The Frienemy

Recently, my honors English class was having a discussion about friendship. We are currently reading A Separate Peace by John Knowles. It is a story of two young men in a prep school in New England in 1942. The narrator, Gene, tells the story of he and his friend, Phineas (Finny), and how their friendship goes through a series of ups and downs. In the story, Gene grows to love and hate Finny all at the same time. In class, we discussed how relevant this book is to high school students in 2008.

My students came up with some very interesting things. I asked, "Does anyone have a friend that, deep down inside, you actually hate?" I used hate, which is a strong word, hoping that my students would go on to explain that hate is the wrong word. Instead, most nodded their heads and completely and openly acknowledged the fact that they all have a friend such as the one that I described. "A frienemy?" one girl asked, "do you mean a frienemy?" I actually knew what the young lady was talking about, but I wanted to hear her definition so I played dumb and asked her to explain.

"A frienemy is a person who we are friends with, but actually keep around in order to get their approval or to be present for their eventually downfall." I was amazed at this incredibly well thought out definition. She and the rest of the class continued to explain that these people are important to us because they make us feel important. Apparently, if there in someone is the world we hate that much, it gives us a goal of what not to be.

The conversation continued and out of curiosity I asked, "Do any of you think you are a friend of someone that actually hates you." The majority of the class - boys and girls - said yes. "How does that make you feel?"

Another girl, usually very quiet, raised her hand quicker than anyone in the class and said, "It makes me feel important. If someone hates me that much, I must be very important to a decent amount of people." I didn't know if I was more impressed or scared with the logic.

Is this what high school students are going through? I often value my age in the classroom because I feel like I still remember what it was like to be a teenager. I can relate to my students on a certain level. I am only ten years older. Could I forget this quickly? Or is it simply that things really have changed that much? I don't remember having friends I hated. I felt life was too short to be with people I wasn't very fond of. It was for this reason that I had a small, close-knit group of friends who I loved and still keep in contact with. I didn't need to prove myself to anyone and, for this reason, I was pretty well-liked. What has changed that fourteen- and fifteen-year-old kids think that they need to be hated to be important?

Something needs to be done for these students to make them realize that what defines them will not be who hated them or who they hated. What will define the students of this generation will be what they achieve and how they achieve it. While I love that my students are relating to the novel, it scares me to think that this extreme case in the story seems to be the regular in 2008 high schools. As teachers, we need to teach more lessons about life. We have experienced it. We've made the mistakes and it is our duty to inform students that these "frienemies" will not help them get into college and grad school. They will not help them find work in a suffering economy. They will not help their credit score or get them the mortgage approval they will need in a short nine to ten years. This conversation, that started as a simple book discussion, really opened my eyes to what is going on inside the heads of my students. We need to pay more attention to what they are exposed to. Furthermore, we need to make our volume louder than the volume of the society that is telling them to "love thy frienemy!"

Summer Friendships

For a teacher, summers are very interesting. Summer is the escape from the normal routine that we follow everyday for ten months of the year. There are no weekends. Everyday is a weekend. Even when you have a summer job, it's still not school. Because of this, the summers of a teacher tend to be their own entity. We enter not knowing what will happen and then we leave with the assumption that it will be forgotten, at least until the following June. However, what happens when a special summer approaches and we don't want to forget? Is it just inevitable? Are we supposed to simply place it in the file called "summer" and move on with our lives? It's ironic that teachers are seen as the leaders of children, yet when it comes to summer, our lives and attitudes are very similar to the ones we teach.

This summer, for me, has gone beyond that. I met four people this summer. We work together at a camp, a very popular place for teachers to work over the summer. Our ages range from 18 to 25. I am the second oldest and the only male of the group. My relationship with each is different. Each of us bring a unique quality to the group, which is why I think we work so well as a team.

As I enter the last week of camp, I find myself very sad. I'm fine with camp ending. It was a stressful summer where I realized more than ever that the camp environment is not one for me. Though at the same time, I feel a sadness coming over me. Does the bond that I have formed with these people end when the job ends? We say we will keep in touch, but is it true? Just how strong does the friendship have to be in order to surpass the label "summer"?

This summer has reminded me how important our relationships really are. We can't take people for granted because each person that comes into our lives is there to teach us something - about life, about ourselves, and about the world. These four girls will forever be in my heart and I will cherish the relationship I have with each one of them. They've reminded me that the old cliche is true: "everything happens for a reason."

