bostonman

Rigoletto also is guilty of overprotecting his daughter. Not only is she kept sheltered, but she doesn't know what her father does (until of course she discovers him, pleading the courtiers for her life, in the palace in Act III) or who her mother was, etc. Ironically, he practically drives her into the Duke's bed by trying to keep her safe. I actually feel that, no matter how they are treated, that the two main women are the most sympathetic characters. We can feel for Gilda - the young girl who just wants to experience some degree of life and love, and winds up going for the wrong man. Likewise, though Maddalena is a floozy who is clearly an accomplice to a number of murders, we get a glimpse of her heart as she tries to talk Sparfucile out of killing the Duke. Though Gilda tells her father at the very end that she sacrificed herself for the Duke, she makes her decision to do so after hearing Maddalena's pleas to her brother. But in terms of this being a story full of unlikable characters, keep in mind that Verdi and librettist Piave were also in a huge battle with the censors over this opera (and others) - and what they ended up with is actually much tamer than the Victor Hugo play they were adapting.

No. We can't just throw away and/or ignore centuries upon centuries of art because they don't conform to our current mores. Period. There was also a recent article in the NY Times concerning the revivals of Carousel and My Fair Lady, etc, posing the same kinds of questions. And questions like this have been around as far back as I can remember (even when I was first getting to know Carousel in my teens in the 1970's, I knew people who hated the piece because of how Julie rationalized Billy's treatment of her). So, we're always allowed to question, to discuss, to often face the fact that time has NOT always changed for the better...but we must never fear art.

I sag the Christmas motets as well, back in college. As the accompanist for a Catholic church now, I have this tradition of playing the final one ("Hodie Christus Natus Est") as an organ postlude. The first year I did that, the choir director, who had also sung these motets, loved the idea so much that he's insisted every year that I do it, lol. (I wish our choir was good enough to actually sing any of these, but alas...) We also sang Poulenc's "Salve Regina" - not the one from Carmelites, but another gorgeous 4-part a cappella motet. Still one of my favorites.

The Louis Armstrong appearance, albeit fun, is one of the film's most brazen anomalies. The film even goes as far as to clarify, onscreen at the beginning, that it's taking place in 1890. Armstrong wasn't born until 1901. Now, yes, one could rationalize that he's not really playing himself, but merely a character named Louis (they could at least given him a different name?) - but given Armstrong's huge association with the song, etc, it's really hard not to see this as anything except a cameo appearance as himself. But yeah, it's also a fun moment in the film, notwithstanding. As long as one's disbelief is suspended as far as possible.

I'm not much of a La Cage fan either - save for a few first-rate songs (especially the perfection that is "Look Over There") it's one of his weakest scores, musically and especially lyrically, IMO. ("A Little More Mascara" and "Masculinity" have some of his worst lyrics ever, IMO. The words can be clunky and odd, they don't always sit on the music well, and it just feels to me like you can hear the heavy labor he had to put into them, instead of the breeziness that so many of his lyrics have.) I'm not sure I agree that the original French film isn't a good property for a stage show, though - and of course there's also The Birdcage, which was to have more songs in it that it wound up with. I'm not sure that the Porter/Herman comparison is all that apt if we're talking subjects/plots, though, because Porter worked mostly in an era where often properties/plots didn't need to make much sense lol. In fact, it's almost ironic that Porter's indisputable stage masterwork, Kiss Me, Kate, was written under a bit of resistance - he wasn't all that happy about how Rodgers and Hammerstein had already completely changed the expectations of what a musical could be. (And yet that show has what I consider one of the great classic musical theatre books, even if some of the songs do come out of nowhere lol.) I personally think that Mack and Mabel is a brilliant score stuck in a book that will never quite work (there have already been 2 major revisions over time, at least, and it still isn't quite right). In my mind, it might be a better musical if one cut the book and just played the drama through the songs. It's hard to beat ballads as perfect as "I Won't Send Roses" or "Time Heals Everything" - those songs are one-act plays in their own right, and tell us everything we need to know about those characters' all too human mindsets. Wonderful stuff.

Posting the single phrase "And not the same guy" is not in any way "asking for clarification." But it can certainly be read as an accusation. That's what I was referring to. The valium reference was to the fact that you project this image of being very high-strung and in attack-dog mode on everyone. Not just me, but everyone. If you'd like to have discussions, fine. But you're attacking, just like trump tweets, and it's not necessary. So I repeat, calm down.

Yes it is. Several guys are being discussed here. If you look at the quote above my response, the poster was looking for info on Ben, not Jay. Take a valium and please make sure you read what's here before you start making accusations. Thank you.

Try the screenname MuscleCompanion. https://rentmen.eu/MuscleCompanion

We'll just have to disagree on that one. It doesn't make Porter any less of a genius to also praise Herman's work, which to me is generally first-rate. Neither of them got it right all the time, but does anyone?

Thanks! Though I wasn't at all looking for praise, lol - just wanted to clarify a term. Now - if you're looking for Herman pastiche, the theme song to the sitcom Phyllis is a perfect example. Obviously the target song is "Mame" - but the melody and musical style are VERY classic Jerry Herman, let alone the clear allusions to "Mame" in the structure of the lyric writing. As a kid, my favorite part of this was that priceless look that Leachman gives at the very end.

