Holiday Favorites

 

    As the holiday season approaches, I like to enjoy the art of film.  I have always loved movies, but Christmas lends itself to some classic cinema.  While Hollywood keeps pushing out "Holiday Movies," I think it's safe to say that most of us enjoy the old classics.  Just recently, I went with my family to see Disney's A Christmas Carol on the IMAX screen in Atlantic City.  Marketed as Disney's first A Christmas Carol, (which is not true ... remember Mickey's?) Jim Carrey portrays the infamous miser as well as multiple other roles, including the three specters that are sent to salvage what is left of his heart (which is three hundred sizes too small).  Gary Oldman is a highlight as Bob Crachit and The Ghost of Jacob Marley.  The movie was excellent and deserved all the praise it has received from the critics.  My mother exclaimed, "That was the best version I've ever seen."  Well, with all due respect, I would not give it that distinction, but I would argue it's the best in a few years.  After enjoying the IMAX experience, I was inspired to write about some of my favorite holiday movies and suggest them to my readers.

    

Scrooged (1988, starring Bill Murray)

    Richard Donner (director of the original 1978 Superman film) takes the reigns of this modern adaptation.  One of my favorites, it follows Frank Cross, a shrewd television executive who cares more about being on top than taking part in the Christmas Festivities.  In an attempt at meta-theatricality, he also happens to be in the middle of producing a live television broadcast of Scrooge, starring Buddy Hacket (who actually appears in the film).  Joined by his love interest, played by Karen Allen, Murray brings the story to the 20th century and is hilarious along the way.  Besides the great comic moments, such as Murray being hit repeatedly by Carol Kane (as the Ghost of Christmas Present), Donner accomplishes the hard task of giving the slap-stick comedy the sentimental ending it needs.  Does it pull at the heart strings in the end?  Absolutely!  But it's exactly what the Spirits of Christmas call for!  Rent this film right away!  Side note: Notice an appearance by John Glover (Smallville, Roundabout's Waiting for Godot) as Murray's adversary and Kathy Kinney (Mimi on The Drew Carey Show) as a bit part of the Nurse. 

 

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989, starring Chevy Chase)

    Recently, I brought this film up to my father-in-law, who replied, "I've never actually seen the whole thing ... it's just silly slapstick!"  Well, Bah-Humbug to you, too, Dad!  This film, starring Chevy Chase once again as Clark Griswald, combines the terror of the visiting family with the tending of the ... visiting family.  Possibly the best of the "Vacation" movies, this one makes us laugh constantly and reminds us that families are not perfect.  It also makes us appreciate everything that our parents did for us during the holidays while we sat back and took it all for granted.  I suggest turning on TBS right now because it's probably on!  Laugh, laugh again, and then laugh harder!  I'll get my father-in-law to agree eventually.

 

A Christmas Carol (1984, starring George C. Scott)

    Forgive me, but George C. Scott is hands down the best Ebenezer Scrooge of all time.  Sorry, Mr. Sim, you were wonderful, but your movie is long and drawn out (and sometimes you're too creepy to look at).  This 1984 version (actually made for television) depicts the classic, Dickensian skinflint we all grow to adore.  It also gets to the point quickly.  With a running of time of 100 minutes, this is the perfect version to sit and watch after Christmas Eve dinner.  You can get into the true spirit of Christmas and still be in bed before Santa arrives.

 

It's A Wonderful Life (1946, starring Jimmy Stewart)

     Frank Capra had no interest in creating a "Christmas" movie.  It just so happens that his everyman tale takes place during the holidays.  Actually, the majority takes place during the life of it's protagonist, George Bailey, and only in the final half hour do we see Bedford Falls decorated for the holidays.  When the movie was first being advertised, it was marketed as a romance film between it's leading man and Donna Reed.  Audiences were pleasantly surprised to find a story that everyone could relate to and enjoy on a personal level.  Probably one of the most quotable movies of all time, it's become a staple during the holiday season.  In fact, until NBC purchased the rights, the movie could be found on television practically every hour from Thanksgivings to New Years Day.  Amazingly, there are still people I talk to who say, "I've never seen the whole thing!"  There is no reason for that!  I order you to go out and watch it from beginning to end, and I challenge you not to tear up when George is proclaimed to be "the richest man in town!"

 

 Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966)

    While I give Jim Carrey at lot of credit for his portrayal of the green goblin in 2000, no one can argue that it's the stronger version.  With a running time of a meager twenty-six minutes, the original story is by far the superior.  Brilliantly narrated by Boris Karloff, this animated classic touches the heart of all who view it.  After we watch him steal everything from the families in Whoville, we still sympathize with the lovable ogre as he tries his damnedest to stop his sleigh from crashing into the morning celebration!  What other movie convinces its audience to change their view so quickly?  As fast as the Grinch falls in love with Christmas, we fall in love with the Grinch!  Watch and feel your heart grow three sizes!

 

    No matter what your traditions are, take some time to cuddle up with a cup of tea, hot apple cider, or hot chocolate and enjoy yourself!  Christmas may not be about gifts, but that doesn't mean you can't give yourself the gift of getting lost in a beautiful holiday film!  Merry Christmas to all!   

More Religion on LOST ...

 

    I feel terrible!  I have not been writing nearly enough about LOST.  That does not mean I am not watching.  Bonnie and I are almost done with the second season (remember the Hatch?).  We are still discussing and debating the idea that John Locke has actually been the "Man in Black" from the beginning.  Sometimes that theory works beautifully and other times not.  While usually I would dismiss a theory for its inconsistency, one should not do that with LOST.  Bonnie has suggested that in the third episode, when John Locke meets Smokey, is the "Man in Black" enters him, thus using Locke as a vessel throughout the show that he can enter and exit as he pleases.  This would explain why sometimes Locke is very "Man in Black"-ish and other times he is not.

    But this posting is not about that.  I've often discussed the correlations between religion and LOST.  By now, it's easy to assume that the writers are using religion as a basis for many plot points, yet we still don't know what they mean.  108?  Jacob and Esau?  What else?  Recently we viewed the episode entitled "S.O.S."  In this often-forgotten episode, the flashback is about Rose and Bernard (the first guest stars to get flashbacks).  In this episode, we discover that Rose was diagnosed with cancer not too long after she meets, and is courted by, Bernard.  After their marriage, Bernard takes her to Australia to see a "Faith Healer" named Isaac.  Isaac fully admits that he is unable to heal Rose, though Rose decides to tell Bernard that he was successful, hoping Bernard's constant worrying will cease.  Of course, on their way out of Australia, they crash on the island, where all diseases are "cured," such as Locke's need for a wheelchair. 

    The name “Isaac” appears approximately eighty times in the King James Bible.  Isaac is the son of 100-year-old Abraham, who is destined to not to have children until God blesses him and his wife, Sarah, with a son.  God then asks Abraham to sacrifice young Isaac to show his devotion.  Eventually, God changes his request to a minor circumcision, the first on record.  So why name a Faith Healer “Isaac”?  The connection is not as strong as some of the others in the show, but, in the Bible, Isaac bares two sons: Jacob and Esau. 

    Let’s assume for a little while that the “Man in Black” is Esau.  According to the story, Isaac goes blind due to old age but before he dies, is supposed to bless the eldest son with the blessing he received from his father, who received it from God.  Esau, jealous of big brother Jacob, pretends to be Jacob by gluing hair on his arm (apparently Jacob was quite hairy).  This naturally begins a battle between the two brothers, much like the battle between Cain and Abel (see my Cain & Abel / Locke & Ben theory on this blog). 

    If the writers are following the Bible as a guide, we may find out that Isaac the Faith Healer is the father of Jacob and the “Man in Black.”  It would seem that, like in the Bible, Jacob is the favorite son and Esau hates him for it (“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” Malachi 1:2-4).  It could be that while Jacob is the one responsible for sending the Oceanic Six to the island, it is his father, Isaac, sending the others.  It stands to reason that if Isaac had healed Rose, she may have wanted to stay in Australia longer, therefore avoiding the fated Oceanic Flight 815. 

     Before we know it, we’ll be heading into Season Six!  Another topic that needs to be discussed is the titles to the first few episodes of Season Six.  We’ll get to that soon … For now, tune into ABCs new hit, FlashForward.  It’s terrific for any LOST fan!  I’m sure I’ll be commenting on it in The Correct Opinion soon.

 

A Look Back at John Locke

 

    At the conclusion of LOST's fifth season, we learned about a certain "Man in Black" (let's call him Esau) who appears to be the adversary of the mystical Jacob.  This character made a clear threat to Jacob that he will try to kill him at some point.  Jacob did not seem concerned until he was being killed by Ben, who was being guided by Esau disguised as John Locke.  We also learned that the John Locke of season five was actually dead, and we were watching Esau pretending to be John Locke in order to fool Ben into following him.  Wow!  That was confusing!  Nevertheless, we need to take a second and answer a question: Why was John Locke chosen by Esau?  Why not Jack?  Sawyer?  To investigate means to watch the series from the beginning; it will also gear me up for the final season, beginning in January 2010. 

