NBC's Peter Pan Live Review!

   I have mixed feelings about the ABC Live Musicals. (Please take note, I have not seen its Sound of Music). On one hand, they are getting musicals back into mainstream culture, sparkling an interest in musicals into the next generation, and giving families something fun to watch on television together. But on the other hand, from what I have heard about from the Sound of Music live…They can be pretty overblown copies that add “cool” millennial crap.
  Enter Peter Pan Live.
 

  Though I was extremely skeptical at first about it,  it is surprisingly better than I thought. It has its problems, oh yes it does, but there is charm and entertainment, as well as actual effort. There is a pretty decent cast with all of the right acting, singing, and dancing chops. Leave all Heterosexuality you had at the door and enjoy it.
  Allison Williams presents Peter rather than becomes him. I never believed she was Pan, but she had the right look and movements, and her singing voice is surprisingly beautiful and the one moment I believed her was Tinkbell’s almost death. Wendy was also quite “stagey” believable rather than screen believable. If this had been done onstage, it would be considered a better performance, but this is on a screen instead. Depite this, her overdone dreaminess was oddly suitable and good night, her singing, as warbly as it can be, is beautiful. Tiger Lily, though a small character, is also very talented with her dancing and acting (and played by an actual Native American, with people of color playing her Indian tribe, and a Native American cultural expert among the crew to boot!). Celia Keenan-Bolger was a beautiful Mrs. Darling and had one of the most beautiful singing voices I have heard in a long, long time. Christian Borle made a pretty good Mr.Darling/Smee as well (what Peter Pan has Smee so young and muscular?!)
   The ensemble cast is very charming. Though it is extremely noticeable that half of the lost boys are Newsies in both their choreography and lline delivery, it somewhat fits. Yes, you can see that they are far past the age of little boyhood, but just something about them is funny and sweet. They act very much like little boys, and you can leave it up to your own interpretation what it says about young adult men singing about not wanting to grow up and wanting a mother while stroking phallic looking trees.
   

  The dancing is incredible. Since Neverland is a paradise of youth, the choreography grabs this chance and uses all sorts of athletic and acrobatic kicks and flips celebrating that youth and energy. The pirates are hilarious. Every time I see them on screen (onstage?) they crack me up. Alright, time to be honest, I was not a huge fan of Cristopher Walken as Captain Hook. Looking at this performance, not keeping Walken’s persona in Hollywood as the awkward, funny alien man in mind, he was not into it. I guess part of the humor is that he is not into it, but doesn’t really care what you think of him. But, Captain Hook should be a really over-the-top, comic villain. There was so much he could do with it, and although his dancing was right on the money, his weird deliveries and blank face just did not seem right, especially in an ensemble full of over-the-top pirates. I am sorry, I understand that he is considered one of the most “badass” men around, but, watching this one show, I just don’t get it. However, I did enjoy him throughout the last 40 minutes of the show. He was at his least awkard and showed some actual investment in his character. In fact, though the climax drags, it is still a fun climax (props to involving Tiger Lily and Wendy in the fighting too!)
    Neverland itself is unique. Although most interpretations emphasize it as an island, this one makes it look bright, colorful, and downright surreal to emphasize it as a magical place. I don’t think I have ever seen a Neverland look quite like it, with bright pinks and blues. It made Neverland more magical and childlike than other versions, and it works. It is supposed to be this magical, wonderful place where you never grow up or have to face the many pressures and responsibilities of adulthood, and this looks like what it should be rather than some hot, dirty island. 
 

 
   The songs are okay by themselves, but here are well performed. Though there are a few that are just right. There are your more childlike, up tempo songs that are fun and playful, “I’m Flying”, “I Won’t Grow up” and “Wendy.” But what was really done well in this production were the slower, beautiful ballads. Those being “Neverland”, and “Distant Melody”. They were soft, powerful in their own way, and with beautiful melodies, gorgeous singing, and the right amount of emotion, my ears wept happy tears of joy. My only problem with “Distant Melody” is that, although sung exquisitely, it makes less sense for Wendy to sing it as opposed to Peter, since it is made clear she can still remember her home. The whole subplot of the children forgetting about home could have been explained a lot more, but this chance was thrown away.
    Despite this, the writing was highly suitable as an adaption for the televised production. The songs fit right when they needed to, and it added the right balance of fun adventure and quiet wonder, even with the plays original dialogue, which ranges from stiff and awkward to memorable and strangely poetic. The ending of this version, is at first incredibly dark. Most versions end with the boys being adopted and Wendy looking out the window with the promise of Peters return. However, in this version it is expanded. It faces the  reality of growing up, and that once one is grown up, though they will always keep the memory, legends, and wonder of Neverland they can never return. Though, a new generation will be born, and that generation will experience the wonder and adventure until they grow up, and get to visit Neverland and have adventures all over again. 
     Despite the many flaws of this production, the natural charm of the original tale is everywhere, and told with actual effort. As long as people still love the story of Peter Pan, it will be treasured generation after generation. This telling, though it may be temporary and fade with a new movie or book adaption, will be no exception.
    

Oliver! (1968) Film Review

   People of the internet, welcome to Dickensworld!
    Dickensworld is a magical, fascinating place. You will find yourself in England, especially in London, from the period of 1820-1865. Be sure to take note that all the poor people are poor because they have visible rags, dirt all over their face, are super skinny, and have big, puppy dog eyes, cementing every Conservative’s idea of what a poor person looks like. This social commentary will be almost everywhere. It’s filled with interesting characters weather they are pure, sweet angels, eccentrics, or Lucifer incarnate. Oh, and keep an eye out on that one old guy, he is probably your long lost grandfather/dad/uncle/brother/cousin/whatever.
    Dickens is a goldmine for entertainment. So naturally, his works have been adapted into various forms. As for Musical Theatre adaptations, the most famous and done one is Oliver, and this Film adaptation of that show is very well known, and won several Academy Awards, including Best Picture (!). It is also the strongest Musical Theatre piece out of the very small handful, though Oliver! still has its issues.
 

