Arthur Miller’s Other Play

A Review by Elyse Trevers

Works by playwright Arthur Miller have timeless messages.  Is it any wonder that recent Broadway audiences heard a message about the U.S.’s current political imbroglio in the revival of “All My Sons”?  Miller’s theme reminds us that we are all responsible for one another and his theme sounds particularly appropriate, given that more than 4,ooo American lives have been lost in the Iraq conflict, not to mention the thousands of Iraqi casualties

 

The play has a small and talented cast. Director Simon McBurney creates a sense of crowds by keeping the large stage filled. Off sides, non-speaking performers stand frozen in position or move slowly as if to suggest by their silent presence that there are always those who are being affected by the characters’ deeds.

 

John Lithgow plays Joe Keller, the owner of a manufacturing company that made cracked airplanes parts during WWII.  He knowingly shipped out the parts, causing planes to crash and 21 American pilots to die. 

 

Although Joe was prosecuted, he was found innocent while his meek partner was imprisoned. Both of Joe’s sons, Chris and Larry, went to war. Chris returned, changed and chastened by his experiences, but Larry’s plane went missing.  Three years later, everyone except Kate, Joe’s wife, has accepted Larry’s death. Kate (Dianne Wiest) clings to the hope that Larry is still alive.  When Ann (Katie Holmes), Larry’s former girlfriend comes to visit, the truth about Joe’s involvement is revealed with dire consequences. 

 

Lithgow, a versatile Tony-Award-winning actor, is moody and bombastic. He has a pathetic almost haunting quality about him, and his short scene with a neighbor’s child seems a bit pathetic and needy.  Yet as good as Lithgow is, he always seems to be the same character- whether he’s the hustler of a “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” or the vindictive journalist in “Sweet Smell of Success.”  There’s nothing original about his portrayal of Keller.

Holmes is making her Broadway debut and her appearance has been a treat for the tabloids and some audience members who hope that husband Tom Cruise is nearby in the theater. A beautiful young woman, Holmes does an adequate job as Ann, daughter of Joe’s partner.  Occasionally she’s a bit strident and too loud as if trying to measure up to the more polished professionals onstage. 

 

Chris Wilson, the too-good Christ-figure son Chris, conveys a naivete that makes his goodness seems acceptable. However, he lacks the worldliness and edge that the war would have given him. His character speaks of the men who died but Wilson doesn’t project the anger or sharpness.

 

As usual, Dianne Wiest gives a marvelously nuanced performance. She has the mother tiger attitude and can be ferocious, especially when fighting to get others to acknowledge that Larry could still be alive.  Yet she also suggests a fragility and vulnerability that makes one want to protect her.  Wiest makes Kate an equal partner in the marriage; she’s not just Joe’s wife.

 

Tom Pye’s scenic design is notable for its simplicity and sparseness.  The play opens to  a tree which falls down before the dialogue begins. Onstage there’s only a chair, a door and door  frame and a screen upon which the image of a house is imposed.  Later the play shows some grainy movies to elucidate the action.  Sometimes the moving images detract from the dialogue.

 

 

It’s almost inevitable to compare “All My Sons” to Miller’s masterpiece  “Death of a Salesman.”  Although both the plays have central characters who are self-destructive males, they both also feature strong resilient women.  When the roles are handled by superb actresses of Wiest’s caliber, the mother/wife  becomes a focal  figure, but sadly is the one left to pick up the pieces.  In “Death of a Salesman,” Willy Loman fails to come to grips with the realities of the world while in “All My Sons”  Keller learns the lessons but is unable to face what he has done. Although director Simon McBurney’s version of the Miller play is not impressive, the drama’s message still resounds.  Whether it’s wartime or bleak economic difficulties, Miller reminds us that we are all connected and are responsible for one another.  

Calendar

November 29

LUCIA DI LAMMERMOOR

The Regina Opera Company presents a fully staged production of Donizetti’s Lucia di Lammermoor on Saturday, November 29 at 7 p.m. and Sunday, November 30 at 3 p.m. It is held at Regina Hall, 65^th Street and 12^th Avenue. Presented in Italian with English super-titles and full orchestra. For further information call (718) 232-3555.

 

November 30

VERY HUNGRY CATERPILLAR

The Brooklyn Center for the Performing Arts presents the Mermaid Theatre of Nova Scotia on Sunday, November 30 at 2 p.m. The Very Hungry Caterpillar is an adaptation of three classic children’s stories by Eric Carle, featuring puppetry and the magic of black light. For children grades pre-k through 3. The performance takes place in Whitman Hall on the Brooklyn College campus, 2900 Bedford Avenue. For further information call (718) 951-4500.