 

    Only three episodes into the series, it's interesting to look closely at Locke.  While Jack is trying to save Kate's U.S. Marshall and Sayid is playing with blocked radio frequencies, Locke is busy observing.  Call this a hypothesis, rather than a theory.  What if Locke died on the plane?  What if Locke has never been "Locke"?  What if he is Esau?  While there might be many holes in the hypothesis, there is evidence as well.  We know that Locke's flashback's will reveal that he was crippled by his father's window push and somehow began walking on the island.  But is this actually possible?  Or is it Esau walking on the island?  Further, we must remember that the flashbacks are not memories.  They are flashbacks that provide information.  We learn information about John Locke off the island.  This is not proof that the John Locke "on the island" experienced any of those events.  Further, in the Locke flashbacks, have we ever seen evidence that this wheel-chair-bound man would know how to kill a wild boar?  No.  But Esau, who has been on the island for centuries, would.

 

 

    In the first three episodes, John Locke observes the other islanders trying to survive.  After helping Jack move victims in the first few moments of the series, John Locke does nothing to help others until he finally finds Vincent - Walt's dog - by creating a dog whistle.  Before this, he does have a very interesting exchange with the young boy about the game of backgammon.  Not only does he talk about how the ancient game is over 5000 years old (how old would Esau be?), but he also points out the battle between the white and black pawns.  On the surface, this appears to be something of a race reference since Walt is African American, but it could also refer to Jacob (who was wearing white at the top of season five's finale) and the "man in black." 

 

 

    One must also point out the unusual ending of episode three, entitled "Tabula Rasa."  We hear the song "Washed Away" coming out of Hurley's earphones as we see the first acts of kindness and community of the island.  Boone (oh, remember Boone?) gives Shannon (OH, remember Shannon?) a pair of repaired sunglasses, Sayid gives Sawyer a piece of fruit, and Michael brings Walt his dog (found by Locke).  Locke does not do anything but watch.  There is definitely a creepy feeling emulating from the still-mysterious Locke as he watches the father and son finally communicate.  Though the "bomp" is more calming that what we will get used to in the series run.  Could it be that Esau, our "man in black" is watching his plan form?  If so, is that the secret "miracle" he tells Walt about and not the fact that he could not walk before crashing on the island?  If the miracle is their arrival on the island, that would explain Locke's insistence that they remain on the island.  It should also be mentioned that the title "Tabula Rasa" refers to a theory by the philosopher John Locke.  Simply, it states that we are born blank.  We have the freedom to be the author's of our own souls.  It is actually Jack who makes the reference to the theory when he tells Kate that he believe they should all "start over" since they are not on the island.  Perhaps Esau agrees.

 

    After more episodes, many of these thoughts might be proven wrong.  That is my new project.  I will look closely at Locke and write as frequently as possible about whether or not John Locke might actually be Esau, the "Man In Black" the entire series!

Though a Slow Start, Hung has Potential

 
    HBO has been known to give us some "out there" shows.  Some, such as Six Feel Under have proved to be great, award-winning shows.  Others, such as The Comeback, have proved to ... you know ... not be.  Anyway, like its lead character Ray Drecker, HBO's newest half-hour comedy Hung started off slow but definitely shows great potential to be the next big thing on HBO.  The plot is quite simple: History teacher / basketball coach Ray Drecker needs money so that he can have custody of his two distant teenagers.  To leave the kids with their beauty queen mother (played by Anne Heche) and her rich, successful husband would be terrible!  So with the help of his "motivational class"-mate Tonya, Ray finds away to use his "best tool" to his advantage; Ray becomes a gigolo.  Tonya, a past one (two)-night stand, acts as his pimp. 

 

    HBO's 45-minute pilot received some poor reviews.  As usual for HBO series, the show focused merely on exposition with very little action.  As always, viewers were a little doubtful of whether or not this was the show for them.  For those of us that stuck around for episode two, we were disappointed to see there was simply more exposition.  What viewers forget is that if you go back and watch all the favorite HBO series' pilots, exposition has always been the focus.  Go watch the pilot of The Sopranos or Sex and the City and tell me what actually happens.  But after three episodes, like it's predecessors, this series has shown true promise to be entertaining, even if it simply takes The Full Monty a small step further. 

 

    As individuals, the cast is strong.  Some work might need to be done on getting them to work on the same plane.  Anne Heche, while a talented actress, seems unsure as to what role the ex-wife is really going to play.  Is she a friend or foe?  The writers seem to be more interested in her relationship with the troubled teenagers (who are more troubled in the parents' eyes than in reality) that she does with her ex-husband.  The best part about Heche on screen are her loud-mouth mother and new husband Ronnie, played brilliantly by Eddie Jemison of Ocean's Eleven.  Hopefully, the writer's will give her character more motivation and direction.

 

    While the character of Lenore is a great start, the shows needs to bring more women for Ray to share his "gift" with.  Starting off with such an attractive woman like Rebecca Creskoff was too easy for Ray.  Was it really that difficult to be with such a woman?  If the show wants an audience to believe there are actually trials and tribulations to being a male prostitute, it better give us some women that we believe are hard to fornicate with.  Lenore has promised more clients to come, but it's doubtful that Lenore is friends with many upper-class, ugly chicks. 

 

    With all that said, this show is written really well and it's two leads Thomas Jane and Jane Adams are a lot of fun together.  While the sexual tension between them is acknowledged from the start, the subtext of the romantic tension is subtle and terrific.  Hopefully the writers will fine tune a few of the relationships and get us more involved in the comedic side of the situation.  With that said, don't give up on this show!  The next few episodes may prove that this show is not meant to be hung out to dry. 

We Finally Meet Jacob ...

 

    So the Producers of LOST finally allowed us to meet the mysterious Jacob and now we have more questions than ever!  Who is this guy?  Why are we not meeting him until now?  Why did he agree to see John Locke and not Ben?  Was he really meeting with Richard Alpert all those times?  Why did he want these people on the island?  Is he really dead?  What does it mean if he is dead?  My head hurts!

    Like past season finales of LOST, season five seemed to not end a story, but begin a new one.  While the entirety of Season Five dealt with science, mainly physics and time travel, this two-hour episode entered with full force, the world of religion.  While Jack has been slowly becoming a man of faith, Faraday has contrasted him with the question of whether or not we can change the past.  The appearance of Jacob completely changed the theme of the season.  While Jack continued the mission that Daniel Faraday started, the producers revealed how the power of Jacob has influenced the islanders for many years previous to their arrival.  This was all concluded with Ben's angry rant about being denied divinity after being so faithful.  Like many believers of God, Ben breaks down and questions how someone so powerful and so good can do so many bad things and still expect people to be have faith. 

    Ben's questioning of Jacob, the god of the island, was not the only religious theme of the show.  Ben made it quite obvious that Locke was acting like Moses, leading his people to the Promised Land.  It was a great moment when he said that, making it easy for anyone who was confused!  We also had the surprise appearance of Bernard and Rose (and Vincent).  Their short, but adorable, scene questioned people's belief about life.  While many people would agree with Sawyer and think they are crazy for living out in the jungle, it made so much sense when Rose and Bernard looked at it as a beautiful retirement.  After all is said and done, who really cares?  Death is inevitable.  One might say that Bernard and Rose have hit the nail on the head!  Now that they have figured out the secret to happiness, it seems even more likely that these two (being the first to figure it out) will eventually be the "Adam and Eve" skeletons that are discovered earlier in the series.  The atomic blast most likely will be the cause, leaving them to be found almost thirty years later.

    The biggest question is, surprisingly, not about Jacob.  It's about the other gentlemen who was with him at the beginning of the episode.  The man said that he wanted to kill Jacob and that someday he would find a "loophole."  Eventually, he does find a loophole by disguising himself as the deceased Locke and having Ben Linus do Jacob in.  This answers the question about why John Locke just "knew" things about the island.  But who is this guy?  If Jacob is the god of the island, is this guy Satan?  It looks like Season Six is going to be about the ultimate battle between good and evil.  It's not looking too good for the good side since it seems that Jacob was killed as soon as we met him.  But why are we assuming that Jacob is good?  LOST has fooled us before in thinking the obvious is true.  Perhaps Jacob was actually the "Satan" of the island and this "new guy" represent God.  Those questions will surely be answered in Season Six, when we explore the religious side of the island.  We will probably also see this man (Esau, perhaps? ... to cite Jacob's Biblical enemy brother) take the shape of other characters.  Most likely, we have already seen him take the form of Alex, Ben's daughter.  I was wrong.  It wasn't Smokey.  But I was right, something was taking the form of dead people.  Does this mean Christian Shephard is also NOT walking around the island?  Further, is it only dead people?  Even further, is it only dead people?  Can the people be alive?  Can it be other creatures such as the black stallion that Kate was so enthralled with in "What Kate Did" of Season Two?  Could Esau be SMOKEY?  My head is hurting more and more!

 

    While all of that is well and good, there is still the issue with the nuclear explosion.  Juliet's desperate attempt to stop Kate and Sawyer from being together was extreme, but will be the catalyst for the top of the final season.  What does this explosion mean for the islanders?  Will this mean that Flight 815 will not land?  Despite my past theory that if the flight does not land, there is no way for them to actually cause the explosion, there is another scenario.  If the theme of the next season is fate and destiny, then it's their destiny to show up on the island one way or another.  With this thought in mind, here is my theory: Ajira flight 316 will still crash on the island in 2007.  Nothing is preventing this crash from occurring.  Somehow our travellers (even the ones who died previously) will end up on that flight.  When it crashes, the people will find themselves in the exact same predicament as in Season One, but they will not know this has already happened to them even though the audience will.  Talk about dramatic irony!