    Let’s begin with the performances. Though the characters are not especially complex, and the performances can be a little theatrical at times (I’m looking at you, Nancy, Dodger, and especialy Bumble), they are for the most part, quite believable and enjoyable. The kids especially seem like actual kids. It would be easy for Oliver to be played off as the Tiny Tim innocent, but he manages to play it like an actual kid and not a complete goody two-shoes angel. In fact, Mark Lester even adds a pinch of brave, almost stupid spunk to the role. His Oliver is just a nice kid who has had many bad things happen to him and just wants not only survival, but happiness. However, the singing dub sounds too pure, too sweet, and too different from the actual Oliver. According to IMDB, Mark Lester was tone deaf so they had someone else do it, the music arranger’s daughter! But they didn't manage to get someone who could sing it with a more believable sound, or even a boy. As a result, the voice is incredibly distracting from the performance.
    The best performer is definitely Bill Sykes. Again, he is a simple character and it would be easy to go really over the top with his character, but Oliver Reed’s performance is more quiet, and menacing. The Director made the wise choice of cutting his song out, so as a result, he remains more mysterious, making him less connected to the audience, and therefore, more threatening. Though some of his lines are said in a strange way (“you avaricious.old.skeleton.”), he manages to pull off such a level of power with his minimalist body movement and delivery that it will make you gasp out loud when Oliver braves up to hit him right in the face. In fact, you think it’s a miracle he does not strangle Oliver and just intends to spank him! As for Fagin, it can be hard to play this character. Since he is a Jewish person (in fact, the original book refers to him as “The Jew” way more than “Fagin”) and it can be easy (especially with some of the musical choices surrounding him) to make him an uncomfortable stereotype. But Ron Moody makes Fagin likable and they even give him a few more rounded characteristics, a sense of humor, an entertaining physicality, and a constant internal conflict so, in song of course, he can justify his own actions. They make him a likable and important character. He is less of a “villain” and more of a comic supporting character whose worst crime is some thievery and mischief and may just so happen to be Jewish.
    The film is aware that it is a film and takes advantage of it. The size and scale is huge. London is huge. You will be amazed at the films scope. It is aware not only of the musical, but of the original book and makes the needed cuts and extra bits necessary. So we see they trail, but no over complicated sub plots or dopey eyed, perfect ingénues. This makes sense considering that London at this period was the biggest city in the world, and that our hopeful protagonist makes his way there to be plunged into this ocean of pure life and stand in awe of the amount of life in this historically large city. The Camera choices were all quite adequate to the needs of each scene as well. Though it wasn't as good or groundbreaking as it was in other film musicals like Cabaret, it is pretty darn good. It scoop away to show the big dance numbers, it cuts to birds flying to get a sense of Oliver’s thoughts when he sings about being a bird in flight, it zooms in on some detail we have to catch, and so forth. The Director also chooses not to prettify the story in its look or content, and this is a dark story with many dark elements, especially in the second act. In fact, the dark moments are so dark they overpower the more lighthearted moments of the second act. But you can’t make this story too light either, because then that would actually be pretty insulting to the story’s intent. Though it is a classic musical, like Fiddler and West Side Story there is a much appreciated edge.
 

    The dancing is of course, fun to watch, though nothing too groundbreaking, using acrobatic kicks for the young pickpockets; making their thievery a kind of dance during “You've Got to pick a Pocket”, and having them be a pretend carriage during “I’d do Anything.” The production numbers has people on the street run around and do big, grand, sweeping motions. But the music- the music is as catchy as heck. It can range from diddles (“Reviewing the Situation”), to folkish ballads and dances (“Who Will Buy” and “Oom-pah-pah”), to big ensemble numbers (“Consider Yourself”). But though the music and lyrics are childish at points (I’m looking at you, “Oliver”, but at least you introduce our protagonist), it will be in your head forever. But unlike some other catchy songs out there, you won’t mind at all. However, its second most famous song, “As Long as He Needs Me”, is pretty disturbing in context. It is a good song, and it shows off the belt of Shani Wallace’s Nancy very well, but it basically a ballad glorifying staying in an abusive relationship as something brave, noble, and romantic. Maybe if they placed it earlier and not right after Bill Sykes physically slaps Nancy into doing something for him, it would be less uncomfortable, especially if you know how it ends (I won’t spoil this, but here’s a hint: not well. Please don’t show this musical to your eight year old).
 

    There are a good amount of holes in the film, too. Although it adapts well into the format of film, it does not take the advantage to expand or give any more needed information. So as a result, Nancy and Bill’s relationship is one sided. It is the typical one where the female says “Oh, I will love you and follow you to the ends of the world!” and they guy just goes “Whatever.” Also, Nancy is under the “Bring Him Home” syndrome in that she is oddly devoted to Oliver after barely even talking to him. Does he remind her of a relative or a friend? Is she just an insanely caring person? If so, then why isn't she as devoted to the other pickpockets? Additionally, the ending, after one suspenseful climax, is pretty rushed, and, not to spoil anything, there are some predictable Dickenesque tropes in here as well.
    Oliver! is a turkey. There are parts of it that are overcooked, skimpy, too light or even a little too dark, but there are some juicy, enjoyable bites to eat too. It is an interesting, exciting story (which is why it is still being read, staged, and adapted to this day), the characters are memorable and the performances are enjoyable and believable, it is faithful to both the musical and the original book, the dancing is fun, the music is memorable, and though it is a classic, there is a much appreciated darker side. If that is what you like in a film or musical, go check it out and see if for yourself.
   

Halloween Movies Overview!

   Hello darling readers! I have been a-busy, but there is a reason- in my free time, each Halloween season, I sit on my butt and pop in a disk that will bring me the spooks minus the risk And this year, thanks to some recommendations, I have explored new cinema sensations Along with the traditional, spooktacular flicks That will gladly appeal to both dudes and chicks. The rest of the reviews will not be in rhyme, So I will not waste any more of your time, Here was what I thought of these cinematic feats And see which one were tricks, and which ones were treats.
 

     ParaNorman: Now I remember that when I first watched the previews for this movie, among the people around me making Sixth Sense jokes, I was groaning. ‘Oh gah’, I thought, ‘All of the characters seem flat and tied, there’s going to be a bunch of weird jokes that all the kids are going to quote because they play them ten thousand times in the commercials and someone in the movie is going to make some horrible pun about ‘Normalness’ with Normans name in it and uggggg.’ But as it turns out, I was wrong, for the most part. The one thing I got right about it was that most of the characters (except our hero and our main antagonists) are cardboard stereotypes that are so overdone, especially in kids films, that they are downright painful to watch: the bully and the sister especially. They eventually change their ways, in fact, there is a small twist about one character revealed at the very end that I really enjoyed (though, of course, I won’t give it away, if you have seen the film, you know what I’m talking about). The first half is smothered in those clichés, but the second half takes an interesting turn. I can’t give it away, again, but it gives a new light on the themes the movie presents when you thought it was going to say something generic and simplistic. The character design is pretty original and appropriate for each one and the animation is pretty great to watch. You don’t see too much non CGI Animated films nowadays, so whenever one comes around, I have to admire all the effort that goes into them. Final Verdict: please stomach the first half, the second half will apologize for everything.

 
    The Cabin in the Woods: Now whenever I think of Dark Humor, I will think of this film. Oh heavens, where to begin. Like the earlier films, I cannot say too much on purpose. There is a very bizarre, interesting, and funny twist. Although the very beginning plot line is mostly clichéd, the actors pull them off well and the clichés serve a purpose other than just existing. And let’s just say, as weird a twist it is, it is executed perfectly. This is both a satire and love letter to Horror films, like how The Princess Bride was both a satire and love letter to fairy tales. The acting is decent, the cinematography and imagery match everything up, and, plus, that fantastic reveal that is too good to even talk about in front of those who haven’t and will have you either screaming or laughing until your mouth hurts. With that in mind, if you love dark humor, horror movies, or bizarre, weird, funny movies, or all three, by all means, see it!

 
   Hocus Pocus: Now, I am going to be completely honest with you guys. A majority of this movies charm comes from the Nostalgia factor and watching it with people who love this movie to death. I don’t enjoy it as much watching it as an adult alone with no huge fans of the film with me (in fact, I never watched it when I was little because the first scene always terrified the crap out of me). Originally this was going to be a Disney Channel movie and hooooooooooooooo boy, does it show (minus all the risqué jokes about virginity and devil worship). The plot is very predictable, and although there are stakes, and about halfway through the second act, it feels slow and has lost its charm. The biggest reason to watch it are the three witches, and they always look like they are having a ball at doing what they do, and every now and then, they get a good line or joke. Other than the little sister and probably the cat, none of the characters are that interesting to watch. This is a sandwhich, a ham and grilled cheese sandwich. If you like it, fine, but if you don’t, I completely understand why. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go look for a tunnel to hide from the angry mob of fans outside my window ready to destroy me
.