 

BROOKLYN BAROQUE

Music from Good Shepherd, the 13^th Annual Sunday Evening Concert Series, presents the Brooklyn Baroque ensemble on November 30 at 6 p.m. Good Shepherd Church is located on Avenue S and Brown Street. Free admission, voluntary donations for the performers are accepted. For further information call (718) 998-2800.

 

December 1

CHRONIC FATIGUE

New York Methodist Hospital provides a free Chronic Fatigue Support Group on Monday, December 1 from 1 to 3 p.m. The group meets the first Monday of every month and is for individuals diagnosed with or who believe they have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It meets at the hospital’s Executive Dining Room, 506 6^th Street. For further information call (718) 780-3288.

 

December 2

AUCTION

The Business and Professional Branch of the National Council of Jewish Women, Brooklyn Section, 1001 Quentin Road, has an Auction event on Tuesday, December 2 at 6 p.m. Bring merchandise to donate or a $5 donation. Proceeds support Israeli projects. Supper and socializing from 6 to 7 p.m., meeting at 7 p.m. at the Council Center, 2^nd Floor. For further information call (718) 376-8164.

 

December 3

RUSSIAN FILM SERIES

The Central Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library, Grand Army Plaza, presents “Nelegal,” a feature film by Boris Frumm, on Wednesday, December 3 at 7 p.m. This is a dark comedy / spy drama about a Soviet intelligence agent. The event is held at the library’s Dweck Center. For further information call (718) 230-2100.

 

DAUGHTERS OF ST. PAUL CHOIR

Mary Queen of Heaven Church, 1395 East 56^th Street, hosts a special performance by the Daughters of St. Paul Choir on Wednesday, December 3 at 7:30 p.m. The award-winning choir is well known throughout the USA for their renditions of old and new Christmas carols. Tickets are $10 per person, free parking. For further information call (718) 763-2330.

 

December 6

CHRISTMAS FLEA MARKET

St. James Lutheran Church, 2776 Gerritsen Avenue, has a Christmas Flea Market on Saturday, December 6 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. All types of gifts, merchandise and refreshments. Table space $30. For further information and space reservations call Frank at (718) 743-1589.

 

FIRST SATURDAYS

The Brooklyn Museum, 200 Eastern Parkway, has its First Saturdays program on December 6 from 5 to 11 p.m. This month’s theme is “Love Your World!” Free admission, free films, music and activities. For further information call (718) 638-5000.

 

December 7

DEFENSIVE DRIVING

The NYS-approved Defensive Driving Course is offered at the Marine Park Jewish Center, 3311 Avenue S, on Sunday, December 7 at 9:30 a.m. 10% insurance premium reduction and possible removal of four points from driving record. For further information and reservations call (718) 891-3776.

 

METROPOLITAN KLEZMER

Temple Sholom, 2075 East 68^th Street, presents the Metropolitan Klezmer Group on Sunday, December 7 at 7 p.m. The program also features Temple Sholom’s Young Children’s Choir, directed by Cantor Steve Shor. Donation for reserved seats is $20, or become a sponsor for $36, which includes first row seating. For further information call (718) 251-0370. 

The Name’s Bond, James….OK You Get It

Quantum Of Solace

 

 By C.J. Henderson

“Quantum of Solace” picks up 15 minutes after the last 007 picture. The action starts immediately (as it should in a Bond outing), this time with a car chase/gun battle along the winding roads of Italy. The chase ends in a rock quarry, concluding rather badly for the bad guys. And that is pretty much the way of the entire film.

 

A new organization has been detected by Britain, one so secret they did not even suspect its existence. And yet, it has people in place everywhere. Even M, Bond’s boss (Judi Dench), is taken in by a mole, her own bodyguard turning out to be a member of this shadow agency. And so, realizing it is this group that is responsible for everything that went wrong in the last movie, Bond sets out to bring the organization down.

 

Like “Rocky II,” this film is much more an extension of its predecessor than a stand-alone work. In it, Bond is basically out to avenge himself. In the previous movie, the woman he loved was killed. Now, he is going to make those responsible pay. But, it is more than her death he is grieving over. Bond believes he was betrayed by his lover. Thus, he is not so much out to avenge himself over the death of his love, but over the death of his ability to love. It is a powerful, gutsy plot line, something far more sophisticated than the standard 007 fare.

