Yes, this is an entry of my first theater review for The Montclarion in both the year and spring semester of 2012, AND my senior year, but this particular production got a reaction out of me, so I think I am going to write a "Reflections about..." piece about it as well.
Okay, so here's the background story to this article.
First off, I was never a big fan of William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
We all know the story right? Two families in Verona, Italy are fighting and their teenage kids fall in love but then kill themselves. The End.
Okay, I know it's more complex than that, but it's annoying! Both Romeo (16) and Juliet (13) are so lovey dovey and gushy after just meeting each other at a party and planning to marry that night only a few days ago at their young age that it's just so nauseating to me. I know the balcony scene is the most iconic scene in any drama, but to me, it's not that great. It just drags on and is, you guessed it, gushy. The best part about any of the characters in this play is that they are Italian!
Another thing I don't like about it is that it is so overdone to the point where it's bland and medicore. It's the play to which most of us are introduced as children, so therefore, we grow up with it, see many different versions of it, and it's not very exciting after a while. There are also so many parodies of it. If one of the plots on a TV show is that characters are performing a play, most likely that play is Romeo and Juliet, as if there are no other options. Of course, when I was a freshman in high school reading the play for my English class, our teacher told us that freshmen are taught this play at that level because it's the simplest. Well, I guess it is. So I guess that's why it's used for TV? Maybe. I know that Romeo and Juliet is probably Shakespeare's most famous work, but it is just such a common play. It is always there.
But here's the thing. Given these reasons, I was really skeptical when I heard that one of the Peak Performances of Montclair State University for the 2011-2012 season was going to be Romeo and Juliet, and this goes way back to this past summer when I read about this season's performances on the school website. I'm just so used to Montclair presenting the most intricate of theater. You see the stuff I write about on here. When I was a freshman at Montclair, they performed Shakespeare's As You Like It and I appreciated that because you never hear about that play, so it was nice to actually see it performed and it was different! But Romeo and Juliet? That just seems like a step back from what Montclair normally offers. To me, Romeo and Juliet is a high school play, not exactly a college performance featuring college students majoring in the theater field, matching the same caliber as the other theater Montclair offers. When I first saw it on the website, I wasn't even sure if I wanted to see it considering my feelings about it. And I knew I would probably see it because my goal is to see every show presented by the Department of Theatre and Dance, so I was dreading it.
Fortunately, I was wrong about everything. :)
As time went on and I befriended people involved with the production, I grew more and more excited for it and them. Romeo and Juliet, now playing at the L. Howard Fox Theatre until February 19, is now one of my favorite Peak Performances since I began attending MSU. It has that Montclair flair. There's the play, but then there's something magical about it that just engages the audience. It just made me appreciate the play and story more. Granted, Romeo and Juliet themselves are still gushy and I still can't stand that, but that's to be expected so I am willing to look past it and accept it.
Want to know why I like this play so much? One reason is that thankfully they don't include that Romeo and Juliet theme "A Time for Us." I was actually expecting it and wondering if they were going to use it and I am so glad that they don't. It's a good song and piece of music, but there's something about it and how romantic and droll it is that just makes the play that much more depressing. Others are that the whole entire play is one gigantic "Peak Performance and its awkward sexual moments," the music and costumes much resemble our current time period so it is relatable, the acting and delivery of the performers helped me to understand the storyline better, the set is extremely simplistic, using black blocks and a ladder for instance, and at times it is actually pretty funny. For more reasons, check out my review here. Enjoy!
If you can, be sure to see this play before it closes to see what I am talking about! :D
Another reason why I liked this play is that it made me realize things about it that I had never realized before, but I will save those for another post.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Theatrical Nudity From an Actor's Perspective: One on One Time with Actor Michael Brewer
Remember those days when I talked about theatrical nudity in the Spring 2011 semester production of The Grapes of Wrath and about the practice in general?
We're still in those days.
I FINALLY had the chance to talk to senior Acting major Michael Brewer, who played "Al" in The Grapes of Wrath, about his views on the subject. Click here to remind yourselves of my opinions about the character of "Al" and how he contributes to theatrical nudity. This video has been a long time coming and I am so glad that I finally got the chance to accomplish it. He was very enthused to talk to me about it.
Check out our interview here. I apologize for the sound in this video. It was breezy the day we filmed. (P.S. Michael is sitting on a sculpture outside of Life Hall. I think something artistic like that is a pretty appropriate background. My friend Kelly and I hung out there once and it is one of our favorite landmarks on campus.)
We also talk about what is next for him as an actor. Michael will be playing "Lord Capulet" in this semester's production of Romeo and Juliet, which is premiering next week! Click here for tickets and more details. Best of luck to the cast and crew of Romeo and Juliet!
Thank you again to Michael for talking with me!
We're still in those days.
I FINALLY had the chance to talk to senior Acting major Michael Brewer, who played "Al" in The Grapes of Wrath, about his views on the subject. Click here to remind yourselves of my opinions about the character of "Al" and how he contributes to theatrical nudity. This video has been a long time coming and I am so glad that I finally got the chance to accomplish it. He was very enthused to talk to me about it.
Check out our interview here. I apologize for the sound in this video. It was breezy the day we filmed. (P.S. Michael is sitting on a sculpture outside of Life Hall. I think something artistic like that is a pretty appropriate background. My friend Kelly and I hung out there once and it is one of our favorite landmarks on campus.)