   Coraline: As reported from the smelly, wet darkness of this convenient hiding tunnel, this movie I adore. The characters are wonderful without being tropes. Everyone has a unique look, and personality, along with eccentric good and bad qualities, like real people. The imagery is equally creepy and whimsical when it needs to be, balancing the two elements of the story perfectly. The animation, again, is great to watch. And you find yourself completely captivated. The designs are great to watch, befitting each character to a T. The music is amazing ranging from circus pomp to soft, child llike nonsense syllables, to haunting hums garenteed to send chills up your spine. This is actually one of those rare cases where I prefer the film adaption over the original book, please treat yo’self this Hallows Eve, and GO WATCH IT!

 
   Hotel Translyvania: Now, like ParaNorman, when I first saw the trailers for this, I was skeptical, and again I turned out to only be right to a degree. On one hand, it is full of a celebeties with basic designs playing a five year olds idea of what iconic movie monsters are and telling fart, butt, and anti-Twilight jokes that are garunteed to have kids laughing and adults eye-rolling while having a very dated pop and “tweeny” song at the very end. But on the other hand, each voice actor does a good job and portrays unique, funny characters. There are some jokes that work better than others- I found myself laughing within the first four minutes! What are especially smart are the smaller jokes that find some way of repeating themselves later in the film. There are also some more dramatic moments that, although sometimes rushed too soon to end with having some ridiculous joke right after the reveal at the location of the more dramatic scene, are done well. The animation is wonderful to watch, just like the actors, it is quick and stuffed with comedic timing, you will probably want to freeze frame this bit-by-bit to get all of the humor in the movement, but it’s a ball to watch. Although dated, and a bit too much for the kids, it’s a funny, entertaining film that knows how to balance drama with high-energy comedy, and if you want to, go ahead, and watch!
 HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

The Problem with the Princess Problem

   There are several requirements one must fulfill in order to consider themselves fans of Disney. These may range from simply picking a favorite movie or song to creating a lake of tears whenever a commercial for Disneyworld comes on TV. But lately, in the past ten years, one more requirement has popped up: One must memorize and pick a favorite among the official line of princesses. Ever since it began in the early 1990’s, the Disney Princess Lineup has been the most successful series of merchandise the Disney Company has produced. Walk into any Kroger or Wal-Mart and before you know it, you will see not only toys and clothes but Birthday Cards, School supplies, cups, books and many more products with the faces of either Cinderella, Ariel, or Rapunzel on it. This Cash Cow has and is continuing to milk out millions. And there is a reason. Disney has an understanding of what appeals to young girls and boys (yes, Princess Boys exist, and they have every right to be acknowledged as part of the fandom in this article) about Princesses. But, as you may have heard, there has also been a lot of backlash and criticism. People cry that the slender, big-eyed beauties of Disney are teaching their daughters in particular that the only important thing in the world is to be pretty, do nothing and have material goods-a man included in the package. (Yet no one questions if superheroes are teaching little boys and girls that violence solves all conflicts)  
   Well, it’s not that exactly.
    Don’t get me wrong. There are problems in the lineup. Telling the stories with the focus being on artificial re-tellings of the “love stories” and the tendency to downplay the good qualities of the actual ladies of Disney where the focus is getting a man does not work. Yes, one of the good things about Adulthood that little kids see and can look forward to is romance, but boys media does not emphasize this as much as the ones for girls. The looks of some of the princesses in the product section comparing them to the original films (dare I mention Jasmine and Merida?) are horrible from overabundant lipstick on the lips to lightening of skin tone. It would be nice to see not only princesses of various colors, but also of various sizes and even disabled princesses! Sometimes the critics are right about some princesses being not as progressive or well written most likely because the movies they appear in were produced in times when women’s roles in society were very limited (cough, cough, Aurora).
    And that’s it, those are all the problems I have with the Disney Princess Market.
    I know some people complain because the lineup is full of pink, cute stuff, and sparkles. Grow up. The line is intended for little kids, of course there is going to be ickle cutesy stuff. Let them have all of the cutesy ickle stuff they want. Some people who bring their daughters (and maybe sons) to Disneyland and allow them to experience the "princess makeover" at the Bippiti Bopptiti Boutique are offended at the end when each one, after being made up into a princess, must take a vow to always be kind- hearted and gentle. They take offense because when the kids grow up from Disneyworld and enter Adultworld, being kind-hearted and gentle will not help them with their future career.
    Because when I go to Disneyworld, do you know whats on my mind? The future career of me or my children, duh!
    If the Princess Lineup is so horrible and evil, then how come every single girl (since this problem concerns young girls, mostly. But it could concern boys too) who watches it and enjoys it grows up to be the brainless, makeup buried housewife that some people claim the company is trying to transform young girls into? Because the lineup is more than just pretty girls in pretty dresses getting the man.      The princesses have evolved over time and Disney has been aware of the problems that its princess lineup brought up. Look at the Princess media from 2003 and compare it with the more recent “I am a Princess” video Disney released and you will see they are working to fix this.
   That being said, the girls may remember aesthetic beauty more than plainness. The human brain is wired to prefer and take pleasure in whatever our culture deems as beautiful. But those with fonder memories of princesses when they were little won’t recall that the center-they recall the characters, the films, and the stories. That there was one or more than one they could relate to. Yes, some girls went away with the feeling that they were never as worthy (i.e. pretty) as they (the princesses). But there are other things to take away from them.
   I guess you can look at the Disney Princesses and see a bunch of size .5, 14-21 year old ladies in poofy dresses who are all about finding princes and looking good while doing it. Perhaps we, the audience taking this in, can twist the medium to fit our own meaning and see something very good. Because if you are a size .5, 14-21 year old woman who likes poofy dresses and would like to have a man and would like to appear nice, does this mean you do not matter as a human being? Watch the movies with your brain turned on and see the individual characters they are. Each one teaches a different lesson.
   There is Snow White, who remains a good person despite all of the horrible things that happens to her and even takes on the role of a mother to the dwarves and teaches them about responsibility. Mothers are hard working and responsible women who work constantly and don't get paid for it!
   Cinderella (which was Disneys favorite fairy tale, by the way!) has even worse things happening to her but still remains a good person and as far from bitter as possible and does not do "nothing" the entirety of the movie-she spends the entire movie doing sometihng! She did not really care for winning the prince (at first), she just wanted a night off to enjoy herself and a pretty dress.       
    Although arguably the least progressive of the princesses, Aurora has her good qualities to share. She has one of the best designs and voices out of all the princesses in my opinion. She has shows things that many teenagers and young adults can relate to: the want to rebel, a sense of loneliness, and a desire for romance and meaning relationships. She is kindhearted, playful, gently teasing, and a dreamer. She has an interesting story line of being raised in the woods with fairies kept ignorant of being a princess. Besides, for us women, if you have explored all of your options you have in this world and you decide that what brings you most satisfaction, fulfillment, and happiness is being a stay-at-home wife and mom- then by all means, do so and feel no shame!
   Ariel saves the princes life twice and was the first real proactive princess. She had an interest in the human world long before she met Eric, he being the mere match thrown into the pile of wood setting aflame her desire for legs. She gets out of the house, she explores, she has adventures, and when she wants something, she will go out and get it herself instead of waiting for someone to give it to her.
   Belle is a book nerd who is marches to the beat of her own drum, see’s people for who they are rather than their status, or looks, does NOT have Stockholm Syndrome or Bestiality issues (her relationship with the Beast was based on friendship and then love, not sex), leaves the castle whenever she can and wants to, manages to be kind without being a doormat and doesn't take a hint of crap from anyone and breaks the spell, resolving the movies main conflict.
    Jasmine is the first princess of color. She is a sass machine who also doesn't take crap from anyone and is determined to begin a life of her own and make her own choices despite rigid traditions surrounding her life
 

