My reviews of Julius Caesar and Pocahontas are up on the Style Weekly site. Enjoy (and feel free to post rebuttals if you are so inclined!)
I heard news on Q94 (Q94!?!) this morning about the “Sweeney Todd” film that has Johnny Depp slated to play Sweeney. Director Tim Burton’s sweetie, Helena Bonham Carter will play Mrs. Lovett (as confirmed with this story on Broadway.com). What killed me was that, in order to say something that her young hip audience might relate to, the DJ Melissa Chase said something to the effect that you’d recognize the music from Sweeney Todd because it’s been in Looney Tunes cartoons. Oy. Can our pop culture get any dumber?
5 comments:
Haven't seen "Pocohontas" but I did see "Caesar" - can't really disagree with this review, I'd say it's pretty fair overall. There is a clear distinction between the underplayed characters of Nowlin, Schmidt and Blunt versus the more dynamic, energetic performances of Gau and Hamm; not that the former turned in bad performances by any means, and the production overall IS quite good, but the latter two actors turned up the intensity and character development a few notches above the rest. But there is something to be said, for sure, about nuance and underplaying a role at times. Rick Blunt in particular brought a very nice quiet assurance to his Brutus, and really sold the idea by doing so that he's someone who could have been trusted and befriended by ALL because of his humility. It's pretty damn hard to play "humility" with great intensity! It takes a soft touch, and he did it with his Brutus, while still projecting some conviction of principles and strength based on solid values. So I think in fairness, his performance should be considered in that light (by the way, he's not a friend of mine or anything, I've never met the gentleman).
Thanks for your response, Anonymous! I largely agree with your assessment. There is an innate challenge in many roles that is hard for even an excellent performer to overcome. In my opinion, it would work best if Brutus was played by a charismatic actor who could command respect by his very bearing. Then when his emotions are underplayed, they don’t undercut his authority. This is not in any way to criticize Mr. Blunt’s performance but to highlight the challenge that anyone in that role would face. There are other similar roles, I think. The husband, John, in “The Constant Wife” is this type of character in certain ways. For me, to believe that Constance would stay with John and that Mary-Louise would be drawn to John (enough to endanger both her marriage and her best friend’s), John has to have a charisma that goes beyond the dialogue of the play. Not to ‘dis Steve Perigard AT ALL but, in some ways, it might have worked better for me if Larry Cook played John and Steve played Constance’s former suitor, Bernard. But, hey, that’s just me.
Very good point with the comparison to "Constant Wife" (and I'm staying anonymous since I DO know Steve, Larry and company, and I'm an actor who'll leave the professional critiques to you Dave)...and Steve P. being a very savvy guy I think it's safe to assume he wouldn't have cast himself as John if he'd had more than a few days to replace that role, which really changed the dynamics of that production. After the pains Barksdale takes to cast each show to ensure the right chemistry onstage, I can't imagine how Steve, Bruce and company felt when their lead actor bailed out for whatever reason. I agree Larry could have pulled off the role of John, yet he has the right look and the right touch to play Bernard. We'll never know how it would have been with the original cast. Too bad. But the show had to go on, and big-time kudos to Steve just for having the kahones to step in at that late date.
Hi there,
Anonymous #2 here. Just read in on your discussion. Let me just say that I saw the production of Julius Caesar and have been thinking about what I didn't like about it. Your discussion made me realize that the simplest things often cause the greatest problems. In the case of this production, I saw a lot of playing a mood or quality rather than specificity of intention and that is death in theatre, especially Shakespeare where the language is paramount. I don't want to see Cassius portrayed as intense and angry at the expense of language and action. I know this is basic stuff, but that is often the problem in Shakespeare. What do you want and how are you going to get it? Know what you're saying and what you want from your scene partners and then establish a character, not the other way around. In a space like that church that can't afford to lose a single word, these things stuck out to me as I missed so much of the wonderful language in that play.
Well, before this posting disappears I'll weigh in as well, and it seems anonymous 2 wrapped it up nicely. Though I can't say I'm always successful myself in terms of being specific in my character's objective in every scene, I know it's the critical difference between a poor or mediocre performance and a really good one. My belief is audiences can't always put their finger on that distinction; it's tempting for an actor to play a quality or mood of a character, and you see it a lot in community theatre and less (but still present) in the best local professional shows. The actors most often identified as a cut above are not the least bit vague, unless their intention really is to leave their scene partner - and the audience - guessing about what's really going on, which is in itself specific! I think the final aspect of a truly marvelous performance is demonstrating how the action affects that character from beginning to end of the play; it seems to me the common thread in every really memorable role I've witnessed, whether in London or New York or Richmond.
Post a Comment