I've been a comic book fan pretty much since I saw "Swamp Thing" in 1982 with my grandfather in Florida. Sure I had seen "Super Friends" and "Superman: The Movie" among other cartoons, movies and TV shows, but I really didn't avidly read comics until this point in time. After the movie, my grandfather took me to a comic book store and bought me a few comic books. I don't remember all of the titles we got that day, but Swamp Thing and Green Lantern were among them. And it's been a long crazy ride ever since.
Green Lantern has been my favorite hero ever since (his books are the only one's I've consistently read since 1982 -- even when I stopped reading other books in college, I still read Green Lantern). Why? He's got a magic ring that he can pretty much do anything with. If he can think of it, he can create it. Who wouldn't want that?
So...pretty much since then I've been living with this character and his mythos in my head: my own movie building itself over the years...so there was a good chance for disappointment when an actual movie finally appeared. And the very first trailer released almost made all those fears about how "wrong" a Green Lantern movie could potentially be come true. Luckily, a second trailer seemed to waylay those fears.
So, how's the actual film? As a fan, it's a bit hit or miss. Sitting there in the dark and having the movie start with a voice over by a character we have yet to meet (Tomar Re) narrating what could be a complex info-dump brought to mind the opening of David Lynch's adaptation of "Dune". This was not a film I wanted in my head while watching "Green Lantern" (as much as I actually like "Dune"). Luckily, that "complex info dump" just skimmed the surface and moved on quickly to Earth and Hal Jordan and friends.
I'm not going to recount all that happens point for point, but the very basics of Hal Jordan's origin make up the film (recklessly cocky test pilot gets chosen by the ring of a dying alien "policeman" to replace him...he gets trained to use the ring and stops the bad guy) are all there. Yes...there is much more to it, but the film moves so fast through everything it's trying to introduce that it almost feels as if some stuff was left on the cutting room floor. There are holes in the backstory (Hal, Carol and Hector Hammond all seem to know each other from childhood, but this comes out only as the film progresses), there's not enough of the Corps (only Sinestro, Kilowog and Tomar Re get name checks or even any real screen time -- everyone else is pretty much there for Mattel to actually have a line of action figures that are more than guys in suits) and the end, while fun and action packed has a bit of logic missing to it (Hal defeats an unstoppable force all by himself is just a bit too much to swallow...it couldn't have hurt to throw in at least one other Lantern -- Tomar Re perhaps since he's from the neighboring sector-- who helps him for a bit of the battle before Hal single-handedly stops Parallax).
Surprisingly, after all the "controversy" of Ryan Reynolds as Hal we see him in action and I actually like him in the role. He's not perfect, but he's good and he's not Jack Black (who could have been Green Lantern a number of years ago if studio execs had gotten their way). He brings the right amount of cockiness and recklessness to the part without turning into Van Wilder. The scene involving Green Lantern's first public appearance is a great example. We get the chaos of a man trying to learn/control his powers coupled with a man trying to do the right thing.
The rest of the cast also hit the right notes. They may not be served well by some of the dialogue (which sometimes gets a bit cheesy in the case of Blake Lively and at other times gets a bit repetitious in reminding us that the rings run on willpower and that fear is bad), but almost all of them work what they're given the best they can. There's not enough of some characters (mostly the other Green Lanterns) and too much of others (Tim Robbins as Hector Hammond's Senator-Father is completely in "I'm smiling cause I'm getting a paycheck" mode).
The movie has some problems as far as I'm concerned (aside from James Newton Howard's score which is easily the worst score for a super-hero film in the history of super-hero films). The biggest problem as I mentioned is that it moves too quickly and doesn't go deep enough into the backstory of the human characters. We get that Hal, Carol and Hector all have some sort of history, but I wanted to see more of it. Hal has a family (brothers, nephew, etc) and we get one great scene with them and then they are never seen or mentioned again. Yet, the story is able to find a minute to give us the ENTIRE backstory of Amanda Waller (played here by Angela Bassett in a far different portrayal from Pam Grier's on "Smallville" whom I preferred) in flashback because she's going to obviously become the DC Comics movie version of Marvel's Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) by appearing in every other DC movie (well...except the Christopher Nolan movies). This makes the missing parts of the larger characters' backstory that much more glaring.
But the film is never boring and keeps up it's pace nicely. It's fun and entertaining, but far from perfect. Comic fans will enjoy the film but miss some of the deeper nuances of the original medium. Non-comics fans should enjoy the movie in spite of some cheesiness and plot-holes.