 

And, the plot line is not the only mature thing about this film. As in Craig’s first outing as Bond, all of the old rules have been thrown out. This time, Bond does not receive any new gadgets whatsoever. In fact, he spends the last half of the film without any governmental support, and must make his way forward through brain power and brawn alone. He does pretty good.

 

And, so does the whole film.

There is no denying that this latest relaunching of the Bond franchise is the best one yet. Yes, for my rapidly aging generation, nothing will ever top the first two Connery Bonds, “Dr. No” and “From Russia with Love.” After that, the lineup from top to bottom is a personal preference toss-up. Myself, I have to toss Mr. Craig’s Bond right up there in second place.

 

Now, this film does have some problems. One, if you do not remember how the previous film ended, you are going to be a bit lost. Watch it again if you can. Second, the sound is so loud that many in the audience were losing key bits of dialogue. And, those not in love with the hand-held camera being used during action sequences to make things seem more intense are going to be displeased from beginning to end.

Still, these are not massive complaints. “Quantum of Solace” is a good, solid action picture. It goes back to all that is best in the early Bonds, and for that matter, what was good about the original books as opposed to the films. The picture is intelligent, mature and filled with suspense. On top of that, Bond beats up a lot of guys, he shoots a bunch as well, drives really fast, has some sex, does some really great stunts, and comes to terms with his inner demons. What more do you want for your ten bucks?

Our final word: 4 stars out of 5.

 

Coin Hunting With the F Word

American Buffalo

A Review by Elyse Trevers

Be forewarned –any play by David Mamet is bound to have a lot of cursing.  If that disturbs or disconcerts you, stay away. However, unless you are extremely thin-skinned, after awhile you won’t notice the epithets.  In fact, most playgoers attend Mamet productions fully expecting to be bombarded with foul language, so it seems appropriate that the recent revival of “American Buffalo” at The Belasco Theatre modifies the traditional admonition by warning the audience to turn off all F—- cell phones , generating an audience laugh.

The language seems natural coming from the trio of characters in the play. They are lowlife characters involved in shady dealings. All the action occurs in Don’s Resale Shop, a set beautifully designed by Santo Loquasto.  Every inch of the stage is filled with neatly ordered junk- head forms, suitcases, glassware, even a menacing metal stick used to drain the blood from a dead pig.  In the front is a glass case where Don (Cedric the Entertainer) keeps his more valuable pieces like coins and jewelry. 

 

The story revolves around a rare coin, an American Buffalo nickel that Don recently sold.   After the buyer left, Don feels that he’s been cheated of its true value and sets out to rob the man’s house to retrieve his coin.  He enlists the help of the slow-witted young Bobby  (Haley Joel Osment) in following the victim.  Later Teach (John Leguizamo) convinces Don to exclude Bobby from the scheme by questioning Bobby’s loyalty.

 

Hours later, the entire scheme is botched up and the store in shambles. Yet the men are still friends.  It’s a touching, poignant moment when Teach, who had become enraged and destroyed the store, lies on the floor , looks up at Don and innocently asks “Are you mad at me?”  Even more ironic is when Don replies “No.” Yet the moment is not incongruous or even odd because together the three misfits create a form of dysfunctional family.   After all, the father often forgives his son for messing up.  Don is the father-figure and the nurturer of the trio. Throughout Act One he is paternally instructing young Bobby, helping him out. In fact, many of their first moments are spent with Don instructing Bobby on healthy eating.  He sends him to get food and chastises him when he brings nothing back for himself.  He even looks out for Teach, and when Teach is getting ready for the big job, Don sends him home to get a nap.  

Making his Broadway debut, the big substantial Cedric the Entertainer, exudes comfort.  He is calm, measured and even in his delivery.  If Don is the father-figure, then Teach is the wayward son. Leguizamo is non-stop action, constantly clicking his fingers and moving about.  He is perpetual motion; even putting his glasses on and taking them becomes an exercise in expended energy.  He always has with one more thing to say as if someone wound him up and when he’s leaving to get ready for the job, he keeps returning.  Although he’s a negative character with an explosive temper, he’s the most enjoyable character onstage, although sometimes his nonstop energy becomes irritating after awhile.

 

Also making his Broadway debut, Haley Joel Osment plays Bobby, a gopher for Don.  With his unruly shock of brown hair, Osmont is like a young puppy eager for kind words from his master.  He’s anxious for Don’s approbation.  He always got his head down and his body hunched over as if to make himself smaller and less consequential.  Bobby is eager for Don’s love and approval but Osment conveys little eagerness and neediness into his portrayal.

