My Review of TICK, TICK...BOOM!

Back when I was in high school, I feel like so many people in my theatre classes were obsessed with Rent. 

It was everywhere.

Girls would sing "Take Me or Leave Me" for a duet whenever we would do little mini-talent shows; one guy had "What You Own" as his cell phone ring tone; my sister's graduation song was "Seasons of Love".

I viewed Rent as a musical in which I couldn't stand most of the characters. I mean...you have to pay your rent!!

I also feel like it was problematic how the show dealt with AIDS on a prominent level and yet the main focus of the show was two straight white men while the heart of the show, Collins and Angel, were basically supporting players.

Then you have the whole "Did Jonathan Larson steal the plot of Rent from Sarah Schulman's novel People in Trouble?"

I wrote about this topic on my old blog, but here is an article that gets into that whole ordeal.

SCHULMAN VS. RENT

By By Achy Obejas and Tribune Staff Writer

Chicago Tribune

•

November 10, 1997

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-11-10-9711100181-story.html

So anyways...yeah...I have a very problematic relationship with Rent. 

I don't have that kind of relationship with tick, tick...Boom!

I first discovered tick, tick..Boom in 2001 when the cast recording was released following its first off-Broadway production. Even though I didn't often respond to musicals that had something of a rock/pop flavor (and I still don't), this particular musical proved to be an exception.

I have spent the last 20 years saying that I always felt a strong emotional connection to tick tick Boom and that I find it to be the better piece.

Imagine my delight that not only is there now a film to further give it exposure, but that it turned out to be a very well made and faithful adaptation. 

The musical serves as a semi-autobiographical take on Jonathan Larson's life right as he turns 30 in 1990 NYC. Working as a waiter at the now defunct Moondance Diner in SoHo, Larson is a struggling artist who is prepping to get his new musical workshopped at Playwrights Horizons.

After struggling for nearly a decade to make it in the theatre world, he is finally wondering if maybe he made the wrong choice as he is now 30 and hasn't made something for himself...

...gosh, that hits close to home on so many levels.

I am very pleased with what Lin Manuel Miranda was able to accomplish with this being his directorial debut. Some directors who come from the theatre world don't have the flair when it comes to directing film.

For every Mike Nichols and Sam Mendes, you get Hal Prince tackling the film adaptation of A Little Night Music or Susan Stroman wanting to translate her success from The Producers to the screen.

Miranda shows a great sense of cinematic flair and assurance as a film director here, and you can tell how much passion he has for the material. I also love how he showered this film with countless cameos of some of the NY Theatre scene's finest, such as Brian Stokes Mitchell, Laura Benanti, Joel Grey, Stephen Schwartz, Joshua Henry, Judy Kuhn, Danny Burstein, Judith Light, and even a voice cameo from God himself: Stephen Sondheim...although it must be said that in the physical scenes, Bradley Whitford nails all of Sondheim's physical mannerisms.

I was unaware that Andrew Garfield could sing to this extent so I was thrilled to see that he sold these songs amazingly well but also gave the character of Jon (who has his moments of being an annoying narcissist far too often) a surprising layer of warmth. I feel like Garfield is such a lovely actor and I feel like he should in the conversation to get an Oscar nod. I was so pleased with his work here!

Attention must be paid to Robin de Jesus as Jon's friend Michael. Most people may not know who he is but I think he also did a great job as Jon's lifelong gay friend who manages to make something for himself and he moves into a nicer apartment....hmmm...actually it sort of reminds me of Benny in Rent... eeek!

It may be a little too idealized and hopeful in some ways...and perhaps I still feel like some of the moments are too "me! me! me! me!" with Larson, but I do think this is one of the better stage-to-screen adaptations I've seen that is practically a love letter to the musical theatre community. 

RATING: 4.5/5

(The extra .5 is for Garfield and de Jesus)

My Review of KING RICHARD: Starring Will Smith & Aunjanue Ellis

 

As evidenced by my love for film and theatre and TV, it may not come as any surprise that the artistic interests leave me feeing rather cold towards the sporting world. I never wanted to play sports or watch sports. The extent of my sports interest mainly began and ended with watching the Winter and Summer Olympics.