We also talk about what is next for him as an actor. Michael will be playing "Lord Capulet" in this semester's production of Romeo and Juliet, which is premiering next week! Click here for tickets and more details. Best of luck to the cast and crew of Romeo and Juliet!
Thank you again to Michael for talking with me!
Monday, January 9, 2012
Do Plays Need a Conflict? A Lack Thereof in Ferber and Kaufman's Stage Door
I wrote a brief article about Peak Performance's Stage Door for The Montclarion, but unfortunately they were unable to use it. I might post it as one of my lost articles on here. This piece is not the article. I wrote this essay for my blog and it is actually a lot more detailed than the article I wrote for the paper so I figured I'd post this one to give the play some written recognition.
After A Chorus Line, the next Peak Performance I saw on campus is Stage Door, a play written by Edna Ferber and George S. Kaufman. I had to see it for classes and actually read it in my "Introduction to Theatrical Medium" class. It is a very enjoyable play, but I have one complaint about it: There doesn't seem to be a conflict.
If the girls don't get jobs, the audience doesn't feel heartbroken for them but rather say, "Well, that's life." It's not a big deal to me because people lose jobs and have difficult jobs all the time in everyday life, so it's not looked upon as a conflict for a story but rather as something that normally happens. People always work their way up in their careers. This makes the play very bland. The lead character Terry is also very bland and doesn't even change from beginning to end, so there isn't any character development either. She is given the chance to work in film as opposed to theater, but she refuses. In A Chorus Line, the audience learns about the different struggles the characters have endured, so therefore it is more heartfelt. Also, you get to know every character individually and share the journey with them as opposed to Stage Door when you only get to know Terry and share only her journey. Sure they try to show background of other characters as well, but Terry is the only one you truly get to know from beginning to end because her story is the only story the play really follows in-depth.
However, I still like the play regardless of this lack of conflict and powerfulness in delivery. I have a tendency to like plays and other mediums that involve groups of girls together. Madeline, a childhood favorite, The Crucible, and A Children's Hour are among some of my favorites. The fact that the women in Stage Door are very into theater is another reason why I enjoy it.
So the question I pose is, does a play absolutely need a significant conflict for it to be enjoyable?
Well, I guess not, because I straight up told you that I like Stage Door. But I guess what I am arguing is whether or not a play needs that energized spark in order for people to like it and ultimately leave a lasting impression. For example, when I saw Sweeney Todd in Kasser I felt a huge adrenaline rush because it was so amazing. When I saw The Rimers of Eldritch in Fox I felt numb, in a bad way because of the rape scene, but regardless it was still memorable because of how it made me feel. When I saw The Grapes of Wrath in Kasser, I felt numb, in a good way because it was magical. However, when I saw Stage Door, I didn't feel anything explosive like that. I felt relaxed and sat back and enjoyed it. I did the same thing when I saw A Chorus Line in Memorial, but I felt a better connection with that story.
Sitting back and enjoying a play in a relaxed manner isn't a bad thing. That's what plays are for, to relax and enjoy a show as a brief escape from reality. But the thing with theater and art too is it makes you come to realizations about life because of what it exposes, so in this way theater has two functions. Sometimes having such an emotional reaction from a play and therefore obsessing over it afterward, because you like it, can be exhausting, so I guess it's nice to not have every play do that to a person. Sometimes plays have to be tame to juxtapose the plays that are not. The contradicting of both types of plays helps them to stand out as artistic pieces and also helps audiences appreciate and enjoy both in the long run.
After A Chorus Line, the next Peak Performance I saw on campus is Stage Door, a play written by Edna Ferber and George S. Kaufman. I had to see it for classes and actually read it in my "Introduction to Theatrical Medium" class. It is a very enjoyable play, but I have one complaint about it: There doesn't seem to be a conflict.
Stage Door takes place in a 1930s rehearsal club where young actresses live as they try to find work in New York. We follow the storylines of the characters, especially the lead character Terry Randall. Throughout the play we watch her struggle to keep a job and start her career as an actress. She then ends up getting a lead role with her boyfriend's help at the end. I'm happy for her, but that kind of bothers me because of its convenience considering her man, David Kingsley, is an agent who falls in love with her.
The answer to my question seems to be pretty obvious. Of course a play needs a conflict. Without a conflict there would be no story. Though we see Terry resolve her conflict, the play doesn't necessarily keep you at the edge of your seat until it happens. In Arcadia, the characters try to figure out if Lord Byron committed a murder and who the hermit in a painting is. All of the events throughout the play are clues working up to the ending when all is revealed. In Sweeney Todd, Todd's ultimate goal is to kill Judge Turpin for the negative impact he has had on his life. The audience questions whether or not he will succeed. In The Grapes of Wrath, the Joad family must find a way to California and make ends meet during the Depression. Will they finally settle down and find a place to call home or will they continue to bask in uncertainty? In The Rimers of Eldritch, the characters must determine what happened regarding Skelly Manor's death and much like in Arcadia the scenes are clues to find this out. In The Seagull and A Man of No Importance, the focus is more on character development rather than plot. The conflicts are more inwardly based rather than outwardly. Characters struggle with their own inner conflicts and relationships with others. Will they accept themselves and work out their issues or will they hit rock bottom? The one show that resembles Stage Door is A Chorus Line because both display people desperate for jobs on the stage and show you background stories of the performers that people don't normally think about. However, the difference is, in A Chorus Line, the audience doesn't know who Zach will chose for the job until the very end, so it gives them something to look forward to. Are we supposed to look forward to seeing if Terry gets an acting career by the end of the play? I'm sorry, but for some reason, that is boring to me.