Stay for the end credits (you don't have to stay all the way until the end) to see the obligatory "set up the sequel" scene that makes no sense for the character it involves in the context of this film no matter how cool it looks or how inevitable the comic fans know it is.
No...it's not the film I always envisioned which was something akin to a sci-fi version of "Lawrence of Arabia" (but not like "Avatar" which was just a remake of "Lawrence of Arabia") with a structure that kept us on Earth from the start until the curve ball of the dying Abin Sur arrives. Keeping the space part a "secret" until it needs to come into the story might have given us a bit more to hook us into all the human characters better. But at the end of the day, it is fun and I hope it does well enough to warrant a sequel that can be more like "Spider-Man 2" or "The Dark Knight" and less like "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" or "Iron Man 2".
"Green Lantern" is a fun, if not perfect, start to a super-hero film franchise with loads of potential.
Next up: My favorite Marvel hero after Doctor Strange: Captain America.
Be seeing you.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Saturday, May 07, 2011
You'll Behold In Breathless Wonder, The God Of Thurnder, Mighty Thor!
Back in my comic book reading/collecting hay days (and I say that knowing full well how silly it sounds since I'm pretty sure those days are still with us or back in full force), my favorite characters tended to be DC denizens. Green Lantern, Swamp Thing, The Flash, Blue Devil, Blue Beetle, Green Arrow, The Question, Captain Atom, Superman...that's how my list would start when asked who my favorite heroes were.
But there were (and still are) some Marvel characters I followed...in order it was always Captain America, Doctor Strange, Thor, Fantastic Four, Avengers and that's pretty much it (although I've added a few in more recent times).
My love of Thor probably came from my elementary school days when I was fascinated by the Vikings and Norse mythology. The first movie I ever made (in 6th grade) was all about the Vikings (it's lost to the ages as it pretty much burned up in the projector after it's first and only viewing). So when I started getting into reading comic books, I soon discovered the God of Thunder and all of his friends.
"Thor" comes to us as part of a massive plan by Marvel Studios to get as many of their heroes onto the big screen in a giant inter-connected universe so we can get "The Avengers" all up there. This process started with 2008's "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk", continued with last year's "Iron Man 2" and concludes this year with "Thor" and "Captain America: The First Avenger". Each of these movies has had to serve several purposes and they've each hit them to varying degrees of success. Today, I'm just looking at "Thor" (but I'll look back at all of them next year when "The Avengers" hits).
"Thor" needs to set up the Marvel version of the Norse mythology, stand on it's own as a self contained story, set itself up as a potential franchise and connect itself to "The Avengers". All of this needs to be done with perfect balance in order to attract both a core audience of comic book fans, fantasy film fans and new viewers. It succeeds at most of this very well.
Slightly different from the typical Super Hero film that starts off with the young hero gaining his powers at around the same time the villain also gains their powers only to follow them on a collision course finishing in a rousing (or lackluster) finale battle, "Thor" begins with a team of scientists chasing some weird storm patterns in the desert of New Mexico. The team consists of Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). In middle of the chaos and confusion they run over a man who seemed to come out of the storm. We then get a good long flashback to how this man, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), got there.
Thor and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) are the sons of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and he is grooming one of them to eventually replace him as King of Asgard. Many years ago there was a war between the Asgardians and the Frost Giants of Jotunheim. But a peace was arranged and kept in place until the day that Odin was to announce Thor as his replacement when a small group of Frost Giants break into Asgard and steal back the source of their power taken during the war. They are easily dispatched, but Thor, being the hot head he is decides to venture to Jotunheim to teach the Frost Giants a lesson. The group consists of Loki, Sif (Jaimie Alexander), Fandral (Joshua Dallas), Hogun (Tadanabou Asano) and Volstagg (Ray Stevenson) and their invasion is a disaster. Luckily, they are saved by Odin who was warned by Asgard's all-seeing, all-knowing bridgekeeper Heimdall (Idris Elba). Odin, angered by Thor's impetuousness, strips him of his power and banishes him to Midgard (Earth) where we pick up with him being hit by Jane's van in the storm.
Thor's landing on Earth, as well as the landing of his magical hammer Mjolnir which contains his powers and can only be lifted by someone worthy, attract the attention of S.H.I.E.L.D. who swarm into New Mexico under the leadership of Agent Coulson (played by Clark Gregg again/still). While Coulson and his men try to unravel the hammer's mystery, Thor tries to regain his powers on Earth with Loki ascending to the throne of Asgard in his place. And that's a good place to stop the description of the plot.