   I don’t think I need to describe the good points of Mulan (though she is definitely not the only “good” princess for little kids. And just because a girl or woman likes traditional feminine things like make-up, and clothes and is not a “Mulan” does not mean she is not intelligent, courageous, independent, proactive, or any other words that define women as “strong”).
   Pocahontas is not only Native American and the most womanly of the princesses. She is also wise, mature while still being playful, heroic, true to herself and (guess what!) saves the guy.
   The lovely Tiana is not only the first African American Princess, but is also ambitious and extremely hard working. She is determined to get a career doing what she loves even though she lives in a time where it was considered normal that African Americans, and women were treated with a lot of disrespect. And if that means working night and day to her bones, she will do it. Even when she is turned into a frog, that still does not stop her from attaining her goal. She also knocks sense into her prince, and defeats the bad guy.
 
    Merida is very similar to Mulan, takes a proactive role but is still human and flawed. She is filled with faults instead of being a perfect “badass” female, learns to fix her mistakes and learns how to use peace and logic as a future ruler.
 
  Rapunzel is an artist who has been taught all of her life she was weak and helpless. Her story arc is about gaining confidence in herself and learning to see herself as strong. She learns how to live her own life and gains independence in addition to being quirky, funny, and sweet.  '
   Anna is a klutz who loves with all her heart, goes out and gets stuff done, while still being very much a real teenage girl. She is also funny and friendly.
 
   Elsa is an introvert who we actually see get to be crowned queen (without marrying!). She felt that her powers were something to be ashamed of, but learns to love herself and use them as a force for good in the world.
 
   This is what the intelligent area of the Disney Princess fan base sees. Or at least how I see them. But if you watch the movies and see any one of them who are not Mulan, Merida, Anna, or Elsa as wimpy Damsels and you cannot be convinced otherwise, that’s okay too. When you talk to little girls (or boys) who love Disney Princesses about them, they might mention beauty or clothes, but they also will mention character and stories. They identify with one or more favorites. More often, their diverse messages overpower the subtext of “you need a man and a killer body with the perfect dress in order to feel whole.” So let the Disney line produce as many “Prince and Me on our Wedding Day” stickers and coloring books as it can publish. Let them look at the Princesses, but allow the people who they are targeting their products to acknowledge not only the outer beauty of the women shown, but the inner. And if those kids think the only thing good about the princesses are that they are pretty and wish they were like them, thinking that physical aesthetics equals a person’s worth, then it’s time to have a talk.

Musical Reveiw- The Book Of Mormon (1st National Tour)

    Let’s face the truth. Religion is a touchy subject. So touchy, that dare sort of medium discusses or uses it, there will be hate letters and hate mail streaming through the creators mailboxes and computers. Even Godspell as harmless as it seemed was criticized for portraying Jesus as a clown. So what happens when Trey Parker and Matt Stone, the writers of a notoriously offensive, but surprisingly thoughtful and extremely well-written cartoon series make a musical discussing religion, using The Church of Latter Day Saints as its focus?
    One freaking good time, that’s what happens.
    I have seen The Book of Mormon tour as it came to the city nearest to me. I can state, without a doubt, it is the funniest musical I have ever seen, so far. Do the laughs come from jokes that are more than a bit crude? Yes, you bet. But to quote Transformers, there is more to this show than meets the eye. The 2011 Tony Award for Best Musical was not carelessly given here. Any show under the right director, cast, and crew can flourish in its own way. But it is ultimately up to the writer to make something dazzling and memorable.
   This particular tour, directed by both Casey Nicholaw and Trey Parker fulfills this standard and more. Each member of the cast holds the ability to create their own unique character and immerse themselves in their interpretation. If that interpretation appears to be one-sided at first, as the show goes on, each major character has their own complexity and uniqueness. Mark Evan’s Elder Price at first is played too much like a straight, classically voice trained, pretty boy to carry the weight of the shows comedy that lies in its center. But there is a great irony in this steel faced beauty. His character is supposed to be the perfect, golden Mormon boy. So when he speaks and sings these ridiculous things with a calm enthusiasm, his characterization becomes more fitting. The nerdy sidekick-turned-hero, Elder Cunningham played by Christopher John O’Neil is Beauty and The Beasts Lefou incarnate. He made strong physical choices, and was able to be annoying but also likeable and sympathetic. Alexandra Ncube’s performance as Nabulubgi was quite believable but when she sang the reprise of Hasa Diga Eebowai after Elder Cunningham’s betrayal of her, not a single heart in the house was left unbroken.
   The first of the two strongest players in this touring cast is Grey Henson. His Elder Mckinely is a Mormon Missionary who is so gay that it is a miracle rainbows and hearts don’t shoot off from the tips of his toenails yet is forced to suppress it due to his duty to his religion and to gladly does so (or so it seems). His comedy, dancing, and especially his physicality-moving, standing, gestures-were a perfect bullseye. Corey Jones biography is full of very serious classical plays, so naturally he was able to pull off General Butt-Fucking Naked-yes, that is his name- as the intimidating Antagonist, but he definitely adds a swirl of humor to the role as well.
   Even the set was amazing to watch and effectively used. From the outline of the stage mimicking the Mormon Tabernacle to the huts of the village to the small missionary center, the shows life was recreated in creative and believable ways via the set. But it was not too huge and blocky that getting them out of the way for the next scene seemed too much of a challenge. You know a show has to be good when I am praising the set changes.
  But enough wasting time on set changes-the musical numbers and comedy, as stated before, are the heart and soul of The Book of Mormon. It’s loaded with fun, catchy music and a lot of cool choreography-ranging from the perky tapping of the Mormons to the flexible, leveled Modern of the African Villagers. Music and Dance is just plain fun. Everyone at this point knows about the cheerful opening number “Hello” and the big shocker song “Hasa Diga Eebowai” the shows two funniest numbers are “Turn it off” and especially “Spooky Mormon Hell Dream.” Although the staging is  a joy to watch, the fastest and funniest staging is during these two key songs and the talents of the people behind it are the most shown off. The cleverness of the choreography, the actor’s talent, and the writings humor all combined with two hilarious songs-one about emotional suppression and the other about purgatorial guilt dreams- are a feast for the eyes and ears. There was more to listen to and especially watch for than was possible.
  The Book of Mormon is quite close to a perfect Musical Comedy, but not exactly on the mark. Reading the beginning of this review and given the shows reputation, you can probably guess why. The Musical not only has a crude sense of humor, but to add to its danger, it is also about religion. Jesus at one point appears and bursts out the word “dick”, the song. “Baptize Me” is extremely uncomfortable, maybe even more uncomfortable than "Hasa." Brutal truths questioning the Mormon faith are spoken, and there are f-bombs aplenty. Any Audience member walking into the show and not knowing it was written by the South Park guys are bound to be startled.
   But in my opinion, the bawdiness serves for a larger reason than just two writer’s trademark.
   The Mormons themselves have grown up with an idealized vision of how the world should be-as symbolized by Orlando and even the mentioning of Disney’s The Lion King upon learning the mission location is in Africa. They know that this world could be turned into their own paradise if they have faith and obey the requirements for all Mormons-including Missionary work. They push off any distractions and religiously inappropriate thoughts and actions into the appropriate. Note that the Mormons, for example, take great lengths not to swear (“That’s Bullpoop.” “O.M.Gosh”). They also have unrealistic expectations for the rest of the world and its function as well (“You mission location is France!” “France! Land of Pastries and turtlenecks!”). The Vulgarity, first spewed from the Africans they attempt to convert to the church, represents this brutal reality. Putting every ounce on religion as a cure-all for each problem they face turns out to be unwise, especially when there are plenty of very frightening and very real dangers about the world as well as more practical needs to be fixed or even worse downright ignoring or denying it, the Mormon Missionaries don’t bring food or medicine to the ill, starving village, they are just concerned about increasing their numbers!
  The Book of Mormon is a loss of innocence and growing up story. Our Main Missionaries must come to terms with a world crueler than what their religion prepared them for and adapt while still keeping faith in their bizarre beliefs.
   Is this interpretation right? Is this message what the writers were going for? Perhaps, but also perhaps not. After all, any piece of art-be it Van Gogh to Stanley Kubrick to The Beatles- is ultimately up to the audience for interpretation.
  The Book of Mormon is definitely not for the squeamish and those fonder of soap-laden mouths as a punishment for even saying “OMG.” But if you are like me and you can stomach the South Park styled vulgarity, you will behold an all-you-can-eat buffet of hilarity with a smart brain and a big heart. It is a beyond wonderful show, but only if you are ready for it.

