Turn Off the McCarter Theater!

Went to the last preview of "Turning Off the Morning News" at McCarter .

All I can say is "just, wow", and not in a good way. Some things just are not funny, and mass shootings just happen to be one of those things. Whether these atrocities occur at schools, churches, malls, movie theaters, or night clubs is not important. They are just not funny.

The characters were somewhat hackneyed: the would be killer was an unemployed, alcoholic bipolar, who just happened to be a bigot. His wife was a Christian woman who quite literally could not see what was in front of her face. The other characters were a pair of friends who moved in together due to recent adversities, the son of the would be killer and his addled Christian wife, and a bizarre neighbor who didn't quite fit with the story line.

I suppose at some time during the previews the antagonists were softened in some way and their "politics" were obscured, so as not to be way too obvious.

Anyway, it was an hour and a half of my life that I will never get back. As I took the elevator to the street level, I remarked to the other quiet passengers, "that was different", and an elderly lady piped up, "it was catastrophically awful."

A Pox on Globalism

For years now I have been listening to globalists bang on about the free movement of labor and capital and how it will benefit "everyone". By everyone, they clearly mean everyone in their social circle who have plenty of money and want more, by moving manufacturing to China and by bringing cheap workers here to the US. They were happy to cripple the autoworkers, the steelworkers, the textile workers and anyone else they could shaft by moving these jobs to Asia. Here, they are delighted to screw over tech workers with foreign visa holders ready to replace them for less money and the promise of citizenship. They will be pleased to rid the citizens of the US of any other jobs too. Look around and see how many foreign doctors and nurses you see...cheaper than training  Americans (as if the Universities are hurting), look at the landscaping jobs being performed by uneducated (illegal) foreigners... when Max moved to NJ in the 1980s the landscaping and lawn cutting was done by high school kids (the foreigners are probably not only cheaper, but more willing to be exposed to a fabulous amount of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides).

We hear, ad nauseum, about how we can't deport illegals as it might "break up families". What about the families destroyed by job loss and outsourcing? What about the families that will not begin as young people are living at home until their 30 because nothing is available unless you are foreign born? They apparently count for nothing. Only families of cheap labor count?

I was thrilled when GM lost a facility to nationalization in Venezuela. I'd like to see more of these bastards lose their asses. They did it to the American worker.

Comedy on the Orient Express

The scenery and costumes were lush and era appropriate, some of the actors were truly wonderful in their roles, and the cast of the Agatha Christie novel was more or less successfully truncated to the tastes of modern audiences. The doctor and the Countess were combined in to one person (what a feminist), all the couples travelled alone, and the cook and baby nurse were smashed into a ridiculous Christian (how awful) missionary who wanted to help the sick and starving in Africa. And while it did nothing to pare down the cast, a great American tragedienne was transformed into a musical comedienne with a bad voice. All the elements of a modern American comedy were there in full force, and it was only the bones of the Christie novel that were on stage. Yes, Dame Agatha added elements of comic relief in her novels, but they were never comedies.

And why would Murder on the Orient Express not be a comedy? Well, first and foremost because it was developed around  horrible crimes: kidnapping and child murder. In this production, you even see the kidnapping and fear of the young girl as she is hauled away into the night (of course that should lead to hijinks, right?) Next up the grieving parents both die tragically, the father by his own hand and the mother in childbirth. The household's maid also kills herself, a miserable foreign woman, alone in America who is subject to suspicion that she might be involved. In the book, the survivors act out of anger, grief, and heart wrenching sorrow. In their despair, they seek justice.

The "canon" of English literature provides many opportunities for comedy. However brilliantly executed, this was not a good idea. Murder, kidnapping and suicide are never a laughing matter. But the production did prove one thing, a cleverly conceived lie can be believed. One who was unfamiliar with the Christie novel might actually believe that she made light of human agonies, when Christie and her detectives never did that.

If you want comedies, Princetonians, they abound. Hamlet and Murder on the Orient Express are not comedies, no matter how much you yourselves, want to break Western Society. You got a glitzy, well acted production, ridiculing the grieving families, successful businessmen (Bouc can be considered successful) and a Christian missionary (inspired to be one out of an enduring sense of guilt that she was unable to save the child in her care). It "worked", but should it have done so?

Was it meant to be funny at all? Under different direction, Bouc could have been tamped down, our musical comedienne could have been played as a sad woman who turned to alcohol (she drank like a fish) to comfort herself, and the guilt-ridden baby nurse could have been NOT played for cheap laughs. If you must have a comedy, please rid yourself of the kidnapping scene. It hurt.

A Farewell to being locked in at McCarter

Cancelled our automatic renewal at the McCarter today. The subscription office acted stunned and asserted that my opinion on the season was wrong, and that the shitty production of Hamlet was superb. I told her that people walked out, and that Mr. Maximalist and I were far from alone, and I reminded her that there were plenty of empty seats to start with. Eventually she conceded that I had a right to my opinion (how fucking noble and gracious of her.)

Anyway, I do not go to the theater to have my culture insulted, or to be bombarded with political viewpoints. The recent productions of Shakespeare have been dreadful (I do not think Marc Anthony's death was hilarious and Hamlet's soliloquys deserve more than a speed reading)and the other plays have largely been manipulative.

I long for the days when they did beautiful productions of French comedies or Greek tragedies, or even thoughtful Shakespeare.