Director Kenneth Branagh and his crew have taken many fantastical elements from the comic books that could easily have seemed silly on the big screen and made them look cool. Bifrost, the Rainbow Bridge that connects Asgard to the other nine realms, is neither a Rainbow, nor a Bridge, but at the same time encompasses the look of both into parts if it's design (it's more of a giant transporter device with an aiming barrel). Asgard itself is a wonder to behold with all the pomp and circumstance a city where gods live deserves to have. Thor's use of his hammer also comes off looking cool when he uses it to launch himself like a bullet to some location (this is how he flies) or when he just spins it around to clock his enemies in the head.
The casting if near perfect. Hemsworth brings the right balance of arrogance and, later, humility to Thor. Hiddleston's performance as the trickster Loki is Oscar-worthy in my book. He is devious without tipping his hand as to why he's really doing what he's doing and never turns into the scenery-chewing cartoon he could easily be. He is a manipulator of epic proportions. Hopkins brings the right amount of authority to Odin and has thankfully stopped playing the parody of himself that he has more often done than not since 1991's "Silence of the Lambs".
The rest of the cast gets their jobs done with their limited screen time (it's a lot to cram all these characters into one film, and yet I still felt like if they were going to, they could have crammed in one brief scene with the missing and missed Baldar the Brave...hopefully the sequel will just explain he was visiting one of the other nine realms or Hawaii). There are two exceptions here that I would be remiss to mention and it's no real fault of the actors. You could easily strip Kat Denning's Darcy from the film and it would change nothing beyond losing one or two "hip" throw-away one-liners. And Rene Russo's Frigga, Queen of Asgard and Wife of Odin, seems to be there in the same way Billy Dee Williams played Harvey Dent in 1989's "Batman". She's hopefully there for a bigger part in the sequel, but here she looks as if she's waiting for her paycheck (she's a better actress than that).
The story is structured nicely and takes 40 plus years of Marvel Comics stories and blends them into an understandable and logical story that is easy enough for any non-comic book fan to follow while still giving the geeks their gold (mentions of Donald Blake, Bruce Banner and a few other Marvel things abound). Even the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D., mostly there just to keep the connections between films going, makes sense here (it has to since it has been so intricately attached to the entire Earth-based part of the story). This connection only falls apart with the two "extraneous" scenes that were obviously included after the fact. Watching Jeremy Renner's "Agent Barton" (better known as the archer Hawkeye in the comics) run around with a bow and arrow while Thor is fighting off soldiers in his quest to get to Mjolnir, while "cool" is obviously an afterthought as he has no interaction with anyone in the film beyond radio contact. And stick around to the very end of the end credits to catch the obligatory Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) scene that connects this film to both "Captain America: The First Avenger", "The Avengers" and whatever sequel to "Thor" that may come our way. It is nothing special and will confuse anyone who isn't familiar with a long history of magical objects in the Marvel Universe.
Branagh has outdone himself and used his Shakespearean background to give Asgard all the pomposity it deserves. He keeps the pace of the story in motion with nary a slow spot to be seen. And structurally this may be his best and "tightest" film since "Dead Again" (let's face it, after "Henry V" his Shakespeare is all over the place and "Mary SHelley's Frankenstein" while fun is a mess). While there are too many writers credited for the film, it doesn't feel like the story passed through five people and you can feel the spine of J. Michael Straczynski's recent run on the comic book through a good chunk of the film (JMS also has a very fun cameo...see if you can guess who he is...Marvel Comics' own Stan Lee also has his obligatory cameo as well). Patrick Doyle's score fits the proceedings well (and may be the first score in a long time that I may actually pick up on CD). And the cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is always interesting, composed well and easy on the eyes (we saw this in 2D, but there didn't seem to be anything in the film beyond the look of Bifrost that could possibly benefit from the headaches and extra fees for 3D).
This film is easily on par with the better of the previous Marvel Comics films ("Iron Man", "Spider-man 2", "X2" and "Blade") and sets out to do what it must very successfully. As a start to the summer movie season, it couldn't give us a better note to start on. I'm even more excited for "Captain America: The First Avenger" after seeing this. But next up is the one I'm more nervous and excited for..."Green Lantern". Thankfully, Warner changed their marketing on that one and the new trailers give the film the right vibe where that first trailer made me want to not see the film.
