Heroes, Villains, and Antiheroes in Thor: The Dark World

A few weeks ago, I finally had the opportunity to see the new Thor movie.  While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and while I thought it was better than the first one, there were some issues with the movie that kept it from being a truly great superhero movie.

First I would like to mention what the movie did really well.  Like the first Thor film, Dark World took advantage of the cosmic scale of the universe it presented in beautiful cinematography and awe-inspiring panoramic shots of the nine realms.  The use of  “the convergence,” a series of gravitational anomalies that allowed instantaneous travel between the realms, allowed the film to portray a wide variety of planetary and stellar landscapes.  The audience was treated to incredible worlds of fire and ice, of forests and caves and barren wildernesses of shattered rock.

 Not only was the film beautiful, but it was also humorous.  Kat Dennings was hilarious as Darcy Lewis, Jane Foster’s hapless friend and assistant.  The Asgaardian characters were also very funny in their interactions with each other and Thor, with a special shout out to Zachary Levi as the suave and sarcastic Fandral.  While his accent was a bit absurd at times, his charming performance left me wishing that the movie had more time to get to know him and the other Asgaardian characters.

The best thing about Thor: the Dark World, without a doubt, was Tom Hiddleston’s performance as Loki.  In both of his previous appearances, Loki has been the villain of the story, first in Thor, and later in The Avengers.  Dark World gives the viewer the opportunity to cheer for the god of mischief without feeling guilty, as he teams up with Thor to save the world and (spoilers) avenge their mother Frigga, who was killed early in the movie.  Hiddleston does an excellent job of winning over even the most bitter Avenger's fan, by balancing Loki’s broken image with his sarcastic wit.  Loki draws in viewers as he struggles with his loss of power, his jealousy of Thor, and his grief for his mother; the one person in the film who showed sympathy for his position.  Even as he attempts to maintain a façade of indomitable will, it is obvious to the viewer that his loss in The Avengers has shaken the once cocky trickster, and with the death of Frigga, the last bit of stability and control is lost.  Loki has hit the bottom, which enables him to confront his issues with Thor and begin to act as a hero rather than a villain.  Even as this redemption is going on internally, Hiddleston still allows Loki to keep his external image as a trickster; from quirky uses of his magic to disguise himself and Thor as recognizable characters from the movie and previous films, to his constant sarcastic needling of those around him, Loki is as fun, or even more so than he was in the previous two movies, taking full advantage Hiddleston’s British sense of humor and comedic timing.

On to the problems.  While it was brilliant seeing the relationship between Thor and Loki develop, every good action movie needs a really good villain, and The Dark World is sadly lacking in this area.  The difficulty lies in poor writing and insufficient exploration of the primary villain, Malekith’s motivations.  In a story, there is a major difference between a villain and a monster.  Both can be terrifying, but in a different way.  A monster is scary because there is no rationalization for its actions; it simply is.  The shark in Jaws is the perfect example of a monster.  The shark is not evil.  It is simply acting according to its nature, but that nature is what is threatening to the protagonist.  A villain is different.  Normally much more human, a villain can vocalize his motivations and has the ability to act out of choice.  A villain chooses to act in a particular way, out of reason not simply instinct.  A villain must be human (or at least able to function within humanish perameters).  An example for this might be Moriarty in Sherlock Holmes.  Moriarty is brilliant, like Holmes, but he chooses instead of fighting crime, to play the criminal consultant.  He chooses to act as a villain, not because it is his nature to do so, but because it is the path to power.  The problem in Thor is that Malekith is neither entirely a monster, nor a compelling villain.  As a dark elf, he is humanoid and able to verbalize his motivations, so presumably he should fall into the category of a villain.  Those motivations are never given a voice however.  All the viewer gets is a vague mytho-historical statement that he wants to destroy all light in the universe.  The question remains- why?  If Malekith is a monster, the answer would be simple; the light in the universe is physically harmful to dark elves and thus they attempt to destroy it out of a sense of self-preservation.  This does not seem to be the reason, however.  The dark elves had survived since the beginning of the universe without physical harm.  Thus, his motivations must be villainous in nature.  But what are they?  Does he desire some form of ethnic cleansing; the dark elves alone can survive in a universe without light, and so his quest to destroy all light is a form of elitism?  Does he simply seek power through control by creating a situation in which the dark elves would be supreme?  Is he a religious fanatic caught in a centuries long quest to restore a primeval paradise?  All these motivations are hinted at within the movie, but never brought to the light.  Instead, Malekith remains aloof from the viewer, who, being unable to identify with the struggle of the villain, is neither frightened by nor sympathetic to his actions.  Malekith’s henchman, Algrim is a much more intimidating and compelling villain.  His motivations are made clear; he is a soldier who obeys his commander with mindless devotion and loyalty, and he is also a man bent on revenge for the death of his comrades in arms.  His absolute devotion, and his willingness to destroy his own life for the cause created a real and compelling threat; we are all familiar with loyalty, and so it is easy to imagine loyalty transformed into an evil counterpart.  Algrim became the much more terrifying villain because he willingly forsakes his “humanity” for the sake of a misplaced virtue.

While my major issue with the film lay in the development of the villain, one other issue with the story was in Natalie Portman’s portrayal of Jane.  Jane Foster is supposed to be a brilliant scientist, an intellect capable of understanding even the nuances of Asgaardian magic/science.  For all that she is supposed to be a bright, capable woman, Jane turns into a giddy schoolgirl every time she sees Thor.  Her IQ drops every time he walks into the room.  It is aggravating to see such a potentially interesting character reduced to a gawping ninny at the sight of a handsome face.  Can a woman only be intelligent when there is no man around to distract her?  Jane  has such potential as a character to provide the thoughtful counterpart to Thor, and to come up with solutions to potential problems.  Instead, much of this role is designated to Eric Selvig (who has gone crazy from his encounter with Loki in Avengers), with Jane only serving as a sounding board for his ideas.  She is reduced to a pretty face in need of rescue: useless in the battle against the dark elves and in the attempt to stop Malekith from destroying the world.

I thoroughly enjoyed Thor: The Dark World; the story was entertaining, well acted, and the effects visually stunning.  Tom Hiddleston gave a genius performance, and the development of the relationship between Thor and Loki was compelling.  The issues with the movie lay in the portrayal of Malekith and of Jane Foster.  The first was failed to be truly terrifying because the poor writing and development of the character left his motivations ambiguous.  The latter was disappointing because of her relative uselessness throughout the film, and her inability to function as an intelligent human being when in the presence of Thor.  As action movies go, the film decent.  If you are looking for a deeply thought provoking movie, do not waste your money, but if you want a fun superhero movie with lots of action, cool effects, and a dash of humor, then Thor: The Dark World is definitely the movie for you.

Well, back to reality.

Ender's Game: a Truth Universally Acknowledged

Dear Readers,

Ender’s Game... fantastic book... new movie... of course I had to have my say on the topic.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that no movie is ever as good as the book that it was based upon.  This is true of good book to movie transitions like Lord of the Rings, and terrible ones like the Twilight series.  No matter how good the movie is, the book was always better.  For those of us who like to read then, we much resign ourselves to the fact that the story will love will always be abridged, twisted, or mangled in some way to fit up on the big screen.  The problem is that film can never take the same amount of time, or allow the viewer the same amount of insight into the minds and motives of the characters that a book can.  Ender’s Game, the recent film based on the Orson Scott Card novel of the same name, is no exception to this rule.

This does not, however, mean that Ender’s Game is a bad movie.  While the movie struggled with pacing in parts, the characters were well developed and relatable.  While the viewer does not get to know all Ender’s friends very well, there are several who are well developed and likeable.  Both Bean and Petra are played very well, and their relationship with Ender is handled with depth and charm.  Ender’s “enemies” are even more powerfully developed, from Colonel Graff (played by Harrison Ford) whose desire to save humanity has caused him to dehumanize the children he is supposed to be teaching, to the bully Bonzo Madrid, whose antagonism toward Ender is rooted in a lack of self confidence and desire to prove himself a capable commander.  Asa Butterfield’s performance as Ender drew the whole film together, the young actor managing to unite the child’s desire to love and be loved with the maturity of a genius commander placed in a highly stressful situation.  The balance he draws between the disturbingly violent part of Ender’s personality, and his compassion for others really helps to bring the character to life.

Visually, the movie was stunning.  The filmmakers resisted the temptation to use the movie as an excuse for the effects, and allowed the story to drive the plot rather than the next cool image.  That being said, there was no shortage of cool images in this movie; from the zero gravity battle room to the final battles in space, the use of CGI and other visual effects was both subtle and powerful.

Most of the complaints that I have heard from people who read the book focus on the trivialities of interpretation.  The use of the term “buggers” for example, was apparently deemed to vulgar for a children’s movie, the term “formics” being used instead (those of you who paid close attention reading the book know that this is the scientific term used for the buggers, not just a random term that some Hollywood script writer came up with).  The movie also introduced a pseudo-romance between Ender and Petra, which was not entirely unexpected, given the decision to age the characters for the movie, but slightly disappointing non the less.  One of the motivations behind the decision seems to have been to provide Ender with chance to display his more compassionate side.  The battleschool is designed to bring out the commander in Ender, and many of the techniques used help him develop the cruel and hateful side of his nature.  To counteract that  and to keep the character both human and likeable, one has to introduce the more personal and relational side of Ender.  Because of the limited time and scope that film allows, instead of showing Ender’s relationship with his friends and army, the movie focuses all that emotion into two critical relationships, his friendship with Bean and his friendship/romance with Petra.  I may not like it, but I can understand why they chose to put it in.