    It will most likely be Richard that has to explain what has happened to them.  Locke and Jack will still battle out the science and fate war while Sawyer attempts to sleep with as many passengers as he can, finally falling for Kate ... or Juliet, who will be with the "Others."  No matter what happens, the door is open for so many possibilities since we now have a man who can take the form of dead (and living?) people.  Also, if this all happens, Jacob will also still be alive if and when flight 316 lands. 

    It's been an amazing season.  Here's looking forward to the sixth and finale season (especially episode 108).   Let's all relax for a bit and then spend the next few months coming up with more theories and predictions.  I am sure I am not the only one planning on putting all the previous episodes on my NetFlix queue and reliving the adventure!  One thing is for sure, we can thank the writers, cast, and crew for a season well-done!

Palace High School Gets "Cool" with West Side Story!

 

    

      The Palace High School's production of West Side Story, directed by Mrs. Kathleen Marshall, was performed last night with such terrific zest!  As soon as the young cast appeared on stage, it was obvious you were in for two and half hours of pure, delectable fun.  It was adorable how the two groups danced the difficult choreography of the great Jerome Robbins, while at the same time pretending to hate each other.  It was obvious that the two months of rehearsal after school paid off.  Sophomore Matt Cavenaugh did such a nice job with his sweet-voiced Tony.  It was very smart of Mrs. Marshall, Palace School's Theater Arts director, to give him no movement during "Maria."  It reminded us of all the times we've seen him in his voice recitals singing "This is the Moment" and "Anthem."  Who doesn't love being reminded of that?  Other highlights included Karen Olivo, now a senior, stepping back from playing the lead in last year's production of Bye Bye, Birdie, to playing the show-stealing supporting lead of Anita.  Also featured was George Akram, finally stepping out of the chorus during his junior year, as Bernardo.  But the true highlight was our exchange student Josefina Scaglione, playing the sweet Maria.  She simply stole the show whenever she held out those nice notes written by the great Leonard Bernstein.  If only Stephen Sondheim and Arthur Laurents were able to see this!  They would have been so proud to know that there are still high school theater programs that can handle their challenging work.  There are still a few more nights to catch West Side Story.  Tickets are only $7 at the door, but $6 if you are a student or if you buy them in advance!  See you at the theater!  

     I'm so sorry.  I got confused.  I knew I wanted to write a review of the production of West Side Story at the Palace Theater in New York, but I got confused as to what I was actually watching.  Now that I've come back to my senses and I remember that I was not at a high school production last night, here is my review of the highly anticipated Broadway Revival of West Side Story.  

    When the original production of West Side Story opened in 1957, audiences were terrified.   The first line of the New York Times review stated that play was "horrifying."  I would say the same thing about this production, but I doubt for the same reason.  What horrified me was the lack of conviction in any of the movements originally created by the legendary Jerome Robbins.  Instead of providing the exposition information about the hatred between rival gangs the Jets and the Sharks, this cast simply danced.  Granted, they danced well.  If I was watching a high school dance recital, I would have been blown away.  But I wasn't.  I was watching professional Broadway dancers and actors performing West Side Story.  With no sense of intensity or drive, these young (and I mean young) performers executed timeless choreography without giving a shred of the timeless story behind the moves.   

    

    Rumors flew when 91-year-old Arthur Laurents (writer of the book) announced his plan to revive the musical after his hit production of Gypsy, for which he also wrote the book.  The two big rumors were that he planned on having the Puerto Ricans speak Spanish and that it would be a contemporary, updated version.  Both had the theater world curious what the theater icon had up his sleeve.  Though the idea of updating the show went out the window, someone forgot to tell the actors who carried themselves as if they were hanging outside the mall in North Jersey on a Friday night.  While "giving the finger" has been a gesture since the ancient Romans, I am pretty sure that it was not the most popular gesture circa 1957 (please feel free to correct me if I am wrong).  I counted about fifteen can only hope there are directors more deserving of a Tony this year.   

    As for the other rumor, Laurents did have the dialogue of the Sharks translated into Spanish, which was both distracting and effective.  While I know the show inside and out, I felt that some people were lost, especially in Act II.  It also did not help to put the English translations of "I Feel Pretty" and "A Boy Like That" in the program, causing multiple people to have to open their cell phones to provide reading light.  However, at times, it helped show the struggle of living in America for these characters and demonstrated the ethnic tension.  Was it worth it?  Probably not.  

    While it's hard to accept the love-at-first-sight scenario, audiences have learned to accept it for years.  But one of the reasons it usually works in West Side Story is the obviousness of Maria's attraction to Tony.  He's just a great guy.  Who would not want to be with him?  Well, in this production, it would probably be because Maria wants a man and not a boy.  Matt Cavenough, from Grey Gardens, performs the leading male as a youthful sissy who would be more appropriate as Freddy in My Fair Lady.  Tony should be a man who strongly announces that "Something's Coming" and that he is in love with a girl named "Maria."  Mr. Cavenaugh seemed like he was calling Mr. Hankle requesting to speak to Penelope Ann (theater people know the reference).  It did not help that Mr. Laurents gave him absolutely no movement for either song.  The first was done on a ladder and the second was done downstage, just off center.  In fact, a good majority of the action happened downstage, practically on top of the floor lights.  I'm pretty sure that Mr. Laurents knows that there is some power upstage.  It's not just for the chorus people.   

    Karen Olivo of In the Heights fame played the role of Anita.  While I did not see In the Heights, I am going to assume that Ms. Olivo simply took her role in that and brought it to this show of a completely different generation.  Olivo seemed completely out of place and did not provide any of the spitfire attitude that Anita requires to make her lovable.  It did not help that I could not understand a word that she said most of the time.  There were moments were I assumed that she was speaking Spanish, but I later found out I was incorrect.  One must wonder what has happened to Broadway when we've gone from Chita Rivera and Rita Moreno to a one-hit wonder such as Karen Olivo.  What is sadder is that she is the front-runner for the Best Featured Actress Tony Award.  

    Ms. Olivo was not the only one who was hard to understand.  The cast sped through the dialogue as if the half-priced appetizers ended at 10:00, rather than started.  There was not a sensitive moment sustained throughout the whole production, ending with Maria's monologue of murder and hatred where Ms. Scaglione held the gun to the temple of Action (a 2009 skinhead who I assume had a Nazi sign tattooed on his back).  Eventually, Maria finished her speedy monologue while holding the gun to the back of Action's head execution style.  Further, her reason for dropping the gun was not so much her realization of the rage inside her, but the fact that Lt. Shrank appeared and would have seen her eventually shoot the young, hatred-filled gang member.  Once she was back crying over the body of doomed Tony, the curtain could not have come down faster, eliminating any sense that these gang members learned the lesson that was taught to them.  

    Many moments have been left out of this review, but I feel I have said enough.  Of course, I can't help but mention the attempt at youthful symbolism when the creepy red-headed kid who lurked in the background sang "Somewhere," then disappeared.  While the idea that their childhood has been destroyed (I would think a lot earlier than this play) is a pathetic tug at our heartstrings, Nicholas Barasch did have the nicest voice in the production.  But why listen to a little boy sing "Somewhere" when I already listened to a little boy sing "Maria"?    

    I leave you with one question:  How easy is it to get a standing ovation on Broadway nowadays?  Especially on a Friday night  Well, this production left the audiences in their seats for the entirety of curtain call, which was also rushed.  I hope the cast enjoyed their potato skins more than we enjoyed West Side Story.    

 

 

Follow the Who?

    The most recent episode of LOST, "Follow the Leader," has us all wondering who holds this title.  Though thirty years apart, we again see the split leadership of Jack and John, who have a semi-reversal of roles with Jack talking about crazy illogical things like fate and destiny.  In case you didn't get that, Kate tried to clarify it with the brilliantly written line, "You know who you're beginning to sound like?"  Thanks for clearing that up, Kate!  Of course, we also have the god-like leadership of Jacob, who once again becomes the Holy Grail for John Locke.  Could it be that we are finally going to learn who Jacob really is?

    There is always the chance that Jacob is a new character.  He may be someone we've never seen before who has been looming in the shadows waiting to make his grand appearance, like the Wizard hiding from behind the curtain.  Don't forget the allusion to The Wizard of Oz earlier in the series - Ben first introduced himself as Henry Gale (Dorothy's Uncle Henry).  We all trust LOST to keep us interested and riveted, but we'd all be slightly disappointed if the revelation of Jacob was not someone we are familiar with.  Let's go through some options as to who Jacob could really be.

 

Jack Shephard

    Our fearless leader has once again proven that you just can't mess with him.  Though Kate has decided to give up on him and head back over to her back-up guy, Sawyer, Jack has convinced Sayid that perhaps he still has a few tricks up his heart-wearing sleeve.  Due to the time-travel element introduced this season, there are opportunities for everyone to actually be Jacob.  While it seems logical that Jack could become Jacob in 2007 after living from 1977 to the present, our audiences seem to forget that Jacob was in existence in 1977 already for what seems like a long time.  Richard Alpert, our timeless right-hand man has reference Jacob numerous times to the horse-riding Charles Widmore, bringing about a sense of respect not seen with anyone else.  Still, I can't help but think back to the odd visit between Jack and his granddad, who gave Jack his father's shoes that were eventually worn by the deceased John Locke.  Theories jumped around that Granddad was actually Jack.  If so, was he also Jacob, there is make sure that young Jack went back to the island?  Not so impossible, thanks to the record-skipping wheel opening the time-travelling door. 

