at Kingsbury Hall, forget about it. This production in Orem is as entertaining and well-done as any production of this show has ever been, Donny or no Donny.

It has been said before that much of the credit goes to the show’s authors, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice. The show is short (way under two hours), fast-paced, light-hearted, and very clever. You can just picture lyricist Rice giggling with delight as he wrote one ridiculous rhyme after another, and Webber had a field day with a dozen or so different musical styles — everything from country-western to Calypso.

But the Hale Center Theater takes what is already a stellar script and score and turns it into something enthralling, almost magical. Under the guidance of legendary local director Syd Riggs, the large cast sings and dances and goofs around with energy, gusto, and conviction. Costumes change with lightning speed, often to fit the genre of music currently being utilized (the Elvis-adoring girl dancers’ costumes are particularly clever, being a neat blend between ancient Egyptian and ’50s teen-ager). There is literally never a slow moment in the show, as the pace is kept up continually, barely leaving you a chance to catch your breath.

There are two casts in the show, one on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and another on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. I saw the Saturday cast, although the other cast’s Joseph (TJ Young) was filling in for Neal C. Johnson. The entire cast I saw was top-notch; I can only assume the other cast is just as good.

Jason Webb is particularly worth watching. He plays the Butler in the M-W-F cast and Reuben in the other cast, but the night I was there, he was doing double duty, playing both parts. This talented singer/actor was last seen in Provo Theatre Company’s “Forever Plaid,” where his innocent, infectious grin was also an asset. In “Joseph,” he brings wit and energy to both of his parts and manages to stand out, even in an ensemble cast where it’s possible for everyone to blend in together.

Jen Webb sings beautifully and IS beautiful as the Narrator, and TJ Young is as Joseph-y as any Joseph you’ll see: handsome, smart, a walking work of art, to paraphrase one of the show’s lyrics, not to mention possessing a seriously toothy grin and some decent acting skills. There’s actually some real emotion in “Close Every Door” (the show’s only really serious number), and in the reunion scene with his brothers and father.

Gordy Villarini is the Elvis-like Pharaoh, and as is often the case with this role, he is unintelligible when he sings. (I guess Elvis was rather unintelligible, too, now that I think about it.) This unfortunately limits what could otherwise be a very funny and appealing musical number, because you just can’t understand what he’s singing, so caught up is he in imitating Elvis’s mumbly vocal style.

Small criticisms aside, the show is fantastic. Despite the small acting space and large cast, it never gets crowded, even when there are over 20 actors onstage at once. The show is choreographed (by Brent Mills) so no one ever seems to be in anyone else’s way.

We won’t question why “Joseph” is so popular in Utah, and why nearly every theater in the state is performing it this year. The fact is, it’s a fun, family-friendly show, and any chance you have to see a good production of it, go for it. Hale Center Theater’s version is as good as any you’ll see, so take advantage of the opportunity now.

Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

0

The current Hale Center Theater Orem production of “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat” begins with the narrator and some ushers “randomly” choosing 12 audience members to star in the show. Coincidentally, the chosen ones’ names are already listed in the program.

I have two theories on why this concept — which does not play heavily in Syd Riggs’ directorial vision of the show beyond the first couple minutes — was used:

1) To symbolize the fact that we’ve seen this show so many times, they really COULD select random audience members to perform it. I imagine it being akin to the “Rocky Horror Picture Show” screenings, where fans show up in costume and act out their favorite parts. (Wait, that’s actually not a bad idea. Don’t steal it.)

2) To give viewers a means of differentiating this “Joseph” from the others they’ve seen. (“Hale Theater? 2001? Oh, right, the one where they pulled the guys out of the audience.”)

Because aside from that, this one’s no different from the myriad other “Josephs” Utah has seen in the past six years — and that’s not a criticism. As written, it’s a funny, fast-paced show with catchy tunes and pleasantly simple moral themes. This production is no less amazing nor Technicolor than its predecessors.

