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.

Mad for Musicals Review- Chicago (2002 Movie)

   In 1975, a stage musical, Chicago, opened on the Broadway stage. It was adapted from a stage play of the same name and enjoyed a moderate amount of success. When it was set back on stage as revival in 1998, it became more successful and today, it is the 6th longest running musical of all time. In 2002, it was adapted into a film directed by Rob Marshall. This version was the one that enjoyed the most prosperity, winning several Oscars, including Best Picture. However, many viewers both critics and ordinary people, see this film as overrated. So is the Chicago movie all that jazz or is it one crummy, bummy, dummy hubby of mine?

   Let's start with the story. During the 1920's in Chicago, Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) is so desperate to be famous she commits adultrey with a man who claims to get her to the stage. When she learns that he was lying just to get into her pants, she shoots and kills him, and is arrested for murder and sent to jail. Meanwhile, another performer who is already famous, Velma Kelly, kills both her husband and sister after catching them together and is sent to the same jail as Roxie. Roxie manages to hire a famed lawyer, Billy Flynn, who manages to make her famous by lying through his teeth about her. Velma is jealous since Flynn was promised to be her lawyer, and that's the farthest I can go without spoiling anything about the story.
   The Cinematography in this film is absolutely amazing. The use of shadows, lights, colors where colors need to be and the lack of colors where colors shouldn't be, the reflections, all of these and more make the movie look fantastic. I have some grudges against the editing. Although it is very good with the pacing and the timing of the cuts, sometimes it is a little too fast paced and you cannot really see what is going on.
   There are also a lot of good performances. My favorite had to be Catherine Zeta Jones as Velma Kelly. Other than just having dancing chops and a great belt, she made Velma the right combination of theatricality, grit, strength, weakness, determination, and desperation. After watching her, it was hard for me to imagine anyone else who would have pulled off the role in this movie. Other memorable mentions are Queen Latifah as the neutral sided matriarch of the jail, Mama Morton and John C. Reiley as the dim and pitiful Amos Hart, husband to Roxie. Richard Gere as Billy Flynn makes the character appear to be a suave charmer, but at his heart, he is really as greedy and self-centered a jerk as you can get. With his Chicago twang and smug grin, I can't decide weather to smile or spit. Renee Zellweger as Roxie is completely new to singing and dancing, and I would be lying if I said that it didn't show, but since she is naturally an actress, her acting comes through. The hard thing about playing Roxie is that the character must be able to be both a doe-eyed innocent and a cunning schemer who will get what she wants no matter what she has to do to get it. Zellweger pulls off both and is able to naturally combine the two sides into one character.
  What makes this film unique as a musical film is that most of the song and dance sequences take place in Roxie's imagination (with the exception of when a character who is a performer is performing on a stage for an audience), instead of being strictly grounded in reality. This allows two things; first, film can be a genre that can be very strict about its realism and to have something that stretches the mind such as people bursting into song grounded in fantasy gives a new dimension to what can be believed. Second, since it is all done in her imagination, the song sequences can be as over-the-top, surreal, and magical as Marshall wanted.
   Since the story takes place in the Jazz age, naturally, the music and dances are all in the jazz style. Although all of the songs are catchy, they can feel repetitive and musically uninteresting. There were about three that did stand out for me. One was, obviously, Cell Block Tango, with its symbolic choreography, entertaining stories, and perfect camera work. The second was "We both reached for the gun", which not only gave the story its much needed boost, but had a fun rhythm, perfect buildup and climax. Finally, the third was Amos Hart's character number "Mister Cellophane." Not only are the lyrics sadly relate able but First, it makes him a hobo clown, which for Amos is perfect, second, it feels more dynamic than a lot of other songs in the musical, and third, while a lot of the other songs in the film are fast paced and fun, this one is slow and more sober, which makes it stand out.
   I have a couple major problems with the direction. First of all, at its heart, the story of Chicago is a comedic satire. It criticizes our worship of the wrong people just because of an exciting story which may or may not be true and how people crave fame so much they are willing to lower their moral standards to get it. One of the taglines for the movie is "If you can't be famous, be infamous." That theme is not done often and its interesting. It should be the main focus of the film (like the stage show). Sadly, the focus seems to be the fan service, the gratuitous sexuality bumped from a motif to a full out theme, the armies of singing girls scantily clad. Its not that sexuality is not present in the original musical, its just that in the movie, it seems to be too much. Although there are stripes of dark realism in the film, they appear in merely those stripes. A lot of it seems to be just pretty, glitzy, feast-your-eyes and turn off your brain glamour and the issues it brings up it sometimes dodges. This makes it more about the superficial prettiness than about thinking about life and the human condition.    So technically, Chicago is not a perfect film. But no piece of art can ever be perfect and if one person thinks the piece is perfect there will always be someone out there who does not agree. There are problems in the editing and direction, and most of the songs are quite standard. But what is good about the film, from performances to choreography, is really good. But did it deserve Best Picture?
Probably not, but if you haven't seen it, rent it, and see what you think.