 

Jack's Granddad

 

    Okay, stick with me for a minute.  He shows up to give Jack his father's shoes.  He doesn't discuss the island, but talks about destiny.  Soon after their meeting, Jack decides to head back.  What a coincedence that we meet Jack's grandfather at this important point in Jack's destiny.  Furthermore, if the grandfather is Jacob (God), his son is Christian Shephard (Christ / Shepherd), making Jack the son of Christ.  Though the Bible never addresses the grandson of God, LOST might just be taking the next step.      

 

John Locke

    How does John Locke just "know" things now?  Is it because he is in fact, Jacob.  Or is it that Jacob is taking the form of dead people by either entering their bodies or forming into their shape (ala Smokey)?  Either way, John Locke seems a little too confident.  Ben seems to think so, too.  Though it's doubtful that is really "following John," as he says, Ben does seem interested in nothing but where John Locke plans on taking his people.  But if John is Jacob, why does he want to "kill Jacob"?  Does he mean kill the idea of Jacob by showing everyone his true identity, like if Clark Kent showed Metropolis the Fortress of Solitude?  Ben and Richard seem very interested in John Locke right now, though they are not too happy about his blunt "I-don't-give-a-crap-what-you-think" style of leadership.  I personally loved the exchange:

Richard: I'm starting to think John Locke is going to be trouble.

Ben: Why do you think I tried to kill him?

This exchange seemed to show a true alliance between Ben and Richard and one that does not seem to include the new leader, John Locke. 

 

 

Richard Alpert

    Our ageless friend is too mysterious, don't you think?  It's about time we learn why he never ages (and what brand of eyeliner he purchases).  Since he is the only person who claims to have spoken to Jacob, it is reasonable to suspect that he is actually Jacob and his fears of John Locke lie in the fact that John Locke does not trust Jacob and is starting to create a rebellion against him.  If Richard does fall victim to the mutinous islanders, how does that affect the Richard of 1977?  Well, if Richard is in fact not ageless and just a time-travelling junkie, it might affect him colossally.  

 

Sawyer

    I never would have thought about Sawyer being Jacob until I watched the submarine containing him, Juliet, and Kate leave the island.  Side note: why did LOST all of a sudden become a cartoon when they showed the sub floating away?  Has the economy gotten so bad that ABC can't afford good computer graphics?  The guy in charge should be fired!  Anyway, if Sawyer leaves in 1977 and continues in the 70s and 80s, his story could continue with him going back to the island, travelling back further into the past and becoming the social-phobic leader, Jacob.  Furthermore, the same could be said for his two love interests.  Second Side note: Elizabeth Mitchell deserves an Emmy simply for the moment when Kate enters that sub.  Brilliant!

 

    The sad thing is that even though the water coolers are crowded with theories of who Jacob actually is, we might not find out in season five.  While I suspect the revelation of Jacob will be the "bomp" of the season, the producers might keep us dangling until the concluding season.  Either way, don't miss the Season Finale of LOST next Wednesday, and don't forget, it starts at 8:00!  Maybe we'll finally learn that Locke and Ben are brothers ...

A Major Paradox?

 

    I hate to gloat, but how often did I have to say that there were loopholes in the whole "we can't change the past" thing before someone finally believed me?  As mentioned by the ill-fated Daniel Faraday in last night's LOST episode, "Variables," the past can be changed or, at least, adjusted.  The new mission on LOST: prevent the hatch from ever being built by destroying the island with a Hydrogen bomb.  If they succeed, Desmond will not have the push the button every 108 minutes, Desmond will not fail at pushing said button, Flight 315 will never crash, and the passengers arrive safely in Los Angeles.  Awesome!  Great operation for the Season Finale, but is it possible? 

    After bragging for a moment about being correct, now I'm going to contradict myself.  In this case, it is NOT possible to change the past.  Particularly, it is not possible to change your own past.  This is a mistake that Back to the Future also makes.  Marty McFly cannot be the cause of his never being born.  If he succeeds, he would never go back in time to prevent his never being born.  Confused?  Okay, let's make it easier.  Forgive the harshness of this example, but let's say you travel back in time and kill your mother when she is a child.  If you succeed, you would never be born, right?  But if you are never born, then who would go back and kill your mother as a child?  No one!  So if no one kills your mother, your birth would eventually occur.  It's a cycle which getting out of is simply impossible.   

    Let's take this theory and apply it to our passengers of Flight 815.  In September of 2004, they crashed on the island.  After traveling back to 1977, they now have the opportunity to prevent the crash from ever happening.  Let's say they succeed.  They land in Los Angeles.  Jack buries Dad, Hurley escapes his fortune, Kate goes to jail, Charlie does crack, etc.  Now that this crew is busy continuing on with their lives, who is going to travel back in time to stop the Hatch from being built in 1977?  No one!  And if no one prevents the Hatch from being built, Flight 815 still crashes on the island.  There is no way to prevent the crash.  But what if they actually succeed in their mission?  Doctor Emmett Brown would probably warn them that this even would create a major paradox - "A paradox?  You mean one of those things that can destroy the universe?"  "PRECISELY!" 

    My guess: the characters will never succeed in their mission, avoiding the paradox angle.  Locke and Ben (whom I still believe are brothers) will prevent their precious island from ever being decimated.  I would guess that some attempt at messing with the newly discovered "wheel" in 1977 may begin a new stream of time travel for the characters.  Perhaps it will send them back to 2007 to meet Locke, Ben, Sun and the "shadow of the sculpture" people.  I hope so.  I really want to see Jin meet Sun again.  What a moment that will be! 

    Again, at the risk of bragging, I must remind you that my prediction about Widmore being Faraday's father was right!  But will Penny ever find out that her half-brother (I say half-brother because I am now doubting my prediction that Eloise is Penny's mother) is the time travel genius who Desmond had to visit at Oxford?  I doubt it.  That will be left for only the audience to know!  But who knows? 

    We are getting to the end of a terrific season!  While I am sad, I can't help but fill with the excitement for the sixth and final season.  Remember, the producers told us that Season five was going to be boring compared to the final.  Is that possible?  They've set my expectations high, but this show has never failed to beat my expectations!  We shall see.  Tune in next week! 

The Judgement of Benjamin Linus

 

    Benjamin Linus is finally judged.  Smokey came out of the floor and surrounded him with his sins, much like we saw the Monster do for Mr. Echo so long ago (well, to us, not them).  I hate to say, but there really wasn't anything that amazing in that huge cloud of smoke.  We knew about these sins.  Further, we knew that he felt bad for these sins.  What about his treatment of the islanders?  What about killing Locke?  Was Smokey trying to tell us that these actions were justified?  So is Ben the good guy of the island who simply made a few mistakes?  If so, when will the other islanders be judged?  Let's face it!  They all have made mistakes. 

    While I was quite underwhelmed by the episode, I was interested to see how wrong I was about my "Eloise + Charles = Penny and Daniel" Theory.  It seems that Charles had relations with an outsider, according to Ben.  Naturally, we may find out that Eloise was, at some point, banished from the island, hence becoming an outsider.  This doesn't seem too far fetched considering the plot lines of LOST.  There is also the notion that the Ellie of the island is not Eloise Hawking.  I think this is a stretch, but still a notion to mention.

    While it was another disappointing "Bomp," we did watch Ben receive a visit from his dead, adopted daughter, Alex.  Earlier in the episode, we learned how he apprehended her from Danielle in an attempt to keep her safe.  Quick question for other LOST fans: did anyone really care about how that occurred?  I apologize if I see too negative towards the show, but if we needed to know that, it should have been told to us earlier.  At this point, no one cares.  Anyway, I digress.  Alex told Ben that, despite his plan to kill Locke again, he will listen to everything that Locke says and will follow him in his every move.  It was a clever way to reveal that Ben was planning on killing Locke again.  I can't help but mention that this goes well with my Cain and Abel theory.  Ben really wants Locke dead.  It was not just because the island wanted it.  I'm telling you: they're brothers!

    While we are used to seeing dead people on the island, this is the first character who was killed on the island to make a Lazarus-like appearance.  Alex's appearance seemed to complement Smokey's, but I must bring up that she, Locke, or the Monster never appeared together on screen at any point.  Also, where had Christian gone when Locke showed up at Ben's house?  What if this Smoke Monster had the ability to take on the form of people, particularly dead ones.  I know.  I know.  You're thinking, "Joe, that's crazy and totally unrealistic!"  You know what, the moment we started watching (and loving) a show where there was a Smoke Monster, we threw away reality.

    Anyway, I now am starting to wonder if Alex was the Smoke Monster.  Further, are Locke and Christian Sheperd also the Smoke Monster performing impersonations of dead LOST characters?  This raises the question of whether or not the island can actually bring back the dead.  Apparently, Ben didn't actually think this was possible.  He seemed pretty surprised to actually see John Locke in front of him. 

    One more thought: assume for a moment that Smokey can become the image of dead people.  This Monster seems to have many crazy abilities, almost as if it were a god of the island.  Who else is a god of the island that Ben seemed to worship?  Jacob!  It may be that Smoke Monster is actually Jacob and takes the form of different dead people.  Remember: Christian Sheperd was sitting in the rocking chair in the cabin and later appeared with Claire in the cabin.  That was our best link to Jacob so far.  Also, John Locke seemed pretty confident that he "just knew" what to do to get Ben to his judgement place.  Jacob would "just know" as well. 