These plays I mention have a purpose and a reason for their existence. They have stories to tell and they want the audience to share in the experience and suspense. The audience solves the conflicts with the characters if the characters and audience members have a strong enough connection. Stage Door doesn't give the audience much reason to care about the characters and plot from my perspective.
A play's solid conflict is the core of a story. Everything that happens in a story surrounds that conflict. In Stage Door, this isn't necessarily the case. My thing is that Stage Door is more like a reality show than a play with conflict. It isn't a play with a beginning, middle, and end, but rather a bunch of written moments documenting the lives of these women, especially Terry. It represents young women in their everyday lives trying to get jobs in the theater rather than being faced with one conflict to resolve (or not resolve) by the end of the play. It looks like a normal everyday setting and the characters are so natural with each other. It is written that way and the actresses portray it that way. This is actually a reason why I like the play. I like the natural flair it has. However, even though each of them have their own agendas, they don't seem to grow as characters much. They interact with each other, leave, and show up again. They go to their jobs and other appointments and seem like interesting individuals to get to know, but because everything is so sporadic and brief, the audience isn't given a chance to care about these characters as individuals, so therefore it is more difficult to feel for them in their struggles. Well, the audience does care if the women get jobs or not, but our hearts don't necessarily ache for them because there aren't much connections between the audience and the characters for this to be so, probably because there are so many of them. All of the characters blend in together, except a select few. You actually want to see this select few more because they seem very potentially entertaining, but you don't, probably because it would require more time and effort to incorporate it all.
A play's solid conflict is the core of a story. Everything that happens in a story surrounds that conflict. In Stage Door, this isn't necessarily the case. My thing is that Stage Door is more like a reality show than a play with conflict. It isn't a play with a beginning, middle, and end, but rather a bunch of written moments documenting the lives of these women, especially Terry. It represents young women in their everyday lives trying to get jobs in the theater rather than being faced with one conflict to resolve (or not resolve) by the end of the play. It looks like a normal everyday setting and the characters are so natural with each other. It is written that way and the actresses portray it that way. This is actually a reason why I like the play. I like the natural flair it has. However, even though each of them have their own agendas, they don't seem to grow as characters much. They interact with each other, leave, and show up again. They go to their jobs and other appointments and seem like interesting individuals to get to know, but because everything is so sporadic and brief, the audience isn't given a chance to care about these characters as individuals, so therefore it is more difficult to feel for them in their struggles. Well, the audience does care if the women get jobs or not, but our hearts don't necessarily ache for them because there aren't much connections between the audience and the characters for this to be so, probably because there are so many of them. All of the characters blend in together, except a select few. You actually want to see this select few more because they seem very potentially entertaining, but you don't, probably because it would require more time and effort to incorporate it all.
If the girls don't get jobs, the audience doesn't feel heartbroken for them but rather say, "Well, that's life." It's not a big deal to me because people lose jobs and have difficult jobs all the time in everyday life, so it's not looked upon as a conflict for a story but rather as something that normally happens. People always work their way up in their careers. This makes the play very bland. The lead character Terry is also very bland and doesn't even change from beginning to end, so there isn't any character development either. She is given the chance to work in film as opposed to theater, but she refuses. In A Chorus Line, the audience learns about the different struggles the characters have endured, so therefore it is more heartfelt. Also, you get to know every character individually and share the journey with them as opposed to Stage Door when you only get to know Terry and share only her journey. Sure they try to show background of other characters as well, but Terry is the only one you truly get to know from beginning to end because her story is the only story the play really follows in-depth.
However, I still like the play regardless of this lack of conflict and powerfulness in delivery. I have a tendency to like plays and other mediums that involve groups of girls together. Madeline, a childhood favorite, The Crucible, and A Children's Hour are among some of my favorites. The fact that the women in Stage Door are very into theater is another reason why I enjoy it.
So the question I pose is, does a play absolutely need a significant conflict for it to be enjoyable?
Well, I guess not, because I straight up told you that I like Stage Door. But I guess what I am arguing is whether or not a play needs that energized spark in order for people to like it and ultimately leave a lasting impression. For example, when I saw Sweeney Todd in Kasser I felt a huge adrenaline rush because it was so amazing. When I saw The Rimers of Eldritch in Fox I felt numb, in a bad way because of the rape scene, but regardless it was still memorable because of how it made me feel. When I saw The Grapes of Wrath in Kasser, I felt numb, in a good way because it was magical. However, when I saw Stage Door, I didn't feel anything explosive like that. I felt relaxed and sat back and enjoyed it. I did the same thing when I saw A Chorus Line in Memorial, but I felt a better connection with that story.
Sitting back and enjoying a play in a relaxed manner isn't a bad thing. That's what plays are for, to relax and enjoy a show as a brief escape from reality. But the thing with theater and art too is it makes you come to realizations about life because of what it exposes, so in this way theater has two functions. Sometimes having such an emotional reaction from a play and therefore obsessing over it afterward, because you like it, can be exhausting, so I guess it's nice to not have every play do that to a person. Sometimes plays have to be tame to juxtapose the plays that are not. The contradicting of both types of plays helps them to stand out as artistic pieces and also helps audiences appreciate and enjoy both in the long run.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Ahem...my First Published Article of the YEAR!!!
Much like during my summer break, I am lucky enough to have gotten the opportunity to work for Patch during my winter break as well. This is actual my premiere article for Bloomfield Patch.