What's Next?

One of the many interesting things about Christopher Nolan’s two “Batman” films is how he ends them. Each has such amazing closure, yet leaves you anticipating the next chapter of the story. Batman Begins ends with the question of escalation and the famous Joker card, and The Dark Knight leaves you with Commissioner Gordon having to hunt Batman in order to save the face – no pun intended – of Harvey Dent. But is this all that lies ahead for the Caped Crusader? What is next? Who is next? What villain will be the next to test Batman’s limits?

First, let’s look at the possible plot line. My prediction is that it will have something to do with the media. I think there is more to see from Anthony Michael Hall’s character, Michael Engel. It was underplayed and left with a lot of question. How desperate is Engel to get the story of the Batman? What is he willing to do? This seems like a perfect opportunity for Nolan to ask how far is too far when the media is concerned. This also seems like an ideal time to introduce Bruce Wayne’s next love interest, photojournalist Vicki Vale (previous portrayed by Kim Bassinger in Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman). But how would a Vicki Vale created by Chris Nolan react towards Batman. Would she be a fan or a cynic?

While love interests are wonderful, the important news would be who would be the next villain for Batman to fight. Rumors are flying all around the internet as to who could take over for Heath Ledger. It seems Johnny Depp is the number one contender. My answer: NO ONE! Leave the Joker in Arkham Asylum where he belongs. An actor trying to continue what Mr. Ledger began would be criticized and would take the attention away from the movie. While Johnny Depp is a very talented actor, he is not right for the Joker (at least not the Joker created by Ledger). However, I do think Mr. Depp could portray another Batman villain terrifically – and one that I feel would be great in the Gotham that Nolan has set up for us: The Riddler.

Batman has spent the last two movies testing out his physical strength, it is about time someone tested his intellect. Depp’s Riddler would be funny and hideous at the same time, stepping away from the Riddler created by the brilliant Frank Gorshin (and continued by the talented, but not-as-talented Jim Carrey). The Riddler of this world needs to be someone who has spent their whole life being teased for not being strong and ignored despite his intelligence. Batman will be the perfect opponent for the Riddler and the Riddler needs to feel right now as the right time to attack!

The Dark Knight actually set up a good character to continue on as the Riddler. The Wayne employee known as Mr. Eeyes – get it? Mysteries? – seemed like a great character to become the Riddler. There are only two problems with that. First, would Nolan upset the comic book fans by changing the Riddler’s real name from Edward Nygma? Secondly, would Nolan cast a no-name actor in an important role such as the Riddler? It would be risky, but the type of chance that Nolan would probably take. He took a similar chance casting Heath Ledger as the Joker. Though Ledger was a name, he was not the type of actor anyone expected to play the Joker. Look how that paid off!

A few web sites have already predicted Catwoman as the next villain. I did enjoy the clever moment in the movie when Lucius Fox remarks that Batman’s new costumes would protect him against cats. Oh, Mr. Nolan, you are so clever! Is this line enough to make Catwoman the next villain for Batman to deal with? Probably not. Further, the criminals that Nolan chooses seem to be big players. Joker, Scarecrow, and RaJa Ghoul all have goals of destroying Gotham and its inhabitants. Catwoman is a cat burglar. That’s all. Granted, she is dangerous enough that Commissioner Gordon does call on Batman to foil her plots, but she would be a letdown compared to the Joker. Perhaps having her team up with another criminal would help, but it has not really worked in the past.

There are villains we have seen in any franchise yet. The Mad Hatter is a subtle villain, but a treacherous one. The question is whether or not the public would enjoy a criminal based on a literary character. Would they get the literary jokes? I think they may. In 2008, one of the hottest shows on television is LOST, which constantly makes literary references. This may be the perfect time for Nolan to introduce this character. Plus, Gotham City is constantly having their minds played with. Mad Hatter would be able to take that a step further and literally control their minds.

Many have argued that the Penguin is too “fictional” for the world that Nolan has set up and I would agree. However, Nolan has brought back the mob aspect of Gotham very well. In Christopher Nolan’s world, Oswald Cobblepot could be a wannabe gangster who tries to infiltrate the mob. When that fails, he becomes the Penguin. Just a thought, but I still think the Riddler would be a better villain.