Top 5 Characters I like yet everyone else hates

   We all have our fandoms.
   We all have those certain books we can’t stop talking about, those movies and TV shows we can’t stop re-watching, those video games we can’t stop re-playing, and those musicals that whenever the tour comes to town, we watch them again and again. We have all found escape into either an adventure or experience, whether it be in our modern-day world or a completely different place and time. Thanks to writers and directors, there are conflicts that get our hearts racing and more often than not, there are universal truths where we learn more about ourselves, others, and the world we live in. Most of all, these stories are driven by characters whom we come to love and talk about as if they are present and among us.
   But chances are, if you are like me, you have run into a fellow fan who possesses a completely different interpretation and/or opinion of the material than you do. Some fans do not even dwell too deeply or realistically over the issues surrounding them. For me, the issues were characters which a large amount of fans threw their hatreds towards, and yet I could not bring myself to cast a single stone. Sometimes this was misinterpretation, not enough development, a lack of empathy and understanding from the fans, or another, more popular, character who contrasts, loses something to or even outright says bullcrap about, the targeted character and the devoted fans, under the dictation of someone who doesn’t exist, declare WWIII on this character. These characters below I cannot bring myself to hate. I know and understand why other people hate this character, but there are numerous holes and facts that need to be restated and discussed under a more down-to-earth viewpoint. Therefore, I will defend these characters-without shame.
   Before the article begins, I would like to make a few things clear. First, if a character you hate happens to be on this list, it’s perfectly fine. Everyone is free to their own opinions and interpretations. I won’t despise you for disagreeing with me, but listen to me own points and then decide for yourselves weather or not you agree and think about your own choice. Second, with the exceptions of numbers five and one, these are not on my list of “favorite characters of all time.” These are just a bunch of characters who get more backbiting hatred then I think they deserve. Third, I have also noticed that most of these characters are hated due to the other character contrasting or spewing words of loathing on them and a lot of fans hate them because of some comparison between the two. I will attempt to avoid comparison as much as possible because to analyze one character by comparing him or her to another seems totally unfair. Fourth, while writing, I am going to assume you have watched the films, read the books, seen the shows on stage or screen, and know what they are about (if you don’t, look them up). I may bring up spoilers to those who have not. If you are not one of those people who have read or watched one of these things and hope to do so soon, you have been warned. I only wish to state my reasons of disagreement. My article, my rules. Well, I’m still going to get death threats, but here goes nothing!
  #5- Briony Tallis- Atonement

  Briony, let’s all keep in mind, was thirteen years old at the beginning of the main story. Remember when you were thirteen years old? Remember how wise, and sophisticated you were at that age? Remember how you always made the right decision and understood everything under the sun being merely having three and ten years under your belt? Odds are, you don’t. I’, not saying that all thirteen year olds are completely stupid, but their minds still have plenty of room to develop into mature cognitive thought processing and Briony believes she has that (as do many thirteen year olds) when in fact, she really doesn’t. Not only is she very young, she is very imaginative- living in a world of stories and fairy tales with fair princesses, noble knights, and magic to solve every problem. She understands the concepts of gray despite living partially in such a black and white world, but is still kept very, very innocent. The plot of Atonement for her is the loss of that innocence witnessing the growing love of her sister and the young gardener she has a crush on to the point where she catches them having sex without even knowing about sex or sexual relationships. The thirties kept their media very free of sexual references so it would make sense that Briony would not know about any of this. Only instead of “the talk” she actually witnesses the act; can you imagine how shocking that would be for a young person to witness this without any explanation? Naturally, it would seem disturbing, evil, and threatening, and along with the letter and her cousin’s scar, she connects the “act of love” to the rape of the cousin. But already after she says so, Briony intuitively knows she is false. Years later, the retrieval cue of the Cumberbum at her cousin’s wedding reveals the rapist to be the groomsman, Willylock Wonkabatch, she gains the courage to return to her sister and the gardener turned soldier and tell the truth. Thus earning her long-delayed, well, atonement.
 #4- James Potter from Harry Potter
 
  Yes, yes, I know he was a school bully, I know he was a spoiled only child with a blown up head from athletic success, and yes, yes, I know about the students he hexed for the fun of it. James Potter is a perfect example of a character who is hated because another, more popular character – in this case, Snape- says bullcrap about him. They claim James forced Lily to marry him, thus stealing Lily from Snape’s “oh-he’s-so-misunderstood-and-just-need’s-love” arms. But Lily was not shown to be an idiot (she was, literally, female Jesus. Seriously, did she ever do a bad thing in her life? Was she even human?) . What did she see in James?
  Those who love Snape by default hate James to bits. If you ask them, why do they love Snape? Among many disturbing reasons, they say that “He’s flawed, but still has good qualities like any other human being! Oh I hate James Potter! He was nothing but an arrogant prick!”
   Let me remind you of a few things that are canon in the book.
   Who became the lonely Sirius Black’s best friend and even allowed him to live with his family when the rest of the Black’s threw him out? James Potter.
   Who took a huge risk to become an animagus himself so he could still be there for his werewolf friend, Remus Lupin, and financially helped him during times of unemployment due to that darn full moon? James Potter.
   Who, despite feelings of hatred, saved Snape from the Whomping Willow even though he could have allowed the tree to crush him? James,  
   Who realized at the age of sixteen that it was a bad idea to bully smaller, younger people who have no power and control over you and stopped it to become a full frown adult? James.
   Whose last act before death was entertaining little Harry with his wand? James.
   Who, when realizing the Dark Lord was coming to kill everyone in the house, he, unarmed, would distract Voldemort knowing it would kill him just so Lily and Harry could escape thus sacrificing his life for them? James Potter.
   As you can see, he’s still flawed, but has good qualities, like any other human being.
   However, what makes the worldwide hatred of James Potter so pitiful is that a lot of this information was not included in the film adaptations. So if you didn't read the books carefully enough, or even bothered to use the internet and ask, most of this you wouldn't know. One thing I especially hated was that in the last film, a lot of information was not even brought up and the whole flashback seemed very flat and even soap-opera like. James Potter, therefore, gets the hatred of more unread or even ignorant fans of Harry Potter.
 #3- Cosette from Les Miserables