Andrea D'Arco and I went to the same grade school, Lacordaire Academy. I actually graduated with her older brother. She and I had recently become friends on Facebook when I saw her post a link about a show she is in Off-Broadway. I then decided to do a profile story on her.
Click here for my article!
Andrea D'Arco and I went to the same grade school, Lacordaire Academy. I actually graduated with her older brother. She and I had recently become friends on Facebook when I saw her post a link about a show she is in Off-Broadway. I then decided to do a profile story on her.
Click here for my article!
Monday, January 2, 2012
Happy One Year Anniversary to "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time!" Part 2
Okay so here we go! The Top Five Blog Posts of "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" So Far! :D
#5 The Problems I Have with FOX's "Glee": Representations
Published: September 2, 2011
Page Views: 167
"GLEE!" This post was a long time coming in my brainstorming, so I was glad to write out all my qualms with the show and get them out there. It's funny because after writing this series I wonder why I even like the show lol. I'm proud of this piece and worked very hard on it. I like how I touch on a lot of different points about what is and is not represented in "Glee" rather than just one solid subject. I think my favorite part is the "White Guys are Stupid" section. I personally think it's pretty funny. If you look at different TV shows, and maybe even movies and plays, this formula is very prominent nowadays.
That being said, how ironic that this post is next on this list...
#4 Hope vs. Steffy: Virginity vs. Promiscuity in Young Women Represented by a Soap Opera
Published: August 18, 2011
Page Views: 398
YES! I'm glad this one was so popular! If I'm not mistaken, this may be one of my blog posts I did not post on Facebook in the places I normally post them, so I'm happy that people were able to find it! Like my other posts about sex, this one also covers a topic that is very important to me. I was actually hoping to give you an update of what's been happening on the show since then, so now is the perfect time to do so. Okay let's see, this piece was published in August and we are now in January...and it is STILL the same storyline! No wonder people are sick of it! It's been dragged on for almost five months now! Basically everything I said I didn't want to happen happened. Liam married Steffy and Hope is all heartbroken over it. Steffy is on a quest to keep Hope away from Liam and now has gotten her brother Thomas involved. Thomas, who is smitten with Hope, has now proposed to Hope last Friday but just today she rejected him because she wants it to be right and is still hung up on Liam. AND, for that matter, we still don't know what Liam wants. He is still caught between two women and letting other people constantly tell him what to do. Actually, you know what?? He fits the model of a "Dumb White Male TV Character" pretty well! The show plays weekdays on CBS at 1:30 PM on the east coast. Check it out if you want. Maybe my ranting about it doesn't exactly convince you that it is worth your time, but still. You'll most likely see Liam because his storyline has been the most prominent nowadays and we pretty much can't get away from him. See for yourself if you agree that he fits the model like the other guys do. It's SO annoying!
#3 PBS Kids TV Shows and their New Characters that are Actually Worth our While
Published: June 21, 2011
Page Views: 519
Hey cool! One of my few blog posts NOT about sex! This one is actually the positive half of my discussion about new PBS characters. I like that I wrote about both sides of the debate.
#2 The Problems I Have with FOX's "Glee": Storylines (mainly Quinn's)
Published: September 5, 2011
Page Views: 927
"Glee" again! I guess people find it entertaining when I rant about Quinn Fabray. Like all of my posts about "Glee," I worked very hard on this one. It was the last post I published before my Fall 2011 semester started and I took a break from blogging, so I'm happy to have ended for a while on a post of which I am proud.
And the #1 "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" blog post so far is...
You probably could've guessed this one...
PBS Kids TV Shows and their Not-So-Heartwarming New Characters
Published: June 10, 2011
Page Views: A whopping 2,006!
I'm very pleased that my top blog post since I started blogging is one that is NOT about sex, but rather goes back to my childhood roots. The popularity of this piece shows that we still care about PBS and the intelligence and innocence it provides for our kids. I worked hard and long on this piece. I actually think I spent the most time on this one than I do on the other posts, so I am proud that it was and is a very successful piece!
A lot of these posts are tagged with the "Masterpieces" label, meaning that they are a bit lengthier than others and I put much effort into them, making them thought out expressive essays, and also have a good handful of comments, so I'm happy that my hard work has invoked a lot of thought and has not gone unnoticed. I also appreciate the positive comments the posts have gotten. I often wonder what kind of comments my controversial pieces would get, for I don't want my published views to instigate online arguments, but this has not been the case. I appreciate those who have commented for keeping things professional and clean. I also really like how people have searched for certain keywords and how come across my works that way.
Here's to plenty more new intriguing posts in the new year! :D
#5 The Problems I Have with FOX's "Glee": Representations
Published: September 2, 2011
Page Views: 167
"GLEE!" This post was a long time coming in my brainstorming, so I was glad to write out all my qualms with the show and get them out there. It's funny because after writing this series I wonder why I even like the show lol. I'm proud of this piece and worked very hard on it. I like how I touch on a lot of different points about what is and is not represented in "Glee" rather than just one solid subject. I think my favorite part is the "White Guys are Stupid" section. I personally think it's pretty funny. If you look at different TV shows, and maybe even movies and plays, this formula is very prominent nowadays.
That being said, how ironic that this post is next on this list...