The way the "This Is Me" lyric reads to me is much more contemporary/pop in feel, and not structured as carefully or cleverly as Herman's more traditional Broadway lyric. (Herman is also more daring with his rhymes, which he always has been - the rhyming in "this is me" is much more general and common.) In terms of song structure, Herman always worked in the expected AABA kind of "standard" lyric structures, which "This Is Me" doesn't have. ("I Am What I Am" is 3 refrains of AABA lyric, each refrain carefully building and changing in tempo and feel - that kind of build or variety is also nowhere to be found in "This Is Me.") If anything, looking that that lyric simply on its own terms, I would tend to think, structurally, of something like "I Am Woman" way before "I Am What I Am" lol. More to the point, "pastiche" in terms of music/song tends to refer more to a direct imitation of musical style. A lyric imitation would naturally follow, but the music would be the main focus. And there is nothing musical that connects the 2 songs. Though, Pasek and Paul can indeed do pastiche very well - I don't think they were trying for that here at all. (Or, in the film in general, as even Jenny Lind's "Never Enough" isn't pastiche for her character, which would have been an obvious choice to consider. Compare Cy Coleman's attempt at something more pastiche in Barnum, where Lind sings the more lyrical/quasi-operatic "Love Makes Such Fools Of Us All.") Pastiche doesn't refer to the literal substance of a song (i.e. a similar message or "plot" in the lyrics), rather a deliberate and obvious imitation of style. That isn't what "This Is Me" is doing. It may be a pastiche pop song (from the standpoint of Pasek and Paul being musical theatre writers "imitating" pop, in a sense), but it's not a pastiche of Jerry Herman.

Agreed. Settle is great in general, but she's pushing like crazy on this song. I think, whether one is for or against having the songs presented in the broadcast, that we can all agree that the performances this time around were not very good in general. Gael Garcia Bernal's croaking of "Remember Me" being the true WTF moment. Kenny - I know what you're getting at, but "pastiche" is really not the right term. That would imply the song would have a Jerry Herman-esque sound and/or lyric to it, which is obviously doesn't. But yes, both songs have a similar sentiment/meaning in the lyrics, which I know is what you meant.

Ha! Seems to me you're begging the question (in the classic sense) just a bit, but I also know I'm splitting hairs lol. I do agree with you that it's a cute ad - and one that surely all of us can relate to.

But we don't know that to be the case, from the context of the ad.

Except when sung by Adele Dazeem.

The idea is cute. But there's a huge acting problem here. The boy can't possibly know what the dad is going to start talking about. ("I've been meaning to talk to you" is just not enough to give it away. For US maybe it is, but realistically, not for him.) And yet the boy's first reaction, already, is awkwardness - even before he knows what the conversation really will be. I know - picky. But if the boy could have waited one more line before his disgust began to register, it would have been perfect.

The problem is, for this to work on TV at all, there has to be production value. Wanna just merely watch the awards given out and speeches made? They could do that on C-SPAN lol. Now, I do agree that the writing could be miles better, the gimmicks (like the visit to the movie theatre) need to be rethought, and yes, the songs should be presented in a better way, but I do think the songs provide a needed respite from the routine of the evening. But yes - faster pacing in general, and some careful choices as to what works as "filler" and what really doesn't (Like, please god, don't make the Star Wars actors try to make jokes, lol) - that would help. (I actually think that, instead of the songs, all that awful "cute" banter between the presenters, before they announce the awards, needs to go away. Most of it is beyond terrible.) And somehow - though I know this is pretty much impossible for many reasons - the commercial breaks need to be MUCH shorter (likewise the custom commercials for the evening, some of which went on WAY past their welcome last night.)

Agreed - but then again, what are all of these awards shows really about, lol? Ideally, they should be about the nominees and winners, and an all-around celebration of the industry. But they all wind up being overlong "infomercials" for the industry instead. And I doubt that's going to change anytime soon.

Except that I could swear that Jennifer Garner introduced him as Eddie BUTTER. Though in this case, I think it's more how her pronunciation came across, more than it being an "Adele Dazeem" kind of moment. (you can all judge for yourselves at the start of the video clip...)

And, it seems to me that it could easily be a head-to-head between the Lopezes (Frozen) and David Yazbek (The Band's Visit) for best score and best musical Tonys this season.

And yes - but ugh, get the Star Wars cast off the set...they're awful...

Likewise, I was very happy for Robert Lopez and his wife for their win for Coco's best song - but I also thought the on-air performance of said song was one of the lowlights of the ceremony.

Led by a guy whose schtick for the evening was trying to get the ceremony to be shorter. Yeah, that was truly awful. I actually thought that in general it was the most boring and lifeless ceremony in a while. Not that there weren't good moments, but in general it really dragged. Lost of lame writing (the Star Wars appearance?? Ugh), and too much bad filler in general.

Hmm...I'd be interested in hearing those, lol...

yes - but surely Mantello and his cast could be "selling" a much better story?