While a lot of people seem to be complaining about trivialities, very few people seem to notice that there was a very critical aspect of the book that was deliberately ignored in the movie.  Ender’s view of himself is as a synthesis of his two siblings, hatred and violence from his older brother Peter, and compassion from his sister Valentine.  Because these two played such a critical role in Ender’s view of himself, the book draws parallels between what Ender is learning at battleschool, and the activities of his sibling back on earth.  While Ender is training for interspecies war, his siblings are manipulating the volatile political situation on earth in an attempt to gain power and prevent war.  This manipulation takes the form of internet dialogue between “Demosthenes” and “Locke,” alter-egos of Valentine and Peter who gain the respectively the support of the general masses and the support of the academia in their discussion of the gravity of Earth’s political climate.  When intercontinental war breaks out after Ender’s defeat of the buggers, it is Peter/Locke’s diplomatic solution that saves millions of lives, creating an interesting contrast to Ender, whose military stratagems killed billions.  This creates a fascinating dichotomy between Ender, the naturally more compassionate and loving person, who is forced to become a mass murderer, and Peter, who is probably a psychopath, but whose quest for power saves lives and earns him the respect of the world.  There really was not time to fit this political aspect into the film, and I understand why it was left out.  It bothers me, however, that most people are more upset by the “buggers”/ “formics” change than by the fact that such a hugely critical aspect to the development of Ender as a character was deliberately left out.  It says something about us as reader and as viewers that we remember every detail of the interplanetary warfare aspect of a book, but the moral complexities of the situation, and the way in which that war affected the political climate is reduced to “that boring stuff that happened on earth.”  Readers and viewers expect to be entertained in the book or movie, and the only thing that is truly entertaining is the unreal or the exceptionally violent.  I think that is a pretty sad commentary on the status of the human race at this point in history (or at least those who read books and watch movies).  I realize I just went into a personal rant, and I apologize for that, but the complete lack of a sense of perspective that I have seen in people’s approach to Ender’s Game has been a bit frustrating.

Anyway… Ender’s Game was a very well made movie.  While the film struggled with pacing a bit, and while there were some deviations from the book that a die hard fan will find frustrating, the characters were well played and the graphics were amazing without being overwhelming.  I highly recommend everyone go to see the movie.  If you haven’t read the book, you can still enjoy the movie, and hopefully it will inspire you to pick up the book, which is excellent.  For those who have read and love the book, don’t stress the little things.  Enjoy the movie for what it is: an interpretation, and take the time to enjoy what was done well before you start freaking out about the little details they got wrong.  Everyone remember, “the enemy’s gate is down!”

Well, back to reality!

P.S. So I can check my stats and see that there are people all around the world reading these posts, but that doesn't give me any information about who you readers are and what you think of my work.  Please leave a comment letting me know what you think of my reviews, if you are a first time reader or if you have been following my work consistently.  I look forward to hearing from you all!

An Ideal Performance

Last weekend I had the wonderful blessing of getting to visit my sister at college.  She is a theatre major at Azusa Pacific University, and was stage managing one of the shows for the department this semester.  That show was Oscar Wilde’s comedic play An Ideal Husband.  I was able to see the show multiple times while I was down to visit for the weekend, and I can honestly say, it was the highlight of my autumn, so I have decided to dedicate this post to all things Ideal Husband, beginning with a summary of the show (for those of you who, like me two weeks ago, had never heard of the play), following with a review of the APU show, and ending with a bit of a feminist analysis.  So sit back, curl up with a cat, a cup of tea, and a copy of Oscar Wilde’s An Ideal Husband, and enjoy.

After I got home, I was trying to summarize An Ideal Husband for a friend, and the process took me a half an hour, so bear with me as I try to reduce the brilliance of a three hour performance to a couple of paragraphs.

The story is set in the late Victorian period, and follows the three day history of Sir Robert Chiltern and his wife, Lady Gertrude Chiltern.  Sir Robert is a member of the house of Commons and a rising star in the political arena, renowned for his upstanding character.  One evening, during a society party, Sir Robert is confronted by Mrs. Cheveley, a woman of questionable reputation and nefarious intent, who blackmails Sir Robert for his support in an unscrupulous political scheme.  Mrs. Cheveley reveals that she has a letter that Sir Robert wrote when he was young, selling a government secret to a stock investor, an action that was the root of his immense fortune.  Sir Robert reluctantly agrees to help Mrs. Cheveley, however, his wife, a woman of upstanding moral character, not knowing the dark secret of her husband’s past, forces him to withdraw his consent.  Sir Robert, not knowing how best to proceed, explains the entire situation to his best friend, Lord Arthur Goring, an apparently shallow society dandy who actually has unexpected depths of insight and intelligence.  Lord Goring tries to convince Robert to tell his wife the whole truth, but Robert is convinced that his wife will never be able to except his past disgrace.  Lord Goring asks Robert’s permission to at least talk to Lady Chiltern and see how she might react to the news.  In this conversation, Lord Goring is unable to convince Lady Chiltern that her husband could ever commit a wicked or misguided action, or that past vices may be forgiven by present virtues, and understanding that Lady Chiltern will eventually have to learn of her husband’s past, Lord Goring informs her that if she should ever want his help she could trust him come to him immediately.  After Lord Goring leaves, Lady Chiltern is visited by Mrs. Markby (a woman renowned for her ability to talk more and say less than anyone), and Mrs. Cheveley, who has come to inquire about a diamond and snake brooch she has lost the night before.  The broach had been found by Mabel Chilton (Sir Robert’s beautiful and thoroughly modern sister) and Lord Goring in the previous scene, but neither had mentioned the incident to Sir Robert or Lady Chilton.  Lady Chilton asks to speak to Mrs. Cheveley alone, and confronts her about her schemes.  Mrs. Cheveley, in outrage at Gertrude Chilton’s attacks on her character, vengefully informs Lady Chilton of her husband’s tainted past.  The first act ends with Lady Chilton confronting her husband for his actions; informing him that she had always held him up as a ideal, and he had disappointed her.  Sir Robert is broken over his wife’s rejection, and angrily points out that no person is perfect, and that wives who make ideals of their husbands are only a cause of suffering in the world when men, because of their fallen nature, cannot live up to their wives expectations.

The second act begins with Lord Goring receiving a letter from Gertrude Chiltern, in which she informs them, “I want you, I trust you, I am coming to you.”  Lord Goring realizes that she has discovered the entire truth and is coming to him for his advice.  As it is late in the evening, he calls his butler to inform him that he will not be receiving anyone except the lady that night.  He is interrupted by a visit from his father, Lord Caversham (or, in the case of the APU version, Lady Caversham).  Lord Caversham informs Lord Goring that it is obligation to get married as soon as possible.  Flustered because of the immanent visit of Gertrude Chiltern, Lord Goring convinces his father to have this conversation in the smoking room, then informs the butler that when a lady comes to call that evening that he should show her into the drawing room.  Lord Goring and Lord Caversham go to the smoking room, then the doorbell rings.  The butler answers, and shows Mrs. Cheveley into the room.  He informs her that Lord Goring was expecting her, and shows her into the drawing room.  While the lamps are being lit, Mrs. Cheveley snoops around the study and discovers lady Chiltern’s letter to Lord Goring, however, the butler returns before she is able to do more than read it.  Lord Goring and Lord Caversham come back into the study, and Lord Goring offers to show his father out.  Unfortunately, he meets Sir Robert Chiltern in the hallway, and is forced to invite him in.  Sir Robert is uncertain what he should do now that his wife has found out the truth, and Lord Goring is anxious because he thinks that Lady Chiltern is waiting in the drawing room.  As Sir Robert begins to outline what he plans to do about the Argentine Canal scheme, a chair falls in the drawing room.  Angry that someone has been listening in on their conversation, Sir Robert asks Lord Goring who was listening.  Lord Goring, still unaware that it is Mrs. Cheveley and not Lady Chiltern in the drawing room, tries to keep Sir Robert from seeing who it is.  Robert barges into the drawing room and sees Mrs. Cheveley.  Lord Goring tries to explain (still thinking that it is Lady Chiltern), that she came to help him, and that she is utterly blameless in the affair.  Sir Robert is affronted by the fact that Lord Goring is defending his enemy, and leaves in a huff.  Mrs. Cheveley finally emerges from the drawing room, and Lord Goring recognizes what has happened.  Mrs. Cheveley informs Lord Goring that she has come to make him an offer.  She will give him Robert Chiltern’s letter, which is the only evidence of his scandalous past, if Lord Goring, with whom she had had a previous romance, was willing to marry her.  Lord Goring, whose heart had been broken in the previous encounter, steadily refuses all her advances, accusing Mrs. Cheveley of deliberately sabotaging Sir Robert and Lady Chiltern’s relationship.  Mrs. Cheveley feels unjustly accused by the insinuation, and informs Lord Goring that she had gone to the Chilton’s house to inquire about the diamond snake brooch that she had lost.  Lord Goring is elated to discover who had lost the brooch and pulls it out of a drawer.  He unwinds the snake figure, and clasps it on Mrs. Cheveley’s arm as a bracelet.  He then informs her that he had recognized the brooch when he found it, because he had given the brooch as a gift to his cousin, and that the brooch had been stolen.  Mrs. Cheveley desperately tries to deny the situation, but the bracelet will not come off, and she cannot find the clasp.  Lord Goring informs her that he will not call the police and have her arrested for theft if she will give him Robert Chiltern’s letter.  She reluctantly does so, then secretly steals Gertrude Chiltern’s letter off his desk.  He unclasps the bracelet from her arm.  As she is about to leave, Mrs. Cheveley informs Lord Goring that she has stolen Gertrude Chiltern’s “love letter” and that she intends to send it to Robert Chiltern that he might know his wife was unfaithful.  She escapes before Lord Goring can stop her. 