Until next time.
Be seeing you.
But there were (and still are) some Marvel characters I followed...in order it was always Captain America, Doctor Strange, Thor, Fantastic Four, Avengers and that's pretty much it (although I've added a few in more recent times).
My love of Thor probably came from my elementary school days when I was fascinated by the Vikings and Norse mythology. The first movie I ever made (in 6th grade) was all about the Vikings (it's lost to the ages as it pretty much burned up in the projector after it's first and only viewing). So when I started getting into reading comic books, I soon discovered the God of Thunder and all of his friends.
"Thor" comes to us as part of a massive plan by Marvel Studios to get as many of their heroes onto the big screen in a giant inter-connected universe so we can get "The Avengers" all up there. This process started with 2008's "Iron Man" and "The Incredible Hulk", continued with last year's "Iron Man 2" and concludes this year with "Thor" and "Captain America: The First Avenger". Each of these movies has had to serve several purposes and they've each hit them to varying degrees of success. Today, I'm just looking at "Thor" (but I'll look back at all of them next year when "The Avengers" hits).
"Thor" needs to set up the Marvel version of the Norse mythology, stand on it's own as a self contained story, set itself up as a potential franchise and connect itself to "The Avengers". All of this needs to be done with perfect balance in order to attract both a core audience of comic book fans, fantasy film fans and new viewers. It succeeds at most of this very well.
Slightly different from the typical Super Hero film that starts off with the young hero gaining his powers at around the same time the villain also gains their powers only to follow them on a collision course finishing in a rousing (or lackluster) finale battle, "Thor" begins with a team of scientists chasing some weird storm patterns in the desert of New Mexico. The team consists of Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). In middle of the chaos and confusion they run over a man who seemed to come out of the storm. We then get a good long flashback to how this man, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), got there.
Thor and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) are the sons of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and he is grooming one of them to eventually replace him as King of Asgard. Many years ago there was a war between the Asgardians and the Frost Giants of Jotunheim. But a peace was arranged and kept in place until the day that Odin was to announce Thor as his replacement when a small group of Frost Giants break into Asgard and steal back the source of their power taken during the war. They are easily dispatched, but Thor, being the hot head he is decides to venture to Jotunheim to teach the Frost Giants a lesson. The group consists of Loki, Sif (Jaimie Alexander), Fandral (Joshua Dallas), Hogun (Tadanabou Asano) and Volstagg (Ray Stevenson) and their invasion is a disaster. Luckily, they are saved by Odin who was warned by Asgard's all-seeing, all-knowing bridgekeeper Heimdall (Idris Elba). Odin, angered by Thor's impetuousness, strips him of his power and banishes him to Midgard (Earth) where we pick up with him being hit by Jane's van in the storm.
Thor's landing on Earth, as well as the landing of his magical hammer Mjolnir which contains his powers and can only be lifted by someone worthy, attract the attention of S.H.I.E.L.D. who swarm into New Mexico under the leadership of Agent Coulson (played by Clark Gregg again/still). While Coulson and his men try to unravel the hammer's mystery, Thor tries to regain his powers on Earth with Loki ascending to the throne of Asgard in his place. And that's a good place to stop the description of the plot.
Director Kenneth Branagh and his crew have taken many fantastical elements from the comic books that could easily have seemed silly on the big screen and made them look cool. Bifrost, the Rainbow Bridge that connects Asgard to the other nine realms, is neither a Rainbow, nor a Bridge, but at the same time encompasses the look of both into parts if it's design (it's more of a giant transporter device with an aiming barrel). Asgard itself is a wonder to behold with all the pomp and circumstance a city where gods live deserves to have. Thor's use of his hammer also comes off looking cool when he uses it to launch himself like a bullet to some location (this is how he flies) or when he just spins it around to clock his enemies in the head.
The casting if near perfect. Hemsworth brings the right balance of arrogance and, later, humility to Thor. Hiddleston's performance as the trickster Loki is Oscar-worthy in my book. He is devious without tipping his hand as to why he's really doing what he's doing and never turns into the scenery-chewing cartoon he could easily be. He is a manipulator of epic proportions. Hopkins brings the right amount of authority to Odin and has thankfully stopped playing the parody of himself that he has more often done than not since 1991's "Silence of the Lambs".
