Comments on entry #58363

On Trivial Pursuits

Sunday the Twenty-Third of August, Two Thousand and Nine

1 man. 2 days. 3 theatres.

It has been a busy weekend!

I wasn't quite sure what I expected from Edward Albee's Seascape (at The American Century Theatre, yesterday), but I did expect giant anthropomorphic lizards discussing philosophy, and giant anthropomorphic lizards discussing philosophy there were. What really impressed me about it was that the lizards weren't just the easy gimmick they could have been; almost the entire first act is just a conversation between the two human characters, a husband and a wife who have just reached retirement age, and yet it's every bit as engrossing and powerful as the second act. At the end of the first act, the couple meet a pair of lizards who have just evolved sapience and left the ocean, and the second act is all about the first contact, the reactions of the humans, and the culture shock the lizards go through, and the realization—by both lizards and humans—that the consequence of intelligence is the knowledge of mortality. (God damn it's hard to talk about plays without sounding like a pretentious goit.) But despite the sometimes heavy subject matter, there were a lot of very funny moments. The production was a very good one, though they clearly gave their set designer a bigger budget than he or she was used to. ("And here, at the entranceway, we will build... HALF OF A BOAT HULL FOR NO REASON." I was really hoping the lizards would break out tiny bicycles and start doing tricks using the hull as a ramp, but that may be because I just reread "Let Us Now Praise Awesome Dinosaurs" the other day.) The actor who played Charlie, the male human, was particularly impressive.

Julie & Julia (at the AFI Silver, yesterday) could almost have been retitled Meryl Streep Can Kick All of Your Asses, but that wouldn't be quite fair to Stanley Tucci, who kicks some ass of his own in this one. Every other actor in this movie should seriously just have stayed at home. The frame story, about a bored government employee cooking every recipe from Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking over the course of a year and blogging about it, wasn't without its charms (after all, who wouldn't like a story about a blogger getting a book deal, meaningful cough?) but couldn't possibly stand up to the flashbacks to Julia Child's life and marriage. Frequently hilarious; if you are capable of not laughing aloud when Meryl Streep shouts, in Julia's unique warble, "gung'f ubggre guna n fgvss pbpx!", then you may well be an anthropomorphic lizard. The movie is also notable for having not one but several scenes that pass the Bechdel/Wallace test (though you'd be surprised how few of them there are).

District 9 (at the Charles, today—turns out it was still running this weekend) was not the Second Coming of Science Fiction, but it was an excellent and intelligent action movie. I liked the structure, with the pseudo-documentary to build the universe and develop the deeper themes of the movie and then transitioning into the full-blown action part to make the bad guys' heads blow up. (If you're offended by South Africans either a) cursing or b) exploding, you might want to skip this one.) But despite the 'splosions, it is at its heart a very dark and scathing look at racism and xenophobia—not just in South Africa's past, but in South Africa's present, and mired in the human soul across all nations, races, and eras. Yeah. Kind of heavy. Every single human character who has any impact on the plot is complicit in unconscionable crimes, including the unwitting hero. Most of the "prawns" aren't very likeable either; lost, leaderless, hated, ghettoized, and addicted to Nigerian cat food, most of the ones we see have become the violent, mindless brutes the humans consider them to be. There are only two genuinely likeable characters in the movie, one of each species, and only one a major character—and by the end, bar vf va wnvy sbe oybjvat gur juvfgyr ba uvf rivy rzcyblref, naq gur bgure vf urnqrq onpx gb uvf ubzr cynarg gb nffrzoyr na neznqn gb yvorengr uvf sryybj cenjaf ol sbepr. The ending is ambiguous and very much anticipates a sequel, which might not be a bad thing, since there's clearly a lot of room to flesh out the universe further. Side note: hell of props to Image Engine for creating CG characters and effects I barely even noticed.

posted by Martin Marks at 10:24 in the evening // fourteen comments


I read Julie and Julia before I knew there was a movie deal, and the story of Julie Powell was definitely more interesting when she told it. Poor Amy Adams.

comment by Tori // Sunday, the 23rd of August, 2009, at 10:57 in the evening

Oooh, I have never had the opportunity to see Seascape and am trying not to be jealous. And I had a conversation about D9 with my brother today in RE: movies which spend relatively modest budgets on all the right things.