Of course, Two-Face had a short reign and he still could come back to get revenge on Commissioner Gordon and Gotham City for turning their backs on him. Nolan could also play more on the tension between one man fighting good against evil. It would be a great correlation with Batman, who is trying to prove he is good when Gotham thinks he is bad.

By now, it doesn’t really matter what is in store for the next villain. If Batman Begins did not earn Nolan the trust of the fans, The Dark Knight clinched it! But it is fun to predict. Who do you think is the next Batman villain?

The Dark Knight Review

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, the second installment of the resurrected Batman franchise, has taken its position as history's greatest comic book film of all time with full force! Between Ledger's Oscar-worthy performance, Nolan's skillful directing and screenwriting, and the hype, this movie is bound to break every record in the books.

If Christian Bale had not already proved himself to be the best Batman on screen with Batman Begins, he definitely proved it here. Though while his Batman is so interesting and horrifying, it is his Bruce Wayne that really comes alive. The struggle we see Wayne go through as he tries to save a city that does not want him to save it is so captivating, you actually find yourself pulled between wanting Batman is stop and wanting him to prove himself again and again.

Bale was supported by terrific actors, giving amazing performances. Gary Oldman takes his role of Jim Gordon further in The Dark Knight. He does a beautiful job of showing how it’s not easy for Gordon to trust the Batman at all times. He juggles his secret bond with Batman and his job perfectly, making the character's transition into Commissioner seem obvious, yet surprising.

Michael Caine returns again as Alfred, Wayne’s butler. Though he always makes the best out of his moments, the character seems to only serve the purpose of giving philosophical advice to his master, unlike in Batman Begins when we saw how he was also affected as a second father to Bruce. It is actually not until the end of the film where he again becomes a father and emotional protector to Wayne, perhaps a little too late for the film.

Morgan Freeman returns as Lucius Fox, one of the people that know Batman’s secrets and the man who creates Batman’s unending plethora of gear. He does this while also running Wayne Enterprises. Freeman’s dialogue is so well written and has a great balance of comedy and seriousness. Freeman handles the role perfectly, making what should be a small cameo into a highlight, even more than he did in Batman Begins.

Aaron Eckhart takes his role of Harvey Dent to a new level. Nolan gives him a very meaty role that some have suggested is more important in the movie than the Joker and Batman. As Gotham’s “White Knight,” Harvey Dent gives an example of why the city might not need Batman. Eckhart does a great job of showing the struggle that Dent goes through before becoming his alter ego, causing the metamorphosis to make more sense. We feel pity for Dent, which is the key ingredient to making the villain Two-Face work. It should also be mentioned that the size of Eckhart’s role in the film was the best-kept secret of the year!

Maggie Gyllenhaal, brother to Heath Ledger’s best friend, Jake, takes over the role of Rachel Dawes beautifully, wiping out any memory of Katie Holmes from audiences’ heads. Her quick-wit and no-nonsense approach to the role is exactly what is needed when up against Bale’s tragic Bruce Wayne / Batman. Her storyline takes an unbelievable twist that becomes a sad moment that would not be so sad had if it been performed by the previous actress in the role. The next question that lies ahead is what is in store in the love arena for Mr. Wayne?

Last, but certainly not least, is Heath Ledger’s Joker. Between the amazing script and magnificent acting, the Joker becomes much more than any person thought possible. He is not just the villain of the story, but the nucleus. Between all of Gordon’s nervousness, Alfred’s advice, and Fox’s warnings, no character has us thinking more than the Joker. He has an entire audience questioning themselves, making them wonder if their own lives are merely jokes for others to laugh at. What is it to be a human being in a post-9/11 world? When everything we know is taken away from us, do we simply fall apart? How many times can we “pick ourselves up again”? It is hard to believe that a comic book villain could get someone thinking that hard, but it is Ledger’s performance that makes it so believable. The trick is the youthfulness that he brings to the role. As oppose to being completely separated from Batman in story and age, Ledger brings out the connections between the two, almost as if they are brothers separated by good and evil. They need each other. Ledger even tells Batman in a comical – but serious – moment “you complete me.”