The rest of the cast gets their jobs done with their limited screen time (it's a lot to cram all these characters into one film, and yet I still felt like if they were going to, they could have crammed in one brief scene with the missing and missed Baldar the Brave...hopefully the sequel will just explain he was visiting one of the other nine realms or Hawaii). There are two exceptions here that I would be remiss to mention and it's no real fault of the actors. You could easily strip Kat Denning's Darcy from the film and it would change nothing beyond losing one or two "hip" throw-away one-liners. And Rene Russo's Frigga, Queen of Asgard and Wife of Odin, seems to be there in the same way Billy Dee Williams played Harvey Dent in 1989's "Batman". She's hopefully there for a bigger part in the sequel, but here she looks as if she's waiting for her paycheck (she's a better actress than that).
The story is structured nicely and takes 40 plus years of Marvel Comics stories and blends them into an understandable and logical story that is easy enough for any non-comic book fan to follow while still giving the geeks their gold (mentions of Donald Blake, Bruce Banner and a few other Marvel things abound). Even the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D., mostly there just to keep the connections between films going, makes sense here (it has to since it has been so intricately attached to the entire Earth-based part of the story). This connection only falls apart with the two "extraneous" scenes that were obviously included after the fact. Watching Jeremy Renner's "Agent Barton" (better known as the archer Hawkeye in the comics) run around with a bow and arrow while Thor is fighting off soldiers in his quest to get to Mjolnir, while "cool" is obviously an afterthought as he has no interaction with anyone in the film beyond radio contact. And stick around to the very end of the end credits to catch the obligatory Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) scene that connects this film to both "Captain America: The First Avenger", "The Avengers" and whatever sequel to "Thor" that may come our way. It is nothing special and will confuse anyone who isn't familiar with a long history of magical objects in the Marvel Universe.
Branagh has outdone himself and used his Shakespearean background to give Asgard all the pomposity it deserves. He keeps the pace of the story in motion with nary a slow spot to be seen. And structurally this may be his best and "tightest" film since "Dead Again" (let's face it, after "Henry V" his Shakespeare is all over the place and "Mary SHelley's Frankenstein" while fun is a mess). While there are too many writers credited for the film, it doesn't feel like the story passed through five people and you can feel the spine of J. Michael Straczynski's recent run on the comic book through a good chunk of the film (JMS also has a very fun cameo...see if you can guess who he is...Marvel Comics' own Stan Lee also has his obligatory cameo as well). Patrick Doyle's score fits the proceedings well (and may be the first score in a long time that I may actually pick up on CD). And the cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is always interesting, composed well and easy on the eyes (we saw this in 2D, but there didn't seem to be anything in the film beyond the look of Bifrost that could possibly benefit from the headaches and extra fees for 3D).
This film is easily on par with the better of the previous Marvel Comics films ("Iron Man", "Spider-man 2", "X2" and "Blade") and sets out to do what it must very successfully. As a start to the summer movie season, it couldn't give us a better note to start on. I'm even more excited for "Captain America: The First Avenger" after seeing this. But next up is the one I'm more nervous and excited for..."Green Lantern". Thankfully, Warner changed their marketing on that one and the new trailers give the film the right vibe where that first trailer made me want to not see the film.
Until next time.
Be seeing you.
Sunday, April 03, 2011
What's Opera, Doc?
After almost nine years of being with my wife, she finally found an opera to drag me to that I actually enjoyed. It took some help and pushing from some friends, but the unthinkable happened. I figured my third live opera would be my last (you know the old "three strikes and you're out rule"), but I really did enjoy it. Before we get to my review, let's take a look at my history with the art form.
Aside from knowing some names of operas and pieces from some operas, my viewing experience as a whole was limited to "The Rabbit of Seville" and "What's Opera, Doc?" The first opera the wife dragged me to (and that's being mean because let's face it...I make my own decisions, she doesn't drag me...if I didn't want to go I could always fake an illness or throw myself down the stairs to fake an injury) was a Mozart piece called "The Abduction from the Seraglio". We went because we had a friend in the show. It was an English version, so it was easy to understand. And while I was impressed with the singing (especially by our friend), the story was boring and the music repetitive. It was repetitive and boring. Boring and repetitive. It bored me and said the same thing over and over and over and over...
Sorry...
My next live opera experience was at The Met. The wife wound up with tickets from a co-worker. Fifth row, center for "Samson and Delilah". Sung in French, set of Seti Alpha Six and performed by the touring company of "Fiddler on the Roof" using leftover backdrops from "Oklahoma" and running over three hours...