 

There’s bloodshed and broken glass and junk all over the stage by the time the play ends, yet the three are still be together as they fall into their familiar roles.  Don, the nurturer, is helping Bobby who is apologizing and seeking approval.  Meanwhile Teach is clowning around.  Despite the violence that has occurred, they are still a family.  Fortunately, not yours or mine. 

 

  

Repo: A Genetic Opera

By C.J. Henderson

There has been a great deal of buzz over this week’s film, “Repo: A Genetic Musical.” There are reasons for this, from its highly eclectic cast to its director, Darren Lynn Bousman. In case you are unaware, Bousman is the director of the first three “Saw” films, and as such, obviously a most unusual choice to direct a musical. It” possible the director himself agrees with that assessment. Here’s what he had to say about the idea.

“Forget the genre, forget the music, forget the horror. It’s an experience that you should have in a movie theater with a group full of people. This is nothing like you’ve ever seen before. That’s the most exciting thing for me. It’s brand new. It’s catchy, it’s cool, it’s hip, it’s edgy, it’s dark, it’s sexy. It’s everything and I think that there’s something in it for everyone.”

 

I have to give Bousman credit for honesty. In all that hyperbole, never once did he say it was good.

He was right not to do so.

The story: In the near future, for some unknown reason people’s organ begin to fail. Enter GeneCo, a biotech company that seemingly can replace anything within the body for a price. And, they even allow folks to have their surgery done on the installment plan. Of course, miss a payment and they send the repo man after you to murder you in the street. Oh, and don’t worry, apparently congress has approved all of this.

 

     At the heart of GeneCo is its founder, Rotti Largo (Paul Sorvino). He is the father of three children, all of whom are such sickening creatures even he can’t stand them. Dying, he plans on leaving GeneCo to Shilo (Alexa Vega) the daughter of one of his employees, his repo man (Anthony Stewart Head). But, only if he can convince her to murder her father. You see, Largo loved her mother, but she left him to marry the repo man. So Largo poisoned her mother, but made the repo man think he did it …

There’s more, oh dear Lord, there is so much more. The plot of this thing stacks up endlessly, like pancakes at a boy scout jamboree. But, it does not matter for sadly, none of it adds up to anything. Most of the characters are so monstrously inane, so lacking in motivation, so random in their actions that it is simply impossible to care enough about any of them to get involved in what happens to them.

The writing on all levels is horrendous. Especially the songs. None of the lyrics are particularly clever. Most repeat lines over and over as if the songwriters felt the audience was too stupid to remember them without a sales pitch level of repetition (“that number again is …:).

The actors are not to blame here, either. Most of them struggle along with what they were given. Even, remarkably, Paris Hilton turns in a fine performance. It is certainly better than her excruciating showing in “House of Wax.” Then again, she plays a spoiled neurotic bitch addicted to shopping and cosmetic surgery, so perhaps there is something to be said for type casting after all.

Nor can the musicians be blamed. The songs might be terrible, but the music is, while simple and uninspired, at least not bad. Brian Young is there, along with Stephen Perkins, Tommy Clefetus, Blasko, Richard Patrick and many others.

No, this flaws in this film are all the fault of its creative team. I am always ready to applaud Hollywood for giving unknown writers a chance, or pigeon-holed directors the opportunity to spread their wings. But, don’t ask me to not complain when they fail miserably.

And, this film is one spectacular failure. Poor sound quality keeps one from understanding most of the songs. Those you can interpret are childish and for the most part nonsense. The lighting is oppressive and clumsily bleak. Things do not seem dark because the filmmakers are after a mood; they seem to be dark because the lighting board is being run by an incompetent.

There is so much more I could complain about, but let me simply say that politically, logically, story-wise, everything is wrong with this truly awful disaster of a film.

The only thing that I will add is that I did see this one by myself. The person who was going to go with me called the night before the screening begging off. They had cracked a molar, which had caused their gums to become hideously infected. In terrible pain when they called, they were, instead of seeing “Repo,” in for hours of wretched drilling and dental surgery.

Some people have all the luck.

Our final word: 0 stars out of 5.

 

The Seagull

By Elyse Trevers

Who knows better about the process and pain of writing than a writer himself?  In his classic work “The Seagull,” Anton Chekhov uses two pairs of characters to provide insight into the creative process as well as the emotional angst of the artist. An older actress Arkadina and her lover Trigorin, a noted writer, represent the establishment in contrast to the actress’s son Konstantine, a would-be writer and his girlfriend, Nina, a lovely ingénue who yearns to be an actress. All the action occurs in Arkadina’s summer home, a Russian estate, where she holds court like a queen.

