Here's another "Best of..." from The Graham Norton Show folks. This one they call "Celebrities Singing and Dancing." Though there's nothing earth-shattering about it, it's actually pretty good explanation of at least part of the reason I like the program on BBC America, since this shows it's freewheeling side that you don't see on most (or any) talk shows. As a bonus, this is the full sequence from which you see the snippet above of Marion Cotillard recreating a moment of her Oscar-winning role, lip-syncing as Edith Piaf in La Vie en Rose. The snippet above doesn't do the sequence justice, which I saw live. On the show, the segment began naturally enough, as host Norton asked her about the training to prepare for the role and particularly for the lip-syncing, which was particularly remarkable. (One of the guests, Frank Skinner, even interrupts her to say that until that moment when they were discussing it, he had no idea she had been lip-syncing and thought it had really been her.) And then the conversation slid into Norton asking a favor. Now, it's possible that it was set-up beforehand, but it seems not. I was going to say that if she's faking her angst then she's a really good actress -- but then, she did win an Oscar for the role, so, yes, she's a really good actress. But I'm going to throw my coinage down on betting that she's thrown for a loop by the request. In any event, she does an absolutely wonderful job, again, at a moment's notice. (And fun too are watching the other actors watching her in admiration -- because, as she notes, there's a physicality to it, and she really throws her whole self into it -- that's James McAvoy to her left, but most especially Michael Fassbender to her right.)
0 Comments
We interrupt this website to spend the day watching Robert Mueller testify. It started at 5:30 in the morning and that's much too early to get up, even I have my limits -- and besides, anything important will be on the news. I don't suspect there will be any Great New Revelations during the course of the day, but then no one has any idea how taciturn Mueller will get, and how he'll respond if challenged by Republicans. My guess is "taciturn" for most of the day, but the reality is that there don't need to be any "Great New Revelations." All it really needs is to get out to the public what's actually already in the Mueller Report, which nearly all of America has not read, which most people probably know next to nothing about -- including all those masses of Republicans who truly believe Trump when he says the Report completely vindicated him with no collusion, no obstruction -- yet the Report says completely otherwise. In place of our interruption, we have a new song parody from Randy Rainbow, "Suckers," based on the song "Sucker" from the Jonas Brothers. There's a segment about 3-and-a-half minutes in that's especially wonderfully done, and I'll leave it at that. I've discussed here periodically a series called National Theatre Live. For those who are just entering this stadium, the series is made up of live productions from the National Theatre in London that are streamed into movie houses around the world. In some places, they're actually streamed live, but in most locations (here in Los Angeles, for instance, with the eight-hour time difference) they delayed for later showing. But they're all recorded live during a performance, and beautifully done. I have loved every production I've seen, but they've all be superbly performed and worth going to. Last week, for example, I saw (for the second time, since my friend hadn't seen it, and it good enough to see again) the play The Audience," written by Peter Morgan -- who wrote the movie, The Queen -- and for which Helen Mirren recreated her Oscar-winner characterization of Queen Elizabeth from that film in a story about Her Majesty's weekly meetings with all the Prime Minsters during her reign (other than Tony Blair who has dealt with in full detail in the movie). Others have included Hamlet with Benedict Cumberbatch, King Lear with Ian McKellan, the Stephen Sondheim musical Follies, a stage-adaptation of the classic movie All About Eve with Gillian Anderson and Lily James. Frankenstein with Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonnie Lee Miller (of Elementary) who played each others' roles on alternate nights, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead with Daniel Radcliffe, and many more. But my favorite was a repeat (SO happily because I missed it when originally done) of One Man, Two Gunvors, a farce that stars James Corden in the role for which he won a Tony Award when the play was performed on Broadway. I wrote about here in more detail -- but the good news, and reason for bringing this up is that National Theatre Live is bringing it back yet again! So, if you've missed both screenings over the years and want to see it, I wanted to be sure to pass along a heads-up so that you have another chance. The story follows a totally dim-witted fellow who finds himself with two jobs at the same time, working for gangster rivals of one another, and he has to keep it a secret. There's more to the story as well, and the show throws pretty much everything into the mix, but at heart it's a French farce. You can go to this link here to see more about the show and find how when and in what theater it will be playing in your area. Just enter your Zip code in the proper box. There are usually one or two screenings in an area, but near me they are having four -- and the first three in late July were totally sold out when I first checked. Happily there were a few seats left for the final showing in mid-August. Here are two videos of the show. Neither of them do the show proper justice, but together they gave a reasonable sense of things, although there's much more of a story than these suggest. The first is one I've posted here before, a gem of a virtuoso scene with Corden trying to figure out how to handle his dilemma. And here then are four minutes of highlights, including a bit of the scene above.
It's not difficult for a Trump tweet to stand out for its offensiveness and stupidity. But for several reasons this one really clicked in as quite a gem, in part because (more than usual) I don't think he realized the incredibly stupid thing he was saying. And that's while even ignoring the really offensive things.