The lead roles are double-cast, but they do not follow a simple Monday/Wednesday/Friday or Tuesday/Thursday/Saturday rotation. If a particular performer tickles your fancy, it may be best to call the theater to determine when he or she will be on stage.

Justin Utley (double-cast with Jason Celaya) is a fine Joseph: great voice, a tan and hairless body, not overly smiley. He has a great stage presence, helping us like a character that is tragically under-written. (Joseph never acts in this show; he only reacts. Not that it matters, but technically, this makes him a bad protagonist.)

The brothers are all similarly likable, and a few get their moments in the spotlight. Kevin Goertzen is funny in “Those Canaan Days” (which also benefits from some amusing tin-cup percussion); Alberto G. Oquendo leads a peppy “Banjamin Calypso.”

The costumes are impressive, as they nearly always are at the Hale. This is a show that thinks nothing of having the entire cast change costumes just for one number, and it pays off. The fashion nightmares in “Go, Go, Go Joseph” are priceless.

Cody Hale’s musical arrangements are good, and the recordings are top-notch. Jenny Giauque’s creative choreography makes effective use of the limited stage space. The musical direction, by Rob Moffat, is stellar, not to mention amazing and Technicolor.

Should you go? Yes. First-timers and old fans alike will find much to enjoy in this light-hearted, family-friendly show.

Boy Scouting: Be Repaired

0

Many students will be graduating next month. To them I say: Good luck finding a place to park at the graduation ceremony! When you get out your car will probably have been towed. Ha-ha, welcome to The World!

Although I’m not graduating this year, or perhaps in any year, I’ve begun to wonder what I’ll do in the event that I do leave BYU. As with most college graduates, I’ll have many options. The first of these options is to earn a lot of money by doing nothing.

I learn of these options frequently through the magic of e-mail. E-mail, and the various other computer advancements we have recently made, are nice, but I think I prefer the old days, when computers were useless. Remember when we were kids, and the only thing you could do with computers was play Lemonade Stand and Oregon Trail? Oh sure, we heard fantastic stories of people using computers to solve complicated math equations, and to design the robots of the future, and we wanted to believe that was possible, but we knew in our hearts that the most we’d ever do with our Apple IIe’s was sell imaginary lemonade and lead imaginary frontierspeople to their imaginary deaths in Wyoming.

So anyway, things are a lot more advanced now, and through e-mail, we have the luxury of communicating with friends, family, and, most often, total strangers whom we want nothing to do with. Nearly every day I get a message that says something like, “If you are not the kind of person who wants to earn $10,000 a week simply by taking a nap on the floor, then delete this message immediately!” And so I always delete the message immediately, not because I don’t want to earn $10,000 a week, but because I know they’re lying. And I know they’re lying because the next sentence is always: “This is NOT a multi-level marketing scheme!” And if there’s one thing I’ve learned in life, it’s that the surest way of identifying a multi-level marketing scheme is when you are told, “This is not a multi-level marketing scheme.” It’s the same as how when people begin a sentence with, “Now, I’m not a racist, but…,” you can be certain you’re about to hear something very racist, such as, “I’m not a racist, but I understand all people from Mongolia eat their young.” (This also works for sentences beginning with, “I don’t want to be rude” and “I don’t mean to gossip.”)

So the “get rich quick” schemes are a career option, but probably not a very good one, considering they don’t work. Whatever I do for a living, though, I’ll have to do it outside of Utah. This is not because I dislike Utah. On the contrary, I rather enjoy Utah’s majestic mountains and quaint mispronunciations of basic English words. No, the reason I fear I shall have to seek employment out of this state — and I am ashamed to admit this publicly — is I never earned my Eagle Scout award.

Please don’t stop reading now. If I ever needed a reader, it’s now. Please stay with me.