The drama concerns a series of relationships; often, it is a chain of unrequited loves. Each character is yearning for one who is in love with someone else, so most of the characters are unhappy people. In between their pursuit of one another, some produce their art.  In their despair, a few of the characters make decisions that inalterably change or end their lives. Despite some excellent performances and philosophical ideas, The Seagull is not for every viewer. The recent revival at the Walter Kerr Theatre is absorbing but slow moving. “The Seagull” is a wordy play, running three hours; some of Chekhov’s speeches feel interminable.  Often the silences, long pauses for effect, become more meaningful and profound than the speeches themselves.

Kristin Scott Thomas plays Arkadina, an attractive woman and a diva who realizes that her star is fading. Thomas is eye- catching. Even when others are speaking or when Nina is performing, Thomas is always the focal point with the slightest gesture or nuance. As the vain Arkadina, she commands the stage, no matter what else or who else is on it. She is marvelous as the imperious character who is unwilling to relinquish attention even to her only son.

The women of the cast give the strongest performances. Carey Mulligan gives a fine portrayal of Nina, the pretty blonde actress. She is bubbly, naïve and ingenuous. At first she is fresh and bright-eyed, glowing with life and enthusiasm.  She manages to subtly suggest pain that harsh experiences have brought her.  The character who’s the most fun is Zoe Kazan as Masha.  Kazan, a young American actress, is always in black. She is dour and mournful like a Charles Addams character. With a depressive personality and a high-pitched, artificial voice, she is a cartoonlike, yet strangely entertaining in a mournful play. When she realizes that she will never win Kontantin’s love, she marries the young man who has been relentlessly pursuing her.  Despite her doting husband, (Pearce Quigley who plays the accommodating doormat of a spouse) Kazan always moves as if burdened by her unrequited love. 

As Trigorin, Peter Sarsgaard, one of the few Americans in the mostly British cast, is too weak to be an impressive character.  Although Nina is strongly attracted to him and runs off with him, one must wonder why because he doesn’t seem to have any sex appeal and, in fact, seems effeminate.  Sarsgaard makes his character smug and cocky and uses large hand gestures, painting the air. 

The play received acclaim for the production at Royal Court Theatre in England. It became a sold-out smash hit and the biggest selling production in the Royal Court’s 50 year history. Ian Rickson directed the play and has directed the US version as well. The Seagull features a new translation written by playwright Christopher Hampton (“Les Liaisons Dangereuses,” “The Philanthropist”).  “The Seagull,” written in 1895, was the first master work by Anton Chekhov and is considered on the theater’s best plays about the nature of writing.

If you go the theater to be entertained and amused, then “The Seagull” is not for you. The drama consists of long speeches and little action. Most of the characters are cerebral and do a great deal of philosophizing.  For some, this play would be difficult to enjoy in the evening after a long day at work.  However, if you go to the theater to thrill at fine acting and listen to provocative ideas about the arts, then this revival might work for you. The 14-week limited engagement will continue through December 21.

A Man For All Seasons

A Review By Elyse Trevers 

 

Frank Langella can bring finesse and style to any role.  He manages to add an extra dimension to his characters. He can make an audience feel compassion for a disgraced president (in Frost/Nixon ) laugh at a foppish nobleman (“Fortune’s Fool”)  or lust after  a sexy vampire (“Dracula.”) His movie /stage career  has spanned more than 35 years  and this year he returns to Broadway as Sir Thomas More in the Roundabout Theatre Company’s revival of “A Man for All Seasons” by Robert Bolt.  Seeking a male heir, “King Henry VIII” (Patrick Page) wishes to divorce his wife Catherine to marry Anne Boleyn . When the Pope denies him a divorce, he breaks with the church and creates his own church.  Henry seeks to assuage his moral conscience, so he demands that his nobles and statesmen give their sanction to his action by signing Oath of Supremacy declaring the King the Supreme Head of the Church of England.  When More, his Chancellor, refuses, the king and his secretary, Thomas Cromwell,  seek to break his resolve.  More refuses to swear to the oath but protests that his silence belies consent. Finally frustrated and fearful of his own career,  Cromwell gets  an ambitious courtier Richard Rich (Jeremy Strong) to perjure himself.  More is found guilty and is beheaded.  