The next morning, Lord Goring immediately goes to visit the Chiltern’s to inform Gertrude that the letter was stolen.  Gertrude has not yet come down, and instead, Lord Goring finds himself accosted by first his father, who is still pushing Lord Goring to get married, and by Mabel Chiltern, who is extremely upset that Lord Goring had missed his appointment to ride with her in the park that morning.  In a momentary impulse, Lord Goring proposes to Mabel, and she accepts delightedly.  Lady Gertrude comes in at that point, and Lord Goring informs her that Robert’s letter has been destroyed, but that her letter has been stolen and Mrs. Cheveley proposes to send it to Robert so that he might think she was having an affair.  Gertrude is unwilling to tell her husband the truth, and instead, tries to have the letter intercepted before it can reach him.  It is too late, however, and Robert has already seen the letter, however, since it was not addressed, he assumes the letter is for him, joyfully reuniting with his wife.  To please Lady Chiltern, Robert decides to give up public life and his career in the Parliament.  At that moment, Lord Caversham comes in and informs Robert that the Prime Minister has granted Robert a seat in his cabinet.  Robert reluctantly refuses in order to please his wife.  Lord Goring takes Gertrude aside and asks her why she is forcing her husband to sacrifice his ambition for her.  Gertrude tells Robert to take the seat in the cabinet, and then Lord Goring asks Robert for permission to marry Mabel.  Robert is at first reluctant because of his belief that Lord Goring still loves and admires Mrs. Cheveley, a misunderstanding due to his discovery of her at Lord Goring’s house the night before.  Gertrude Chiltern informs her husband that it was actually her that Lord Goring was expecting, and that she had written him a letter asking for his help.  With the entire truth known to all parties, Robert finally agrees to let Lord Goring marry Mabel, an announcement that is greeted with great joy by Lord Goring’s father.

That is the best summary I can hope to achieve.  Please realize that the brilliance of the play is in the sparkling dialog and in the interactions between the characters, which no amount of summary can hope to justify.  My only advice is to read, or better yet, to watch the play.  That is the best way to experience the story and understand the comedy of the situation.

Having summarized the play, I can come to my main points.  First, I shall address the actual performance that I had the opportunity to see at APU.  I always struggle in my reviews of amateur shows because there is the constant tension between the magic of the theatre, with the forced suspension of disbelief, and the quality of performance, which can sometimes be an issue in amateur productions.  Fortunately, I can offer little more than complements to the cast and crew of An Ideal Husband on that score.  Stage, props, and costumes were put together with a great attention to detail.  I was lucky enough to get to see one of the shows from backstage, and the amount of attention, the precision of service offered by the entire crew was incredible.  Every piece of furniture, every piece of scenery, every prop was placed to maximize efficiency and performance.  As for the performers, every single one of them did a fantastic job.  There were a couple moments at the beginning of the show where the accents the actors were using would come and go, but as soon as they got into their performance the struggle went away and each individual became the character.  Some standout performances included Emily Dodson as Lady Caversham, Calli Mclellan as Lady Markby, Renna Nightingale as Mrs. Cheveley, and Denver Danyla as Lord Arthur Goring.  Ms. Dodson’s performance was both humorous and heartfelt as she played Lord Goring’s politically motivated, somewhat overbearing mother. Ms. McLellan was likewise hilarious as the loquacious and frivolous Mrs. Markby; playing the part with utter abandon and a great sense of the absurdity of “society” life.  Her performance brought down the house for every show.  Renna Nightingale brought an interesting sense of innocence to the scheming Mrs. Cheveley in a nuanced performance that revealed a hesitant, uncertain center to the manipulative, ambitious woman.  Particularly moving was her performance in the third scene, where her interactions with Denver Danyla’s Lord Goring walked the fine line between humor and drama, as their take of former love and present ambition played itself out with a brilliant poignancy.  It was Mr. Danyla’s portrayal that I found truly remarkable, however.  He was able to balance the frivolity inherent in Lord Goring’s character with a sense of insight and depth of character.  It was easy to imagine the other characters in the play seeking him out for advice, while at the same time conceding vices of vanity and self-interest. 

Because An Ideal Husband was such a small cast, I will take a couple more minutes to praise the rest of the actors, because they all did such a fine job.  Scott Kuiper did an excellent job as Sir Robert Chiltern, particularly at the end of the second scene in his confrontation with Lady Chiltern (played by the lovely Sarah Byrne), where his anguish at his wife’s rejection is mirrored in her distress at her husband’s fall from virtue.  Morgan Reynolds was eminently loveable as Mabel Chiltern, and very deliberately played the character in a forward and almost jealous manner that emphasized her modernity in contrast with the demure manipulations of the other female characters.  Francesca Fromang and Zenna Hodge played off each as both servants and as upper class women attending the party in the first scene.  Their sense of comedic timing was spot on, and their interactions with each other and the surrounding characters was used to great effect.  Last, but certainly not least, was Joseph Reyes in the dual roles of the Vicomte De Nanjac and Phipps the butler.  Mr. Reyes seemed to enjoy himself immensely as the flirtatious Vicomte, but it was in the role of Phipps here he was truly able to shine, bringing to the role the dry humor and sense of absurdity that is so critical in the portrayal of the British manservant.

In coming into the play, director Erin Gaw attempted to emphasize the “joy that comes from being a real person rather than an ideal.”  This is a theme that has particular importance in a Christian setting such as APU, where students are expected to live according to a certain code of conduct and maintain a certain façade in the face of their professors and peers.  There is always a temptation to become an image of respectability rather than living as a real person, and the cast of An Ideal Husband did a fantastic job demonstrating the value of seeing people as people rather then as symbols or ideals.  It is only when Gertrude Chiltern recognizes her husband as a man; not an ideal of upright moral character, nor a depraved villain tainted by a past secret, that she is able to treat him well and love him without condition.  In contrast, Robert’s love for Gertrude is still limited to his ideal of her; he is so utterly convinced that she could never do something wrong, that he is willing to sacrifice his own ambitions and desires because she will admire him for it, and for this reason, continues to doubt her love for him and reduce her affection to mere pity.  This is contrasted to the relationship of Lord Goring and Mabel Chiltern.  Mabel’s affection for Arthur Goring is based on a full understanding of him as a man; his faults, his ambitions, and his virtues.  She knows that she cannot view him as an ideal husband, which leaves him free to be whatever sort of man he wants to be, while she is determined not to be an ideal for him, but to simply be a “real wife to him.”  The greatest love is not found in ignoring or denying the faults in another person as Robert and Gertrude Chiltern do, but in acknowledging the other as a person, and treating them as real, flawed, but beautiful individuals,  An ideal is set up to be selfishly worshiped, while true love is a giving of oneself to another person without reservations.

The tendency to make an ideal of another person lends itself to another theme in An Ideal Husband, that of the roles of men and women.  In this aspect, An Ideal Husband is very much a product of its time, although certain portrayals can mitigate the negative vision of women.  The men portrayed in the show are very mixed characters.  They each have flaws and virtues; and it is only when the women are able to recognize both aspects in their husbands that they are able to truly love them.  The women, on the other hand, fall into the classic Madonna/whore dichotomy: they are either perfectly virtuous or they are utterly corrupt.  From the frivolous characters like Mrs. Marchmont and the Countess of Basildon to the intelligent and manipulative Mrs. Cheveley, the villainous women are defined by their disregard for their husbands and their flirtations.  In stark contrast are the heroines of the play; Gertrude Chiltern is lauded by her husband as being a woman of utter perfection, and her only flaw is her expectation for her husband to be as “virtuous” as she are.  She need only learn grace for her husband’s flaw to meet the “ideal” of a wife that Oscar Wilde is setting up.  Likewise, Mabel Chiltern displays no obvious faults either: her vivacious personality does not hide a deficiency of intelligence, nor is her assertion that she “has no character left” off-putting to Lord/Lady Caversham, who is charmed at the idea of having such a lovely lady as a daughter in law.  Both Mabel and Gertrude represent the ideal of a pure wife who utterly adores her husband despite his flaws.  Lord Goring sums up this attitude toward women, “If we men married the women we deserved, we should have a very bad time of it.”  The tendency to place women upon a pedestal above the men they marry reduces them to a symbol, not a real person at all.  As this ideal, the women are also called to sacrifice of themselves of the sake of their husbands.  Consider the final act. Gertrude Chiltern is thrilled by the proposition of her husband retiring from public life and the two of them moving to the country for a life of seclusion with each other.  Her desires, however, must be s to her husband’s ambition because his love for her would not survive the sacrifice of his ambition.  Instead, Gertrude is required to sacrifice what she wants, and is expected to rejoice in her husband’s success.  While men should not be expected to make sacrifices to the idol of their ideal wife, the woman, out of her virtue should be willing to sacrifice herself on the altar of her husband’s ambition.