    Next week's episode looks very promising.  I can't wait to finally learn more about Miles, one of the more intriguing characters on the island.  He also may be able to shed some light on the dead-people-waking-up conundrum.  But seriously, writers, where is Daniel Faraday?  This many episodes without him is like Back to the Future III with Doc Brown!!  Great Scott!

    

Poor Hurley ...

 

    Poor Hurley!  He's always the one who gets picked on.  Now that Sawyer has finally laid off of our beefy friend, wise-guy Miles gives him a hard time about his lack of understanding of time travel.  Though I felt empathy for the large islander, it is about time that the writers gave the viewers some explanation as to exactly how time travel on LOST works.  For those of us using Back to the Future as a guide, this was a wake-up call.  As you know, my friend Jeff and I argue often about time travel.  Jeff made no hesitation to call me and compare me to the feeble-minded Hugo.  Sometimes my friend underestimates me.  Nevertheless, time travel is now a little clearer to all of us.  We know that the writers' intention is that Ben knew Sayid long before the crash of Flight 815 and that Kate is actually responsible for bringing Ben to the Others. 

    Though Jack was attempting to save them by not saving Ben Linus, he indirectly became responsible as well.  As John Locke would say, we cannot stop our fate.  In an attempt to save them from the future wrath of Benjamin Linus, he created the situation that will eventually bring on Ben's hostility.  It only makes one wonder what else Ben knows and what else he is responsible for.  For instance, does anyone else out there wonder if Ben knows why Mr. Echo died at the hands of Smokey?  Since everyone else who was killed by Smokey was someone Ben wanted to off, should we assume that Ben had a reason to end the life of one of the most interesting characters in LOST.  If it means that Mr. Echo will make another appearance, I'm all for finding out.

    Along with a clearer explanation of time travel, we got a lot of answers last night.  We now know that Kate's abandonment of Aaron was not rooted in evil at all, but a move to save the child and reunite him with true family and hopefully find his mother.  Here's a motive to get back to the island I didn't see coming.  Did anyone?  What is the true connection between Kate and Claire?  Does Kate see a bit of herself in the young mother?  Is Claire Kate's chance at penance for all her wrongs?  Or is there more?  I think we shall see, but probably in the sixth season.

    Another note on Jack.  While I was torn as to whether or not I agreed with his insistence on not saving the twelve-year-old Ben, I was even more thrown on the awkwardness of the "shower" scene.  Did it seem unusual to anyone else that neither Jack nor Juliet were concerned that Jack was naked?  "I really don't care that your naked crouch is right there, I want to know why you won't save that kid!"  I guess Juliet is no longer enthralled with Jack now that she has Sawyer!  Another note: those tattoos were clearly present on Jack's arm ... think we'll ever hear more about what those mean?  

    Finally, we saw how Ben entered the world of the Others.  While this was intriguing, the most interesting part was clearly when one of the Others asked Richard if he was concerned about Elie or Charles finding out.  Richard obviously did not to care, but the audience was given a subtle clue.  Was this Other telling us that Charles and Eloise were lovers?  Further, has there been any mention of Daniel Faraday's father or Penny's mother?  If Eloise (assuming Elie and Eloise Hawking are the same person) and Charles are ... were ... (whatever) lovers, then Faraday and Penny are siblings (again, assuming Faraday is, in fact, the son of Eloise Hawking).  This may also explain why Widmore is financing Faraday's experiments: he is simply supporting his son.  To further the irony, Faraday's constant is Desmond and Desmond's constant is Faraday's sister, Penny. 

 

 

    Finally, the "bomp!"  Weak!  It was obvious that Ben was going to wake up to Locke at some point.  I like a nice revelation to keep me guessing.  Granted, "Welcome to the land of the living," was a great line, but not worthy of the "bomp!"  However, the next episode looks very intriguing.  Is this it?  Is Ben going to meet his end?  They certainly want us to believe it.  In fact, they lead us to believe it so much that now I'm doubting it.  I would also be shocked if Ben died in an episode in the middle of the season and not in the season five finale.  Perhaps this is the episode where we will find out that Ben and Locke are actually brothers!  At least we'll finally find out why Ben was covered in blood when we arrived on Flight 316 ... at least I think so!

    I want to give a shout out to a LOST fan and a good friend of mine: Jessica Krenek, who has been accepted into the University of Maryland's PhD program in theater history and performance studies!  This is a huge achievement and could not be earned by anyone brighter and smarter!  I've known Jessica for many years and her success never ceases to amaze me and fill me with pride!  Congratulations, Jessica!  Please promise me that all the hard work will not prevent you from watching LOST! 

    Feel free to share theories and thoughts!  We'll in deep now and there is no turning back!  Sadly, the season finale is getting closer and closer!

    

Can Ben Die?

 

    If you missed LOST on Wednesday night ("He's Our You"), stop reading!  Then, go order it via ABCONDEMAND now!  If you did see "He's Our You," you saw what was arguably one of the "Bomps" the whole fifth season.  By "Bomp," I mean that sound that occurs at the end of the episode when the word "LOST" appears.  You all know what I'm talking about!  There is a big surprise, then "BOMP!"

    Now that you understand the vocabulary of LOST, let's look at the ending.  Sayid shoots a twelve-year-old Ben Linus in order to prevent Ben from ever becoming one of the Others, from ever getting caught in the tree as "Henry Gale," or from ever meeting the passengers of Oceanic 815.  Assuming Sayid is able to change the past (we will talk about this debate in a moment), this would have huge ramifications in the show.  Think about it.  Ben would never show up.  Walt would never be kidnapped.  Michael would never kill Libby and Ana Lucia.  Alex would be alive.  The list goes on and on.  Ben not being alive might even mean the passengers of Flight 815 would never land on the island (if we would eventually find out that he had something to do with the crash). 

    My friend Jeff and I constantly fight about whether or not someone can "change the past."  According to the island's time-travel expert, Daniel Faraday (where has he been?), you cannot change the past.  If something happens in the past, it happens and that's it.  Meaning if Sayid shoots a twelve-year-old Ben, then the child must survive the gunshot wound and when Ben met Sayid back in season two, he knew that this was the man who shot him back in 1977, even though we, the audience, did not see it until season five.  When you think about it, it's pretty much taking the "flashback" idea one step further.  Ben just knew something before the audience and the other islanders.  What else is new?

 

    If I am correct and the past can somehow be changed, it doesn't really matter in the case of Ben's death.  He can't die.  Though a little more confusing and complicated, it is almost impossible to kill someone in the past, especially out of revenge.  Bear with me.  I will try to put this as simply as possible.  Circa 2000, Sayid meets Ben and gets very upset about things Ben does (that is really simplifying it).  So when Sayid travels back to 1977, in an attempt to prevent Ben from doing these things, Sayid shoots Ben at a young age.  Fine.  Let's say that young Ben is now dead.  If he is dead, then he cannot grow up to perform the acts that upset Sayid so much, therefore taking away Sayid's motive to kill him.  This means that the Sayid of circa 2000 would not shoot the young Ben when he travels back to 1977.  Now young Ben is alive.  Now he can perform the "bad acts."  Now Sayid will go and kill young Ben ... and the cycle would continue.  Confused?  Read it again.  You'll get it.

    What does this mean for LOST?  I predict that, like my friend Jeff says, Ben will survive the gunshot wound.  It will turn out that Ben recognized Sayid the whole time as the man who shot him when he was twelve.  This would explain how he knew Sayid was a "killer."  Either way, the writers of LOST have not disappointed in delivering great television that keeps us guessing at every turn. 

 

    Some other questions I expect will be answered in the next few episodes:

• 
  
  Where are Bernard and Rose?  Good theory from Jeff: somehow they traveled back to the time where the statue was standing and got stuck there.  They will eventually die and become the "Adam and Eve" skeletons.  My theory (though not as strong) is that they also travelled to 1977 and now are members of the "Hostiles" led by Richard. 
  
  
• 
  
  How is Desmond going to get back to island? 
  
  
• 
  
  Is Penny dead?
  
  
• 
  
  Where are Lupidus and Sun?
  
  
• 
  
  Where is Faraday?
  
  
• 
  
  Remember when John Locke was alive?  What's he up to?

    

    So many questions left to be answered.  I am still betting that John Locke and Ben Linus are brothers.  I also hold on to the theory that Desmond will kill Ben (the adult Ben) at the end of this season, avenging Penny's death at Ben's hands.  Season Six, despite the disappointment of the audience, will be Ben-less.  This also fits with Jeff Jenson's - LOST column-writer for Entertainment Weekly - theory that the seasons are repeating themselves.  He often speaks of season four repeating season three and five repeating two, so if season one is going to repeat itself in season six, Ben should not be present.

 

    Please share with me your thoughts and theories!  As crazy as it is, I never seem to tire of this!  Looking forward to next Wednesday!

 

 

An Astonishing Feat

 

    Okay, so I tend to be a musical theatre snob.  It's true!  I admit it.  But if you knew the people that I went to college with, you'd understand why.  We were all snobs!  I started my time at Muhlenberg College thinking Jekyll & Hyde was a terrific musical.  Things had to change.  Eventually, someone has to teach you that Frank Wildhorn and Andrew Lloyd Webber are no good.  It's a hard fact to face, but it's the truth.  *Side note: I still listen to Jekyll & Hyde ... I call it my guilty pleasure.