#4 Hope vs. Steffy: Virginity vs. Promiscuity in Young Women Represented by a Soap Opera
Published: August 18, 2011
Page Views: 398
YES! I'm glad this one was so popular! If I'm not mistaken, this may be one of my blog posts I did not post on Facebook in the places I normally post them, so I'm happy that people were able to find it! Like my other posts about sex, this one also covers a topic that is very important to me. I was actually hoping to give you an update of what's been happening on the show since then, so now is the perfect time to do so. Okay let's see, this piece was published in August and we are now in January...and it is STILL the same storyline! No wonder people are sick of it! It's been dragged on for almost five months now! Basically everything I said I didn't want to happen happened. Liam married Steffy and Hope is all heartbroken over it. Steffy is on a quest to keep Hope away from Liam and now has gotten her brother Thomas involved. Thomas, who is smitten with Hope, has now proposed to Hope last Friday but just today she rejected him because she wants it to be right and is still hung up on Liam. AND, for that matter, we still don't know what Liam wants. He is still caught between two women and letting other people constantly tell him what to do. Actually, you know what?? He fits the model of a "Dumb White Male TV Character" pretty well! The show plays weekdays on CBS at 1:30 PM on the east coast. Check it out if you want. Maybe my ranting about it doesn't exactly convince you that it is worth your time, but still. You'll most likely see Liam because his storyline has been the most prominent nowadays and we pretty much can't get away from him. See for yourself if you agree that he fits the model like the other guys do. It's SO annoying!
#3 PBS Kids TV Shows and their New Characters that are Actually Worth our While
Published: June 21, 2011
Page Views: 519
Hey cool! One of my few blog posts NOT about sex! This one is actually the positive half of my discussion about new PBS characters. I like that I wrote about both sides of the debate.
#2 The Problems I Have with FOX's "Glee": Storylines (mainly Quinn's)
Published: September 5, 2011
Page Views: 927
"Glee" again! I guess people find it entertaining when I rant about Quinn Fabray. Like all of my posts about "Glee," I worked very hard on this one. It was the last post I published before my Fall 2011 semester started and I took a break from blogging, so I'm happy to have ended for a while on a post of which I am proud.
And the #1 "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" blog post so far is...
You probably could've guessed this one...
PBS Kids TV Shows and their Not-So-Heartwarming New Characters
Published: June 10, 2011
Page Views: A whopping 2,006!
I'm very pleased that my top blog post since I started blogging is one that is NOT about sex, but rather goes back to my childhood roots. The popularity of this piece shows that we still care about PBS and the intelligence and innocence it provides for our kids. I worked hard and long on this piece. I actually think I spent the most time on this one than I do on the other posts, so I am proud that it was and is a very successful piece!
A lot of these posts are tagged with the "Masterpieces" label, meaning that they are a bit lengthier than others and I put much effort into them, making them thought out expressive essays, and also have a good handful of comments, so I'm happy that my hard work has invoked a lot of thought and has not gone unnoticed. I also appreciate the positive comments the posts have gotten. I often wonder what kind of comments my controversial pieces would get, for I don't want my published views to instigate online arguments, but this has not been the case. I appreciate those who have commented for keeping things professional and clean. I also really like how people have searched for certain keywords and how come across my works that way.
Here's to plenty more new intriguing posts in the new year! :D
Happy One Year Anniversary to "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time!" Part 1
Happy New Year 2012 Everyone! Let's all make this a great one! :D
Can you believe that exactly one year ago today I created "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time?" I did it as a way to create new beginnings for the year 2011 and it was by far one of the best decisions of my life. I love this blog because it is a way to outlet my opinions and showcase my writing. Thank you to all those who appreciate my blog and have been reading it this past year! Here's to plenty more reading and writing in 2012!
To celebrate, let's take a look back at the Top Ten Most Popular Blog Posts of "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" during the first year of its run. I'm proud that these made the list because I consider these some of my best writing on this blog. A good majority of them are the pieces I wrote about sex, actually. Imagine that, sex being a popular thing to read about. Shocker.
#10 Real Influential Women Role Models (Real and Fictious): Kahlan Amnell and Cara Mason
Published: March 11, 2011
Page Views: 55
I'm actually pretty surprised this post made my Top Ten List as opposed to other ones. I actually felt that other posts from the 2011 edition of this series were more popular than this one, though I did often see this one show up in my list of most recently viewed posts, so I guess this isn't much of a surprise after all since it is one of the most popular posts of the series so far. Not that I'm complaining ;). This post is actually one of my favorites from the series and I had a lot of fun writing it because both Kahlan and Cara are very strong unique female characters from a very interesting story. I wouldn't consider them very popular characters, however, so that is another reason why I enjoyed showcasing them.
#9 Virginity...for Men
Published: December 27, 2011
Page Views: 69
I'm very impressed that this post made the list because I posted this one just last week. A lot of people "liked" it and it got a lot of comments and instigated plenty of discussions. I'm very happy that this post has/had such a positive following. The message I send through it is very important to me. I felt that it was something that needed to be said, so here's to hoping that it might start some kind of revolution.
#8 Women Enjoy Sex. Get Over It.
Published: October 19, 2011
Page Views: 85
Needless to say I was pretty angry when I wrote this one. I was actually in the process of writing another blog post or a paper when I felt that this one couldn't be delayed. Like #9, this one also sends a message that is very important to me and I am proud that it is a popular post. I often see it show up in my list of recently viewed posts. Maybe this one will also start a revolution and help people celebrate female sexuality and discontinue uses of words that downplay it. I can often refer back to it when I write other posts on here.