That isn't to say that I would then hate any artistic endeavor that delves into sports as its main selling point. Movies like Cool Runnings or Rudy are both highly entertaining and enjoyable even if they may have their mawkish moments...particularly the latter.

A movie like Hoosiers was simply great and felt very fresh for a sports-formula film...and there are certainly other ones out there that I would give solid ratings.

So no, I don't automatically hate sports movies...and I don't hate King Richard. I just don't love it.

I wouldn't even necessarily say I liked it. I felt it was fine.

Just...fine.

King Richard is the story of the early years of famed Tennis superstars and sisters Venus and Serena Williams...but it is really about their father Richard. played by Will Smith.

While living in Compton, Richard and his wife Brandi (Aunjanue Ellis) seem to be pushing their children to better themselves as opposed to turning to a life on the street. Richard is someone who knows what he wants, pushes his children hard, and despite all of the frustrating and controlling qualities, it all comes down to his love for them in the end.

I understand that both Venus and Serena Williams have given this film their blessing and that they have a lot of love for their father, but I still think the framing around Richard makes this film feel very isolating and it diminishes a lot of the power and the achievements that these two absolutely remarkable athletes were able to accomplish.

You get the sense by the end that all of Richard's erratic behavior and his controlling nature were worth it because he got his two daughters where he felt they belonged...and also, as the script says: "This is the only way to get out of the ghetto".

So...by this logic...does that mean someone like Joe Jackson's incessant abuse of his sons doesn't matter because it gave birth to The Jackson 5 and later on, the King of Pop himself?

Does Rose Hovick's infamous stage mother persona towards her daughters June and Louise (AKA Gypsy Rose Lee) get erased since they found success?

And to comment on the "ghetto" line, does this imply that just because families who live in these poorer communities who may not have the means to practice at something or have the right connections are suddenly lazy and worthless or criminal?

I mean, that is a very Republican stance right there. Hell, Ronald Reagan would probably be delivering another speech about welfare queens if he could.

Framing the film around Richard was a bold though not exactly successful choice in my book. I wanted more from Venus and Serena with smaller doses of Richard...but instead, I felt distanced from those two when I wanted a lot more.

The film also makes a not surprising though rather cold Hollywood decision to seemingly disregard the achievements of other well-known African-American Tennis players to act as if the Williams' sisters were the first to make such a splash.

For example, the film completely ignores Zina Garrison who was a runner-up at 1990 Wimbeldon and a double-Gold medalist at the 1988 Seoul Olympic games.

I am not saying that this should be a competition of who came first, but considering the kind of narrative that the film was taking, I think it is off-putting to ignore someone who had such a strong profile at the time as Zina Garrison.

So, before I end this, I want to comment on the two best things about the film and that would be Will Smith and Aunjanue Ellis.

Smith is a good actor...though I don't know if he necessarily challenges himself enough. He does seem to get strapped into films with horrible scripts and he does tend to fall for failed "Oscar Bait" material. 

Here, I would actually argue that despite some issues with Richard's accent at times, this is one of his better performances though I actually think he was probably better in the overly sappy 2006 film The Pursuit of Happyness (and yes it was spelled that way).

Smith is already getting a lot of acclaim for his performance and some are even going as far as to say this could be the year he nets not just an Oscar nomination but a win. 

While I can't speak as to whether or not that would be worthy as I haven't seen a lot of the big contenders yet, I feel like he could make for a potential worthy nominee but a win probably wouldn't be feasible...though this hasn't stopped from much lesser performances winning Oscars: Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, anyone? 

The person who stole the film for me was Aunjanue Ellis who played wife and mother Brandi. Ellis isn't exactly a household name but she has done good work on such projects as HBO's Lovecraft Country and especially in the brilliant Netflix miniseries When They See Us.

Here, Ellis may be playing the cliche archetype of a supporting/somewhat suffering wife that is often popular in Oscar races but she manages to be lively, invigorating, strong, and steals pretty much every scene she is in.  