As previously said, the movie definitely has some 9/11 allusions, but does not beat us over the head with them. It’s there for those of us that want it to be there. As we watch Gotham fall apart at the hands of a madman, we are reminded of how our country fell apart for a short time, but fought together to bring back justice and social norms. The Joker spends most of the movie questioning how many times we can fall before we lie down and die. Batman works on the opposite end to show us we should never give up, even when he is at his closest to quitting.

As did Batman Begins, this film brings great closure, while at the same time leaving itself wide open for another story. What is next for the Batman? In the first film, we saw Batman’s reaction to his own tragedy and to Gotham City. In The Dark Knight, we see Gotham’s reaction to the Batman and how Batman’s “taste for the theatrical” will bring out villains who will try to top him! While this movie tends to focus on politics and “higher-ups” of Gotham, Nolan might want to show us how the media world affects the views of Batman. Will the media be behind him or try to destroy him? This would also open up a nice window for a new love interest – photojournalist Vicki Vale – to enter the scene as either Batman’s biggest fan, or biggest critic. This might also open a door for a new Batman villain – and the only one that seems to make sense in the world that Nolan has built for us – The Riddler.

The Knight is Getting Darker ...

It is now Wednesday and I am sitting at my boss's computer (I'm supposed to be looking at something for a play I'm directing), but I felt an urge to say a few things about the research I've done on the upcoming film The Dark Knight.

By now, I have read all the articles and watched all of the trailers and seen all of the Comcast ONDEMAND specials titled "Gotham Tonight." These specials star Anthony Michael Hall (The Breakfast Club) as Gotham news anchor Mike Engel. He's quite convincing and has actually set an interesting tone for the movie. I think we will be seeing a movie that focuses much more on corruption than anything else. How will the bureaucrats of Gotham City be affected by Batman? Good move by Nolan, the director. We always get how the villains are affected, but we never get to see the political arena. Perhaps Nolan's idea is to have each film focus on how Batman affects different areas of Gotham, sort of how HBO's The Wire focuses on different areas of Baltimore and how they are affected by the drug rings.

Based on HBO's Inside Look of The Dark Knight, Nolan is focusing a lot on how Gotham will blame Batman for The Joker's appearance. This was nicely set up at the end of Batman Begins when Gordon questioned Batman about escalation. While most audiences focused on the appearance of the Joker's playing card, the real preview lied in how Gordon warned Batman that when a man in a mask jumps off rooftops, he's only asking to bring about enemies who will escalate their arsenal of tricks. It seems that this will be Harvey Dent's big argument in The Dark Knight.

While this is an excellence plot line for the film and raises a very interesting question not asked by a film before, I worry about something. Will there be a period in the movie where Bruce Wayne decides the only way to save Gotham is to let it go without Batman? We've seen this before too many times. In Superman II, we see Metropolis without Superman and in Spiderman II, Peter Parker decides he can be Spiderman no longer. Is this the cliche of the superhero sequel now? The plot is getting a little too predictable. Bruce Wayne will spend a half hour of the film watching Gotham City destroy itself and then come back to save his city from The Joker. Hopefully Nolan will take a different route, or, if he doesn't, he'll make it more interesting. I have a lot of hope!

I will be seeing the film on Friday, July 18th at 12:01 am. I'm sure I'll have plenty to say on Friday!

The Dark Knight is Coming ...

It's almost here ...

The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan's second installment of the "Batman" epic, will premier in theaters in one week. Not only is this one of the most anticipated movies of 2008, but it is the last time people will be able to see the work of Mr. Heath Ledger, a very gifted actor who left us too soon. While the death of Heath Ledger is very tragic, sometimes I feel bad for Christian Bale, the other star of the film, who is getting practically no press or acknowledgement for the role. Shouldn't we give credit to the man who finally brought a real darkness to the Dark Knight? You don't really think Keaton was better, do you?

In preparation for The Dark Knight, I've been reading even more than usual about the Caped Crusader. I recently picked up a new book entitled Batman and Philosophy: The Dark Knight of the Soul. A very corny title, granted, but a very interesting read thus far. One particular essay inside by Mark D. White entitled "Why Doesn't Batman Kill the Joker?" struck me. In the essay, White argues that if Batman would simply off the Clown Prince of Crime, Gotham City would be a better place. It should also be noted that it was just recently released that no comic book villain is responsible for more deaths than the Joker. Some of this most potent deaths include Jason Todd, the second Robin, and Sarah Essen, Commissioner Gordon's second wife (is there a theme here? Did Nolan put Two-Face and the Joker in the same film for a reason?).