#7 Discussing Theatrical Nudity with Professor and Director Susan Kerner
Published: September 23, 2011
Page Views: 88
I'm kind of surprised and disappointed that none of my "Peak Performances and their Awkward Sexual Moments" posts made the list, but this one counts considering it is a spinoff of that series. I'm very happy with how enthusiastic my professor was during our interview. It was a very intelligent discussion. I got my answers about theatrical nudity, something I had been wondering about for a while. Ever since then she has been a proud supporter of my blog. It's nice that one of my blog posts involving theater, especially theater at my school, made this list, because this is the only one to do so.
#6 Genitalia: Should it be Discussed on TV?
Published: July 8, 2011
Page Views: 111
Yes. This. There's always a big debate of what should or should not be censored and for what reasons. This is me basically stating my argument against what is considered taboo about sex in the world and what we should do about it or if we should do anything about it at all.
So what blog post made #1? Stay tuned! I will post the Top 5 Blog Posts of All Time later on tonight!
Can you believe that exactly one year ago today I created "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time?" I did it as a way to create new beginnings for the year 2011 and it was by far one of the best decisions of my life. I love this blog because it is a way to outlet my opinions and showcase my writing. Thank you to all those who appreciate my blog and have been reading it this past year! Here's to plenty more reading and writing in 2012!
To celebrate, let's take a look back at the Top Ten Most Popular Blog Posts of "Taking it One 'Stef' at a Time" during the first year of its run. I'm proud that these made the list because I consider these some of my best writing on this blog. A good majority of them are the pieces I wrote about sex, actually. Imagine that, sex being a popular thing to read about. Shocker.
#10 Real Influential Women Role Models (Real and Fictious): Kahlan Amnell and Cara Mason
Published: March 11, 2011
Page Views: 55
I'm actually pretty surprised this post made my Top Ten List as opposed to other ones. I actually felt that other posts from the 2011 edition of this series were more popular than this one, though I did often see this one show up in my list of most recently viewed posts, so I guess this isn't much of a surprise after all since it is one of the most popular posts of the series so far. Not that I'm complaining ;). This post is actually one of my favorites from the series and I had a lot of fun writing it because both Kahlan and Cara are very strong unique female characters from a very interesting story. I wouldn't consider them very popular characters, however, so that is another reason why I enjoyed showcasing them.
#9 Virginity...for Men
Published: December 27, 2011
Page Views: 69
I'm very impressed that this post made the list because I posted this one just last week. A lot of people "liked" it and it got a lot of comments and instigated plenty of discussions. I'm very happy that this post has/had such a positive following. The message I send through it is very important to me. I felt that it was something that needed to be said, so here's to hoping that it might start some kind of revolution.
#8 Women Enjoy Sex. Get Over It.
Published: October 19, 2011
Page Views: 85
Needless to say I was pretty angry when I wrote this one. I was actually in the process of writing another blog post or a paper when I felt that this one couldn't be delayed. Like #9, this one also sends a message that is very important to me and I am proud that it is a popular post. I often see it show up in my list of recently viewed posts. Maybe this one will also start a revolution and help people celebrate female sexuality and discontinue uses of words that downplay it. I can often refer back to it when I write other posts on here.
#7 Discussing Theatrical Nudity with Professor and Director Susan Kerner
Published: September 23, 2011
Page Views: 88
I'm kind of surprised and disappointed that none of my "Peak Performances and their Awkward Sexual Moments" posts made the list, but this one counts considering it is a spinoff of that series. I'm very happy with how enthusiastic my professor was during our interview. It was a very intelligent discussion. I got my answers about theatrical nudity, something I had been wondering about for a while. Ever since then she has been a proud supporter of my blog. It's nice that one of my blog posts involving theater, especially theater at my school, made this list, because this is the only one to do so.
#6 Genitalia: Should it be Discussed on TV?
Published: July 8, 2011
Page Views: 111
Yes. This. There's always a big debate of what should or should not be censored and for what reasons. This is me basically stating my argument against what is considered taboo about sex in the world and what we should do about it or if we should do anything about it at all.
So what blog post made #1? Stay tuned! I will post the Top 5 Blog Posts of All Time later on tonight!
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Virginity...for Men
Recently I have been coming across different things associated with female virginity until marriage. In this trailer for the documentary The Purity Myth, based on the book of the same name by Jessica Valenti, the subject of female purity is the focus, seeming to put it in a negative light. My first impression of this trailer wasn't necessarily a good one because to me it seemed that it was downplaying waiting for marriage, which is something I promote in one of my other posts. However, I then noticed that Valenti's point is more so arguing with the notion that a woman's worth is labelled on whether or not she is "pure" and that purity pushes women into submission, which are concepts I do not agree with, so in this way I began to look at the trailer more favorably. I like how she brings up the idea of the purity balls when daughters pledge their virginities to their fathers (which is cringeworthy, because women shouldn't have to pledge their virginities to the first man in their lives and make their purity "official" through a ceremony) and how people look down upon feminism and think of it as this evil concept in the world (which angers me, especially when women talk against it). People have the wrong idea when it comes to feminism, Planned Parenthood, etc., so I'm glad this documentary brings it out.
I then came across a book in CVS called 5 Conversations You Must Have With Your Daughter, written by Vicki Courtney. Here is the website pertaining to the book. At first this book had a bad impression on me as well because I felt all she was doing was promoting abstinence as the only answer, which to a lot of people it is not. She argues how the media masks female promiscuity as female empowerment when in reality that is not the case. However, I began to appreciate the book as I kept reading because she is entitled to write about how she feels on the subject just as much as I, and it is refreshing to see a mother write books about these subjects, helping women realize that it is okay to wait, encouraging them that it is the right path, rather than brainwashing them to do so, and also include truthful information about abortion, not lies. It is very comfortingly written and explores options in a non-condescending manner.