If you go to the theater on a constant basis, perhaps these offerings would be like a burst of spice or an appealing palate cleanser. We don't. So we will be carefully picking and choosing on what we spend our precious free time. A subscription to McCarter is just frustrating and annoying at this time.

Hamlet for hams at McCarter

"Come on, Max", said my husband, "It's Hamlet, you can't ruin Hamlet."

Well, today, Mr. Maximalist was proven wrong, by McCarter's production of Hamlet. They played it as a comedy. No, not as a tragedy with Shakespearean comic relief, but as a full blown comedy.

In the first act, the comedy was based on the minimalist set, and the interaction with the audience sitting on stage, but by the second act, the Prince of Denmark, who I was halfway enjoying (the only performance I enjoyed), vacillated wildly, from a crafty young man (not so young, actually, but not as painful as the paunchy middle aged Laertes)to a Jim Carrey-esque clown portraying a mean full blown manic episode, to an insufferably shallow delivery of Hamlet's best known soliloquy. Listening to this version, you would never know that the young prince was considering suicide. It just wasn't funny.

If the point was Hamlet was a reckless manic, it could have been made without slap-stick. Mania can be destructive, and human destruction is never funny.

The anachronisms " tape recorder, flashlights, massive stage lights, and careless 21st century dress were merely annoying, because it was a silly farce anyway. I was too irritated by the disembowelment of Shakespeare to care.

Was "hating on" Shakespeare the point of this? Was there a point at all?

As Mr. Maximalist and I left the theater (after the second act), the other departing patrons expressed that they too had "given up". We also wondered if it was the performance and NOT Superbowl Sunday that kept people away.

For all those who stuck it out until the end, I thank you. It was much easier to drive home quickly.

Finis

Great news for dog care!

GREAT news for dogs!

About two years ago, I sunk a fortune into canine dentistry for my rescue dog, Rusty, whose teeth were badly covered with tartar. The anesthesia was rough and he was out of it for days.

Fast forward: vet said that he needed another cleaning. Try as I might, and try I did, Rusty resisted the brush.

I tried a sonicare.

He looked apprehensive, but let me do it. Maybe the crazy old pom likes the noise or the vibration. Anyway, Rusty does this growlessly.

And the tartar is GONE, not diminished, but gone. It is cracked away and he looks great. I was amazed what a week with sonicare can do, as this was a last ditch effort prior to plunking down another $1000.00.

So, for those beset by dental bills for your dog, those who never want to do it again, and those who have a new pet and don't want problem, get a cheap sonicare and go.

I make no guarantee that your dog will love this, but oddly mine does!

Bathing in Moonlight at the McCarter: spoilers ahead

 I enjoyed Anna in the Tropics and was hoping that Bathing in Moonlight would be a similarly well crafted and enjoyable play. I was pleased with the acting, but disappointed in the workmanship of the play itself.

As this is McCarter in an election year, I fully expected the  "no walls" diatribe masquerading as a sermon by a dedicated priest, the central character in the play. What would an Emily Mann production be without a call to socialist arms?

The play centers on the life of a priest in present day Miami. It is important to emphasize that this is a contemporary play, as the finale would be more appropriately set a century earlier. The grand  outrage of an entire city at the character who has an affair with a woman his own age, is certainly not representative of 2015. When I was in a Catholic school in 1970, a priest did exactly that (left the priesthood and married his girlfriend) with not a word from the media. The ending was embarrassingly anachronistic.

That aside, the play does little to develop the other characters. Our female lead is particularly vague and poorly focused. Marcella is a thirty something, unemployed single mother. We never learn why she never married the father of Trini, why she loses her job, or why she chooses to be alone until she is propositioned by a handsome priest...one who has been paying her mortgage. We do know that she is presented as a rather devout woman who did not get involved with the Reverend Father until it was crystal clear that her brother was going to be no use in paying the bills. While there was an attraction, her motivation is unclear.

The brother, who also plays the grandmother's memory of her late husband, is also murky. He fails out of medical school, disappears, then blames his mother for his actions and his subsequent depression. We never learn what his "real" life goals were, if he even had any, or if he plans on moving beyond self pity.

As for grandma, whose family lost all when Castro came to power, was she a conniving, driving bitch who wanted to keep up appearances, or was she a mother who wanted her family to succeed in the US? At no point did she present as a woman who "forced" her late husband to work three jobs, or who could make her son go to medical school. Her demise, well and quite movingly telegraphed by the playwright, went virtually unnoticed by her onstage family. Fine if the family was callous and relieved, sloppy if they were not.

Back to the priest. While he came across on some level as a tortured man in love, let's not forget that he kept her as "my secret" as he showed no intention of marrying his mistress until discovered by persons unknown and confronted by the Bishop. Secondly, he paid the mortgage, long a literary lure for an affair, and mentioned his "inheritance" which was also unclear to the audience.

The acting was superb, they made the most of a play in needs of plenty of work. I hope it gets some revisions. In a world where affairs and subterfuge are no longer shocking (and would certainly garner no attention from the local television news unless the participants were celebrities), the author needs to flesh out the motivations of his characters. As the play was under two hours without an intermission, Milo Cruz has the stage time, and certainly the talent, to do this. Also, he needs to lose the faux reporters and the suggestion that the community will destroy the lovers, it hasn't done that in a very long time