To begin with though, keep in mind that this tweet that slams elected officials in Congress for the "inexperience" is from someone who has absolutely zero political experience. So, the lack of self-awareness is not only palpable, but it colors the lack of insight of the rest of whatever he's trying to yammer. Additionally, please note that once again Trump is calling minority women "not very smart." His track record on this -- toward black people in general, but especially black women, and even black women in Congress like Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Fredericka Wilson -- is very long. It's one thing for Trump to not worry about offending black people since he's going to get few votes there, but women are over half the electorate. Given how much female support the Republican Party lost in the 2018 mid-terms, this is not a good direction to keep going and doubling down on. And even if Trump thinks he has no black votes to lose, not only is the Hispanic vote the largest growing segment of voters, but there are a lot of minority voters in general who add up to a massive number, and a lot of white voters who undecided Independents and aren't actually cold and heartless and racist and think this is a really, really poor way for a president to govern the country But beyond all of this, this is that "incredibly stupid" thing that transcends the rest which I don't think Trump has a clue of what he wrote here. Clearly, he thought he was damning Democrats today, slamming them for having lost their way. But what he said was something which has always been implied under the surface in GOP slams of Democrats, but never expressed openly because doing so would be -- well, incredibly stupid. But Trump, because he has no filter and has repeatedly shown himself ignorant of history, openly went there, where other Republicans rightly fear to tread. And what Trump said, in that ill-advised effort to damn them, was that the Democratic Party was "once great." It's one thing, after all, to say (rightly or wrongly) that a political party has strayed too far from its past and lost who it is. It's another thing entirely, however, to take the next logical step and say out loud what you should avoid saying but only imply and hope that people get razzle-dazzled enough to miss it. And's to say that what that political party had been in the past, which they've supposedly strayed from, was "great." Okay, so let's play that game. What is it then that made the "once great" Democratic Party great?? What are the Democrat Party accomplishments of the past 85 years or so that Trump says he believes are so "great"? Democrats of the years gone by passed such laws as -- Social Security Medicare The Civil Rights Act The Voting Rights Act The 40-hour workweek Child labor laws FDIC banking protection TVA electrification of rural America GI Bill of Rights Americans with Disabilities Act Food Stamps The Peace Corps Freedom of Information Act ALL very liberal. These are the things that Trump chides today's Democrats for supposedly losing sight of because they were so great. Never mind, of course, that none of the issues Democrats are trying to address today are especially all that more liberal than any of these earlier achievements were at the time. Just because we accept them today as normal, they were almost radical in their day. And not only did conservatives and the Republican Party fight to block most of them, but many conservatives today still consider some of them much too liberal, never mind that most of America loves them and would be outraged if any were taken away. It would be interesting to see a list of what the Republican Party and conservatives think have been their own during this past 85 since, since the passage of Social Security in 1935. "The once great Democratic Party" -- Trump No Democrat, indeed no American needs Trump's seal of approval to recognize what liberals and the Democratic Party have brought to the country. It has indeed been great. But it's nice to see even such a small-minded, empty, mean-spirited, vindictive individual finally recognize it. It can't be said enough. Last week, I said to a friend how weird it was that Disney was making a cartoon adaptation of a cartoon. “What do you mean??” he asked. I said, wait, you don’t think they actually trained all those animals to sing and dance, do you??? Happily, no, he didn't, though he was still a little confused by my point. I explained that I know the new version of The Lion King may look real, but it's still animation. Just because it’s CGI animation doesn’t mean it’s not animation. “Oh, you’re right,” he said. I was okay with the original cartoon, but didn’t love it. (And, yes, I know I was in the minority because it made a billion dollars. And then the stage version piled so much more on top of that.), As a result, my feeling was largely the same this time since it was the exact same story and same Elton John-Tim Rice songs. And I even dozed off briefly a couple of times. What makes it worthwhile, of course, is that the CGI animation is spectacular and fun. And I saw it in 3D, which made it all a bit more vibrant. But all of that is form, not content. Moreover, it’s 30 minutes longer than the original, so (for me) it dragged, stretching out the thin story even more. Further, being longer means there’s more time between the songs, which had been the part I liked the most in the original. And as amazing as the CGI animation is – and it’s absolutely, jaw-droppingly great – I actually had a problem with it in the opening, deeply-impressive scene of “The Circle of Life.” In the original cartoon, there’s something endearing about all the cartoon animals in the jungle coming to Pride Rock to pay homage to the new baby lion. But with realistic-looking animation, I oddly found it a bit creepy to see all the very real-looking animals SO excited and overjoyed and bowing down in deep reverence to the baby lion, who will grow up to be a predator of them. I could accept that much easier with cute, drawn cartoon animals, but less so with animated animals that look absolutely realistic. To be clear, I'm glad I saw it in 3D, and I was in awe of the production. But as an overall movie, for my taste, it was just fine. And ultimately, my opinion doesn’t even remotely matter. The movie will clean up at the box office, and already has started to. And understandably so, since the CGI animation is utterly brilliant. And most people already love the story and some may even love that there’s more of it here. I look forward to Disney adapting it into yet another stage musical... Here's some of that opening "The Circle of Life." The CGI animation is stunning. The song is excellent. And I still find it a bit creepy. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|