This got me thinking: "Why don't we have this conversation with young men?" Perhaps Courtney will touch upon this idea in her new book 5 Conversations You Must Have With Your Son, but it just seems like women are often the focus for purity and virginity until marriage and men are often disregarded. In fact, it seems that men are more encouraged to lose their virginities than keep them, whereas for women it is the exact opposite. There are comedy movies dedicated to this sort of idea, such as Superbad and American Pie. The old double standard: A boy has sex, he is a MAN. A girl has sex, she is a SLUT.
I actually like the idea of women saving themselves for marriage, even though there are times I write favorably towards the free love concept. I find that saving oneself for that special someone to whom you eventually make a commitment is very admirable and safe. My thing is, however, if a man isn't going to wait for his woman, why should a woman wait for her man? I think that might be my main argument against saving sex for marriage, other than the fact that this is a concept we are normally taught, not necessarily a realization we come upon later in life after we sexually mature. In other words, it should be mentioned as the best option with the best outcomes, but it shouldn't be something mentioned as the only option, keeping people in the dark of what other alternatives they have. I know I wrote before about how sex is a normal human thing just like eating and sleeping is, but I guess what I did not include is how sex is more connected to emotion and attachment between people as opposed to the other two, which is why we should be more careful. It should be an honor to be each other's first, and last. There are times that I have been told that a man who is a virgin over the age of twenty-five is probably not the kind of guy women should get involved with, for there must be something wrong with him. It's just that male virginity is looked upon as such a bad thing that men feel so inadequate if they don't place their penis inside some kind of female orifice. It seems like everything in the world convinces men that they should act on their primal instincts right away or else they will immediately be emasculated.
This is why I am here. I felt the need to write this piece because I guess I should be the one to help men realize that their virginities are not in vain. Men have a right to be virgins just as much as women do. The thing is, virginity should be a choice, not because a man finds it difficult to lose it and that a woman is taught to save it. People should save their virginities for their significant others if they so chose because they feel it is the best thing to do. It's doesn't even have to be because it's what God wants, though I do believe it is what He prefers. It should be because it's what feels right and what a couple wants to share with each other in the moment of passion.
So, virgin men, these are the words I want to say to you: It's okay. Really. It's okay. Just because you have never had sex before doesn't mean you aren't a man. Even if you don't like the idea of being a virgin until marriage and your current virginity isn't by choice, just because you haven't had sex yet it doesn't mean you are a freak of nature. There is nothing wrong with you. There are people out there, women included, that appreciate male virgins entirely. You know why? Virginity these days is unique. Virgins are different and interesting. Also, you know virgins are most likely sexually healthy with no children. In fact, your virginity is actually nobody's business. If you are proud of your virginity, by all means feel free to proclaim it. But to me, virginity and sex life should be revealed between two adults who are going strong in their relationship and figuring out their next step as a couple. I believe that everyone has his or her match with whom he or she will gel well. So don't worry. Chances are your day will come when you will have sex with someone and that person just might be worth waiting for in the long run.
In other words, don't be afraid to be like this guy. This young man is 24-year-old quarterback for the Denver Broncos Tim Tebow, who is pretty much portrayed as a godsent to the world. (No pun intended but this is actually pretty accurate. His devotion to his Christian religion is his trademark.) I saw his photo on the cover of one of my father's magazines awhile ago and ever since then he's all I've been hearing about. A lot good, some bad. For instance, people have been mocking him for his faith. "Tebowing," the act in which Tebow gets down on one knee and prays during a game, is now very well known and is now an act along the lines of "planking." I'm not sure if the whole "tebowing" thing is supposed to be mocking Tebow's praying tendencies or not, but regardless I admire Tebow for sticking to his beliefs, taking everything calmly, and just being a decent human being. He seems to have a lot of fans who constantly admire him. He does nothing wrong whatsoever. He makes it impossible to dislike him because you never hear anything bad about him and I hope we never do. He almost seems too good to be true, almost too perfect.
Then I found out something else that made me admire him even more and decide to include him in this post. Apparently, he is remaining a virgin until marriage. Oddly enough, he reveals this at a press conference.
I then came across a book in CVS called 5 Conversations You Must Have With Your Daughter, written by Vicki Courtney. Here is the website pertaining to the book. At first this book had a bad impression on me as well because I felt all she was doing was promoting abstinence as the only answer, which to a lot of people it is not. She argues how the media masks female promiscuity as female empowerment when in reality that is not the case. However, I began to appreciate the book as I kept reading because she is entitled to write about how she feels on the subject just as much as I, and it is refreshing to see a mother write books about these subjects, helping women realize that it is okay to wait, encouraging them that it is the right path, rather than brainwashing them to do so, and also include truthful information about abortion, not lies. It is very comfortingly written and explores options in a non-condescending manner.
This got me thinking: "Why don't we have this conversation with young men?" Perhaps Courtney will touch upon this idea in her new book 5 Conversations You Must Have With Your Son, but it just seems like women are often the focus for purity and virginity until marriage and men are often disregarded. In fact, it seems that men are more encouraged to lose their virginities than keep them, whereas for women it is the exact opposite. There are comedy movies dedicated to this sort of idea, such as Superbad and American Pie. The old double standard: A boy has sex, he is a MAN. A girl has sex, she is a SLUT.
