Numerous sources are reporting that playwright Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa has been or may be engaged to help rewrite the book of Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark on Broadway. He is perhaps the logical choice since in addition to plays, he has written Spider-Man comics.
But assuming the reports are true, it's odd to be bringing someone in now to rewrite the book unless (a) they're planning, despite promises to the contrary, to delay the opening again or (b) they're only expecting him to participate in small dialogue rewrites. The show is scheduled to open March 15. That's less than a month from now and it's pretty late in the game to be making major alterations in the book. It would be even if this was a simple musical with simple sets, simple staging and no complicated special effects. I haven't seen the show but I'll wager they're severely limited as to what they can change if they're going to freeze things in time to open on 3/15.
Then again, maybe they're not going to freeze the show. Broadway tradition is that you don't make significant revisions after Opening Night...but this show has already broken all sorts of Broadway traditions. Maybe they're just going to go on fixing and changing things even after they open.
By the by: I must admit that while I've written a lot here about this show, I find myself largely disinterested in going to see it. If it's still running the next time I'm in New York (no idea when that'll be), I might go or I might not. I'm probably more interested in reading that book that you just know somebody's already working on about how this became the biggest surprise smash hit in the history of American theater...or the biggest flop.
Over at the American Conservative site, Daniel Larison argues that Obama's critics are having a hard time finding a way to say that he's been mishandling the situation in Egypt. Not that they aren't trying...
Here's the real lowdown on Watson, the computer that bested two champion players on Jeopardy! They left out the clip of Watson's father getting bested by Arlene Francis on the old What's My Line? and failing to balance a golf ball on its nose (largely because it didn't have a nose) on Beat the Clock...
I haven't been watching Lawrence O'Donnell, the gent who now has Keith Olbermann's time slot on MSNBC. I actually haven't been watching MSNBC much, if at all lately. I often agree with the politics of its prime-time commentators but that's not enough to get me to tune in.
I'm increasingly aware that a key selling point for that kind of programming — and for talk radio and certain websites — is reinforcement. It's like: Give us your business and we'll endorse every political prejudice you have and shield you from facts that conflict, plus we'll give you more reasons to hate the people you hate, even if we have to make them up. I don't want that and if you don't, good for you. There are way too many people out there, Liberal or Conservative, who do.
Olbermann did some of that but not enough to lose my business. I felt I got something out of watching his show, including a presentation of some issues that was complete enough that I sometimes came to different conclusions than the host's. I like some of Rachel Maddow's show but can only abide her for an hour when I'm in the mood to be lectured, which is almost never. Chris Matthews seems to enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing...and O'Donnell and Ed Schultz are trying too hard to work the Fox News model in a left-wing context. If I were right of center, I'd like to think I had too much respect for facts and mature discussion to watch much of Hannity or Beck. Being generally left of center, I'm not going to avidly tune in to their Liberal knock-offs.
So I missed it yesterday when O'Donnell went after two friends of mine, James Hudnall and Batton Lash, for a recent cartoon they did which depicted the Obamas in a manner he decried as racist and disgusting. Even if he'd been right about that, I thought O'Donnell's segment was overkill and needlessly personal. But I also don't think the cartoon was racist or disgusting, especially compared to a lot of what's said about the Obamas on the web these days. What set O'Donnell off was probably not so much what Jim and Bat said but where they said it...that particular website.
There's loads of stuff there that is racist, hysterical and constructed of outright lies about the Obamas and Democrats. Its operator recently got up at CPAC and said of Liberals, "They're not Americans, they're animals" and he has often said how much he hates and wants to destroy them. This is Andrew Breitbart we're talking about...he of the deceptively-edited videotapes and other smears that responsible Conservatives disavow or at least distance themselves from. In his silly scolding of Jim and Bat, O'Donnell went after what may be the least offensive thing on that site and one that clearly falls within this nation's tradition of political commentary by cartoon. He oughta be ashamed of that.
He wanted the friends and acquaintances of Hudnall and Lash to perform an intervention and get them to stop doing their cartoons. I sure won't do that. If they want to keep doing them, they should keep doing them. What I will suggest to them is that they're doing it on a website that frequently engages in the kind of attacks O'Donnell made (including bogus accusations of racism) and therefore invites them in return. I think Breitbart deliberately provokes that sort of thing. I mean, you don't call people "animals" unless you want them to bark at you. Jim and Batton may well feel that it's worth occasionally wandering into the line of fire in order to reach that site's large readership...but Breitbart's site does throw mud. Hudnall and Lash shouldn't be surprised when others throw it back and some of it, however unfairly, splatters on the political cartoonists.
Gigi was the Best Picture of 1958...or so said the Motion Picture Academy which gave it that award and nine others. I'm not sure why. There were some great songs and Maurice Chevalier was wickedly charming...but ten Oscars? My problem with it was that I could never summon up any interest in the story of a bored rich guy who decides to brighten his life by buying himself a mistress.
In 1973, reversing the usual process, it was adapted for a stage musical. Nowadays, people often turn movie musicals into theatrical productions but back then, it was something new...and unsuccessful. It only ran a few months on Broadway. I guess audiences then couldn't summon up any interest in the story of a bored rich guy who decides to brighten his life by buying himself a mistress.
The Reprise! group which does fine limited-run musicals up at UCLA is currently offering a revival of the stage version and I am just back from Opening Night. The cast is strong (especially Lisa O'Hare in the title role) and the sets and costumes and orchestrations are splendid. Director David Lee has done a terrific job of delivering Broadway quality on a low budget and short-term rehearsals schedule. I'm very glad I saw it but I still can't summon up any interest in the story of a bored rich guy who decides to brighten his life by buying himself a mistress.
This production of Gigi runs through 2/27. If you order tickets here, try entering the word "LOVE" in the coupon code box. I think it'll get you ten bucks off each ticket.
By the way: Betty White was in the audience. Then again, she's in everything.
February 16, 2011