Well...I think the above description says it all...bored, confused and uncomfortable (physically and mentally...the wife was pregnant and the seats at the Met were designed the same way they design airplane seats -- only with no actual pitch -- the box we sat in last night was designed for 4 seats, but had 7 crammed into it), "Samson and Delilah" made me never want to go again...
But my wife loves opera and doesn't get to go very much any more...so I knew eventually I'd go again (although I did watch a DVD of Handel's "Julius Caesar" when I was doing research for my own production of Shakespeare's play).
Rossini's "Le Comte Ory" is about a rogue (Count Ory) who instead of going off to fight in the Crusades, stays behind to seduce all the women whose husbands have left by pretending to leave and disguising himself as a hermit/prophet. When he is outed by his own page upon the announcement that the husbands will be returning, he tries one last time to seduce a countess by posing as a nun and infiltrating her castle with his men (also dressed as nuns). Or at least that's what I gathered from listening to the French opera without glancing too often at the text titles (funny enough, I took some High School French and thought the opera was in Italian because Rossini was Italian until I realized that I recognized some of the lyrics).
Anyway...the show was presented as a "show within a show" as we're watching an 18th Century (?) Theater company move all the set pieces around under the direction of their stage manager. This just added some nice comedic touches to an already funny piece. Add in good company, a good meal beforehand and some nice weather (not too cold and clear) and it was a nice night for opera.
I will probably even go again...I've seen the preview for The Met's Ring Cycle and while I don't think I could sit through the whole thing (the second part is 5 and 1/2 hours long), I would love to see the first part (it's only 2 and 1/2 hours long) as it looks amazing. In fact, the preview makes you wonder why so much money was spent on "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" when it looks like The Met is doing something even more complicated. Here's a peak: http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/season/production.aspx?id=11052
Be seeing you.
Aside from knowing some names of operas and pieces from some operas, my viewing experience as a whole was limited to "The Rabbit of Seville" and "What's Opera, Doc?" The first opera the wife dragged me to (and that's being mean because let's face it...I make my own decisions, she doesn't drag me...if I didn't want to go I could always fake an illness or throw myself down the stairs to fake an injury) was a Mozart piece called "The Abduction from the Seraglio". We went because we had a friend in the show. It was an English version, so it was easy to understand. And while I was impressed with the singing (especially by our friend), the story was boring and the music repetitive. It was repetitive and boring. Boring and repetitive. It bored me and said the same thing over and over and over and over...
Sorry...
My next live opera experience was at The Met. The wife wound up with tickets from a co-worker. Fifth row, center for "Samson and Delilah". Sung in French, set of Seti Alpha Six and performed by the touring company of "Fiddler on the Roof" using leftover backdrops from "Oklahoma" and running over three hours...
Well...I think the above description says it all...bored, confused and uncomfortable (physically and mentally...the wife was pregnant and the seats at the Met were designed the same way they design airplane seats -- only with no actual pitch -- the box we sat in last night was designed for 4 seats, but had 7 crammed into it), "Samson and Delilah" made me never want to go again...
But my wife loves opera and doesn't get to go very much any more...so I knew eventually I'd go again (although I did watch a DVD of Handel's "Julius Caesar" when I was doing research for my own production of Shakespeare's play).
Rossini's "Le Comte Ory" is about a rogue (Count Ory) who instead of going off to fight in the Crusades, stays behind to seduce all the women whose husbands have left by pretending to leave and disguising himself as a hermit/prophet. When he is outed by his own page upon the announcement that the husbands will be returning, he tries one last time to seduce a countess by posing as a nun and infiltrating her castle with his men (also dressed as nuns). Or at least that's what I gathered from listening to the French opera without glancing too often at the text titles (funny enough, I took some High School French and thought the opera was in Italian because Rossini was Italian until I realized that I recognized some of the lyrics).
Anyway...the show was presented as a "show within a show" as we're watching an 18th Century (?) Theater company move all the set pieces around under the direction of their stage manager. This just added some nice comedic touches to an already funny piece. Add in good company, a good meal beforehand and some nice weather (not too cold and clear) and it was a nice night for opera.
I will probably even go again...I've seen the preview for The Met's Ring Cycle and while I don't think I could sit through the whole thing (the second part is 5 and 1/2 hours long), I would love to see the first part (it's only 2 and 1/2 hours long) as it looks amazing. In fact, the preview makes you wonder why so much money was spent on "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" when it looks like The Met is doing something even more complicated. Here's a peak: http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/season/production.aspx?id=11052
Be seeing you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)