I would definitely support her getting a nomination and would even go as far to say she would be a worthy candidate for the win. We will see how that turns out because that category, along with Lead Actress, are shaping up to be very competitive this year.

So let's wrap this up:

King Richard was an odd film that seems prime to be a success with audiences and it seems a lot of critics are enjoying it too. I can see why it has appeal to some, but I kind of left it feeling like it was a missed opportunity.

Thanks to the power of Smith and Ellis, I will be giving the film an extra half star rating.

RATING: ***/*****

My Review of Rebecca Hall's PASSING

Actress Rebecca Hall met with a producer by the name of Nina Yang Bongiovi here in New York back in 2018 as Bongiovi had a particular interest in a project that Hall was behind.

Hall had written a script based on a 1929 Nella Larsen novella called Passing, about an African-American woman from Harlem who has a chance encounter with an old childhood friend who is passing herself off as white. 

Bongiovi realized Hall hoped to also make her directorial debut on the film as well, but she told Hall that it may not be a good idea for a white woman to direct a film about two African-American woman...especially when one of them is trying to pass as a white lady.

Then Hall dropped the bombshell:

Her own mother would partake of "passing".

(Hall with Thompson/Negga on set)

Hall's mother, opera singer Maria Ewing, was biracial and she married the white British theatre icon Peter Hall. In an interview with the LA Times, Hall went into this history a little more:

HALL: "There is a history of white-passing in my family. My whole life was sort of known and not known; talked about and not talked about. There really wasn't a language for passing. The novel offered a context and a historical understanding for what must have happened in my family".

Passing is a novella that I was not familiar with and due to that, I can't say if Hall changed a lot of attributes about the story. What I CAN say is that Hall seems like the right person to adapt such material and I feel that for her debut, she was remarkably assured and confident and it is clear that her vision was very singular and distinct. 

Before going into the acting, I want to discuss Hall's choices on how to present the film because I can see why it might alienate some but I would not be among that group.

Hall's vision for the film was for it to feel as if it were a movie lost to time in a lot of ways. Aside from shooting it in black & white, she also opted to shoot it in 4:3 aspect ratio which only seems to pop up these days when we watch an old TV show or movie that hasn't been remastered following the HD switchover. 

That rich cinematography compliments the late 20s aesthetic very well: the production design, the costumes, the hairstyles, etc... but when I was watching the first moments between Tessa Thompson and Ruth Negga, I wasn't quite sure what to make of them. 

I then realized what Hall was going for and then upon reading interviews following the film, it further established what I picked up on: the acting style matches the films of the era in a lot of ways.

The previously mentioned "lost in time" angle is very apparent in how Thompson and particularly Negga act in their roles. 

Ruth Negga, a former Oscar nominee of 2016's Loving, has the task of playing Clare, the one who is passing herself off as white. Her whole demeanor and look screams that of other white women that dominated the pre-Code era of Hollywood like Norma Shearer, Mary Pickford, Clara Bow, and Joan Crawford. It has a sort of stylized edge that may seem a little unnatural at first glance but as I watched her, I couldn't help but be drawn in by her. Negga's performance is one of those that doesn't necessarily have big, flashy moments but her screen presence is undeniable. She also knows how to use her big expressive eyes to great effect.

I was also very taken with Tessa Thompson as Irene. While she doesn't slip into a lot of the early talkie acting styles in the same way Negga does, Thompson's presence is quite sterling and you feel a lot of restraint and repressed emotions that are bubbling under the surface. 

The two of them make for one of the best duos I have seen in a film in quite some time. 

As a whole film, I can admit that certain moments felt a little bit slow or that the film doesn't seem to care about any of the characters beyond Thompson's Irene or Negga's Clare...but in the end, I felt that the film was very successful in what it set out to do.

The more I think about the film, the more it just lingers with me like some sort of dream. 

Hall should have a marvelous future if she wants to keep writer/director as part of her resume and it goes without saying that she, Tessa Thompson, and Ruth Negga need to be in the conversation this awards season.

A truly fascinating and gorgeous film.

RATING: 4.5/5