In the play, playwright Robert Bolt depicts More as the ultimate man of conscience and his character has become a symbol.  The title comes from a contemporary of More’s who in 1520 who described More as “A man for all seasons.”

Langella is majestic in all his roles and in this particular one his regal bearing is appropriate.  The 6’4” actor casts a large shadow on stage. He is moving, loving to his wife and daughter, professorial and sincere.  He is also funny, especially during the first hour of the play.  There are several lines that become humorous more because of his smart delivery than the text.  It’s a testimony to his skills that he can bring humor as well as gravity to the role.

As Cromwell, the sinister conniver, Zach Grenier is somewhat reptilian. He seems to look out from under his eyelids and always seems to be smirking. At first, I felt that he wasn’t effective in the role unitl the end when I found myself wanting to hiss at him. Then I realized that he had obviously succeeded in making Cromwell appear despicable.

Patrick Page plays King Henry bringing the right amount of boyishness and willfulness to the role.  Yet he isn’t majestic enough.  In his brief moments together with Langella,  Page should have put up more of a fight for control of the stage.  Strong playing the milquetoast sycophant tries to make him seem cowardly and lowly.   As More’s second wife Alice,  Maryann Plunkett is strong and simple, feisty and believable.

Catherine Zuber’s costume design is elegant when appropriate and is symbolic of More’s condition.  By the end he is garbed in a tattered robe, a change from the fur trimmed gown he wears at the height of his popularity. The hushed subdued lighting reminds the audience of the gravity of the times.  Often the only light is provided by candles.  The shadows they cast seem to foretell the sinister machinations against More.  The candlelight is also symbolic of the sacred church’s power  which More represents in the conflict against the earthly pursuits of the King.

Bolt makes us question how far we would go for our own principles. Yet the frustration with Robert Bolt’s characterization is that for a bright man, More seems incredibly ingenuous and trusting. He’s almost Christlike as he welcomes the men into his home who he knows will betray him.  More also has naïve belief in the law.   Yet ironically he seems angry and surprised when Ridge perjures himself.

This is a year of first-time Broadway revivals  (Equus, West Side Story), and the original drama , “A Man for All Seasons,” hadn’t been on a New York stage since it premiered in 1961,  winning the Tony for Best Play.  The 1966 film starring Paul Scofield went on to win six Oscars.

“A Man for All Seasons” is a long, talky play. Most interesting are the machinations of Cromwell.  Langella makes many of his lengthy passages compelling, but then he could probably make us listen enthralled as he read the phone book.  As More was “A Man for All Seasons,” Langella once again proves he can do anything and play hero, villain, friend or foe.  He is an actor for all roles.  The limited run of the play has been extended to December 14. 

Changleing

A Review By C.J. Henderson

Ladies and gentlemen, let me get right down to business and announce that Mr. Clint Eastwood has done it again. Yes, the man does not make many movies. Maybe being rich and old and comfortable, he feels no need to keep throwing his name out before the public. Maybe he is terribly insecure and refuses to release a film until it is absolutely perfect.

 

I don’t know the actual answer. There is only so much insider info available to we agents of the Brooklyn View from the millionaire enclaves of the Hollywood Hills. But, I can tell you this much, the man is one of the greatest directors who has ever worked in the business.

 

He has an unerring sense for picking the absolute best material and crafting it into the finest kinds of dramas. And, he has done it again. His latest picture, “Changeling,” tells the true story of a courageous woman who took on a brutal, corrupt system, and if it doesn’t have people spreading Oscar buzz from one end of the continent to the other, then as they say in the poolhalls, “der just ain’t no justice.”

 

The story: In the L.A. of the late 1920s, the police ruled with an iron hand. Most of them on the take unto the highest offices, they ruthlessly murdered the gangs that did not pay them and then charged their rivals for the service. They did what they wanted to, to whomever they pleased, and those who tried to fight back found themselves imprisoned, locked away in insane asylums, or simply executed.

 

In March of 1928, single mother Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) left for work. When she returned home, her nine year old son was missing. She began an exhaustive search and, after five months, the L.A.P.D. reported that her son had been found. Eager to get some good press for once, the police arrange a sprawling media event where mother and son are reunited. Mrs. Collins is overjoyed to participate. Or at least she is until she sees the boy the police insist is her son.

 

Dazed and confused, she takes the boy in but never stops pushing the authorities to find her son. For her mother’s love she is forced to submit to examinations by doctors brought in by the police to help maintain their story, and then slandered as delusional and unfit. She finds a powerful ally in community activist Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich), but she has the entire political power structure of the city of Los Angeles against her. And they are determined to have their way.

