Wednesday, September 10, 2003

The Disappeared of 9/11 Tomorrow's the two year anniversary.  As overboard as everything seemed to me last year, I almost feel like there's not enough going on this year to commemorate, or at least acknowledge, the events of two years ago.  I know I'll be sitting here tomorrow, thinking about sitting by a small marsh outside of my workplace two years ago, wondering what kind of world my son was going to grow up in.  When I think of 9/11, I'll always think of a bright sunny September morning that found me looking at a cattail marsh and, for perhaps the first time in my life, being scared about the future. One of the interesting subplots to come out of 9/11, for me, was the notion that there were some people who were claimed as dead who may not have been dead, or who may never have existed in the first place.  What a unique opportunity for a fraud or deception.  It turns out that there are 42 such cases still open, where a death cannot be corroborated. I can imagine there are a lot of people who were thinking about getting out of their lives on that day, before the first plane hit.  Bad marriages.  Bad debt.  Bad everything.  It's a rare person who can think of, much less execute the Updike Rabbit Plan.  To simply disappear. But then 9/11 happens.  Chaos.  Massive death that will be very hard to unravel.  And the attention span of family, friends, authorities and a nation is diverted to a host of Large Issues. If you wanted to leave your life, simply disappear, what better time to do it?  But you had to think fast, and decide fast, and then manage to get to wherever it was you were trying to go. I'm not saying there are 42 people who faced that scenario.  The number is less than that, surely.  But wouldn't you think that number is greater than 1?  Isn't it something that in the chaos of 9/11, there was likely a very small number of people who stopped, took stock of an awful situation, and decided that in the midst of that chaos Opportunity was knocking at their door. Maybe they left families behind.  Maybe they shouldn't have left.  Maybe they left abuse behind.  Maybe they needed to go.  Who knows?  But somewhere in New York that day, people stood and pondered whether to go to a phone and call home, or to just keep moving away from the phone, away from home, and away from their past. Most of those people phoned home.  Some didn't. 1:45:27 PM    Say what?[]