It is not just the portrayal of women as either entirely corrupt or virtuous characters that is degrading to the gender.  The very dialog emphasizes the relative lack of seriousness inherent to women, and the frivolity of female conversation.  Mrs. Cheveley, arguably the most powerful female character in the play, demonstrates this deficiency of dialog.  In the third act, Cheveley discusses with Lord Goring a proposition in which she will give him Robert Chiltern’s letter in exchange for his hand in marriage.  In what is presumably a “business” conversation, however, romantic, Mrs. Cheveley is constantly being distracted in her statement, bouncing from the conversation of the Irish to the size of Gertrude Chiltern’s gloves, to the value of an English country house, and back again.  While Lord Goring consistently brings the topic back to the pertinent issue, Mrs. Cheveley flits through the conversation like a butterfly, landing for a brief moment before flying on to something else.  A similar pattern is displayed in the second act, were the conversation of Lord Goring and Sir Robert Chiltern is contrasted with that of his wife, Mrs. Cheveley, and Lady Markby; the one utterly businesslike, confronting the issue and driving the plot forward, while the other is marked by frivolous, if humorous gossip and pointless chatter.  Indeed, Mrs. Cheveley comments on the situation, “Wonderful woman, Lady Markby, isn’t she.  Talks more and says less than anybody I ever met.”  This is the consistent state of women in An Ideal Husband, consistently talking and saying very little; dancing around the subject instead of coming out and saying what they mean in a strictly honest fashion.  This aspect of the dialog emphasizes the distance between men and women, and places in the position of superior moral character but inferior intelligence to the men in the story.

The production at APU was able to offset some of these deficiencies in an unexpected way.  Due to the shortage of men auditioning for the show, they made the decision to change Lord Caversham to a female role.  This utterly changes the position of women in the play.  Lord Caversham is a deeply political figure; a bit of an eccentric, but eminently capable in the public realm; well informed and intelligent.  By changing the part to be a woman, the show gave a new voice to the female characters; here is a woman capable of acting in a political way without the underhanded manipulation used by Mrs. Cheveley, a lady capable of conversation without the gossip and frivolity expected of the sex, a woman who swears, visits the prime minister, and is perfectly honest about every person to whom she speaks.  At the same time, Ms. Emily Dodson was able to bring a decidedly female sense to the role: fussing over Lord Goring and demanding a deciding voice in the matter of his romantic life.  By the positioning of such a powerful female character, the APU cast was able to present version of the play, that, while still subject to the flaws of the text, was able to present a humorous and insightful show that was not as negative toward women as it might have been.

The presentation of An Ideal Husband that APU put on was both thoroughly enjoyable and thought provoking.  The portrayal of women in the original text was troubling, but was saved in part by the decision to cast a Lady Caversham instead of a Lord.  The entire cast did a phenomenal job, and the result was a show of sparkling wit and deep emotion, a show that kept me coming back for more, and inspired me to read more by Oscar Wilde.  While every interpretation of the show is going to be different, I certainly recommend finding and viewing An Ideal Husband, and if you had the privilege, as I did, to see the show at APU, I congratulate you.  I look forward to seeing what this talented group of students will do in the future, both at APU and in their individual careers.

Next to Normal

Dear Readers,
I have a confession to make.  Like most girls and young women, I tend to find myself enamored by good looking and talented young men.  Most of the time it is singers or actors, or something like that.  Unlike most other young women that I know, however, I tend to get a little obsessive about finding out everything I can about these young men.  Not in a creepy stalker sense, mind, just looking up Wikipedia pages and biography pages on websites, and finding YouTube videos of their performances.  And sometimes, this desire to learn about a very attractive celebrity has the added bonus of introducing me to a fascinating story or an equally intriguing character.

This might seem like a bit of a side track from movie and book reviews, but I do have a point, I promise.  My latest interest has been the attractive and talented Aaron Tveit.  Some of you might be familiar with Mr. Tveit, but for those who aren't a little introduction.  Mr. Tveit first came to my attention last winter when he played Enjoras in the film production of Les Miserables.  I do not remember if I mentioned in my review of the film, but I was particularly impressed by the entire ABC club in the show; such a collection of good-looking, talented singers.  Then, this spring, Aaron Tveit jumped front stage for me and my family.  My sisters were visiting Barnes and Noble, looking at music, when they discovered he had been in the Broadway production of Catch Me if You Can, the true story of Frank Abignale Jr., a young man who runs away from home and becomes a world class con artist and forger, stealing more than two million dollars before being caught at the age of twenty one.  The music is fabulous, and the story both humorous and heartwarming.  Also, about that time, the USA TV show Graceland (starring Aaron Tveit) premiered.  Graceland follows the story of a group of federal agents who live and work together in the LA area.  After following the show all summer, I was beginning to get a bit interested in Mr. Tveit.  Then, just last week, my sister posted a video on facebook of Mr. Tveit singing "I'm Alive" from the show Next to Normal.  It was the song that finally drew my full attention to Aaron Tveit.  There was a fascinating wickedness in those lyrics, a desire for control and power mixed with an a weird sense of levity.  That song got me curious, so I finally decided to do a little YouTube "research" on the show.  I found a video of the stage version, started watching, and got hooked.  Within the next week, I had found and watched Next to Normal, Catch Me if You Can, a version of Wicked with Tveit as Fiyero, and a version of Hairspray with him as Link Larkin.  I kept coming back to Next to Normal, however.  While all the others are great shows, Next to Normal was a fascinating combination of story, music, and psychological intrigue.  I kept coming back to the soundtrack, to the characters, the story.  After mulling it over for a bit, I have decided that I have to get my thoughts down on paper.  So, dear readers, my thoughts on Next to Normal.

As always, it is not possible to do a good analysis without giving away any spoilers.  If you have not seen the show, but would like to some day, then I would recommend putting off reading this review until after you see it, so you can get the full experience of the show.  Otherwise, enjoy reading.

Next to Normal is the story of a typical family; a mom who waits up late for her son to get in, a daughter who strives to be perfect in her school, a father who struggles to keep his family from falling apart, and a son who thinks he is invincible.  But within the first song, the audience learns that not everything is as it appears with this seemingly common family. The mother, Diana, suffers a breakdown, and is next seen being proscribed medication at a doctor's office.  The audience learns that Diana has a sixteen year history of depression and mental instability.  Her daughter struggles to be perfect in everything to maintain control of her life in the face of her mother's insanity, and her husband wonders if she is the crazy member of the family, or maybe if he is the one who is insane in his attempt to keep life under control.  When Diana refuses to take her medication, the underlying issue is revealed.  Her son (played by Aaron Tveit) is not actually alive; he died as a baby, and the young man who has been appearing to Diana is really just a delusion in her troubled mind.  Diana's obsession with her son has caused her to be neglectful of her daughter and hurtful to her husband who cannot understand her failure to accept the fact that their son is dead.  As Diana struggles to overcome her delusions and depression, her daughter struggles with her desire for loving attention from her parents and begins (at the urging of her sweet, but stoner boyfriend) doing drugs, chasing the high to forget the way her life has spiraled out of control.  Meanwhile, Diana's husband must confront the fact that he has never come to closure with his son's death because he blames that son his wife's madness.

There are four main characters in the show; Diana, her husband, Natalie the daughter, Gabriel; the dead son, and two minor characters; Henry (Natalie's stoner boyfriend), and Doctor Madden.  Each of these characters is fascinating as they each demonstrate ways of coping with loss and pain, as well as demonstrating both healthy and unhealthy relational dynamics.  I will be looking at each character individually and analyzing their place in the story, and the motivations behind their actions.

Doctor Madden

Perhaps the simplest character to understand is Doctor Madden.  He is, arguably, the only sane character in the show.  Unfortunately, sanity is not what provides answers for the rest of the characters.  Doctor Madden is representative of the “answers” in science—medication, psychotherapy, electroshock convulsive treatment.  Oftentimes, these answers  become absurd in the face of reality, as demonstrated in the song “Who’s Crazy/ My Psychopharmacologist and I,” in which the doctor’s instructions for how the various medications can be taken begins to resemble some convoluted mathematical problem or magic spell, “split the trapezoidal green ones into thirds with a tiny chisel…” and whimsically describing both medications and side effects to the tune of “Favorite Things” from The Sound of Music.  Further complicating the issue is the fact that the audience only sees Doctor Madden from the perspective of Diana, who is not the most trustworthy narrator.  Often, her perceptions of the people around her are skewed by her delusions; when her husband mentions that Dr. Madden is a rock-star in his field, Diana’s interactions with him take on a violent, sexual nature, most notably portrayed in the song, “Feeling Electric,” an ECT induced dream sequence in which the doctor is simultaneously portrayed as neurosurgeon and rock-god obsessed with the power he holds over the minds of the “patients” he “helps.”  In the end, however, Diana realizes that all the treatment she has received has done nothing to help her cope with the underlying issue, her depression and guilt at the death of her son, and the growing distance between her and her husband.  She refuses more treatment, insisting that the on and off again relationship she has had with “doctors and their medications” is not going to help her heal, because the wounds she has suffered are not physical, but are actually damage to her soul.