This would all seem like some outlandish movie-of-the-week made for the Lifetime channel if it were not for the fact that it actually happened. Knowing one is watching a true story, “Changeling” becomes an incredibly relentless experience. It is not fast-paced, but it is overwhelmingly intense. One simply can not take their eyes off the screen.

 

Or, for that matter, off Ms. Jolie. There is nothing wrong with an actress taking food-on-the-table jobs like the mindless “Tomb Raider” movies, or fun but silly romps such as “Wanted.” But, those are not the kinds of films that earn you Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild Awards, or Oscars. “Changeling” is. Jolie proves once again that she is one of our most outstanding actresses by delivering one of the most electrifying performances in ages.

But then, she is in good company. There are no bad performances in the film, to say the least, and if Jason Butler Harner doesn’t garner a best supporting actor nod, then L.A. has not learned a thing about justice since Christine Collins was first brutalized by their police.

 

In short, there is simply nothing one can honestly do but praise this film. The recreation of the Los Angeles of eighty years ago is overwhelmingly convincing. The costuming, the attention to every tiny detail from what should be on the radio to the automobiles in the streets–everything is perfect.

 

This is a powerful film with a strong message. It is brutally frank, unforgiving, and the players unleash honest human emotion at a pace which is certain to make many audience members squirm. Give the credit to them, or perhaps to screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski (“The Twilight Zone,” “Babylon 5″), but be ready for a dark ride.

 

And, do consider seeing this one in the theater. Eastwood certainly does make good use of the big screen in almost every scene, but I make this recommendation for a different reason. Good box office is the only thing that gets studios in making a certain kind of picture. Myself, I think we need more films about brave and honest people inspiring those around them to fight back against corrupt politicians and their thugs.

 

What do you think?

 

Our final word: 5 stars out of 5.

 

Body of Lies

 

A Review By C.J. Henderson

 

If Warner Brothers newest release, “Body of Lies,” is any indication, this could be the best fall in years.

The story: Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) is one of the best men the CIA has, especially when they need someone to hit the streets in places where you can trust no one. Working with his superior, Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), who keeps tabs on his best man through cell phones and spy satellites, the two manage to keep the lid on things in some of the worst hot spots in the Middle East.

 

But, they now have a target no one seems to be able to find. A new terrorist leader has emerged, one who moves invisibly, who takes no credit on the world stage for his massive terror attacks. While Hoffman begins his most aggressive campaign ever, using his own people and even innocent bystanders as cannon fodder, Ferris begins to find himself trapped in a nightmare world from which he desperately wants to be released. The blood, the murder, and the lies are all becoming too much for him to bear. But, before he can get out, he has to figure out who he can trust, if any one at all.

 

“Body of Lies” is based on the novel by author David Ignatius, a veteran journalist who covered the CIA and Middle Eastern affairs for ten years for The Wall Street Journal. One of the film’s producers, Donald De Line told us: “David’s book is such a smart, well-crafted spy thriller about the kinds of people and levels of deception it takes to penetrate a country, a culture, and ultimately, the enemy. We really felt it had everything going for it in terms of a great movie plot.”

 

They were right. The two-hour plus film goes by as if it were an hour television drama. It is remarkably tense, especially considering the fact that there is not packed with endless action sequences. But, what is there is harsh, dirty and real. Of course, who should receive more of the credit for this intensity is hard to say.

 

First off, the adaptation of Ignatius’s book to a screenplay was handled by William Monahan. He not only wrote the script for the historical adventure, “Kingdom of Heaven,” but also for the picture that netted him his Oscar, “The Departed.” He is one of the best, and his work here just helps prove it.

 

     

However, as he did with “Kingdom,” Monahan was working here with director Ridley Scott, and as he proved with everything from “Alien” and “Thelma & Louise” to “Blade Runner” and “Gladiator,” this is a man who knows a little bit about directing.

If that was not enough for you, DiCaprio and Crowe are both at the top of their game. Fans of either performer will not be disappointed. There are plenty of great supporting people in the cast as well, but with space running out, I find myself forced to move on.

 

For one thing, mention has to be made of Alexander Witt’s breathtaking cinematography. Director of photography on such films as “Black Hawk Down,” “Gladiator,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl,” and a lot more, he has an unerring sense of camera placement, lighting and elevation which allow him to open up a scene, or render it overwhelmingly claustrophobic at will.