I'm Coming Around On Musicals Is there anything more useless than a review of a film that has been out for nine months, and already won the Oscar for Best Picture?  Bear with me. I was home sick yesterday, and we had a rented copy of Chicago laying around that Jane had seen, but I hadn't.  I sat myself down in our semi-finished basement and fired up the DVD player. Before I go on, let me just say that I have always had a deep suspicion of musicals.  At a fundamental level, I am uncomfortable with the notion that people may just spontaneously break into song.  It's not so much that I find it strange that somebody starts singing, though that's certainly just cause for a cross look and the twirling of the finger by the head, otherwise known as the International Crazy Sign.  No, what I find more upsetting is that the non-singing people always just seem to take it for granted that there will be singing.  Why does no one ever stop in amazement, mouth agape, and just say "What the hell are you singing about?"  Actually, I have seen that, exactly one time.  It happens in the Simpsons episode about the town brothel, wherein Homer spontaneously breaks into song about the virtues of the den of sin.  And the camera cuts to Sideshow Bob and Lenny and a few other folks in the mob, and their jaws just drop.  "Why the hell is Homer singing?", they all seem to be wanting to say, yet they are too shocked and appalled by what they hear to be able to say anything at all. If that happened just once in any given musical, I think it would make the rest of the musical exponentially more palatable for me. And there is another, more personal problem I have with musicals.  You see, I know what kind of people are in them: Drama people.  People who can't enter a room without practically screaming "Hey!  Look at me!  I'm so special and dramatic and talented and stylish!  Whoopee!"  And not only do they do that, habitually, but they will do it with multiple affectations and costume effects.  And of course, since everything is just one big performance, everybody else in the room has to be equally dramatic about how they receive the entrance, typically involving fluttering, falling on the floor, and yes, spontaneous bursts of song.  Why do I know so much about Drama People?  I dated one for three years in high school.  Worst Mistake I Ever Made.  She was a nice enough girl, I guess.  Maybe.  Then I dated one in college.  Very sweet woman, but the drama.  So much drama.  And singing, and dancing.  And truth be told, I also have a specific bias against Chicago, because that was one of the musicals my high school girlfriend was in.  For months, I had to listen to her recite lines like "Some men can't hold their arsenic", and "He ran into my knife.  He ran into my knife ten times."  I didn't know from whence these lines came, and I didn't care.  I only wanted her to shut up or put out, and neither one happened. So, yeah, I had some baggage going into this movie. Turns out, Chicago ruled. The story was great, and the performances even better.  And man, does it look good.  Some parts look really good.  Like, say, the Rene Zellweger parts.  God, does she steal this movie.  I mean, I was impressed with Catherine Zeta-Jones.  I'm not all gaga over her like some people seem to be, but I thought she had a lot of presence and a good voice.  Richard Gere, fine.  I thought his singing voice was a little odd, but maybe Gere grew up listening to Jimmy Durante records.  I don't know.  Hugh Jackman would have been much, much better, but then they'd have to find a way for Billy Flynn to go to trial with a sleeveless suit, and that would have been tough. But Rene Zellweger just totally blew me away.  To my eye, she was a great dancer and singer.  (And that's one of the real drags about dating a Drama Person.  Any time they see anybody dancing or singing or anything else, they have to critique the moves:  "Oh, she missed that step.  She's not getting her heels turned up enough.  Tsk, tsk.")  But more than anything, Rene Zellweger was just flaming hot.  The Roxie dance number was just as good as it gets. I mean, I was so for Roxie Hart.  I tried to think of other Movie Women I've been so taken with.  A direct parrallel can be drawn to Michelle Pfeiffer's character in the Fabulous Baker Boys, but that was so long ago.  Roxie Hart was better.  Heck, now that I think about it, I can't even think of any other Movie Crushes I've had right now.  Go, Roxie! And let me just say that Queen Latifah is such a badass.  It's been said before, but why is it that so many people who started out in the rap game end up as competent actors?  Regardless, the Queen has presence, and she has a voice, and she has a long career ahead of her in the movies.  And has John C. Reilly been in a bad movie yet?  Boogie Nights, Hard Eight, Magnolia, and at least a few others I can't remember. You know, I also like Moulin Rouge quite a bit.  I thought Moulin Rouge was fantastic to look at, and incredibly creative.  And I think maybe that's why I'm coming around on musicals, at least as far as features like Chicago and Moulin Rouge: They are creative.  They are different.  And they are smart. So much of the stuff Hollywood puts out is dumbed down.  Musicals have, I think, a bit of a bias to overcome with much of the movie-viewing public.  So, rather than dumb them down, the musicals that make it to the big screen today are spiced up, and are amazing to look at.  The choreography is snappy, and the songs are hilarious and catchy.  These aren't your Gene Kelly, running-around-New York musicals anymore.  These have been updated, and are, above all, sexy.  Nicole Kidman, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Renee Zellweger are just damned sexy when they are singing and dancing. And that, I think, is the real key to the success of these musicals.  Not only are they well done, but they have real star power and amazing performance.  Look, there are thousands of talented people working on theatre all around the world.  Amazing talents that can act, sing, dance, juggle, play instruments, you name it.  Multi-talented wonders.  But Chicago wouldn't have the same appeal if you used those people.  Why?  Those people aren't Movie Stars.  I think much of the appeal of the two movies is that the stars all did their own dancing and singing.  I sure didn't know Richard Gere could sing or dance.  And I sure didn't know that about Catherine Zeta-Jones or Renee Zellweger.  Truth is, probably most of the people we think of as Movie Stars can do those things.  But do it well?  Hard to say.  I sure have a lot more respect for them as performers after seeing them in something like Chicago, though. Given how the two movies have been received, I think it's likely that musicals are about to enjoy a rennaissance period in Hollywood.  Stars will be eager to show their multiple talents, and there is a long, long list of great musicals waiting to be updated and given a new life with a film re-invention.  Coming at Christmas, 2005-"Oklahoma!", starring Ice Cube, Mark Wahlberg, Britney Spears and Kelly Clarkson. "Surrey wit a muthafuckin' finge on top!" Yeah, I'm coming around on musicals.  As long as I don't have to attend the cast parties. 12:13:22 PM    Say what?[]

A Balloon In A Spacesuit? Today in a meeting, my boss used the following mixed metaphor: "Oh, that'll go over like a lead fart." Nobody batted an eye.  Apparently, we all know how nasty those lead farts can be. 11:10:37 AM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2003 Doug Hennessee. Last update: 9/30/2003; 11:51:52 AM.