White raises a very interesting philosophical question: If a train was out of control and was about to hit five people, but you had the power to shift the tracks, causing it to only hit one person, would you do it? White goes further to explain that there are two types of people in the world: utilitarians and deontologist. Utilitarianism is a system of ethics that would encourage the person to shift the tracks and kill the one person, saving the five others. Since more people survived, the one person was worth sacrificing. Deontology states that we should judge the morality of an act based on features intrinsic to the act itself. The fact that five people were saved does not excuse the act of killing the one person. If it's God's plan to kill those five people, it is not up to us the murder the one.

Since the Batman does not kill villains (unless he has no other choice), Batman would be considered a deontologist. The inconsistency in Batman's character is that he risks his life (and that of a young boy) every night in order to prevent what happened to his parents from ever happening again. He does one action to prevent others. Yet, he won't kill the man who has killed so many in order to stop other killings from happening.

Still thinking about whether or not you are a utilitarian or a deontologist? Take this scenario into account. This is White's second situation. If you were a doctor, and you had five patients on operating tables in front of you (rarely happens, but go with it), and each one needed a different organ, and another doctor was in the room, would you kill the other doctor and use his organs to save the five patients? Probably not. Why was that decision so much easier than the situation on the train tracks? It's still one life for five. The character of the Batman would never let either of these situations occur. Like most heroes, Batman would find a way to fix the situation without anyone being killed. Batman would sooner allow himself to die than to let an innocent person be killed.

But the Joker is NOT innocent. Why should this human life be treated with the respect that he does not have for the rest of the human race? As a deontologist, is Batman in the right state of mind to actually think that there is a chance that the Joker might not kill again? That he might actually turn over a new leaf this time? It is also worth noting that a deontologist would consider self-defense an appropriate reason to take another life. Is it reasonable to say that Batman has never been in a situation where killing the Joker would be considered self-defense?

Throughout the entire essay, I could not help but ask myself a few questions. How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Would the Joker be missed? Is there a Batman without a Joker?

How would the world react to Batman killing the Joker? Like the deaths of so many comic book characters (Superman, Jason Todd, the Flash to name a few), publishers would have to find a way to bring him back. The Joker is the model for all other villains, yet no one has ever been able to recreate him. Why? It's quite simple. Look at other famous villains. Lex Luthor wants to make money, Mr. Freeze wants to save his wife, and the Riddler wants to show off his intelligence. But the Joker has no motive. This is what makes him so diabolical. There is no point to his wrath other than to make a joke of life. He finds his crimes funny. The public loves him so much because they can't relate to him. He can understand the need for money, revenge, and to show off. The Joker is an untouchable villain because no one can understand him. So he attracts us more.

Would the Joker be missed? Yes! Not only would the public miss him, but Batman would not be able to continue without him. Throughout his career as Batman, Bruce Wayne has never come up with a reason for the death of his parents. Since the Joker has never given a reason for his insanity, he attracts Batman to crime fighting. Like Batman, the Joker is attracted to the Batman's motiveless (the Joker does not know about Batman's parents) need to protect a city that is completely ungrateful to him. They keep each other in the game and without the other, one would fall.

Is there a Batman without the Joker? Again, no. The air that Batman breathes is the knowledge that there is someone out there who will kill for no reason and laugh at his triumph as well as his defeat. This brazen disregard for human life reminds Batman that he is not the only person to lose his family and suffer for no reason. In this sense, the Joker makes Batman feel better. The Joker gives Batman a purpose in life. Without him, Batman has no purpose. As a human -- which is what Batman simply is -- Batman needs a purpose in life or else his life need not continue.

Why doesn't Batman simply kill the Joker, Mr. White? While we can argue about whether or not it is morally right until we are blue in the face, it's not a question of morals. In fact, if Batman is keeping the Joker alive to give himself a reason to keep going, than the Batman is neither utilitarian nor deontologist. He is, in fact, just as sick and twisted as his greatest archenemy. Actually ... maybe sicker!

Everything's Coming Up Patti!

