(no subject)
Mar. 19th, 2005 11:32 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatQuick update...
Joing the rest of the flist in wishing a Happy Birthday to Rob, otherwise known as![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
buffyannotater.
Wonderful media critic, who is good at pulling his punches.
Speaking of which - Rob, check out the New York Times review of Spamalot, they actually seem to agree with your points regarding the Lady of The Lake.
Feeling somewhat snarky this week, so won't say too much. This bit below, may be too much as it is, so live-journal cutting.
Beautiful day - plan to use it to celebrate the fact that I've actually started writing creatively again. As opposed to writing essays and journal entries and posts. I missed the storytelling - not doing that, made me feel cranky, as if someone had removed a portion of my soul. Unless you are a storyteller - you probably won't get that. Analyzing other people's stories is wonderful and all that, but it's not quite the same thing for me. Again, unless you are a storyteller (note not a "writer" per se) you won't get that.
On the media gossip front - I find the bits and pieces I'm hearing about the folks involved in BTVS somewhat sad. Reminders of how difficult/impossible the entertainment world really is and how hard it is to succeed in it. At the same time, they all have made more money than I can imagine, so it's hard to feel too sorry for them. ;-)
TV front - Still enjoying BattleStar Galatica. A well-written, tight, finely acted story. With a female characters that I adore. I especially like Starbuck who has the same physical build I do, sort of. Tall, low busted, leggy. Atheletic. Round face. Not model goregous. That said? Not obsessed with it. The characters don't dive under my skin like Whedon's did or Farscape. I don't worry over them. They don't play with my imagination in the same way.
Not sure why this is - is it the flaws in BTVS that caused me to become so obsessed with it? The characters? OR the reason for the flaws - the fact that the writers and actors were willing to take a flying leap off the precipice without a net? Rare to see on TV. An actor or writer or director taking huge risks. 90% of the time they fall flat, smash against the concrete of course, but but...10% of the time you see brilliance and it's that 10% I live for.
Those pure moments of brilliance. To experience them - you have to deal with the inconsistent storylines and smash-ups, that's what makes them so worth while.
Veronica Mars was a rerun, so watched House, which was bloody entertaining. I love Hugh Laurie.
Oh and still watching 24 - not for the story, just for the actors - Kiefer Sutherland, Carlos Bernard, and Keiko Reyes (his wife Michelle). Watching 24 and Alias, makes me want to rush out and buy the first two seasons of La Femme Nikita on DVD.
Joing the rest of the flist in wishing a Happy Birthday to Rob, otherwise known as
buffyannotater.Wonderful media critic, who is good at pulling his punches.
Speaking of which - Rob, check out the New York Times review of Spamalot, they actually seem to agree with your points regarding the Lady of The Lake.
Feeling somewhat snarky this week, so won't say too much. This bit below, may be too much as it is, so live-journal cutting.
Beautiful day - plan to use it to celebrate the fact that I've actually started writing creatively again. As opposed to writing essays and journal entries and posts. I missed the storytelling - not doing that, made me feel cranky, as if someone had removed a portion of my soul. Unless you are a storyteller - you probably won't get that. Analyzing other people's stories is wonderful and all that, but it's not quite the same thing for me. Again, unless you are a storyteller (note not a "writer" per se) you won't get that.
On the media gossip front - I find the bits and pieces I'm hearing about the folks involved in BTVS somewhat sad. Reminders of how difficult/impossible the entertainment world really is and how hard it is to succeed in it. At the same time, they all have made more money than I can imagine, so it's hard to feel too sorry for them. ;-)
TV front - Still enjoying BattleStar Galatica. A well-written, tight, finely acted story. With a female characters that I adore. I especially like Starbuck who has the same physical build I do, sort of. Tall, low busted, leggy. Atheletic. Round face. Not model goregous. That said? Not obsessed with it. The characters don't dive under my skin like Whedon's did or Farscape. I don't worry over them. They don't play with my imagination in the same way.
Not sure why this is - is it the flaws in BTVS that caused me to become so obsessed with it? The characters? OR the reason for the flaws - the fact that the writers and actors were willing to take a flying leap off the precipice without a net? Rare to see on TV. An actor or writer or director taking huge risks. 90% of the time they fall flat, smash against the concrete of course, but but...10% of the time you see brilliance and it's that 10% I live for.
Those pure moments of brilliance. To experience them - you have to deal with the inconsistent storylines and smash-ups, that's what makes them so worth while.
Veronica Mars was a rerun, so watched House, which was bloody entertaining. I love Hugh Laurie.
Oh and still watching 24 - not for the story, just for the actors - Kiefer Sutherland, Carlos Bernard, and Keiko Reyes (his wife Michelle). Watching 24 and Alias, makes me want to rush out and buy the first two seasons of La Femme Nikita on DVD.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Thanks, s'kat!
Date: 2005-03-20 08:22 am (UTC)And that really was quite a good review. I agreed with a lot of it, particularly his points about the Lady of the Lake and how Tim Curry's brilliance in the play was how completely not-in-on-the-joke he made Arthur, except I think on the whole, Brantley was a bit too dismissive of the production, in the end, calling it "forgettable." He spent most of the review describing how entertaining it was, but in the end, it was as if he felt he had to justify his enjoying such a "silly" play by taking it down a notch. I'm not saying that it's the greatest play ever written for the musical theatre (although it might be the best "meta" musical I've ever seen), and yes, it is silly and stupid, as it was intended to be, but I would hardly call it forgettable: in fact, I can't imagine anyone ever forgetting certain moments from that play, such as when the corpses from the dead wagon get up and sing, or the stuffed cow is catapulted from the castle.