Mad for Musicals Review- Jekyll and Hyde (2001 DVD)

   "Jekyll and Hyde" the musical, like its protagonist, can switch between being bad and being good. Also like the doomed scientist, although it works to ignore that its bad, often the bad wins over the good.
   The "Musical Thriller" is based on the 19th century novel by Robert Louis Stevenson. Although the novels actual plot tends to be forgotten, what has made the story so famous is its main premise: a doctor named Henry Jekyll experiments with himself in an attempt to separate the bad side of him from the good. What results is the birth of his uncontrolled split personality, the sinister and murderous Edward Hyde. The idea of the story is to explore between the duality between the good and bad in every person, so the main premise has been adapted to screen numerous times, even though the plot of the novel itself  is pretty forgotten. It was adapted to the Musical Theatre stage in 1990 by Frank Wildhorn, who composed the music along with Lewis Briscale and Steve Ludgen writing the book and lyrics. After a few productions here and there and a lot of tours, it came to Broadway in 1997. Despite some Tony nominations and some adoring fans ("Jekkies"), the show was condemned by critics and after more than 1,500 performances, closed, deep in debt. The plot of the show is the split personality of Jekyll and Hyde with a few characters from the original book and some  unnecessary Musical Theater stock characters, such as the ingenue, tart with a heart, concerned widowed father, etc. and a plot that also follows in theatricality (but we will get to that later). A DVD was released (on the day of 9/11) and its biggest marketing campaign was that it got an experienced, mature, serious, talented actor to play the complicated title role...

