I watched the advanced screening for A Single Man, Tom Ford's directorial debut. I was partially ready to hate this film because it's Tom Ford (I'm stupid that way), but love it at the same time because of the aspects of the film that mirror my own demons.
However, there is a lot of love about this film - the cameos (Lee Pace! Ginnifer Goodwin! Jon Hamm! Lee Pace! Aline Weber! Lee Pace!), the play on colours, the stylised... well, the stylised everything!!! Tom Ford definitely knows how to make things... pretty.
But sadly, there is a lot of pretty in this movie but little plot substance. Yes, there is great technique involved in making this film to come out the way it has, but there is nothing here that is new or exciting or innovative. It is, in fact, just a new twist/way of looking at an old story, and to be honest, a movie with such a simple plot line needs a bit more substance to keep people hooked on it. Because the plot was so straightforward, there were times when I looked at my watch, wondering when the story moves on. Maybe if I had known about the plot beforehand, I would have felt differently... or maybe if it had not been raining, I would have been more patient with the film. Who knows anymore...
Having said that, there is also strong acting in this film. Colin Firth and Julianne Moore are fantastic (as always) and Matthew Goode achieves greatness here. There are also small scenes in the film (case in point: Matthew and Colin on the sofa) that really resonate so well, simply because they act so honestly - a testimony on how well the actors can strut their stuff. The latter alone is enough to convince me to watch this film.
So what is the verdict? While I would not watch this movie again, I will definitely recommend it. There is a quiet sadness in this film that I have not seen in a lot of films nowadays, and points to Tom Ford for making it feel very real. I just wish the ending was different, but hey, life happens. Three slices.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
A Not-So-Nice Awakening: A Review
(I know I should update this more often)
Spring Awakening is one of those shows that has gotten such a buzz from the theatre grapevine. I first heard about it because of its musical score which was done by Duncan Sheik (of On A High fame). It's quite rare for a pop star to cross over to theatre and still get valid affirmation from peers (and yes, he got a Tony award for it).
So, being the Tony whore that I am, I was quite excited when the Sydney Theatre Company decided to stage it in Australia, and I was most likely one of the first ones in the online queue. I got a pair of seats for the second row (guess who the eager beaver is!) and rocked up with all shimmering bells on.
Well.
First of all, don't sit in front. As a rule, I usually take the fifth row of a theatre so that I can see what is happening, but still be ok enough to see the entire set. The second row... just isn't far enough. With the lights flashing and all of that... ummm. No. Just no. We moved to the next level up after the first act and definitely much, much better.
Now - the musical itself. The female cast is fantastic and vocally, they were amazing. The harmonising was strong and overall, definitely noteworthy. The concept of characters blending in with the set is nothing new really - very Greek chorus, methinks - but the execution was very modern. The set itself was quite bare, but given that it was designed so that the characters can blend into it and mold it into the scenes, it was quite understandable. The lighting was good (as long as you don't stay in the second row), and I love the concept of the uneven lights. Tres chic, I thought. In the fact, if you look at each aspect of the production, it was well done.
Sadly, I don't think the parts of the production fit together. The lights, although nice, didn't do justice to the set, which was too deep to begin with, really. The actors didn't do well working with the set and didn't know how to place themselves in it. Worse, some of them acted like they have been doing this for far too long. While one can argue that the actors have been through heaps of rehearsals and such, an audience does not deserve a show where the actors are half-hearted in their efforts. Plus, it's the second show in their season, soooooo... no.
The saddest part about the production are the male singers. Some of them did a fairly decent job acting, but singing? Definitely not their forte. Plus, they were given choreography that made them stomp and all - while that covered up the horrid singing, it also made them pant a lot (understandably!). Tip: Pit chorus is your friend.
Actually, the choreography in this musical is fairly mind-boggling. Really, sometimes, you can just skip the interpretive dance. It just made it look very Year 12 Rock Eisteddfod reject.
Overall, this show isn't the sum of its parts. The direction was overall messy and didn't gel well with the entire production. It's like the actors were told to do something they didn't like and they are just going through the motions (some goose-stomping, even!). The microphone/rebellion imagery was nice in theory, but in practice, not so - and definitely not with actors who do not have stage stillness.
So what do I think? One and a half slices.
Spring Awakening is one of those shows that has gotten such a buzz from the theatre grapevine. I first heard about it because of its musical score which was done by Duncan Sheik (of On A High fame). It's quite rare for a pop star to cross over to theatre and still get valid affirmation from peers (and yes, he got a Tony award for it).
So, being the Tony whore that I am, I was quite excited when the Sydney Theatre Company decided to stage it in Australia, and I was most likely one of the first ones in the online queue. I got a pair of seats for the second row (guess who the eager beaver is!) and rocked up with all shimmering bells on.
Well.
First of all, don't sit in front. As a rule, I usually take the fifth row of a theatre so that I can see what is happening, but still be ok enough to see the entire set. The second row... just isn't far enough. With the lights flashing and all of that... ummm. No. Just no. We moved to the next level up after the first act and definitely much, much better.
Now - the musical itself. The female cast is fantastic and vocally, they were amazing. The harmonising was strong and overall, definitely noteworthy. The concept of characters blending in with the set is nothing new really - very Greek chorus, methinks - but the execution was very modern. The set itself was quite bare, but given that it was designed so that the characters can blend into it and mold it into the scenes, it was quite understandable. The lighting was good (as long as you don't stay in the second row), and I love the concept of the uneven lights. Tres chic, I thought. In the fact, if you look at each aspect of the production, it was well done.
Sadly, I don't think the parts of the production fit together. The lights, although nice, didn't do justice to the set, which was too deep to begin with, really. The actors didn't do well working with the set and didn't know how to place themselves in it. Worse, some of them acted like they have been doing this for far too long. While one can argue that the actors have been through heaps of rehearsals and such, an audience does not deserve a show where the actors are half-hearted in their efforts. Plus, it's the second show in their season, soooooo... no.
The saddest part about the production are the male singers. Some of them did a fairly decent job acting, but singing? Definitely not their forte. Plus, they were given choreography that made them stomp and all - while that covered up the horrid singing, it also made them pant a lot (understandably!). Tip: Pit chorus is your friend.
Actually, the choreography in this musical is fairly mind-boggling. Really, sometimes, you can just skip the interpretive dance. It just made it look very Year 12 Rock Eisteddfod reject.
Overall, this show isn't the sum of its parts. The direction was overall messy and didn't gel well with the entire production. It's like the actors were told to do something they didn't like and they are just going through the motions (some goose-stomping, even!). The microphone/rebellion imagery was nice in theory, but in practice, not so - and definitely not with actors who do not have stage stillness.
So what do I think? One and a half slices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)