    You can only imagine the fear that went through my body when my friend, Jessica Berger, told me that she was in a production of Little Women at the historic Strand Theatre of Lakewood, New Jersey.  I remember when I found out the Strand was doing Little Women.  I thought, "What?  Wildhorn's Dracula wasn't available?"  Terrible show!  I mean terrible!  The show ran on Broadway for 55 previews and 137 performances.  I was "lucky" enough to see one of those performances.  Forgive me, please!  Sutton Foster was starring and I just couldn't resist!  She's just terrific!  Anyway, I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  There were more happy and upbeat songs in this production than Forever Plaid.  If I remember from high school, wasn't Little Women a sad story?  Am I not supposed to cry when the young Beth dies (sorry to those who have not read it, yet ... but get on that!)? 

    Anyway, Jessica Berger has been a friend for many years.  A talent rival when we were young, but nevertheless, a friend whose talent I can't help but admire.  She can act, dance, and sing better than many of the "professionals" I've seen on the Great White Way.  She texted me one day and said (all in caps), "I'M PLAYING JO IN LITTLE WOMEN AT THE STRAND!!!"  My reaction was a mixed feeling of happiness and illness.  While I loved the prospect of hearing Jessica sing "Astonishing" (the power-ballad that makes the show possibly worth seeing), I felt sick thinking I was going to have to sit through that show again!

    Months went by and I honestly forgot about the production.  She would text me occasionally, but I didn't pay too much attention.  You know when you know you should see something, but you don't want to, so you kind of ignore it?  Sort of like when you didn't really want to see Slumdog Millionaire, but you just knew you "had to see it."  Anyway, signs were all over town and people were telling me good things.  I hate it when people say good things about bad theater.  It's just depressing.  I also received about four Facebook messages a week reminding me (and a bunch of other people) to see the show!  Thanks for those, Jess.

    Anyway, I finally planned a night to see the show.  It was sad to walk into the theater and see that the entire balcony was empty, as well as a good portion of the orchestra.  This sadness was combined with a little satisfaction.  I felt like finding the producer and saying, "I told you so."  Nevertheless, I grabbed a seat in the front of the balcony, even though my seat was in the orchestra.  I wanted to sit alone and away from the stage in case I fell asleep.

    The lights finally went down and the overture began.  Already, I was bored.  Then Jessica appeared on stage.  She began to sing and I was reminded why I sacrificed a Friday night to see Little Women: The Musical.  Her voice was miraculous; she rivaled Sutton Foster, one of my favorites on Broadway.  The real pleasure was thinking back to her performances in high school and seeing how she has grown so much in seven years.  She was always a talented girl.  Looking back, I was often jealous of her.  Being a boy, it was easier for me to get attention because I could sing.  But this girl, Jessica, got attention even though she was a girl - a dime a dozen.  But the truth was she was anything but just another singing female.  She did have her problems; she had a weird thing where she threw her hands in the air and walked around back and forth when she sang.  Still, it was obvious that she would go somewhere.  After graduating high school (two years after me), she ended up attending the American Musical and Dramatic Academy, despite my advice to attend a four-year college.   

    I still cannot help but think that she would be better off with a degree like me.  But then I think about the fact that she is actually trying.  She auditions.  She works.  She struggles.  But she keeps pushing.  I admire her very much.  I can't be easy to be so talented and not get the respect and admiration one deserves.  I know that she will be something someday.  Though I know it can't always be easy for her, I admire her dedication and determination.  But most of all, I admire her talent and her willingness to hone her craft.  She never stops learning, which is the most important thing about being a performer.  Though I rarely miss performing and love being a teacher, seeing Jessica reminds me of the joy I experienced when I was on the stage.  Maybe someday, if Bonnie and I ever start a theater like we talk about doing, we'll invite Jessica Berger to come and play Annie Oakley and perhaps I'll be worthy to be her Frank Butler (we should have in high school, but our director was blind to the obvious).  That is, unless Jess is too big of a star to come to Bucks County to entertain.  The New York audiences might miss her too much!

    When the Act I finale, "Astonishing," began, I was propelled to the edge of my seat.  She had me with every word and every note.  The audience was captivated.  It was stunning.  All readers can hear the beautiful rendition at the link below - I taped it with a digital voice recorder.  I defy you to not marvel in the voice.  Though you'll hear the acting, it's nothing compared to watching the emotional performance live. 

    While I know Jessica experiences disappointments along the way - and she will experience more to come - I hope that she never gives up her dream of being a performer in bigger and better venues.  It would be a huge waste of talent, skill, and entertaining nights for audiences all over the world.  Furthermore, she fixed the throwing-of-the-hands thing!  She didn't do it once the whole night!  Congratulations, Jess.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QANf7vsa4qI

 

 

 

 

 

Visit to H&R Block

    Tax season!  It's part of that old expression: The only definite in life is death and taxes.  We all have to pay them, as soon as we start working.  I was fortunate.  My father had an accountant who just "got it done."  I never knew what was going on.  I didn't really care.  Would you?  I usually would get a small refund check of about $300.  To a teenager, that's like Christmas!  To a married adult, that's like ... well, Christmas!

    Since I was just married back in December of 2008, the time has come that I get my own taxes done.  My father's accountant was getting a little expensive, so I thought, why not try H&R Block?  Their commercials seem good.  People seem to trust them.  I had only gotten one bad review from a friend, Shawn Foster.  I just hoped that his experience was a fluke.  Many other people had gone and were out of there in 30 minutes.  That's what I was shooting for: the 30-minute experience.

    March 2nd was a snow day so I decided to take advantage of the free time.  After Bonnie went off to work (poor thing), I headed out with all my tax stuff (basically it was a folder of all the crap that got mailed to us since January 31st).  I also grabbed the "$50 Off" coupon Bonnie had received for using H&R Block on-line last year!  I had called ahead and they told me to come in around 11:30.  I entered the room and was hit immediately by the bright green walls.  I didn't exactly get that warm feeling the commercial wants us to get, but I wasn't scared either ... yet.

    A gentlemen came up to me and told me that Kerry was going to be helping me today.  I couldn't see anything except the top of her head, but I got the feeling Kerry was young.  Well, I was wrong.  After less than a minute, Kerry got out of his desk and came over.  Let's see, how do I explain what Kerry looked like.  Kerry, the man, was a mix between Gary Oldman and Adolf Hitler. 

 

                   +                           =        My Tax Guy!

 

    Anyway, he shook my hand for about 2 seconds longer than the average handshake.  That scared me right there.  It was now 11:33 and I had plans to be there for 45 minutes top.  Bonnie and I each had two incomes - she has her old and current job and I have my teaching job plus my summer job.  Then there are school loans and such.  Of course, I knew that the fact that I work in New Jersey and now live in Pennsylvania was going to be an issue.  God forbid this be easy!

    We start off looking through the forms I bring.  The look on his face was priceless.  "Boy, you have a lot of forms," he starts off! 

    "I do?  Don't you have a lot of people with two jobs and school loans?"

    "Not really," he replies.  Oh God!  The crazy thing was the fact that Frank, who seemed to run office, could hear his comments and said nothing.  After about 45 minutes of Kerry (or Mr. ****, as he introduced himself) commenting on my job, he started to talk about his real life goals.  He wants to be a teacher, too.  But as we got further into the session, I noticed how his eyes seemed to linger and always with a look of concern about what I was thinking.  I had the distinct impression that he was not a person to be left alone with young children. 

    He had to ask for help repeatedly, which didn't bother me too much because it meant Frank, who seemed to know what he was doing, could help.  What got me nervous was when he had to GOOGLE  a form because he had never seen it before!  Oh God!  Finally, after 90 minutes, we were ready to start.  He showed me everything he was doing step by step.  I had the urge to tell him I did not care and that he should just get it done, but I felt bad.  It was obvious that this guy had no one to talk to.  He told me how he was trying to get teacher certification in New Jersey and that he wanted to go alternate route (which is how I got my teaching certificate).  He said that he started applying for jobs in December, but still had not gotten a job.  What a crazy notion?  You mean schools don't hire in the middle of the school year?  Crazy, right!  The scary thing is this guy will probably get a lot of offers come July because he's a science teacher!  Why are science teachers the creepy ones?

    Anyway, after two and half hours, he was done with MY income.  Bonnie's was yet to come!  I told him that I had to leave and that I would come back at six to pick up a completed tax return.  He seemed surprised.  I told him that Bonnie would come back with me to sign all the forms she needed to sign.  I got to my car and wanted to shoot myself.  I called Bonnie and told her about the ordeal.  She seemed very concerned (but later I found out she did not take me as seriously as she should have). 

    I called the office at 5:30 to confirm that I would be there at 6:00.  Fortunately for me (sense the sarcasm), Kerry had stayed to make sure he was there to explain things to me when I got there.  I know I'm new at this, but I think I understand what needs to be done.  Since everyone does this, I assume that any idiot can do it.  No offense to the idiots out there!