Henry

Henry and Natalie provide a foil for the relationship of Dan and Diana.  While Natalie is terrified of turning into her insane mother, Henry can be seen as an image of Dan when he was younger, when he first fell in love with Diana.  Henry has been interested in Natalie for years, and has only just mustered the nerve to introduce himself and explain his interest.  Henry initially deals with loss in an escapist fashion; he smokes marijuana to help himself cope with a world he perceives as seriously screwed up.  His initial interest in Natalie also seems escapist, “even when everything else turns to dirt, we’ll be the one thing in this world that won’t hurt!”  Henry’s wild character is only present briefly, and as Natalie begins to spiral downward into self-destructive drug use, Henry becomes the catalyst that helps her keep contact with control and reality.  Eventually, Henry becomes the support that is keeping Natalie together, much as Dan supported Diana through her madness.  If their relationship continues in this path, both parties will end up unhappy, as shown in Dan and Diana’s marriage, in which neither party really knows the person to whom they are married. 

Natalie

Natalie is a fascinating character, in that she represents both the triumphs and the tragedy of both her parents.  She initially appears to be more like her father, struggling to hold on to a sense of control in her life.  This is expressed in her uptight response to Henry’s romantic advances, her obsession with being perfect in her musical performance, and her desire to escape from her insane family by getting into a good college and moving out.  The audience begins to see glimpses of her mother in Natalie as the façade of control begins to slip in the face of Diana’s illness.  Natalie raids her mother’s medicine cabinet, popping pills to cope with the fact that everything is out of control.  The similarity between mother and daughter is especially highlighted in the song “Wish I was Here,” a hallucination caused by Diana’s ECT and Natalie’s drug use respectively.  Both of them have separated themselves from their family and their problems, and are experiencing a sensation of being out of control and not entirely themselves.  Natalie’s similarity to Dan, however, ultimately emerges as, with Henry’s help, she is able to confront her fears about herself and her mother and emerge as the “sane” member of the family to help her dad confront his own depression and the fallout from her mother leaving the family.  What makes Natalie truly her own unique character, however, is her desire to be accepted, to be noticed by her family.  In one of the alternate songs for the show, “Growing Up Unstable” Natalie complains that her wild teenage years are overshadowed by the knowledge that however crazy she acts or out of control she seems to be, her mother will always be crazier, the one who receives the attention of the doctors, and of her father.  This desire to be noticed is most obvious in the song “Superboy and the Invisible Girl” in which she confronts her mother about the fact that Diana treats her dead son with more love and attention than she gives to her living daughter.  Natalie eventually ends up overcoming her need for affection through a series of conversations with the influential people in her life; first her mother in the song “Next to Normal,” in which Diana is finally able to be honest with her daughter about the death of her son, then in a conversation with Henry at the school dance, in which she is able to face her fear of ending up like her mother, and claim her life as her own.  The final moment of character realization comes when she arrives home and is able to comfort her father about Diana’s decision to leave.  This final song, “We Need Some Light” establishes her as an adult, self realized character who is capable of serving those in need around her without feeling her own neglect.

Diana

Diana is portrayed as the main character of the story.  It is her inability to deal with her grief over her son and her psychological troubles that drives the story forward.  While Next to Normal is often portrayed as an insight into one woman’s psychological struggle, however, there is much more to Diana’s “madness” then there might initially appear.

The first, and most commonly accepted interpretation of Diana’s character is that she is manic depressive, with delusional episodes.  In this interpretation, there is very little that Diana could have done differently that would have changed the situations of the play… it is not her fault that the chemistry of her brain is whacked or that she cannot make sense of reality because her perception of reality is inherently skewed.  In this case, Next to Normal is the story of a family learning to cope with the unavoidable realities of madness.  Dan is right in his desire to support Diana in her struggle, the doctors are right in their insistence on use of medication, therapy, and ECT, and Natalie, while unfortunately situated has no right to expect more of her family who are doing the best they can under the circumstances.  Gabe, the dead son, is only an expression of Diana’s psyche (more on that later), and as such, can be seen as a visual symbol of the illness that is coming between Diana and her family.

There are a couple of difficulties in simply reducing Diana’s troubles to mere insanity.  The most important is revealed in the song, “The Break” in which Diana questions, “What happens if the cut, the burn the break, was never in my brain, or in my blood, but in my soul?”  Her decision immediately after this query to refuse further medical treatment indicates that Diana herself believes that her trouble is more than a physio/psychological one.  Some part of her has been fundamentally broken by her son’s death, and no amount of physical treatment is going to help her come to grips with reality.  It is only when she can separate herself from the mechanisms that have helped her “cope” that she will truly be able to confront and understand her problem.  It is only after leaving behind treatment, her home, and her family that Diana is able to separate herself from the image of her son that she has carried, and establish herself as an independent and complete character.  Unlike Natalie, who had to learn to depend on other and support others to deal with her fear, Diana must acknowledge the problem is in herself, and look to herself to learn to deal with her grief instead of always relying on others to support her.

There is a third and final way to interpret Diana’s character; that is that she is not really insane, or unable to cope with her grief, but that Diana is actually seeing a reality of which no one else in the play is aware.  This interpretation is hinted at by the fact that Gabriel is able to interact with other characters besides Diana, (more on this later), and also by the fact that it is only when Diana rejects the assertions that she is crazy from her husband and doctors, that she is able to, presumably, deal with her visions of Gabe and move on to a hopeful future.  This interpretation has a couple interesting implications.  If Diana is sane then the audience must question the sanity of the other character; is Dan holding his family together, or is he tearing it apart by his denial of his son’s existence?  Are the doctors really helping by prescribing medications for Diana, or are they simply repressing her instinctual knowledge of the truth?  One of the central questions of the play is who is really crazy; everyone assumes that Diana is the character who has broken from reality, but perhaps it is everyone else who has no concept of reality.  The absurdity of the cocktail of medications the doctors prescribe for Diana, Dan’s paranoid refusal to mention his dead son’s name, Natalie’s breakdown at her recital and subsequent drug use all indicate that perhaps the line between sanity and madness is not as clear as is generally assumed.

Dan

While it is common to assume that Next to Normal is the story of Diana learning to cope with her psychological problems, I believe that Dan Goodman is the more compelling character who is the inadvertent driving force of the story.  Repeated viewings of video of the show, and multiple times listening to the soundtrack have led me to believe that Next to Normal is not the story of Diana learning to deal with her madness, but of Dan Goodman learning to deal with his.  There are several factors that have led me to this belief.  First, is the overarching question of madness and sanity.  The song “Who’s Crazy” shows Dan struggling with his own doubts about himself, “Who’s crazy, the husband or wife? Who’s crazy, to live their whole life believing things aren’t as bizarre as they are?”  Dan Goodman is uncertain, living in an insane world, if Diana is the crazy one for her depression and “delusions,” or if he is mad for believing that it is possible to have a normal family life.  The question is further elaborated in the song “I’ve Been” where Dan is forced to confront the fact that he is unable to function on his own, and without Diana he has no idea who he is.  The fact that he is always there for Diana, constantly catching her when she falls, leads me to wonder if there is a co-dependency issue here; Dan needs Diana to need him; he has no identity separate from her inability to function without him.  In this case, he is the cause, or at least the defining factor of her madness.  His refusal to acknowledge the horror of Gabe’s death or even the continuing impact of his presence on the family keeps Diana from mourning her son and coming to terms with his death, leading to her continued depression.  Furthermore, Dan’s obsession with protecting an caring for Diana have led him to be neglectful of his daughter, constantly pushing her needs aside to provide for those of her mother.  It is only when he is forced to let go of Diana, when she finally leaves him, that Dan is able to confront his grief for Gabriel and to acknowledge the presence of his daughter.  His ultimate decision to seek help for his own issues opens the door for a happy ending for his family as he confronts the damage he has done to the people he loves and seeks a remedy.

Gabriel

Those of you who have read my blog on Seussical the Musical, know that I have a fascination with characters that may or may not exist.  The mystery that accompanies ghosts and the impact they have on the characters around them is intriguing to me.  Gabriel Goodman is one of these of characters.  When looking at Gabe, I have broken down analysis of his character based on his interactions with the various members of his family, and how he interacts with the show and the audience.

The most obvious explanation of Gabe is as an extension of Diana’s psyche.  He is simply an expression of her traumatic past and her break with reality.  He is nothing more than a schitzophrenic delusion produced by sixteen years of depression and unresolved familial tension.  the line, “if you won’t grieve me, you can’t leave me behind,” in the song “I’m Alive” indicates that Diana’s inability to acknowledge her son’s death is what causes his continued presence in her life.  He can also be seen as an embodiment of her depression in the song “There’s a World,” in which he offers her an escape from the pain of life through suicide.  Gabe’s defense of Diana in the songs “You Don’t Know/ I am the One” also indicates that he is an extension of her psyche, an embodiment of the man she wishes she her husband could be, which is also indicated in the songs “Superboy and the Invisible Girl,” and “I Dreamed a Dance,” where Gabe is compared to a lover who promises to always be true.  Diana’s struggles with her feelings for her husband in her assertion that he is boring, the disintegration of their sex life in the course of the first four songs of the show; a parting that is consummated in the loss of her memories because of the ECT and her lack of emotion for the man she married.  It is only when Diana begins to remember again her love for her husband and their history together that Gabe is again able to manifest as a physical presence; when listening to a music box that was Dan’s first gift to her, Diana is able to head Gabe humming in the background.  In this case, Gabe seems to be an expression of Diana’s frustration with her husband, her depression, and her inability to grieve for her dead son.