THIS GUY!!!!
   David Hassellhoff!!! The shows advertising claims it to be a sexy, exciting, heart ripping Gothic thriller...but all of these praises the show itself cannot rightfully claim.
   So what worked and what didn't?
   Well, the set- mechanical platforms and simple bareness with the exception of Jekylls house, helps to die down the shows "grandeur", giving it some much needed clarity instead of showiness. The blocking takes advantage of the screens, steps, platform, and especially the scrim. In fact, the geometry and concept of the choreography and blocking can be fun to watch. For example, at the end of "Someone like You", which is sung by Lucy, the Tart with a Heart, the ensemble members all walk past her, from either ends of the stage, to make it look like an ordinary scene in a London street. This gives the impression that the song, which is about Lucy's hope for a relationship with Jekyll, an interesting dimension. That these are merely her thoughts as she is walking around town, an individual mind in the midst of the general population. The supporting cast I actually found to not be that bad, mainly with the two main ladies, despite their uselessness to the main plot. Colleen Sexton, who played Lucy, with her  expressive facial and physical expressions, tender head voice and confident chest voice, portrayed a Lucy who, unlike other "Good Tarts" remains optimistic, despite her circumstances. However, she add some theatrical touches that are a bit much, but this was early in her career and she was only in her early twenties, so I won't condemn her too harshly. Andrea Rivette, as Dr. Jekyll's ingenue fiancee, Emma Carew, is not at her peak with a spread vowel and not needed improvisation here and there, but her acting is pretty believable. She's at her best in her scenes with Jekyll, she is so fiercely loyal, despite her ignorance of his condition, that the tragedy that befalls their romance is actually sad to watch.  Mr. Utterson was probably the weakest link of the supporting cast. The pitches and rhythms in his speaking are repetitive and he seems pretty stiff, but he is not bad. In fact, the rest of the supporting cast are not really bad, they are either passable or just okay. It could be because their characters just are not as developed. It could be that they simply did not work hard enough, but I can't really recall if any of their performances stood out for me.
   The Act I finale- don't worry, its not much of a huge spoiler, was three minutes of pure adrenaline. What happens is that Mr. Hyde confronts a Bishop from the council that rejected Jekyll's proposal to experiment with human nature after the Bishop...does things I would rather not think about (think news media Catholic priests). Not only does Hyde chide him and sing about how good it feels to be evil. Not only does he beat the Bishop with a cane. He lights his body on fire onstage. Being involved with theater myself for a while, I could probably figure out how they got it to work, but though its short, boy, is it scary, impressive, and memorable to watch!
   Some songs I find myself singing all day. This is a Gothic Thriller Musical, and boy, does it show with the chromatic isms, motifs, and power chords. The best songs here include the emotional and powerful "Facade", "Take Me As I Am", "A New Life," and "Confrontation." But since every bit of music in this show works to be dark and powerful, I found myself enjoying the two milder songs "Sympathy, Tenderness" and "Once Upon a Dream", both, in the midst of a show trying to take the torch of Phantom, are a breath of fresh air.
   And that's where my praise of this production in particular stops.
   There's an old saying in Theater that if anything goes wrong, the writer is always to blame. This show, looking at its lack of success on Broadway, is a perfect example. To begin with, the script and lyrics are just plain bad.As pointed out by another Musical Reviewer, Paw, instead of exploring Humanity's dual sides and exploring themes that would be relevant to both life and people, the show merely brushes off righteous people as hypocrites who deserve punishment. It claims to be deep when there is only a thin and fragile layer. Its predictable, "Sex-ified", and romanticized to the point of eye rolling. Whats worse is that none of these elements really help the plot, only gives stupid and immature audience members what they want to see.
   The story of Jekyll and Hyde works as a mystery, a character study, and a horror study, but due to Hyde not appearing too often, the show itself is a melodrama, and with its premise, the genre of melodrama simply doesn't work, like you can put an apple into a salad, a pie, or a juice, but you cant put it into a steak. Its unbelievable to think that the book got nominated for a Tony at the time! Was there really absolutely nothing that year? Also, the lyrics can become miraculously stupid, and just as predictable, silly, and needlessly complicated as the plot. If you think logically, the lyrics of Lucy's showgirl song, "Good n' Evil", work as a metaphor for chastity vs. Free Love (and the staging hints this), but Jekyll tells Lucy that the song "made him think" and if you look at the lyrics and take it literally, which talks about doing evil is actually good and vice versa, it doesn't make sense and you will wind up arguing philosophy and psychology to your computer screen (which I may or may not have done).
   The Lyricism here not only can be nonsensical and non-poetic when its not just decent, but repetitive, boring, and juvenile. A mere few memorably bad lyrics include "To Kill outside St, Paul's/requires a lotta balls", "Forbidden pleasures I'm afraid to make mine" (interesting, coming from a prostitute), and the crown prince of the stupid lyrics- "Nay! Nay! Nay! Nay!" Also, as Peter Shaffer once penned, there are moments in the score where there are "too many notes." There is so much background music, that it can be distracting and obnoxious. It fails to realize the beauty of silence.
   But wait, I forgot to mention, what about Jekyll and Hyde himself?
   Oh, Hassellhoff. You could have been much worse than you already were, but you are still 2nd worst. Your biggest problem with your acting is your superficiality. Nothing about Jekyll or Hyde seems honest or genuine, it sometimes seems that you are parodying your own character.You fail to realize that when you open your mouth to sing, you are not in your world of eighties pop, you are in Show tune World, and, David, my dear,  the score might sound like your cup of tea sometimes, but at its heart, these songs are show tunes and you just don't have the right training for the style. Sweet, sweet, darling David, if I ever need to laugh, I will think of your performance during "This is The Moment" when you "Power Walk" and twist your hips while bending your knees to do some jazz hands as your house becomes your lab behind you. I will giggle like a madwoman when I recall you transforming, squiggling like a worm with a seizure with a staccato inspired line "oh-dear-God-what-is-this?" The show insists that I should be scared for your character, but I often found myself bored and...not caring. Yes, you are sometimes good as the childishly mischievous and vengeful Mr. Hyde, yes, you can switch between the two personalities, which is the number one requirement for the role,, and yes, I actually liked you during "The Way Back" and found you to be honest and me to be worried for you...but you just did not do a good job and Robert Cuccioli and Anthony Warlow will always be the best performers in this role.
   Just be glad you aren't the walking American Idol head Constantine Maroulis. You severely wounded the show, David, my dear. Constantine murdered it. With the rope. In the study.
   Jekyll and Hyde can be enjoyable with the right cast and staging, or at bare minimum guilty pleasure, but when it doesn't have either of these, it shows how incredibly lame of a show it is. I guess with this production, if you are a fan of the Gothic horror genre then you can find something here, or if you yourself like the show, then you will enjoy it. There are a few enjoyable scenes and songs here and there, but just as Jekyll was unable to control Hyde, even a few good things cannot save the show from its condemning book and lyrics. And when it is especially obvious, as it is here, no one can realize how likable the show can be. There was simply not a good enough cast to save the show from succumbing to its own evils.I would recommend to listen to the original Broadway recordings, if you want to experience a part of the show at its best.