   As much as I adore Les Miserables as a musical, I will say, there are some major problems with it. One of these problems being that the character of Cosette, a major contributor to the story, was very underdeveloped and underplayed in favor of Eponine, an interesting but ultimately useless character who kept heartbroken teenage girls rapt with attention when the plot line of Valjean’s redemption made them fall asleep. I like that there is more representation of unrequited love with the losing side being the girl, but as a result, many teenage girls see themselves as Eponine and the demented twat who stole the boy they adored from them in Cosette and release all of their anger towards the undeserving ingénue.
  Reading the book of the musical, it hints at some personality for Cosette. She is sweet, and strong willed, but many audience members forget that she was also very lonely. She was once the little girl in rags scrubbing floors and doing anything to avoid getting beaten (and if you read the book, the Thenardiers abuse of Cosette is a lot more detailed and disturbing since they are straight out villains instead of comic reliefs). She is dependent and soft, but so are a lot of real people who have grown up in abusive situations.
   On every poster of Les Miz you will see Cosette as its symbol, why?
   Because despite all of the trauma she went through as a young child, from separation from her mother, to slave labor, she did not become hard or bitter and keeps her kindness and humanity. The whole point of Les Miserables is that despite whatever miseries you encounter in your life, that you will still help your fellow man, that you will show others kindness even when so many other people have shown you unkindness. Cosette’s bad past explains a few of her behaviors but unlike so many other people both in the fictional and real world, she does not let it be an excuse to bully others. If that is not true strength, then I don’t know what is.
  Also, I would like to mention in the book Cosette gets her much-deserved development. She forgives the Thenardiers, refuses to let Valjean pamper her while he gets all of the scraps and leftovers just because she is “both a child and a woman”, loves singing and reading, when suspecting a stalker in the house almost physically attacks him (in the version with Claire Danes as Cosette she knees Javert below the belt, takes his gun, and aims to shoot at him), was “wild and brave at heart” with “gypsy” blood (“she was a lark, not a dove”), fell in love with Marius not through one look but a long series of nonverbal communication, and, as numerous staging’s of the musical hint, assists Valjean in charity work.

 #2- Raoul de Changy from The Phantom of the Opera
 

  For the next few paragraphs, I will assume the fanfiction named Lover Never Dies does not even exist. I simply deleted its existence from my brain ages ago. I will also ignore the countless interpretations of actors and directors who got it very far from the target and look into the original Leroux novel, the book of the musical, and my favorite portrayal of the character, the 2004 film adaptation. I also will have to make the comparison between the two characters because, let’s face it, it was choice between two different ones with one that was so much better than the other.
Good? Good.
  In the Leroux novel, Raoul is a man who was trained in the navy, according to the novel, to fight and defend. He may not be too “manly”, but he is not ashamed of that. He is not ashamed to wear his heart on his sleeve and express his emotions. Despite the numerous threats and rumors surrounding the Opera house, he goes into the torture chambers of the cellars below to rescue Christine, intrepid to whatever lies beneath. He truly loves Christine as a person, a human being instead of a prized stuffed animal who will make him cry if it is taken away from him. He almost commits suicide under the torture put under him, but he has never faced such things and if you read the novel not knowing where it was heading, he was basically trapped. He does not grow angry at Christine for being married to the Phantom for a short amount of time. At the very end, he goes with her to Sweden, a country where he does not know the culture or the language but is Christine’s home and may possibly give up his title, just to be with her.
  In the Weber musical and film adaptation, he fights 100% for Christine. Only once does he push her to eat supper with him, but he does not see her as a prized possession that only he can have. During All I Ask of You he is asking for her permission to love her. If she refuses, he won’t go on a murderous rampage (unlike someone else). Some common words Raoul says when referring to Christine are “you, yours, your” while with Erik, some common words in his dialogue to and about Christine are “me, my, mine.” In the original stage version, when Christine is taking her bow during the famous chandelier crash, the chandelier-obviously dropped by the Phantom- is aimed right at her. And guess who runs in time to save her? The Vicomte De Changy!
   Now let’s look at Christine’s other option, the Phantom, AKA Erik. A lot of heterosexual female (and possibly gay male) fans think that it’s nonsense that Christine chose Raoul over the Phantom. They say he is more interesting- well, bring the title character, he definitely gets a lot more development. They say he is dark-not only having an abusive past but also hiding himself from the world, having a dark swishy cape he likes to swish, but was once a political assassin, kills Joseph Buquet for talking about him and Piangi just so he can have his part and re-enact his fanfiction Don Juan opera, designs torture chambers and traps in his spare time, and hides in shadows because he doesn’t think people will care about him if they see his “accursed ugliness” which despite all of his accomplishments he cannot accept and love himself to not give a crap what others think about him. He is a kidnapper, a manipulator, dominant, possessive, and all-controlling, but he just needs love and through your or Christine’s love, he will turn into a beautiful butterfly and defend you with his puffy butterfly wings of gothic darkness and then fly off to a land of purple laced Goth flowers and black bunny rabbits to marry you or Christine. You/Christine won’t come out of the lair except on Sunday walks in the park, but you/Christine will be happy.
   A lot of these fans also say that Christine should have chosen the Phantom because the Phantom is a lot sexier than Raoul. Readers, I have a little secret to share with you. I have made this amazing discovery myself and it seems as if I am the only one who know this.
  You want to learn the secret too? I’ll tell you. Come closer, no closer, a little closer. You want to know what this grand secret is. Well, here it is…
  SEX DOES NOT EQUAL LOVE!
  Sex can be used as an expression of live, but overall it is not love. Sex can also be used as power and entertainment. You CAN have love without sex and you CAN have sex without love. It’s not like food or oxygen, you won’t die if you never do it. And although you may not control who you are attracted to, you can control what you do with it. Whatever you do with it, weather you save it for marriage or not is not for me to decide and frankly it’s none of my business. But for me, I wouldn’t choose the possessive, lustful dark and cool but still murderous and possessive dude (did I mention that he was possessive?) Who already planned the wedding within an hour of meeting me and would bang me by the hour but that’s because he is sad and lonely and just needs a hug. And in real life, those stalking obsessive kidnappers are not so dark and sexy (just ask Jodie Foster). Personally, I would choose the brave, loyal, protective gentleman who would die for me and loved me so much that he did not need to take off my clothes at all.