It was made abundantly clear by the many people who spoke to us when I was a Boy Scout that if two equally qualified people were up for the same job, the employer would hire whichever one was an Eagle Scout. I believe this to be one of the many lies the grown-ups told us when we were young and impressionable. I think most employers don’t care whether you’re an Eagle Scout because for most jobs, being an Eagle Scout won’t help you any. (“Farnsworth — good work on the Johnson account. Your quick knot-tying skills saved the day at that presentation.”) And I won’t even address the likelihood of two people being up for the SAME job with EXACTLY the same level of expertise, experience and skills, forcing the employer to ask which one knows the hand motions for “Father Abraham Had Many Sons” and which one doesn’t.

But despite all this, I suspect the powerful Boy Scout Industry has convinced all the employers in their areas of influence — Utah, for example — to use the Eagle Scout test as a means of hiring people, which means I won’t get a job around here.

The reason I didn’t become an Eagle Scout is simply that I wasn’t interested in Scouting. (Believe it or not, I was still able to get a temple recommend with this attitude.) I have nothing against the Scouting program, mind you; it just wasn’t for me. And I’m glad I had parents who understood this and didn’t insist, as many parents do, that I couldn’t get my driver’s license until I had gotten my Eagle. I don’t wish to criticize the parenting techniques of others, but this is a stupid parenting technique. For my kids, I’m going to insist they can’t get their driver’s licenses until they’ve had an article published in a magazine. So what if they aren’t interested in writing, or aren’t any good at it? Writing and submitting and eventually publishing an article will teach them determination and goal-setting and the value of work. They’ll thank me for it later, when they’re making $10,000 a week stuffing envelopes.


 

[ There was much discussion amongst my friends who pre-read the column for me as to which Boy Scout campfire song I should make reference to. I originally had “My name is Joe and I work in a button factory.” This proved to be familiar to only about half of the former Boy Scouts I polled. “My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean,” while familiar to all, was too awkward to describe in a brief half-sentence, what with its standing up and sitting down motions. So I ultimately went with “Father Abraham Had Many Sons” (though in my troop we sang it about Boy Scout founder and possible creepy old guy Robert Baden-Powell, instead of Abraham).
I am very pleased with the line “I don’t wish to criticize the parenting techniques of others, but this is a stupid parenting technique.” Not only is it funny on its own, but it’s also a nice, semi-subtle reference to an earlier part of the column where I mentioned introductory phrases like “I don’t mean to gossip.” Did you catch that? Man, I was pleased with that.
I was surprised I didn’t get any e-mail either from parents who had forced the Eagle policy upon their sons, or from guys whose parents had forced it upon them and who had liked the policy. Instead, I got mail from people whose parents forced them to get their Eagles, and who resented their parents because of it. ]

Nobody’s American Except Me

0

We as Americans had better get our heads out of the sand and start paying attention, or else before you know it we’ll have become slaves to a master race of government-engineered super-computers and talking monkeys.

You’ll hopefully pardon my incoherent ramblings. I’ve been reading letters to the editor again, and I’ve been alerted to the dangers we face, including conspiracies, cover-ups, and people not standing still when the national anthem is playing.

First we have a letter published in the Feb. 1 issue of the Provo Daily Herald (motto: “Where BYU Graduates Go When the Daily Universe Finally Kicks Them Out”), written by Grant N. Mildenhall of American Fork. This letter addresses many issues, not the least of which is the fact that NASA did not send a man to the moon in 1969, as they claimed, but that it was in fact staged by the government. Well, actually, it wasn’t even the government. According to Grant N. Mildenhall, it was “that evil system called the Military Industrial Complex,” which controls the government, the TV networks and the media, and which is headed by a cigarette-smoking man, as you know if you have ever watched “The X-Files.”

This same organization also assassinated several important people, such as John F. Kennedy and Princess Diana. How do we know this? Because Grant N. Mildenhall said so, and are YOU going to argue with him?