Mad for Musicals Review-1776 (1972 film)

   1776 is a musical that was first released in 1969, with music and lyrics by Sherman Edwards and a book by Peter Stone. It details the historical events surrounding the founding fathers trying to debate weather or not to break from England and become a country, and the creation of the Declaration of Independence. Two Tony's, three years, and 1217 performances later, a film version was released, directed by Peter Hunt and produced by Jack Warner, to mixed reviews. It seems odd that many people either highly enjoy this musical or completely forget about it. So is it dreadfully dull or an underrated classic? Time to put on your breeches and tricorner hats, because we are about to find out! 
   Let's start, as always, with the acting, which, for the most part, is not too bad. Its believable with some theatrical, signature flourishes of the characters. William Daniels portrays a feisty and stubborn, but passionate and determined John Adams. In the film, Adams appears to be the most focused and mature of the congressmen to the point where any lollygagging grinds his gears. He is fiercely patriotic and deeply wanting to help form a country, but he soon learns to listen to others and to compromise his own wants with the wants of others in order to form the country he so desperately wants to see. My favorite among the cast also plays one of my favorite characters in history-Howard DeSilva as Benjamin Franklin. He brings all of the elements of the character to the role that you would imagine Franklin to have-wit, bawdiness, charm, and wisdom. His delivery of some of the shows best lines -both the funny and touching ones- are dead on. There's a twinkle in his eye and a happy bounce in his head that immediately wins you over, Ken Howard is in tune with the quiet, talented, and lovesick Thomas Jefferson, but his singing is, to say the least, sometimes weak ("Mr. Adams, leave me aloooone!" hurts my ears). But thankfully, he does not sing much. Virginia Veltoff is a joy as Abigail Adams and there is a bright chemistry between her and her on-screen husband (as well as great vocal blend). Despite the distance between them, the Adams help each other and trust the other one to listen to their thoughts and feelings just as the real couple did (research John and Abigail Adams, its actually a very heartwarming love story). There are more minor characters whose acting range from solid to mehhh decent. The most...theatrical (and annoying) is Ron Holgate as Richard Henry Lee, he was too loud and boisterous to be considered a real person!! 
   As for the music itself, there is a range, like the acting, between fantastic and meh. A lot of it is styled after the classical era of music (which occurred during the 1770's) which aimed for a clean sound with lots of patterns and symmetry, with only a few frills here and there. Let me just say that in vocal music, men's groups of three or more are always a goldmine. I was charmed by the operatic choruses of "Sit Down, John" and the trio harmonies in "The Egg" (even Jefferson blended!). The only parts of "Cool, Considerate Men" I enjoyed were the choruses and to see them dancing the minuet (a popular dance of the era. There is almost no choreography in the show-try doing a high kick in those clothes!), the solo parts are actually forgettable. Beyond the chorus songs, "Molasses to Rum to Slaves" is almost the most haunting moment of the film. The song includes dark imagery in the lyrics, a wide range of instrumentation from strings to drums, a minor that actually sounds threatening, dark red lighting in the Congress hall, and a chilling performance by John Cullum, as Edward Rutledge, but sometimes the words are hard to make out and the song goes on a bit too long for my taste. Like I said earlier, I loved the John and Abigail Adams duets, for the harmonies, and romantic mood-without being too sentimental. Before I even listened to "He Plays the Violin" I was told that it was to be a very seductive song, but Blythe Danner performs it as more of a celebration of love and the wedding bed, yet it works perfectly well. Never the less, the happy progression, violin instrumentation, and soaring melismas won me over. My favorite song, hands down, was "Mama, Look sharp"-the ballad of a courier who recounts the last thoughts of a friend who was killed on the battlefield. The soft minor, tear jerking lyrics, added voices at the end, and dark lighting with faces near lighted candles sent shivers up my spine. My least favorite was "The Lee's of Old Virginia." Although it is not performed terribly and the tune is catchy and peppy, the repetitive lyrics are really, really, really annoying and childish. Here's a fun game, when listening to the song, punch yourself for every time he says "Lee", chances are, you will wind up at the hospital before the song has even ended. 
  