 #1- Sansa Stark from A Song of Ice and Fire AKA Game of Thrones
   Sansa Stark may have been annoying when I read that first chapter ages ago, but she has warmed up to become one of my top five characters in both the page and the screen. What is sad is that too many people compare her to Arya and make Sansa another target for mass fan hate. In a series praised for its well written and strong female characters, Sansa is often described by readers and watchers as “wimpy”, “girly”, and “annoying” not being proactive in the slightest bit about her situation, and betraying her family for another.
  Like Briony, we must consider Sansa’s age at the time of all of these events. In the books we first see her at 11 and in the show it is increased to 13. Also like with Briony, consider yourself when you were that age. Were you the pinnacle of wisdom and worldliness and good decisions? Remember your first crush, your pining’s, flowing good feelings, and determination that the person is a god amongst men and denial of anything bad about them.
  Now, for Sansa, let’s take all of those hormones and naiveté and place it in major politics as a pawn. Despite all of those raging nerves, like everyone else in the world, she just wanted to live a happy, beautiful, care-free life. She had been spoon fed her entire life about handsome princes and the romance and happiness that comes from marriage and queendom, and this Joffrey was the ideal prince charming, right?
  Sansa was ignorant about the intentions of the Lannisters due to her infatuation for the crown prince, and as a result, the Lannisters used her to betray her family and fool her into captivity. The dreamy prince turned out to be a sadistic, psychopathic king. Although she herself took steps to rescue her father’s life, she had to watch her measures fail and see him get killed right in front of her. She does not have the training, impulsivity, or stupidity to grab a sword and physically fight her way out. She was raised like every other female in that culture and the way she was raised has left her at a great disadvantage to her current situation, which she never expected herself to be in. Many fans call her “whiny”, but she knows that any word or sign of complaint about her treatment will give the King an excuse to kill her. She is trapped and there is absolutely no way out. The people she trusted to give her a good life are either dead or have betrayed her. Throughout the castle, there is the constant threat of rape, beatings, and death for her. She is even forced to marry an adult at this tender age who belongs to the same family that is determined to kill the rest of her own.
  So what does she do? She adapts. She becomes a survivor.
  She stays strong and intact and she does not need dragons or a weapon to prove it. She may not be a warrior, but she still stays true to herself. Under the guidance of many people- The Hound, Cersei, Margery, Olenna, Tyrion, and to a degree, Joffrey she becomes worldlier and wiser. She manages to be picky with her trust and find her own courage, and, like Cosette, never lose hope or her sense of humanity. She becomes worldly enough to survive, but not too worldly to the point where she is becomes completely unkind to all she meets and has no sense of right, wrong, justice, friendship, or mercy.
  For someone who was so young and so sheltered all of their life, a much weaker person would have killed themselves, or did something without regarding their own life and the consequences such as killing Joffrey (which she almost did at the beginning after Joffrey shows her father’s head to her as a threat against “treason.”). She manages to befriend a few others and care for those below her.
  Sansa is one of the series’ most dynamic characters. What was once a soft, idealistic girl is now a courageous, strong young woman who step by step is learning to see the real world, give up all of the stories of noble knights and dashing princes, and play the game of thrones in a way neither her father or sister or maybe even anyone else in her family ever could. If this game means taking the closest, and best looking availability, then that is what she will do. Her skin has turned from porcelain to ivory to steel. Because when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die, there is no middle ground.
  Rock on, Sansa. Rock on, Raoul. Rock on everyone and don’t let the words of others get you down or cover your goodness. Haters gonna hate.

Ideas: What made Frozen such a hit?

  Looking at just my Facebook page, I see people putting pictures of Snowmen they made themselves called Olaf and more than a few people have their profile picture or their background picture be some artwork of Elsa. On Tumblr, a drinking game of taking a shot every time someone bashes Hans, or does artwork of the two princesses will result in death from Alcohol poisoning. During the Polar Vortex, Elsa jokes began to be cracked all over the country. Covers of "Let it Go" are flooding the internet. It had the third most successful box office opening weekend, sold more albums than Beyonce on Itunes, and there is already talk of a stage production.
  So upon my fourth theatrical viewing of the film, I began to wonder what made Frozen such a huge movie? Why does everyone love it and will not-to be frank- shut up about it? It couldn't be just the music, which (with the exception of the Troll song) is catchy and even beautiful, it couldn't be just the funny jokes, it couldn't be just because "Let it Go" is a power ballad everyone loves to spontaneously burst into with their chin up and fists pumped and pulled back while in the shower and sing as if they are the Queen of Belting, Idena Mienzel, herself, it couldn't be just the artwork because it is the typical Disney computer animation look. Besides, there are a ton of movies out there that have a beautiful look but a mediocre story line. It couldn't be the grown fans watching it and having Disney touch their inner-child nostalgia.
   Here is my opinion: First, at a glance, it seems like a traditional Disney story. It almost became a traditional Disney story with a prissy Anna and devious Elsa. You have a pretty princess, magic, cute animals, humor, and more than a touch of darkness, but watching the film, it surprises people. Thankfully, those who were working on the project added familiar elements but did It takes risks you do not normally see in Disney movies. You have a princess who becomes Queen without having to marry, and you have two sisters who are both sympathetic, like able characters, to name a few. You have a main male character who is not exactly a dashing prince stereotype and not since Gaston have we seen a dashing prince stereotype who turns out to be the villain (a pretty uninteresting villain, but a villain none the less).
  It even makes fun of typical Disney cliches. The reindeer does not literally talk, but only in Kristoff's head. Anna gets criticism for getting engaged to a man she met that day (and realizes she loves a man she has only known for about two days). Although our two female leads are not the first Disney heroines who save the day, they are not action heroines like Mulan or Merida. They have a more realistic, subtle, and unique sort of strength. They seem more like young women you would know and in the end, it is their Agape for each other, rather than Anna and Kristoff's Eros, that saves the day, as set up or "contrived" as it may be, according to critics. Viewers usually find bits of their identity in Anna and/or Elsa. Anna seems more like a typical teenage girl who is clumsy, goofy, ditzy, and boy crazy, but is proactive, independent, and devoted to those she loves. Elsa spoke to a wide arrange of people. There are members of the LGBTQ community who have hidden their romantic preferences from their friends because their parents told them they were sinful and should learn to get over it. There are those who are suffering with mental disorders and social anxiety issues and are afraid that they might hurt the ones they love. There are people who have autism, but hide it because they are afraid of how they will be treated when others find out about it. And Elsa taught them to love who they are, and that they are not "cursed".
  Feminists approved of the film (and Disney gets a lot of both valid and crazy comments from radical feminists)when they saw that it was also discussing females accepting power, know the man before you walk down the aisle to him, true men ask permission before laying a kiss, and the power from the friendship and love two women can share for each other. So, in the end, it is one of the strongest films Disney has produced. Is it the least flawed? Perhaps not, but it unique characters, unique themes and overall unique message make it one of the Mouse's finest, if not, one of the years finest.
  By the way, how are they going to stage the ice powers?

Mad for Musicals- Sweeney Todd (2007 Burton film)

   So Sweeney Todd, Hannibal Lector, and Titus Andronicus all walk into a bar.
   Okay, so starting a review with a joke might not be the best idea. But never the less, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is considered the first “Musical thriller.” It is one of composer Stephen Sondheim’s most well-known pieces of music and has won a ton of awards and there are productions and tours everywhere…you get the drill. It is personally one of my favorite musicals (in the top ten) and like Phantom I was hesitant to review this film, but gathered my courage and went ahead. The film is actually the only film adaptation of one of Sondheim’s works that Sondheim himself approves of…so far.
 