Why isn’t Grant N. Mildenhall afraid of being “silenced” by the Military Industrial Complex, since he has now exposed them? I suppose if you were to ask him, he would say he feels safe because of the magic invisible forcefield placed around him by the people of his home planet.

While the theories put forth in this letter may be alarming and perhaps even stupid, they cannot compare with another theory, presented in a Feb. 24 letter to the editor printed in The Daily Universe (motto: “Inching Slowly Toward a Mistake-Free Newspapper”). This letter makes it abundantly clear that persons who do not stand motionless when the national anthem is being played pose a threat to national security. I quote the letter in part:

“As a proud citizen of the United States living on American soil, I think that it is totally disrespectful for people not to stop and cover their heart during the playing of the national anthem….

“I call on the Honor Code Office to take action against students who refuse to respect the nation’s symbol.

“Those who refuse to show respect should be forced to give up their place at this prestigious institution and make room for those with greater patriotic fervor and love for their country.”

What this man says is true, and I applaud The Daily Universe for having the courage to print such a letter, containing, as it does, actual truth, which is often a prohibitive factor in determining whether or not something gets printed. Every morning and afternoon, the ROTC raises and lowers the flag as a recording of the national anthem plays over the campus sound system. When you hear this music — even if you can’t see the flag — it has become tradition to stop moving, even if you are late for class, even if you have severed a limb and are on the way to the hospital, and even if it is snowing heavily and you are allergic to moisture.

If you do not stop, you are subject to the most prevalent and deadly weapon at BYU: The Self-Righteous Stare. This is a multi-purpose stare, of course, used primarily against people with facial hair, but in this case it means, “I am much better than you because I am standing here in the cold, wasting two minutes of my time, because I can faintly hear a song coming from somewhere. You, on the other hand, must be some kind of genetic mutation.”

So of course people should stop. Again, it doesn’t matter if you can’t see the flag. You should still participate in the flag-raising ceremony. It’s the same as how when you’re in your apartment and you know your parents are probably just sitting down to dinner several hundred miles away, you should probably bow your head while they say grace.

Obviously this nation’s forefathers, being angry and bitter and selfish, would want us to stand motionless in the cold whenever we heard “The Star-Spangled Banner.” (Of course they would probably also want us to know all the words to it, and not just the first verse, but that’s another issue.) And it should not just be during the flag ceremony. If it’s the Fourth of July and a radio station plays the song, you should immediately stop your car in the middle of traffic and wait patiently. Anyone who unpatriotically rear-ends you is merely proving his or her un-Americanness. If I stand up in the middle of the library and begin singing the national anthem, you should stand up and salute until I have finished. The security guards, if they are any kind of Americans, should also wait until I’m done before arresting me.

The letter-writer suggested kicking students out of BYU for not stopping when they hear the national anthem, but I think that’s too lenient. I think people should have to sing along with it, too. Since most of the people who stop walking only do so because everyone ELSE does — the same reason they wear those braided belts and say “fetch” — it would only take a few of us to start singing along with the music before EVERYONE was doing it just as a matter of conformity. And the singers would give the Self-Righteous Stare to the non-singers, as if singing the national anthem every time you heard it were a basic requirement of being American, and duh, doesn’t everybody KNOW that?, even though we really just made it up. And of course we’d give the Honor Code Office full authority to expel anyone who didn’t stop and sing, and we’d send them back to whatever backwards country they came from, the Commie pinko freak-heads.

Or, we could just turn them over to the Military Industrial Complex.

The Front Page

0

“The Front Page,” a ’20s-style comedy being performed at Pioneer Theatre Company, has several flaws, but the biggest one is this: It’s not funny.

Rarely does a show lend itself to such succinct description, but this one does. Despite being 2 hours and 45 minutes long — way too long for a comedy anyway — there are maybe five really good laughs in it. And one of those is the very last line!