Gabriel Goodman cannot, however, be reduced to merely an expression of Diana’s depression and madness because he is also an active presence in the lives of several of the other characters.  Most notable is his interaction with Dan Goodman.  While a first viewing of the show leads the viewer to think that Gabe is most closely associated with Diana, a closer look reveals that he is actually more interested in Dan than he is in Diana.  In the opening of the play, before the audience knows that Gabe is not really there, there is a conversation between him and Diana.  When Dan calls down the stairs to see what is going on, Gabe asks, “Why does he hate me?” expressing a discontent in his relationship with his father.  In the song “I am the One” we see further evidence of Gabe’s desire for a relationship with his father, “Hey dad, its me.  Why can’t you see?” and later in response to Dan’s “Tell me what to do?” the reply, “Look at me!”  Dan’s refusal to acknowledge Gabe’s existence creates a palpable presence that cannot be dispelled, as Gabe states in the reprise of “I’m Alive,” “Until you name me, you can’t tame me.  This is one more game that I can play so well.”  When Dan is finally able, in his broken, lonely state, to acknowledge Gabe, and state his name, Gabe smiles, acknowledges the greeting, and then leaves the stage, fading away into the background until the final number in which the light of a new life is celebrated.  It is only when Dan recognizes his son that Gabe is able to leave the stage peacefully, not with the malicious intent that is evidenced at other times.

Gabe also has some minimal interactions with Natalie.  There are two very specific moments in which Gabe is present with Natalie.  First, during the song “Superboy and the Invisible Girl” he sings the harmony with her as she confronts Diana about her inability to let go of Gabe and her neglect of Natalie.  His back up on the refrain, “She’s not here” emphasizes Natalie’s distress that her mother cares more for a dead child than for the daughter who is right in front of her.  Much more malevolent is his presence in the song “I’m Alive” when Natalie argues with her father about how much more attention he gives to Diana.  At the end of the argument, Gabe places Diana’s bag of medications before Natalie who immediately begins sorting through the medications and taking the pills.  He serves as an extension of Natalie’s desire to escape from her world and to get her parent’s attention.  His hold over Natalie is not as strong, however, as his hold over his parents, and it is easily broken when Diana finally is able to tell Natalie the full story of her brother’s death and to recognize the fact that she should have been more present in Natalie’s life.  Natalie’s link to Gabe is through her hatred of his intrusive presence in the lives of her parents, and when her parents are able to acknowledge her, that link is broken.

Because of his ability to interact with multiple characters, I believe that Gabe Goodman is more than just a delusion, that he actually is a legitimate presence and character not simply an extension of one of the other character’s psyches.  The question becomes then, is he a malevolent or a benign spirit.  My initial impression of the character was that Gabe was a wicked or evil presence.  There was an almost demonic quality to his interaction with the other characters; his temptation of Natalie so that she begins to take drugs, the insidious temptation of his mother to stop taking her medications or to commit suicide as seen in the song, “There’s a World,” and his self descriptions in “I’m Alive,” “I am flame and I am fire, I am destruction, decay, and desire… I’ll show you I own you.”  When describing the character, Aaron Tveit said, “But also the nature of how I was so physically everywhere on that set, I had created all these things where, in my head, Gabe was basically the puppet master making all these fucked-up things happen to this family,” implying that Gabe is a negative impact of his family, and that it is his fault that everything is screwed up for his family.

While there is a malevolent aspect to Gabe, he does not seem to be an entirely evil influence.  His desire to have a relationship with his father seems to be mostly benign; a son wanting his father to recognize him as a person of value.  Furthermore, his interactions with Natalie, while negative, also are healing, as Natalie is forced to recognize her own lack of control, and eventually, to let go of her obsessive fear.  In his interactions with Diana, he acts as a confidant, the person Diana can speak to without fear of rejection.  In the tradition of the Sixth Sense and Ghost, Gabe seems to be a lost spirit in need of some form of closure before he can move on.  That closure is his mother’s recognition of his death, his father’s acknowledgement of his life, and his sister’s understanding of his history.  When each of these requirements is met, Gabe is able to move on, to a world where, “and when the night has finally gone, and when we see the new day dawn, and wonder how we wandered for so long, so blind. The wasted world we thought we knew, the light will make it look brand new, so let it shine.”  Gabe is the one character fully in the light because he has died and is able to move on to a world beyond the clouds and rain of the pain of life.

Well, that is all I have for today.  I may do a follow up blog on the use of imagery in Next to Normal, particularly the emphasis on images of light, the seasonal imagery, and the motif of rain and cloudy days that runs through the show.  For now, however, enjoy what I have written.  I highly recommend finding a way to see the show, it is a fascinating production, and I also recommend buying the soundtrack or at least listening to it on Spotify or some other music application.  The experience is unforgettable and the characters are both delightful and insightful.  The show reminds us that even though the world is screwed up, sometimes the insanity of life is what makes it beautiful.  In the words of Natalie, “I don’t need a life that is normal, that is way to far away, but something next to normal would be ok. Yes something next to normal, that is what I’d like to try, just close enough to normal to get by.”

Well, back to reality.

Source Quote: Aaron Tveit on Gabe

http://www.broadway.com/buzz/171346/aaron-tveit-tell-all-nine-quotes-from-the-graceland-star-on-missing-broadway-ditching-facebook-his-adoring-fans/

Aaron Tveit Tell-All! Nine Quotes from the Graceland Star on Missing Broadway, Ditching Facebook & His Adoring Fans By Lindsay Champion August 23, 2013 - 11:00AM

“I had so many silent moments in that show, so many moments where I was just sending energy to Alice [Ripley] across the stage. But also the nature of how I was so physically everywhere on that set, I had created all these things where, in my head, Gabe was basically the puppet master making all these fucked-up things happen to this family.”

Duty, Honor, and Existentialism in Film

Hello readers,
Tonight is not really a movie review, but more an introspective examination of what makes a really good movie.  I am not referring to "good" as in "high quality," "well developed," "artistically challenging," or any other of a myriad of definitions.  I am referring to good in the moral sense, as opposed to evil, corrupt, neutral, or nice.  Many of the movies we watch and enjoy may have redeeming qualities or present heroes facing impossible odds and triumphing, but it is very rare to find a modern movie which simply delights in goodness.

In the last six months, my grandfather has come to live with my family.  Because he suffers from dementia, we end up watching a lot of the same movies over and over again with him.  In particular, he loves the T.V. movie series Horatio Hornblower, created by A&E.  Whenever we ask him what he wants to watch, he keeps coming back to this series.  One day, a bit tired of the repetition of the same five stories every week, we asked him why he enjoyed watching those movies in particular.  He said that it was because the characters had honor, and were forced to make hard choices to do their duty.  This sense of honor stuck with him more than any special effects, any trick of story telling, any emotional manipulation.  Characters who lived in a truly hard world, forced to make difficult decisions, and to live with the consequences of those decisions were the most compelling aspect of my grandfather's decision making paradigm.

While the ideals of honor and duty are still given lip service within the modern media, they have generally been replaced by a fascination with compromise and paradox.  The average hero must confront the evil within himself in every film, and agonize over the fact that he is really not so different from the villain he is fighting.  Often times, it is only by taking on the appearance of that evil that the character is able to accomplish the ultimate good; consider two very different movies, The Dark Knight and Wreck it Ralph.  In The Dark Knight, Batman must allow himself to be seen as a horrible villain in order to provide Gotham city with the "hero it needed."  He must compromise his public image as a hero in order to accomplish a greater good.  Similarly, in Wreck it Ralph, Ralph must come to understand, "I am a bad guy... that is good."  It is only by compromising his image, and his dream of being a hero, that Ralph is able to save his own game and those of his friends.

I think what is really missing in these characters is some form of external morality.  Batman has a code that he follows, but no one else knows that.  Wreck it Ralph is a hero according to his own standards of self actualization, but he does not answer to an external moral code.  This is what is missing in the modern hero; the ability to act, not according to what the hero deems best, but according to an agreed upon societal good- to act with honor according to one's duty.  I guess this is because society has become so focused on an existential view of morality, in which the individual makes his own good, that we have lost the value of values.  To a man like my grandfather, or an old fashioned moralist like me, the sense that there must be some higher placement of morality than merely the individual is a value that is sadly being lost.  Even if that value is merely obedience to the authority of a nation and service to that ideal, that value seems to me intrinsically worthy, and worth maintaining.

I do not know that there is an answer to the portrayal of modern heroes that derives morality from themselves rather than from a societal code of conduct.  The problem with a proscribed morality is it tends to be dogmatic and boring, two values which do not lend to film-making.  I guess what I want is a nod every once in a while from Hollywood to old fashioned values; where a character is encouraged to participate in a community instead of stand away from it, or where, ultimately, the good of the many does outweigh the good of the one.  Then again, maybe I am just old fashioned crazy.

Ah well, enough philosophical ruminations.  Keep an eye open for an upcoming review of the new Percy Jackson movie Sea of Monsters.

Back to reality.

Two New Summer Movies- Now You See Me and Man of Steel

Hello Readers,

Summer time is that wonderful time when Hollywood tries to make us forget everything we ever learned at school during the fall, winter, and spring, by bombarding our brains with mindless action and implausible plot lines for three hour increments.  The summer blockbuster has become as much a part of American tradition as apple pie or baseball, and just like apple pie and baseball games, some end up better than others.  Over the last couple of weeks I saw two more of these “biggest movies of 2013”; Now You See Me and Man of Steel.  Today’s blog will contain reviews of both of those movies.  So sit back with a nice cold glass of water, or whatever your summer beverage of choice happens to be, and enjoy.