    Bonnie and I walked in and he immediately jumped up to greet us.  Again, his handshake lingered too long.  It wasn't until we got in the car that Bonnie told me the exact same thing about shaking his hand.  She also apologized for not taking me seriously.  This guy was absolutely crazy.  He stared at us as if he wanted to be friends.  Perhaps this is why we sat there for another 45 minutes while he finished explaining what would be coming to us, what we would owe (that's right, owe) and how we would pay for his services.  We were charged quite a lot because of "all our forms."  I have no doubt that I will be getting a phone call from Kerry very soon to make sure I am happy with the service, but really for him to talk to someone. 

    The point is, ladies and gentlemen, go to "TurboTax.com" and do your taxes yourself.  If H&R Block is stupid enough to let people like Kerry have a job after the first interview, this is not the company to help prepare your taxes!  I can only hope he did everything right and that I will not be in jail come April 15th! 

 

 

Cain and Abel on Lost

 

    Religion is a common theme on LOST.  Though we may not know whom this "Jacob" is, we can all agree by now that he is some god-like figure who the others worship or answer to.  The number 108 is a sacred number to the Buddhist religion.  Mr. Echo (boy, I miss him), was known to recite passages from the Bible, especially Psalm 23.  The island itself is worshipped by some characters, almost as if it were a Garden of Eden.  We already have reference to an "Adam and Eve" on the island, referring to two skeletons found by Jack and Kate.  One of the big questions of the show (among many others) is "who are they?"  Let's leave that one for a while and think ahead.  If the island is a religious allegory and if there is an "Adam and Eve" on the show, could there by a Cain and Abel?  Is there a brother who commits fratricide somewhere on this mythical island?

    The most recent of many murders on the show was one of the most impressive and surprising scenes of the season.  In "The Life and Death of Jeremy Bentham," the most recent episode of LOST, Locke attempts to commit suicide by hanging after failing to get the Oceanic 6 back to the island.  Interrupted by Ben, Locke decides not to off himself, but is suddenly killed by Ben with the same suicidal wire after Locke expresses his instructions to see Eloise Hawking.  The look on Michael Emerson's face was like something we've never seen.  Ben was concerned.  For the first time in a long time, we saw something that might have actually been against Ben's overall plan.  It's frightening to think that the man "behind the curtain" might not be in control anymore.  He also seemed a little out-of-the-loop when he found out that Jin was still alive. 

    Obvious questions include "who is Eloise Hawking?"; "why did Ben kill Locke himself?"; "for what reason does Ben not want Locke to meet Ms. Hawking?"; and "can we still trust Ben?"  But let's ask a question that's in the back of our minds ... deep deep in the back: What is the true connection between Ben and Locke?  Richard Albert has answered to both these men as the "leader" of the Others.  Why?  What makes these men so special?  Well, let's look at it the way we would look at any religious reign of power?  How does someone get power from another?  When the father dies, the son gets the power to rule.  The older child gets the power; the younger brother gets nothing!  In most cases, this causes a battle between brothers ( such as Jacob and Esau).  I would love to open that can of worms and question whether or not there is an Esau to the island's Jacob, but let's save that for another time.

    When the figures of Cain and Abel grow up and their parents (Adam and Eve) are gone, they consistently have moral debates.  Eventually Cain murders Abel because it is obvious to him that God favors Abel, even though Cain is the older brother.  Now, we see Locke finding out things that Ben does not know.  When Ben realizes this, he kills Locke!  What a minute?  Where am I going with this?  That's right!  I predict that John Locke and Benjamin Linus are brothers!  Furthermore, if this theory is right, it supports the theory that Christian Shepherd is Jacob.  God "favors" Abel; Abel is murdered by Cain.  Christian favors Locke; Locke is murdered by Ben.  Remember when Christian said to Locke, "I said you had to move it, John."   The sacrifice made by Ben was not accepted by Christian, but the sacrifice made by Locke was.   

    How soon will we find out if this theory is right?  I think we will find out soon enough.  The question is will Ben and Locke find out (or does one of them already know)?  If they are brothers, why did Ben have Sawyer kill their father, con man Anthony Cooper?  Did Roger Linus know that his wife cheated on him with Anthony Cooper?  I think we can assume that Anthony is the true father since the kidney transplant (Locke giving his kidney to Anthony) was successful.  Of course, the world of LOST could surprise us and reveal neither Roger Linus nor Anthony Cooper as the father; Christian Shepherd might hold that title.  In the Bible, Benjamin is the son of Jacob.  All the sons of Jacob are jealous of Joseph, the favorite son.  Benjamin was the only other child by Rachel, Jacob's favorite of his many wives.  Are Locke and Ben a mix of the Joseph/Benjamin relationship and the Cain/Abel relationship?  If so, what does that say about Jack (Christian's son) or Claire (his daughter).   What does it say about Aaron???  Anyone reading might start to hate me because there are enough questions left to answer without those that would come out of this theory being true.    We have the next few weeks to find out everything that season five has to offer!  We still have some time and more theories to come! 

 

More predictions for the rest of the season:

• 
  
  The reason Hurley got on flight 316 is because Charlie went to convince him, hence Charlie's guitar case as Hurley's carry-on
  
  
• 
  
   Ben succeeded in his promise to Widmore and successfully killed Penny; in an attempt to avenge Penny's death, Desmond will come back to the island and kill Ben.  Like Gandalf and Dumbledore had to die so that the true hero could save the day alone, so will our original crash victims have to get through the final season of LOST without the help of Benjamin Linus.  If this is true, I think Ben's death would be a nice Season 5 finale!
  
  
• 
  
   Jack's grandfather, Ray, who randomly made an appearance in "316," is actually Jack.  This would require a lot of time travel explanation as to why Jack thinks that his older self is actually his grandfather, but wouldn't LOST be the show to try it?

    

    Stay tuned!  There are plenty more things to come out of this wonderful season of the best show on TV today!

    

Text Messaging ... REALLY?

    Okay ... can we talk about something very serious for a moment?!  Text messaging has become the quickest way of communication in America and all over the world.  This, of course, is sad.  We no longer want to talk on the phone - that person we are talking to never lets us off.   We don't e-mail - it takes too long and people judge us if we don't use correct punctuation and grammar (including me).  We don't even AIM anymore - it's simply a place for us to read away messages.  The last time I IMed someone, they literally IMed back, "Who IMs anymore?"  WHAT?   I assumed that Facebook wall messages were going to be the fastest way to get a message to someone without having to get stuck "talking to them."   I was wrong.  Text messaging has become the number one way of communicating with another person.  In fact, a statistic revealed by "CellSigns" states that as of 2008, 75 billion text messages are sent in an average month.  This number has grown by 250% each year and will probably grow by 300% in the next three years. 

    If all of this is true and text messaging is going to be the main way of communication for the next few years, can we make some changes?  In order to be a fast "texter," which is a title I am usually credited with, you need to use something called T9 prediction.  I do not know why it's called T9 and I don't care.  Pretty much, T9 prediction allows you to type in a word without choosing the exact letter you need for the word.  The phone predicts what word you want.  Naturally, because there are an average of three letters per number (unless you have a full keyboard on your phone, which I don't want to get into a ridiculous rant about), there are a few possibilities as to what words can be predicted.  If the phone does not predict the right word, one needs to press the star button to get the other options.  If one uses a special word, or someone's name, you have the option to type the name way in the traditional way and then save it, personalizing your phone.  For instance, the phone predicts my wife's name as "Connie," but now the second option is "Bonnie." 

    There are many people that completely ignore the "option" button and just allow the phone to predict words for you.  This either means that they are drunk texting you or they don't care enough about you to press the damn star key!  This has led to such texts as, "Call Non.  She is pick."  What was the process of choosing the order of these words??  It's not alphabetical!  Unless these idiots think n comes before m. 

    Let's face it, people are generally stupid!  But the people assigned the job of choosing the order of words that come out through the prediction system need to be shot.  Who are these people?  Who thought that "non" was going to be sent through a text message more than "mom"?  Making sure my sister remembered by mother's birthday, I once sent her a text that said, "Did you send non a birthday case?"  REALLY?  Who needs to use the word "case" in a text?

    When gossiping with friends, one tends to ask things like, "Did he kiss her?"  But if you don't pay attention, you sound like a moron saying, "Did he lips her?"  Who needs the words "lips" in a text (though I will admit the irony that "lips" and "kiss" are the same buttons)?  Maybe you need to tell someone your lips are chapped.  But you know what I would say to someone who text me about their chapped lips?  "So get some fuckin chap stick and get on with your life!"  Of course, it would come out as "So get some dublin bias quick and get on with your life!"  BIAS?  Who the hell needs to say "bias" in a text message?  Furthermore, are the people using text messaging as their main form of communication discussing things such as the bias Americans has for the city of Dublin or are they saying "fuckin"?  You decide!

   

    "Where are you?"  (So far, so good)

    "What are you talking about?" (Nice!)

    "You were supposed to be here two hours ago."  (Still going strong ... )

    "Chamber are, I diem't get the message."  (What?)

 

    First of all, who in God's name talks about a chamber in a text message?  "I have your wife locked in a chamber!"  And diem't?  What the dual is that?  Sorry, I meant to say, "What the fuck is that?"  But I guess the morality of these prediction deciders forbids them from using the f-word.  And, of course, dual is a word used by so many texters when referring to two of something. 