The setting is Chicago, 1928, the night before an anarchist is to be executed by the state. Several reporters from different newspapers are hanging around the press room at the Criminal Courts Building adjacent to the jail, waiting for something to happen. Among them is Hildy Johnson (Michael Lasswell), who is quitting so he can go to New York tonight and get married tomorrow.

But, as fate would have it, Earl Williams the convict (Richard Mathews) escapes from the jail and goes on the lam, with reporters and cops chasing after him. Hildy is torn — for about two seconds — between his love (his fiancee) and his REAL love (yellow journalism) and winds up chasing the story, too.

Lots of stuff happens with the convict hiding in a desk, and a prostitute throwing herself out a window. (In the context of the play, it makes sense.) Eventually, nobody learns anything, nobody gets in trouble because the journalists are as corrupt as the mayor and the sheriff, and we all live happily ever after.

Except that somewhere along the way, director Charles Morey forgot to have anything funny happen. The play is obviously trying to be a farce, though I don’t think it was really written that way. There are some farcical elements — the easy wrap-up at the end, the hiding in the desk, the fact that no great truths are learned — but not enough of them. While a farce uses a variety of stock characters to provide humor, “The Front Page” uses about 17 versions of the same stock character, and none of them are funny. Nearly everyone yells everything, and everyone emotes at the same level. Eventually, everyone starts to sound the same. You could close your eyes and not be able to distinguish which character was talking.

Michael Lasswell certainly gives it his all as Hildy. You can tell he’s working hard as he runs around, trying to milk the story for all it’s worth while at the same time trying to keep his fiancee from giving up on him. And Ross Bickell as his boss, Walter Burns, brings a lot of energy. But the two of them together don’t add up to much, and there is little to involve the viewer in the show. The first act, in particular, is slow and with very little to sink one’s teeth into. The second and third acts are more interesting, but not any funnier.

Two performers stand out. David B. Heuvelman as Murphy, one of the reporters, manages to give some realism to his role, moreso than any of his counterparts. And Deirdre Madigan, as the prostitute whose relationship with the convict goes curiously unexplained, also demonstrates that she knows what she’s doing. Rather than taking control of the stage by yelling, which is what nearly everyone else does, she commands attention the old-fashioned way: by ACTING, and by showing sincerity.

Unfortunately, even these two well-acted parts don’t add much humor. And that’s the most disappointing thing about “The Front Page”: it just doesn’t make you laugh.

Les Miserables: A Whole Lot Less Miserable

0

While Desert Star Playhouse’s shows are usually just good, clean fun that don’t require much of you in the thinking department, the current “Les Miserables: A Whole Lot Less Miserable” may not be as enjoyable for the casual theater-goer.

This is because the play lacks one thing: a plot.

It’s a parody of the musical theater sensation “Les Miserables,” of course, but it’s also a parody of the commercialization of that show, and of the people who are die-hard fanatics about it.

And so the Desert Star version turns into more of a collage of parody and satire, rather than an actual show with an actual storyline. The characters onstage “know” they are in a show, and they make reference to it constantly. There are too many lines about “this scene is going on too long,” or “here’s what happens next in the script,” or “I’m just a bit-player with a couple lines.” Instead of being the story of the French revolution it’s the story of Desert Star doing a show.

None of which is necessarily bad. It just means that if you are unfamiliar with “Les Miserables,” the story behind it, Broadway in general, and the last several Desert Star shows, you may not enjoy this production, because there is very little in the way of traditional heroes and villains to get involved in.

Some of the “Les Miserables” parodies are quite clever. The scene in which Fontine (Portia Alison) is, as she puts it, “squash-ed” by a cart is quite funny, as is the number mocking the commercialization of “Les Miserables.”

The song and dance that ends the first act is a dead-on parody of Broadway “show-stoppers,” and the most ambitious musical piece the Desert Star has tried in at least the last five shows (which is as many as I’ve seen).