 The costuming is very characteristic and straight to the point, but sometimes exaggerated. The plaid doublet Thomas McKean wore was just hammering the scottishness in. Martha Jefferson's skirt looked way too full to be historically accurate, but was only there to add movement to her choreography during "He Plays the Violin." Some hairstyles are believable, others are quite obvious wigs-but weather these were wigs for the characters real hair or wigs on purpose for them to wear as a part of men's period fashion is up in the air. 
   But what about the most important element-the story? The film handles the plot as seriously and realistically as it can. We can read all about the Declaration of Independence and how it was founded in our textbooks anytime, but we tend to overlook how difficult and even frighting it was to do so. America was, at the time, just a frail string of colonies that was being unfairly treated by its possessor. Their enemy was an empire of rich history and vast amounts of power that could easily crush anyone who stood in its way. Was it treason to go against the hand that fed them? If they decide to form a country, will it survive on its own? The writing makes this conflict and tension very, very clear. In fact, the dialogue far outweighs the music and there are long periods of time with the congressmen discussing and debating that one can forget that the burst into song. It doesn't feel like a traditional musical-it sometimes feel more like a film with songs in it. The story itself centers around these conflicts and debates. This is not a movie you can mindlessly stare at. In order to enjoy and appreciate it, you have to be awake, alert, and ready to think and focus, if not, chances are, you will be confused and bored. But if you do pay full attention to it, your eyes will be opened to how incredible a task forming the country was and how brave these men were. Though the film and even the musical itself is not entirely historically accurate. Part of it is due to the fact that is wants to make history entertaining and the other part is that the events surrounding the forming of the declaration are unknown since the congressmen kept windows and doors locked for privacy. What we know about the story, we know from letters and memoirs of the men. But the inaccuracies are never outlandishly far. 
   Overall, I actually enjoyed 1776, despite the half of critics who condemn it and I'm thankful to have watched it. I will admit that its not perfect-a song or two encourages snoring and there are some stretches and distortions and a few moments are misses instead of hits. But there is some great music, acting, and above all, a superb story that makes and not breaks the film, just be sure that you have had enough sleep prior to viewing. I would also reccommend that you view it if you are interested in American History, if this was your least favorite subject in school, well, proceed with extreme caution. 
P.S. "JOHN, YOUR'E A BORE"