 

Also, if we are talking about this film’s driving intensity, then Marc Streitenfeld’s soundtrack has to be noted as well. If not for the customary idiot song to play over the end credits, it would be almost a shoe-in for an Oscar next year.

 

A lot could be said about the costumes, set designs, the locations, et cetera, but hopefully you get the idea. This is one powerful, intelligent, relentless film. It tells the truth about both sides and allows the audience to make their own judgments. I know the economy sucks, but if you have the time and the money, this one deserves to be seen on the big screen.

 

Equus

 

A Review by Elyse Trevers

There is something tantalizing about Broadway, so each year established movie stars are tempted to make their theater debuts. The celebrities do sell tickets and bring in audiences (Julia Roberts, Madonna,  Julianne Moore- this year Katie Holmes) but often their performances are less than stellar. This year Daniel Radcliffe of “Harry Potter” fame makes his Broadway debut in a revival of Peter Schaffer’s provocative “Equus.” 

 

However, young Radcliffe has chosen wisely and honed his craft. The play ran in London’s West End, receiving rave reviews before crossing the Atlantic. Not only is the part of Alan Strang a clear departure from his Harry Potter role, but he also plays opposite one of his movie colleagues. In the movies, Richard Griffiths plays Uncle Dursley, Harry’s disagreeable Muggles relative.  An award-winning actor who thrilled audiences most recently in his role as the Tony-award-winning professor in “The History Boys,” Griffiths portrays  Dr. Martin Dysart, the psychiatrist.

The disturbing play is based upon a story that Shaffer heard years ago about a boy who blinded several horses in their stable. In his script Alan Strang (Radcliffe) has developed an obsessive religious-like love for the horses, and one of them becomes a Christ-figure for him. The event is horrible and Alan’s behavior is bizarre.  His passion and zealousness is juxtaposed with the inertia of his therapist, Dr. Dysart. It is Dysart’s job to make Strang “normal” so he can function in the world.  Yet Dysart is going through his own conflicts and almost envies Strang’s passion. One must wonder if there’s any significance in the names Shaffer chose for his characters Dysart begins with the prefix Dys meaning faulty and Strang is too close to strange. 

The stage is set up like a hospital operating room with a viewing area, around which about 52 audience members sit and observe. (These are discounted seats because sometimes the actors’ back are towards them)  The actors move around four large rectangles to serve as chairs, beds or tables.  Unfortunately at one crucial time, Griffiths sat on his “chair” listening while Alan recalled what happened and he blocked the other two actors from our view.

 

The director Thea Sharrock brought back John Napier who designed the horses’ heads for the original show 30 year ago. The heads are aluminum tubes over leather helmets. The six well-toned male dancers also wear heavy metal high-heeled platform “shoes” several inches high so they tower over the other performers.  The dancers move about gracefully dangerously and equinelike;  they twitch, kick and lurch.  When Alan “blinds” them, the scene is troubling and painful . With the sound effects and the stylized movements, the audiences can see the horror as it occurs and the agony that the horses are in.

 

The story is troubling but the performances are excellent.  The play was presented originally 35 years ago but there’s no sense that the play is dated. (Except now perhaps animal activists would have been calling for harsher punishment for Alan.)  It is the interactions of Hesther Saloman (Kate Mulgrew) who brings Strang to the doctor. She also works as Dysart’s sounding board.  Mulgrew as always is larger than life with her enunciations of words and her boundless energy. 

 

Griffiths, a large man, makes acting look incredibly easy. He is avuncular and wise and yet manages to convey his conflicted state.  You realize how wonderful Griffiths is when you compare him to other characters he plays.  Radcliffe and Griffiths move well together, like partners on a doubles tennis team.   Griffiths is so comfortable on stage,  but Radcliffe’s character is an awkward angry teen, a tormented lonely boy who has superimposed a deity on a horse.  His voice is raspy-his singing of TV ads a bit atonal, and Radcliffe makes him entirely credible.

Acting is risky. Baring your soul for all to critique takes nerve.  Baring your body is an even greater risk. Ironically,  although Radcliffe is naked in the second (as is his co-star Anna Camp) his nudity is a natural part of the story. Most of the time the stage is shrouded by the ever-present fog and smog machine, so their nakedness is barely noticeable.   Sadly, the nudity might  preclude legions of  Radcliffe’s  teenage fans from attending. Over the last years, Harry Potter has grown up on the screen.  Daniel Radcliffe’s performance in Equus shows that he’s grown up as a actor.