There are two scene-stealers in this show, one good and one bad. Kaycee Raquel, who plays the spoiled Eponine, delivers each line directly to the audience, and when she’s not the focus of the scene, she’ll do her best to take it anyway. (One of her co-stars even ad-libbed a line in reference to this in a recent performance: “I’ll tell you about it as soon as SHE stops upstaging me!” he said as Raquel hogged the audience’s attention when she should have been standing to the side quietly.)

The other scene-stealer — the one who does it in a good way — is Paul T. Murphy as Marius. He has the strongest singing voice of the cast, and plays Marius very smart and funny. The show is supposed to be goofy and silly, and Marius is no exception, but Murphy plays him with a kind of dignity and intelligence that makes him even funnier. You can tell there’s some real talent hidden behind the pratfalls and groan-inducing one-liners.

The “Give My Regards to Broadway” Olio after the show is entertaining, though again, a knowledge of Broadway shows is certainly helpful.

To the Desert Star’s discredit, a few songs in the show itself and in the Olio were borrowed heavily from the Broadway parody troupe “Forbidden Broadway,” whose CDs are readily available. Desert Star stole a couple songs for their Christmas show, too, which also did not escape this reviewer; one would think they’d have learned their lesson by now. It is perfectly acceptable to perform others’ songs in a show, but not without giving credit to the writers. Tom Jordan and Norman E. Plate are listed as writers, but a few of the songs were clearly lifted from “Forbidden Broadway.”

Desert Star is quite capable of producing funny, satirical shows without having to swipe the work of others.

Plagiarized Titanic Column

0
Plagiarized Titanic Column

Some guy got a hold of “Clash of the Titanic” in e-mail form, tore it apart, and sent it out to some of his friends, with the title “If Reader’s Digest Did ‘Titanic,” or “‘Titanic’ in a Nutshell.” You may find it interesting to read the original version and then compare it with this one.
(Scene 1)
ROSE: Why, this is a fancy boat, isn’t it?
CAL: Yes it certainly is. Here is the art you asked for. It is by an
artist named Picasso. I am certain he will amount to nothing.
ROSE: Ha ha ha. That is very funny to our 90’s audience, because they
know these priceless paintings will sink with the boat.
JACK: Hello, I’m played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Perhaps you have seen the
many girls who worship me. You are very pretty.

ROSE: Thank you. So are you.

JACK: I know. Prettier than you, in fact. I am going to put on my
“brooding” face now, to ensure that women will keep coming back again
and again to see this movie. Later, my white shirt will be soaking wet.

ROSE: While you’re doing that, I will concentrate on standing here and
looking pretty, to keep the men in the audience interested until the
boat sinks and people start dying. I’ll try to stay attractive by
getting my dress wet. Meanwhile, for no apparent reason, I’ll count the
lifeboats.

CAL: Excuse me. I do not like you, even though you saved my fiancee’s
life. I am going to sneer at you and treat you like dirt because you’re
poor, and then I’ll probably be physically abusive to my fiancee, and
then, just to make sure the audience really hates me, and to make sure
my character is entirely one-dimensional, perhaps I’ll throw an elderly
person into the water.

AUDIENCE: Boo! We hate you! Even though all real people have at least a
few admirable qualities, we have not been shown any of yours, and plus,
you’re trying to come between Leonardo and Kate, and so therefore we
hate you! Boo!

(Scene 2)

JACK: I’m glad we snuck away like this so that you could cheat on your
fiance.

ROSE: So am I. Even though I am engaged to him and have made a
commitment to marry him, that is no reason why you and I cannot climb
into the backseat of a car and steam up the windows together. The fact
that I am the heroine of the movie will no doubt help the audience
forgive me of this, though they would probably be VERY angry indeed if
my fiance were to do the same thing to me.

JACK: I agree. First, I would like to draw you.

ROSE: Can I take my clothes off now?

JAMES CAMERON: Yes.

ROSE: But can a movie with five minutes of continuous nudity be at all
successful in say, Provo, Utah, where the audiences might not stand for
that sort of thing?