The month of July is a very busy one for me. Unfortunately, after the Tony's are over, I am going to see the two shows in the biggest race of the year: the Musical Revivals. At the end of the month, I will be seeing South Pacific, thanks to a terrific friend who happens to be in the cast (I know big people in high places ... I feel so cool). Last night, I started the month of theater seeing Gypsy starring Patti LuPone.

Now, I am going to sound hypocritical after I wrote some harsh things about Ms. LuPone in my Tony review, but I have to say her performance sincerely changed my attitude. Though I still think everyone else would agree she's a total bitch. I had a comical moment yesterday when I went up to the House Manager around 6 pm just to confirm that "Ms. LuPone would be going on tonight." The man simply replied dryly, "Yes, the queen will be going on." Obviously, he enjoys his working relationship with Patti.

Her reputation for missing performances was bigger than I thought. The final announcement after turning cell phones off and unwrapping candy was, "Ms. Lupone has injured her foot ..." The crowd gasped! "...and will be performing tonight with isotoners." That was Patti's first roaring applause of the night. It was followed by many others.

Anyway, I can honestly say that Patti's performance (though filled with her consonantless and warbled singing) was superb! It was possibly the greatest musical theater performance I have ever seen in my life. She found a balance to Mama Rose that I have never seen before. She was horrifying, yet so nurturing and loving. She was overbearing, yet found moments to be passive. She was huge, yet found moments to be small. Never has a role been played so perfectly on the stage in front of my eyes.

You almost feel bad the cast members of Gypsy who appear in the opening minutes. While a group of children (Baby June and Baby Louise included) and Uncle Jocko hold an audition, you could feel the audience's tension. Where is Patti? When is she going to enter? Then the roar came! "Sing it out, Louise!" What a beautiful foreshadowing moment that is! It's only the first of so many beautiful moments that writer Arthur Laurents creates in what I would argue is the best book of any musical ever written. This moment for Patti was the first of many loud and long applauses. I timed this one at around 40 seconds.

Mr. Laurents should be given a lot of credit for helping find Patti's vulnerable side, a side not found in many productions, including her last stint on Broadway, John Doyle's Sweeney Todd. Mr. Laurents is a director that is not only unafraid of silence on stage, but cherishes it. Ms. Benanti, as the title character, especially thrives off of Mr. Laurents' quiet moments as we see her entire struggle in her body language. The most memorable moment of this would probably be when she watches her mother reveal her newest dream in "Everything's Coming Up Roses." The look on her face truly supporting Ms. LuPone's acting. We were all terrified by the lyrics and not simply bopping our heads to the old familiar tune.

Mr. Boyd Gaines also gave a terrific performance as the lovable agent Herbie. While there were plenty of opportunities for him to show his talents, he truly gave his all to making Ms. LuPone look better! His struggle between love and show business was apparent throughout, only making Ms. LuPone’s performance more appealing. It was a lesson in how to make your star look better.

Mr. Gaines and Ms. Benanti has a particularly comical moment during “Wherever We Go” when instead of singing the notes of the song in their natural, beautiful voices, they followed the lead of Patti LuPone and trumpeted their way through it. They even mimicked some of her famous facial expressions. It was unclear whether or not it was Mama Rose or Patti LuPone they were having fun with, but either way, it made this simple number a highlight in a practically flawless production.

While the final number, “Rose’s Turn,” is usually a big discovery for the audience, Ms. LuPone foreshadowed it the whole show. It was clear that Mama Rose was not just a stage-mother, but also one that had a “dream” of her own. Her mental breakdown at the end was not sudden but was being built up the entire show, making the number even more brilliant! At the conclusion of the final note, half the audience sprang to their feet and to give her a rousing ovation. The rest of the audience soon followed. During the two-minute standing ovation, Mama Rose (and I’m sure a little Patti) blew kisses and waved at the audience during her proud moment! Patti truly stopped the show!

It was a terrific night of theater and one that will be hard to top! I am curious to see if Lincoln Center’s South Pacific will earn their Tony over this amazing production. I can’t imagine anything being better, but I am eager to see for myself.

Next week will be a trip to see City Center's Encore’s Damn Yankees starring Sean Hayes of Will & Grace fame as the Devil himself and Jane Krakowski of 30 Rock as Lola. I am also eager to see Xanadu’s Cheyenne Jackson as Shoeless Joe Hardy. Who knows? Maybe I’ll be seeing next year’s big Broadway Revival!