Now You See Me

I realized something about my method of review last night, and I want this insight to be my caution to you, my readers, today.  The realization is this: I like most movies the first time I see them.  Call me a poor critic, but most of the time, my best critical work comes when I know the story or on my second or third viewing of a movie.  Unfortunately, as an unemployed student, I do not have the money to see movies a second or third time, so I will have to make due with my first impressions.  The reason I bring this up in relation to Now You See Me is that the film falls into a certain category of movie.  It is one of those films where the first time you watch it, you are trying the whole time to figure out what is going on and what the twist is going to be.  This means that the movie is thoroughly enjoyable the first time you watch it, because you don’t know what is coming.  The measure of a great movie for me, however, is how well it responds to a second or third viewing.  If the movie is still enjoyable once you know the secret because there is subtle symbolism and foreshadowing of that secret (The Prestige), or because the movie uses the secret twist to create an interesting moral or philosophical dilemma (The Illusionist), then you know it is a good story.  If, however, the movie becomes dull or predictable once you have seen it once or twice, then it must be consigned with the majority of summer movies to the general class of “entertaining, but nothing special.”  Now You See Me was certainly an interesting and entertaining movie the first time through, so I am recommending you go see it at least once.  My hesitation would come if you were to ask me whether you should buy the DVD when it comes out.

Now You See Me follows in the tradition of The Prestige and The Illusionist as a movie about magic in which the story itself is one large magic trick being presented, with smaller tricks used throughout as a metaphor for the plot.  The movie was well acted, from big name stars like Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman to fresh faces like Jesse Eisenberg and David Franco.  Each member of the cast performed their role well, helping to build the larger puzzle of intrigue and revenge.

I did have a couple of problems with the story.  First, the twist (which I shall do my best not to reveal) was a little predictable if you have seen this sort of film before.  There was never a single moment in the story where I was particularly shocked or taken completely by surprise, however, there were a few minor details that kept me guessing for awhile, which made the movie fun.  My second issue with the story was the relevance of Michael Caine’s character.  The whole role seemed more like a cameo or a tacked on character designed to get Michael Caine’s name on the poster to draw in movie-goers.  The movie describes the part best when they describe his character as “a One-hundred-and-twenty-million-dollar abracadabra” that keeps the audience’s attention away from the main trick until it is too late to see how it was done.

As far as the excellent elements of the movie, the story grabs the attention of the audience and holds you the entire was through the movie.  Solid performances from the characters combined with good use of sets and props, particularly the magic tricks shown in the shows, to keep the audience guessing the motives of the characters and the next step in the trick. 

Perhaps the best way to approach Now You See Me is in it’s own words and contexts.  As a viewer, you are drawn in by all the “Are you looking closely” moments, and the movie is able to pull off the trick because you are not focusing on the bigger picture.  It is only when you are able to know how the trick is done; to know what that bigger picture is, that the true craftsmanship of the film will be revealed.  Is the trick still interesting when you know how it is done?  Only time will tell.  As it stands, Now You See Me is a delightfully entertaining film for summer viewing, and may end up being one of those go to films in which craftsmanship is combined with showmanship to create a true work of movie magic.

Man of Steel

I hardly know where to begin with the latest superhero movie to grace our summer screens; frankly, I must begin by saying that anyone who looks for a cunningly woven narrative with complex and compelling characters and intriguing symbolism in a superhero movie is going to be disappointed.  Not every movie can be The Dark Knight, even with Christopher Nolan as the producer.  That being said, Man of Steel was a good re-introduction to Superman, contained some decent acting, and was able to play with more complex themes a little in between the monotony of Superman getting slammed into the ground repeatedly.

As an introduction to Superman, Man of Steel was an excellent movie.  The background setting scenes on Krypton were engaging and provided an adequate (if not entirely compelling) explanation as to the source of Superman’s capabilities, his enemies, and his family.  Indeed, many of the flaws that might be brought up in relation to Man of Steel can be explained by the fact that this movie is set-up; with the extraordinary popularity of superhero films in the last few years, and the success of Marvel with The Avengers, it is no surprise that DC wants to get in on the box office potential and release their own rash of superhero films leading up to an inevitable Justice League film.  Viewed as an introduction to such a series of movies, with the potential for later sequels and spin-offs, it is hardly surprising that Man of Steel sometimes drags as a story because of its attempts to create the secondary world necessary for such a series.

Where Man of Steel did fall short was in the character development department.  The relationship between Superman and Lois Lane was not given sufficient rooting for its development, and the chemistry between the two characters was awkward as a result.  The film also struggled by introducing more characters that could justifiably be followed and developed, even in the course of a three hour film.  It left the viewer wanting more back-story for the other characters, in a film could already be criticized for getting bogged down in back-story.

Call me a nerd, but I am a huge fan of the creation of a secondary world.  I love those moments in a story that give the reader or viewer a glimpse into a universe as wide and complicated as our own, and thus, I found the extensive portrayal of the planet Krypton, and of Superman’s parents both heart warming and fascinating.  Russell Crowe’s portrayal of Jor El was one of the most fascinating performances in the film, as he brought to life the complex dichotomy of predestination and free will that embodies the “philosophical” aspect of the film.  As each member of society on Krypton has been created to serve a particular purpose within that society, each can be seen as a product of a predestinational worldview, and can effectively shift the blame for their actions onto biology and society.  Superman, on the other hand, embodies all the gene potential for Krypton, and thus is given the liberty to choose who he will be.  Jor El is subject to the predestination of his people, having been created to be a scientist, but as such, he recognizes the importance of choice and bases his action upon this belief.  I don’t know if anyone was trying to make a point, or if Russell Crowe is simply a phenomenal actor, but I found it very interesting that the best performance of the movie, and the most interesting character, was the one who somehow managed to synthesize predestination and choice in his actions. 

Idle speculation.

One of the other difficulties the film encountered was the action sequences.  I know that the average film viewer expects a certain amount of fighting, explosions, destruction, and general mayhem in a superhero movie.  That is no excuse, however, to have a good percentage of the movie simply be Superman being thrown into buildings by the bad guys.  The wanton destruction the film wreaks on the world it creates is excessive, careless, and lacking in taste.  Alright, so the guys fighting have incredible abilities.  You would think at least Superman would be trying not to knock down every building within sight every time he gets into a fight.  Sure, some of the fighting effects were cool, and some of the imagery of the destroyed Metropolis was heart-wrenching (the images of reporters covered in ash picking their way through the rubble was deliberately reminiscent of 9-11), it was not necessary to the continuation of the story, and became dull and repetitive after awhile.  Purposeless violence is a tacky way to keep an audience interested in the story, and is more than likely to bore the more intelligent members of the viewing audience.

One of the aspects of the film that I thought was handled very well was the presence of the American military within the film.  It has become popular in movies to either paint the military as the bad guy or merely as dangerously incompetent.  Man of Steel does neither, and instead highlights the heroic nature of the service of our enlisted men and women, which in turn highlights the second theme of the film; that of the hero in everyone.  Except for the predestined nasties from Krypton, everyone in the film is given the chance to act heroically, and each character that is given the opportunity chooses to do the right thing.  The movie stands as a resounding image of the inherent goodness of humanity, and also of America, without becoming nauseatingly sweet or overwhelmingly patriotic.

All in all, I enjoyed Man of Steel immensely.  There could have been a little better timing between the action, back-story, and character development bits, and of course, the story could have had a little less slamming Superman into stuff, but over all the movie was enjoyable and interesting.  I look forward to a second viewing and to spending more time in the secondary world that the film spent so much time and energy creating.

Well, spend a hot summer day in a movie theater or curled up in an air conditioned house with a good book.  I may have a couple of recommendations coming up for a new of those within the next month or so, so stay tuned.

Back to reality.

First Round Summer Movies and a Play

Happy Memorial Day Everyone!
As I am sure you all know, Memorial day is the unofficial start to summer; the day to kick off the rounds of BBQ's, frisbee on the lawn, and interminable re-runs on all those TV shows we watch the rest of the year.  For many of us, however, summer has begun coming earlier with the Mid-May releases of the first few "Blockbuster movies" of the summer.  Like the good nerd that I am, I have been to see the two most important of these early summer movies, Iron Man 3 and Star Trek: Into Darkness.  As usual, I will write a quick, one paragraph review of both movies before jumping into a longer analysis that will probably contain spoilers.  If you have not yet seen the movies, feel free to just read the short review, and come back later for the longer analysis that way you don't find out about any plot critical secrets (unless you like having movies spoiled before you see them).  Also, I will include a quick review of the local production of C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, so read on!

Iron Man 3
Iron Man 3 follows Tony Stark in his post Avengers life.  Suffering from some form of post traumatic stress disorder, unable to sleep, and compulsively working on his Iron Man suits, Tony Stark is a wreck.  He is falling apart and it is only the combination of work and Pepper Potts that keeps Tony Stark going.  Enter the Mandarin, a terrorist obsessed with teaching the United States a lesson about its role in the world, who uses human beings as explosive weapons.  When Tony makes the fight against the Mandarin personal, the terrorist destroys Tony's home, workshop, and leaves Stark for dead.  Stark is forced to confront his enemy without his suit; forcing the humbled hero to confront himself as he truly is, little more than a mechanic.