JAMES CAMERON: I would be willing to bet that for the first three weeks
the film is in release, every single showing at Wynnsong Theater in
Provo will sell out.

NARRATOR: According to Wynnsong manager Matt Palmer, that is exactly
what happened.

ROSE: All right, then. (sound of clothes hitting the floor)

(Scene 3)

FIRST MATE: Captain, we’re about to hit an iceberg.

CAPTAIN: Great, I could use some ice for my drink. (sound of drinking)

ICEBERG: (hits boat)

FIRST MATE: That can’t be good.

CAPTAIN: Bottoms up!

AUDIENCE: (silence)

FIRST MATE: That was irony, you fools.

AUDIENCE: Boo! Where’s Leonardo?

JACK: I have been informed that this boat is sinking

ROSE: That is terrible

JACK: Would you like to engage in some more immoral-but-justified
behavior?

ROSE: Certainly. Let’s steam up some windows.

CAL: (aside) I’m getting the raw end of the deal here. To cement my
morally-dubious-yet-somehow-less-annoying-than-you personality, I am
going to handcuff Jack to this pipe, here in a room that will soon be
filling with water, due to the fact that we are sinking, which I believe
has been mentioned previously.

JACK: Why don’t you just shoot me?

CAL: Because then you wouldn’t be able to escape and save Rose from me.
Of course, you’re going to die anyway…

AUDIENCE: Don’t spoil it for us!

JACK: He’s right, though. I am doomed.

AUDIENCE: Aww, look how cute he is when he’s doomed.

CAL: I hate you people.

(scene 4)

JACK: We’re not going to die. At least you’re not.

ROSE: This water is very cold.

JACK: *glugglugglug*

ROSE: He’s gone. I’ll just freeze my lips to this whistle.
(Scene 5)

150 YEAR OLD ROSE: And that’s when Jack rescued me from my evil fiance
and helped me float on a board in the water. Of course, if it hadn’t
been for having to rescue HIM, I could have gotten on an actual
lifeboat, and not frozen my legs off. Anyway, he’s pretty much dead now,
and I’m well over a thousand years old, and who’s making my supper? I
need a bath. Turn down that Enya music, it’s making my ears hurt. You
kids today, with your loud music. Why, when I was – hey!
Don’t you walk away from me, Mr. Snooty-Patootie! I’d turn you over
my kneee, if I had one. I’ll beat you in the head with this huge
diamond! Come back here!

(Fade to black. Roll credits, accompanied by that annoying Celine Dion
song and the sound of James Cameron counting a huge pile of cash.)

BYUPD Blue

0

I’m pretty sure I would make a lousy cop. Fortunately, the strict hiring policies embraced by most law enforcement agencies will prevent this theory from ever being tested.

I decided this when I recently went on what’s called a “ride-along.” This is where you — follow me closely here — “ride along” with the police so you can learn to appreciate first-hand where all the good donut shops are.

Ha! I kid, as is my custom. No, you ride with the cops so you can learn to appreciate all the hard work they do, much of which goes unnoticed by the general public. Most people only notice the police when they receive traffic tickets, or when they see amateur footage on TV of the police beating someone. This unfortunately leads to negative stereotypes of police officers, some of which, unlike most stereotypes, have no basis in fact.

I chose to ride with the University Police, who are NOT just security guards, as some people think. The University Police are fully trained, full-fledged cops who have been through police academy (not the movie) and who have complete cop authority. They carry guns, pepper spray, handcuffs, batons, grenades, tear gas and anthrax (lame joke coming), and that’s just to get out of the Marriott Center following a Devotional! (Lame joke finished.) These are cops we’re talking about here.

So I signed up for the ride — which by the way ANYONE can do, in B-66 ASB — and was assigned to ride with Officer Matt Andrus. On the night of the ride-along, Matt told me the rules: I have to stay in the car when he pulls people over, I have to get out if he gets involved in a high-speed chase (it was implied that he would at least slow down first), and when he pulls someone over, I get to decide if they get a ticket or not.