(Don't you dare disappoint me!!)
   The exact story centers on (as told in the film by flashbacks) a barber named Benjamin Barker, who lives with his beloved wife Lucy and their infant daughter, Joanna in London in Victorian-era Burton World London. But when the hypocritical Judge Turpin starts lusting after Lucy, he blames Barker for no crime whatsoever and sends him to prison, then rapes Lucy, causing her to kill herself and adopts Joanna. Fifteen years later, Barker changes his name to Sweeney Todd, breaks out of prison and returns back to London. His neighbor, the owner of an unsuccessful pie shop, Mrs. Lovett (who is secretly in love with Todd) explains to him what happened. Todd swears revenge on the judge and vows to kill him by slitting his throat with one of his barber razors. But eventually, Todd comes to the conclusion that everyone deserves to die and decides to kill anyone who walks in for a shave. Mrs. Lovett plans to help him get rid of the bodies by baking them into pies for her unsuccessful shop.
  If you haven’t squirmed by now, you are fascinated.
  This is half of the glue that holds the film together. Sweeney Todd is a melodrama, but a tragic, dark, exciting, and overall bloody good melodrama (pun intended). It does not throw dark things in to get the audience hooked like Lifetime movies do, but holds the interest of all audience members and grows in a place where the darkness feels more organic. Also, unlike most Melodramas, it actually thinks about and explores its own subject material on a deeper level. How far are we willing to go for revenge? How much can loss push a person to the brink of corruption? Should a traumatic past affect us at all? It also has elements of tragedy borrowed from Shakespeare. You have characters that misunderstand something or run into the wrong place at the wrong time, and the classic tragic hero (Sweeney) who has a tragic flaw (obsession) which ultimately leads to his demise.
  But it’s not just the story alone that makes Sweeney Todd by itself memorable. It’s the complex, gorgeous score. From Leitmotifs, to Chromatisisms everywhere, to songs littered with well written lyrics and rhythms in meters other than four-four, you name it, it does it. The songs are the most difficult part for any performer in a Sondheim musical, but they are the most enjoyable part for the audience. Sweeney’s songs are also really varied from the powerful “Epiphany” to the tender “Not while I’m around” to the more humorous “Worst Pies in London.”
 
  The cast is more of a Burton-ish cast than what you would expect of a musical film, so many of the leads are given difficult music with little to no music background. But, for the most part, they pull off the music pretty well and act even ten times better. Johnny Depp performance as Sweeney Todd is very, very strong. I did watch the stage adaptation filmed for TV with George Hamm-er-Hearn as Sweeney. Comparing the two, Depp is quieter, more subtle, and only rages occasionally. Many audience members and even actors watching or performing Sweeney focus too much on the bloodlust but forget that’s its due to the loss of the woman who was “his reason and his life” and the separation of his family. Depp obviously has the bloodlust and the obsession, but he balances it out with that grief that is the reason behind Sweeney’s actions. I loved Depp’s body and facial expressions most of the time. I don’t like it when he just stares off into the distance looking all broody (the squealing of the fan girls of attractive sociopaths can be heard in the distance if you listen carefully enough). But with his own body and face, you can tell what he is thinking, or feeling or planning. His Sweeney is both powerful and pitiful, both child-like and threatening. His voice is too much in the style of Rock for the role, and he does have problems with vowels and pitches that sink (“they all deserve to diiiie”), but he sounds so heartfelt and in character, it’s not that bad.
  Helena Bonham Carter plays Mrs. Lovett, she does display the kookiness, amorality, and maternal sensibility that is required for the role, but also adds some sass and sarcasm, she is at Sweeney’s side, but personally doesn’t care for the revenge business. Like Depp, she has problems with pitches and vowels, but she manages to handle this very musically difficult role. She’s a great actress, and musically not great, but not horrible. Alan Rickman plays Judge Claude Frollo-um, I mean- Judge Turpin, a villain who is slimy, evil, disgusting, but all in the name of the good of the community with a library of porn. His evil henchman, played by the typecast evil henchman himself, Timothy Spall, is, again, gross and evil all in the name of justice. But Spall’s singing of “Ladies in their Sensitivities” was robotic, bland, and choppy. It was flat out the worst singing in the film. Jaime Campell Bower plays Antony as naïve and idealistic, but not an idiot, with a lovely voice. Jeyne Wisener plays the teenaged Joanna and instead of making her character silly and vacant, she makes Joanna isolated and troubled. Her portrayal fascinated me, and I wish the film would have had more of her. Their love is typical first-sight romance, but the film takes it seriously. Sacha Baron Coenn is funny as the flamboyant Pirelli, but it is a rule that the more over the top Pirelli is, the funnier his character is and he could have used much more. Ed Sanders actually made an adorable and likeable Toby, even though the typical age of the character was shot down. But his characters age makes his actions at the very end make less sense than the stage version (which, I will not spoil, if you don’t already know). 
   Burton’s style of directing fits Sweeney perfectly. It’s hard to imagine anyone else who would have been able to pull it off. He manages to make a melodramatic story smooth and quiet, but still keep the drama and thriller aspect. But sometimes, the directing is too subtle, too dark and too quiet. It could have had more humor and light, which the stage show itself managed to balance. But Sondheim is not easy to put on, and what Burton did, he did wonderfully. He understands the heart of the story, but tells it in the style of an old horror silent film.
  Speaking of style, I love the costume and set pieces of the film. It frees itself from taking place strictly in early Victorian England, but instead sets itself in Burton world, where dark colors, quirky materials, and Goth styles are supreme. The set and costume of this film in particular is extremely detailed. For example, did anyone notice the numerous dolls in Mrs. Lovett’s sitting room and the portrait of her with her late husband over the piano? Or how the Beadle tips his hat at an angle to show how twisted his character is? Did anyone notice the beading and layers of Mrs. Lovett’s costumes in particular? Or the cot in the back of Sweeney’s shop that likely serves as his bed? This is a whole other world, a world that I just want to jump in and explore.
   But the film is not without its problems. As an adaptation, comparing the stage and screen, it feels like a lot was cut. I understand that the “Greek Chorus” wouldn't work in a film as well as in a show, and that some songs like “Kiss Me” were too complicated or misinterpreted a character or whatever. But sometimes it feels as if we are getting the crust, but not the actual bread. With the stream of events, the film also has a tendency to feel rushed, not giving the audience a second to soak in what had just happened. Like I mentioned before with Burton’s style, the film sometimes seems too dark. It’s not that the show isn't dark. It’s dark, but has plenty of fun moments. If the “fun” had been played up more, there would have been a stronger balance without either side being distracting.
   Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is not an exact bulls eye, but it comes extremely close. The darkness in it can be overwhelming and though there is a sense of humor, there’s not enough of it. The stage version is by all means brilliant, so the good parts that were cut out leave ginormous holes. Many of the actor’s performances in their singing skills could have used work or have been replaced with actors who were also more trained as singers, but it is still a darn good movie musical. Other than the phenomenal sets and costumes, there are great actors who all suit their parts. The revisions and extra scenes add on to the piece and make it work as a film without hindering the story, which by itself is wonderful. Although Sondheim’s work was not performed perfectly, his genius is still bright and present. However, due to its dark, tragic material and the amount of spewing, ketchup looking blood and violence in the film, it is not everyone’s cup of tea. If you are madly in love with the stage show and are a purist, then odds are you will not like it. But if you are like me and are a sucker for the dark stuff, love the show without being a purist, and even if you are a Tim Burton fan and think musicals are at least okay, then feel free to attend the tale of Sweeney Todd.