TRU FAX: The end product failed it 'cause we could only find one woman who wanted a speaking role and had a Saturday to give, but I did write the script for Twilight of the Living Dead with the Bechdel/Wallace test in mind. Not out of any idealistic tendency really, just to avoid scraping the bottom of the character stereotype barrel while so many other barrel bottoms were being scraped. It might only be because I admire Alien for not kowtowing to certain kinds of drivel, but I do find the test to be generally useful, even though I watch all kinds of stuff that fails it.

comment by Mike // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 12:38 at night

Biology pedant: What were the lizards doing in the ocean? Lizards evolved on land and, with the exception of crocodiles here and there in shallow coastal areas, there aren't any reptiles in the ocean. Grr.

Your weekend sounds awesome.

comment by Liz // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 6:55 in the morning

comment by anonymous // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 10:41 in the morning

Why won't it let me mention furry lobsters or marine iguanas?

comment by Why? // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 10:42 in the morning

Also, Linnaeus made the same mistake.

comment by -Tim // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 10:54 in the morning

I don't know why this comment thread was misbehaving. Sorry about that.

Liz: I was mildly bothered by that too. Maybe he chose lizards because of the marine iguanas of the Galápagos, since the Galápagos and the history of evolutionary theory are so closely intertwined?

comment by Martin // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 5:04 in the afternoon

I didn't remember the marine iguanas from Voyage of the Beagle. I guess they make some sense in that context, maybe. And of course I failed to mention sea turtles, but they are obviously not in any way lizards.

Tim, I'm not getting the furry lobsters thing. All the googling I can find of "furry lobster" shows a crustacean of one sort or another.

comment by Liz // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 5:30 in the afternoon

This is a tragic failure of google. I was speculating that perhaps his water breathing lizards were something akin to John Hodgeman's Lobsters. Sorry, it was clearer in my earlier post that no one could read.

comment by Tim // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 6:58 in the evening

Also, they didn't reproduce like lizards. They laid thousands of eggs at a time and let them drift away, which is much more amphibian-esque.

I suppose we can't rule out the possibility that maybe Edward Albee knows more about interpersonal dynamics than about herpetology... but can you really understand one without the other?

comment by Martin // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 7:08 in the evening

"Do you know how a male newt proposes, Bertie? He just stands in front of the female newt vibrating his tail and bending his body in a semi-circle. I could do that on my head. No, you wouldn't find me grousing if I were a male newt."

comment by Moss // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 7:36 in the evening

Oh, John Hodgeman. I go so quickly back and forth between loving him and finding him quite annoying and everything that's wrong with America. FURRY OLD LOBSTERS has got me back to the former.

comment by Liz // Monday, the 24th of August, 2009, at 9:21 in the evening

Apropos of nothing, a friend of mine is performing in Seascape locally, which is a kind of weird confluence.

comment by Neil // Thursday, the 3rd of September, 2009, at 9:32 in the evening

His book was excellent. I am not sure how I feel about him as a wider media personality. (Hodgeman, I mean) I can entirely see him as everything that's wrong with america. I think he'd like to be seen as such, which would be even more infuriating.

comment by Tim // Thursday, the 3rd of September, 2009, at 9:43 in the evening

Sorry: This thread has shown no activity in 7 days, so to prevent comment spam all commenters are currently required to answer a Very Simple Question. If you don't answer the question, I'm afraid your comment will disappear into nothingness, so watch that you do.


name:

email:

url:

response:
The Very Simple Question: How did George Bernard Shaw claim one might spell "fish", using the "gh" from "trough", the "o" from "women", and the "ti" from "nation"?
(Hint: take the "www.flying" and ".net" from the name of this website and you'll have it.)

Remember me?
Live Comment Preview: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.