“I’ve always wanted to choose who lives and who dies,” I said truthfully.

The first thing we did was park in the Smith Fieldhouse parking lot. Parking is inappropriate on a date, but in police work, it’s OK. Apparently, there has been a great deal of speeding in this particular parking lot. The limit is 15, but people have been flying out of there at incredible speeds, sometimes as high as 25 or even 30, if you can imagine. I told Matt I was pretty sure I had, at one time or another, broken the sound barrier in that parking lot. He laughed and gave me a ticket.

Within five minutes of parking there, we clocked a guy going 28 miles per hour. We followed him out but didn’t pull him over yet because we wanted to give him a chance to do more crimes. Our patience paid off: As he passed the Museum of Art, he killed a guy.

No, actually, he sped some more, this time doing 45 in a 30 zone. Now we pulled him over and I dutifully waited in the car while Officer Matt went to talk to him. I felt bad for this guy. We caught him speeding twice, plus he didn’t have his driver’s license with him. This could be an expensive ticket.

I didn’t want to give him a ticket. He was being cooperative, and he didn’t deny anything. I wanted Matt to tell him, “Don’t worry, buddy. Just drive more slowly,” and then maybe give him a hug. I felt REALLY bad for him. But I didn’t want Matt to realize what a lousy cop I would be, so I had him give the guy a ticket for not having his license with him. I knew he could go to the traffic office and talk it down to $10.

So that’s one reason I would be a terrible cop. I would feel too guilty giving anyone a ticket, especially a student, since I know firsthand that students are dirt poor, what with tuition and housing and all. Of course there are some students whose parents pay for all that. Those people, I would have no problem giving tickets to, or shooting.

Another reason I would be a terrible cop: shooting. I’d be shooting things all the time. Just indiscriminately, whenever I got a little nervous, I’d fire off a few rounds. This would probably include while directing traffic or riding in parade floats.

Anyway, at 10:30, Matt’s shift was over and I rode with Officer Jed Henrie for the rest of the evening. Jed is a big friendly bear of a man, and he talked to me a lot about “Titanic,” which he had recently seen twice. He was unaware of my negative feelings toward the film, which by the way have not changed despite the many thoughtful and highly literate death threats several of you have e-mailed me recently.

Overall, the evening was quiet. My impression of BYU police? Good people. Nice guys. Dedicated police officers who love their work. These people are devoted to making BYU a safe place for everyone, and they did not, in my presence, eat a single donut all night.

I’m not even a cop, and I can barely go 10 minutes.

(One more good thing about University Police: They seem to be pretty fair and decent. A few months ago, my car Pedro and I were banned from parking on campus because of several thousand parking tickets I had received. I wrote about this incident, and while it is not my usual writing style, I used a little sarcasm. Well, eventually, another hearing was held, and the ban was lifted, and I’m pretty glad about it, and since I wrote about being banned in the first place, I figured I should mention being un-banned too. You know, in the interest of justice, or something, or whatever.)


 

[ I originally thought going on a ride-along would provide endless amusing anecdotes about police work. I soon discovered that I was wrong on this count. However, I still felt obligated to write the column, for two reasons.
One: I had written about being banned from parking on campus, so it only seemed fair to write about being un-banned. A column about police work would be a convenient time to make this correction.
Two: As a result of the aforementioned banned-from-parking-on-campus column, some members of the BYU police force were a little unthrilled with me, and I determined that it was unwise to have people whose protection I may well need someday be angry with me. I hoped this very friendly column would change their minds. (Can you see me kissing up, especially at the end? I meant all those things I said, but I didn’t usually say such syrupy things in Snide Remarks.) Plus, I have friends who work with the police, and it was unfair for them to always have to be defending me.
So I wrote this column, and it’s not great, but it’s OK. It served its purpose, I think, so let’s all just move on with our lives. ]