    "I an good."  This often is sent when someone wants to tell someone else that they have reached their residence.  Why?  Because the great prediction deciders have deemed that "an" is used more often than "am."  Apparently, using "an" before a word starting with a vowel is more popular than people talking about themselves!  These people must not be American.  Then, of course, there is "good," rather than "home."  I got news for you, ladies.  If he is sending you a text message, he doesn't give a flying "dual" if you are good, but he does care if you are "home."  You know why?  He cares more about getting to where you are to "dual" you than how you are feeling!

    So, we can only hope that AT&T, Verizon, and the other companies hire smarter people for their next big breakthrough.  But until they do, be careful what you send to those people you are trying to flirt with through text messaging.  They might be confused when you tell them you want to lips them and dual them all might long (that's right, might comes before night)  Stupid shiv heads!!

    

Stephen Sondheim at the Kimmel Center

 

 

    Naturally, today would be the day that I would discuss the Academy Awards.  New movies, new winners, new format (was there?), and new host!  Great!  Did I cover everything?  Frankly, I was bored about an hour (I'm being generous) into it.  Heath Ledger won, which, of course, made me happy.  Though there will be many that will not accept the win as a true win because of his unfortunate death ("If he didn't die, no way would he of won").  Slumdog Millionaire took home the most prizes, including Best Picture, which was no surprise to anyone.  Hoping for an upset, I sat waiting for one of two things to happen.  First, that Benjamin Button came out on top, since I felt it was the better film.  Second, that they announced there was a mistake and The Dark Knight was given Best Picture of the Year (or decade).  Nevertheless, the awards were fine and we can move on to my real topic of the weekend ...

 

    On Saturday, February 21st, Bonnie and I headed to the Kimmel Center in Philadelphia, joining the numerous members of the Philadelphia Theater Community to see Frank Rich, columnist of the New York Times, interview the great Stephen Sondheim.  Bonnie and I entered the huge theater, shivered away the piercings of the cold air from outside and instantly felt at home in the huge complex.  Immediately, there was a sense that we were surrounded by "high art" musical theater lovers.  One could say there was a sense of snobbishness in the air.  There was a good number of people there that were there to see Sondheim because he is "Sondheim."  Since his lyrics are ones that many people don't "get" easily, he must be talented.  If you were to sit down and ask what their favorite Sondheim score is and why, most of them could not give you an educated answer.  I may be making grand assumptions, but this was just the impression I got.  It did not help that in the rear of the theater, there was a young man (seemed like a college voice major - possibly from the neighboring University of the Arts) singing "Being Alive," one of Mr. Sondheim's most well-known pieces.  Don't get me wrong, it's a glorious song, but it seemed to me that the Kimmel knew what they were doing.  Let him sing "Being Alive" because it's similar to a "normal musical theater song."  True Sondheim fans would want to hear "Another Hundred People" or "Finishing the Hat," but "Being Alive" will please the larger audience.  "Being Alive," while a terrific number, can be heard on any "Broadway Collection" along with "Memory" from Cats or "All That Jazz" from Chicago. 

 

    The program contained an insert that requested questions from the audience.  Bonnie and I took no time at all to write down the questions we've always wanted to ask.  Bonnie asked about his female characters.  Who were his favorite and did he have a female in his life who inspired him?  I had a feeling her question would be chosen and it was.  Sondheim immediately gave the credit to his librettist, whoever it may be.  Sondheim stated that he did not think of them as women, but as characters.  The lyrics come from who he feels the character is and what they want.  He did state that one of his favorite females characters, and one that inspired him, was Dot in Sunday in the Park With George. 

 

    My question was very specific and I felt it had little to no chance of being chosen.  I was correct.  It concerned the character arc of Sweeney Todd and the lyrics that trigger the audience's awareness of this arc.  I assume it didn't even get narrowed down to the short list that Frank Rich chose from.  It was not a problem however, for afterwards I spoke with the self-proclaimed musical theater expert, Jeffrey Simno (he backs up the title very well) and he made it abundantly clear when this awareness occurs.  Thank you, Jeffrey. 

 

    Mr. Rich, known for his honest columns about Art and Life and the New York Times, hurried into the interview by asking about Sondheim's popular number "Send in the Clowns."  Mr. Sondheim told a humerus (and brutally honest) tale about the making of the film adaptation of A Little Night Music, the show from which "Clowns" comes from.  He spoke of his distaste for the film version ("Though there were a few good moments," he said) and about Elizabeth Taylor's hard time recording "Send in the Clowns" for the soundtrack.  According to the composer, Taylor recorded the song around 73 times and the recording engineers had to piece the final product together, not just line by line, but often syllable by syllable.  "Okay, take the s-sound from that take and combine it with the end-sound from that take..."  Sounds brutal and was, apparently, not worth the effort.

 

    Mr. Rich continued the interview with very interesting questions.  Topic highlights included the recent revival of West Side Story, which Mr. Sondheim is looking forward to in the bi-lingual format.  He enjoys the fact that "I Feel Pretty," a lyric he is not a fan of, will now be listened to by an audience whose majority will not understand the lyrics, and be forced to pay attention to the joyful melody.  He expressed concern about the format because certain songs such as "America" need to be sung in English because the rhymes are the joke.  A decision has yet to be made on whether "I Have a Love" will be sung in Spanish or English.  Mr. Sondheim did say, however, that it would be justifiable to have Anita sing her song, "A Boy Like That," in Spanish and Maria sing "I Have a Love" in English, showing us the transport of Maria's love to an American, English-speaking boy.  Anita joining her in English would express the moment when Anita understands the love Maria has for Tony, therefore progressing the play to its tragic end. 

 

    Mr. Sondheim spoke about the term genius.  His definition was short and clear.  "A genius is one who never stops inventing."  He went on to say that the only "genius" he believes he has ever met is Jerome Robbins, legendary choreographer and director, who first worked with Sondheim on West Side Story.  "He never stopped inventing.  And not just theatrical ideas, but whenever he were at a party, he would make up games.  Good games.  We actually would play the games right there and have a good time."  Sondheim's calling Robbins a genius is quite an honor, considering Sondheim went on to discuss working so closely with his mentor, Oscar Hammerstein II. 

 

    Though not a main topic of the discussion, Mr. Sondheim did talk about the work he did with Hammerstein and did give Carousel the credit of being his second-favorite musical.  His favorite musical credit goes to George and Ira Gershwin's Porgy and Bess.  Mr. Sondheim discussed how lyric writing was a skill that could be taught in 20 minutes ("or even five minutes"), but takes longer to be acquired.  It was obvious to me that Sondheim could hear the voice of Hammerstein in his head as he spoke these words to the captive audience. 

 

    When asked by an audience member about his experiences with Cole Porter, Sondheim immediately smiled as if his memory of the legendary composer and lyricist (one of the few musical theater legends to have both credits, along with Mr. Sondheim) was splendid.  He spoke of his first meeting.  As a young composer, Mr. Sondheim travelled to Porter's house to do research on a satire he was writing.  The satire was on Porter's writing style.  Upon entering with muddy feet, Sondheim read a sign at the door that read, "Please wipe feet.  White carpets."   Obviously putting him on edge, Sondheim took his shoes off and entered a room with a piano "the size of this stage."  Before Porter entered, he tried to read what he was currently composing, but was interrupted by the composer's entrance.  Porter requested to hear what Sondheim had written so far.  Sondheim played and was corrected by Porter about the ending.  Essentially, Cole Porter helped Sondheim write a satire about Cole Porter.  "That's the kind of guy he was," said Sondheim, laughing. 

 

    He continued to tell a story about an experience while working on Gypsy.  During the process, Ethel Merman, a close, personal friend of Porter's told the production team that Porter had just had his second leg amputated and was in low spirits and asked if the team would mind if visiting Porter to share some selections with him.  They all agreed.  Mr. Sondheim recalls what he claimed was one of his happiest memories.  He was playing "Wherever We Go," a number clearly influenced by Cole Porter, and got to the section that goes, "No fits, no fights, no feuds, and no egos ... amigos ... Together!"  As the word "amigos" was sung, Sondheim heard Porter gasp in pleasured shock at the extra rhyme that Sondheim had placed in the line using another language, something Porter did often.  Sondheim knew of Porter's joy and considers it a triumph.

 

    Though he was only seen by me from the view of an audience, Mr. Sondheim seemed to be having a one-on-one conversation with each and every person.  His casualness made us all forget for a moment that we were seeing a legend, and made us feel like we were seeing a human who has worked his whole life and, though has achieved greatness, still wants more for himself, like any other human being.  Like us, he has opinions about musicals.  A particularly fascinating moment was when he expressed his dislike of the work of the musical-writing team of Lerner and Lowe.  "They're good ... it's just ... not my type ... not my cup of tea."  Just because someone is "known as a great composer" does not mean we all have to agree on their talent.  In a way, I felt Sondheim was telling us that it's okay if we do not like everything he does.  His sense of security shows that he would be alright with that if it were the case.  The way he spoke of his co-workers in the field helped us relate his stories of famous legends to our own lives.  He humanized figures such as Bernadette Peters, Angela Lansbury, and even Oscar Hammerstein by telling us tales of their insecurities, failures, and ultimate triumphs. 

   

    Though this may have only been a "moment ... one peculiar, passing moment,"  Sondheim is now not only an influential composer, but a teacher - a teacher of music, creativity, and life lessons.  So, let's "leave the moment, just be glad for the moment that we had ..." with Mr. Stephen Sondheim.  Thank you, Mr. Sondheim, for the music, the lyrics, and the moments.