Most of the people I speak with have had mixed views on this third instillation in the Iron Man/ Avengers/ Marvel franchise.  This movie gives the viewer the opportunity to see a new side of Tony Stark, a man stripped of his bravado by circumstances beyond his control.  For those viewers who have previously enjoyed the flippant way in which Tony Stark interacts with his heroic exploits, the change may not be altogether welcome, however, those who have always found Stark to be annoyingly egotistical will find the change a breath of fresh air as the hero is forced to confront his apparent lack of heroic quality.  Outside of the character development arena, the film falls a little flat.  The villains of the show, two highly intelligent scientists who were burned in the past by the brilliant and arrogant Stark, lack both proper motive for their actions and individual development.  The revenge motive combined with a desire for power is incredibly cliche, and the film does nothing to try to make the stale combination vibrant or new again.  The second problem with the film is seen in the strange holiday element.  The entire film takes place during the Christmas season, with Christmas music playing in the background and holiday references popping in and out of the dialog.  The May release of the film made these references seem awkward and out of place, hinting to the audience that perhaps the film was either released later than intended, or seven months too early.  Overall, I found the movie thoroughly enjoyable, but not necessarily as good as it could have been with a little more time and effort in the development of the story.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the movie for analysis is the growth and change within the character of Tony Stark.  The development the character in a post Avengers world means that the billionaire, genius, playboy, philanthropist is not quite the confidently narcissistic hero viewers know and love from the first two films.  One of the most interesting visual dynamics of the film is seen in the fact that Stark spends the majority of the story bereft of the iron suit that normally provides his heroic security.  The "nakedness" of Tony Stark without his suit emphasizes the emotional nakedness that Stark is forced to confront through his post Avengers panic attacks and fear of death and loss.  Is Iron Man the empty suit of armor, merely a tool that is subject to whomever is wearing the suit at the moment, or is Iron Man Tony Stark, the genius who builds and controls the suit as an extension of his personality?  Stripped of his metal shell, Stark must learn who he is as a man, devoid of money, power, and influence, with nothing more than his inherent abilities.  This stripping of the character allows for a vulnerability heretofore unseen in Tony Stark, and allows for development into a true hero, a man who is willing to do the right thing for others, regardless of the cost to himself.  Unfortunately, the development in Tony Stark is undercut by the villains and by the poor timing sense of the events in the film.

The villains themselves do not seem to fit into the Iron Man world.  Previously, Iron Man has been forced to confront villains that are in some way as extension of himself; villains that take advantage of Stark's genius and attempt in some way to turn his own creation against him.  Thus, Stark is forced to confront villains of his own making, using tools that are very similar to those he has built and uses.  The character of the Mandarin, however, is an entirely different school of villain.  While Stark is again forced to confront a villain from his past, a man he humiliated and ignored, the face-off of hero against villain does not take place on equal/opposite grounds.  The Mandarin does not fight with some form of advanced technology that is similar to Stark's Iron Man suit, instead, he is a genetically manipulated superhuman with the ability to create and channel immense amounts of heat and power.  In fact, the Mandarin seems like a villain out of an X-Men film or out of Fantastic Four rather than as an antagonist for Iron Man.  While the move to remove the gadgetry from as Iron Man villain might be viewed as an attempt to echo the removal of the Iron Man suit from Tony Stark's character for most of the movie, the attempt fails because of the immense differences between Stark and the Mandarin, and the lack of vulnerability that the Mandarin's superpowers imbibe in his relative "nakedness".  In short, the powers ascribed to the villains in Iron Man 3 seemed out of place in the context of the conflict, and would have been more appropriate in opposition to a different kind of superhero, not Iron Man.

The Christmas element of the movie also undercut the film.  The happy, seasonal references, the mentions of the season, and the awkward May release of what appears to be a winter film, undercut the development of Tony's character.  The development of Stark into a "decent human being" (to quote my younger sister who severely dislikes all the other Iron Man movies), is incredible enough, while the added Christmas element give the viewer a sense that the movie is designed to be a feel good Christmas movie that did not necessarily take itself or its link to the previous movies seriously.  While I thought Tony Stark's development entirely credible in the context of the previous two movies and Stark's interaction with Captain America and near death experience in Avengers, the Christmas element introduced a "holiday feel good" sense to the story that made any potential character development an emotional transition that could easily be written off in a future film, denying any development that happened in Iron Man 3.

Star Trek: Into Darkness
If there is one aspect of life that screams nerd to the world, it would be Star Trek.  "Phasers on stun," "beam us up, Scotty," "she's not going to hold together Captain!" have become cultural icons.  Whether you are relatively new to the Star Trek universe, or whether you have seen all the series, films, and go to the conventions, there is something for everyone in the latest Star Trek film.  Following from the 2009 restart to the series, Star Trek: Into Darkness follows the continuing adventures of the crew of the Star Ship Enterprise.  It is hard to say more without giving away some spoilers, so I will simply say that the movie was thoroughly enjoyable; I was engaged the entire time.  If you are looking for a good action movie to spice up the beginning of the summer, this movie is an excellent option.

Alright, on to the analysis.  As I have been and always shall be... a nerd, I enjoyed the little extra references that appear throughout the movie.  Among these was a tribble, references to "red shirts," and an entirely useless Vulcan mind meld.  The film constructs a new story from the basic outline of Star Trek: Wrath of Khan, although the parallel universe aspect lends itself to new and exciting developments within the story.  Please be aware, the next sentence is a huge spoiler.  Into Darkness inverts the classic positions of Kirk and Spock, with Kirk having to climb through the warp drive and being exposed to incredible amounts of radiation, and Spock in the captain's chair, tricking Khan and arriving to late to watch helplessly as his friend dies, hands pressed against the glass of the radiation chamber in the Vulcan hand gesture "live long and prosper."  Combined with the "Dammit Jim, I am a doctor not a..." and the final "Space, the final frontier," Into Darkness pays homage to the original story in ways that will have a Trekkies everywhere grinning.

For those who are less familiar with the original series, the film offers something just as enjoyable... lots of action and an interesting villain.  The film starts off at a run (somewhat literally due to a useless yet mildly entertaining scene on a primitive planet involving an exploding volcano), and keeps up the pace.  Even the mildly slow parts of the story such as the meetings to discus the bomb explosion in London disperse quickly into action packed fight sequences.  While there is some character development going on, particularly in the relationship between Kirk and Spock, the real focus of the story is upon envisioning the vast dimensions of the space adventure.

Both Kirk and Spock are allowed to develop somewhat over the course of the film, Spock having to learn to embrace the passionate, emotional side of his nature, and Kirk having to learn the sacrifices of a leader and responsibility for his actions.  The reversal of the positions of Kirk and Spock from their original positions in Wrath of Khan allows for this development as Spock is forced to think outside of his logic box in order to defeat Khan, and to embrace the depth of his emotions.  Kirk, on the other hand, must submit himself to cool logic and recognize that sometimes the good of the many outweighs the good of the one.

While the action and character development where good, the real star of the show was the villain.  Khan, played by British actor Benedict Cumberbatch, was at once relatable and terrifying.  In a brilliant performance, Cumberbatch gives the classic villain a twist, sometimes playing Khan as a sympathetic leader who is merely a victim of circumstances, then the next minute causing the character to go cold and dead inside, a change that was superbly denoted by changes in his facial expressions and eyes. Those who have seen Cumberbatch's work in Sherlock will recognize the switch, however, the change is even more heightened as Khan swings abruptly from saving the lives of the crew of the Enterprise to coldly menacing as he attempts to kill everyone on board.  Cumberbatch's performance was really the standout aspect of the film for me, and I would recommend the movie on the basis of that one performance alone.

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Over the last month or so, I have had the opportunity to help work on and act in a local drama club's production of C.S. Lewis' classic story.  Over the weekend, the show had its first two performances and there is one more performance later this week.  While I may be a biased commentator, I will try to be as honest as I can about the overall performance.

The entire cast (with, perhaps, the exception of yours truly) has done a fantastic job bringing the fantastic story to life of stage.  Stand out performances are the characters of Edmund and the White Witch.  It is very rare to find a young actor who can perform with as much talent and interest as the young man portraying Edmund in the show.  Every word and action seem to come straight from the character himself, as if the young actor were not performing, but simply living the situations.  Another great performance is that of the truly terrifying White Witch.  While I must admit a certain bias here (She is my younger sister), I must also say that her performance is uncanny.  The simmering rage of her fear in meeting with Edmund, the sense of exultation that comes from the witch when she kills Aslan, the imperiousness of her command, all come together in a truly startling performance, again surprising in the level of maturity being displayed in a relatively young actor.  The entire cast does an excellent job in their performances, and the show is definitely worth checking out if you have the time.  There is one more show left, Thursday, May 30, at 7:30 PM at the First Lutheran Church in Placerville, CA.  Please come and support this great group of young people as they perform a delightful and enjoyable play.

Well, that is all I have for today folks.  It does not quite seem like the unofficial start to summer here, as it is drab and rainy outside, but in the cinema, the summer "blockbuster" season has certainly begun.  While both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek: Into Darkness both had their issues, they were both enjoyable and good entertainment, which, during the hot summer months, is really what one is looking for in a good movie, right?  Stay tuned for more summer movie reviews, and if all goes well, I may be writing some more book and music reviews as well.

Back to reality.