I actually like the idea of women saving themselves for marriage, even though there are times I write favorably towards the free love concept. I find that saving oneself for that special someone to whom you eventually make a commitment is very admirable and safe. My thing is, however, if a man isn't going to wait for his woman, why should a woman wait for her man? I think that might be my main argument against saving sex for marriage, other than the fact that this is a concept we are normally taught, not necessarily a realization we come upon later in life after we sexually mature. In other words, it should be mentioned as the best option with the best outcomes, but it shouldn't be something mentioned as the only option, keeping people in the dark of what other alternatives they have. I know I wrote before about how sex is a normal human thing just like eating and sleeping is, but I guess what I did not include is how sex is more connected to emotion and attachment between people as opposed to the other two, which is why we should be more careful. It should be an honor to be each other's first, and last. There are times that I have been told that a man who is a virgin over the age of twenty-five is probably not the kind of guy women should get involved with, for there must be something wrong with him. It's just that male virginity is looked upon as such a bad thing that men feel so inadequate if they don't place their penis inside some kind of female orifice. It seems like everything in the world convinces men that they should act on their primal instincts right away or else they will immediately be emasculated.
This is why I am here. I felt the need to write this piece because I guess I should be the one to help men realize that their virginities are not in vain. Men have a right to be virgins just as much as women do. The thing is, virginity should be a choice, not because a man finds it difficult to lose it and that a woman is taught to save it. People should save their virginities for their significant others if they so chose because they feel it is the best thing to do. It's doesn't even have to be because it's what God wants, though I do believe it is what He prefers. It should be because it's what feels right and what a couple wants to share with each other in the moment of passion.
So, virgin men, these are the words I want to say to you: It's okay. Really. It's okay. Just because you have never had sex before doesn't mean you aren't a man. Even if you don't like the idea of being a virgin until marriage and your current virginity isn't by choice, just because you haven't had sex yet it doesn't mean you are a freak of nature. There is nothing wrong with you. There are people out there, women included, that appreciate male virgins entirely. You know why? Virginity these days is unique. Virgins are different and interesting. Also, you know virgins are most likely sexually healthy with no children. In fact, your virginity is actually nobody's business. If you are proud of your virginity, by all means feel free to proclaim it. But to me, virginity and sex life should be revealed between two adults who are going strong in their relationship and figuring out their next step as a couple. I believe that everyone has his or her match with whom he or she will gel well. So don't worry. Chances are your day will come when you will have sex with someone and that person just might be worth waiting for in the long run.
In other words, don't be afraid to be like this guy. This young man is 24-year-old quarterback for the Denver Broncos Tim Tebow, who is pretty much portrayed as a godsent to the world. (No pun intended but this is actually pretty accurate. His devotion to his Christian religion is his trademark.) I saw his photo on the cover of one of my father's magazines awhile ago and ever since then he's all I've been hearing about. A lot good, some bad. For instance, people have been mocking him for his faith. "Tebowing," the act in which Tebow gets down on one knee and prays during a game, is now very well known and is now an act along the lines of "planking." I'm not sure if the whole "tebowing" thing is supposed to be mocking Tebow's praying tendencies or not, but regardless I admire Tebow for sticking to his beliefs, taking everything calmly, and just being a decent human being. He seems to have a lot of fans who constantly admire him. He does nothing wrong whatsoever. He makes it impossible to dislike him because you never hear anything bad about him and I hope we never do. He almost seems too good to be true, almost too perfect.Then I found out something else that made me admire him even more and decide to include him in this post. Apparently, he is remaining a virgin until marriage. Oddly enough, he reveals this at a press conference.
Now, I'm not sure if there is any truth to this, but if you think about it, what man would say he is a virgin waiting for marriage if he isn't?
Isn't this amazing? It's very rare that you meet a male virgin let alone meet a man who admits to it so proudly so I commend Tebow entirely. He is actually one of my current heroes. Tebow gives me hope that there are indeed men out there that are saving themselves for that special woman and are not ashamed of it.
You can find the Facebook pages of both Jessica Valenti and Vicki Courtney on my Facebook page.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Merry Christmas Everyone! :D
Merry Christmas! Feliz Navidad! Boun Natale! Happy Hanukah! Happy Kwanzaa! Happy Las Posadas! Happy Holidays Everyone! Enjoy Every Moment! :D
I was thinking about writing a post about some of my Christmas specials like I did with my Thanksgiving post. However, though I have a lot in mind, I thought against it because a) There are so many and writing about them would be time consuming, b) Though it crossed my mind after Thanksgiving as well, I thought of this kind of last minute and didn't necessarily have the muse to write about them all because I have been focusing on school and other blog posts so I want to do it when I have more time to focus on it, and c) I wanted to give my computer a break today. Perhaps I will do it next year leading up to Christmas Day.
This year has been one of my favorite Christmas seasons. I did a lot to celebrate this season and I'm happy about that because I feel like all I have done this year has revived the exciting spirit of Christmas that I had experienced when I was a kid. These include:
All in all, it was one of my best Christmas celebrations ever. I found myself very cheerful and am happy I got to celebrate it with wonderful people by doing a nice list of experiences to remember it! It was also very relaxing.
Here's some footage of the production of White Christmas I saw at the Paper Mill. It's funny because a week later I had to take a final for my class "Introduction to the Theatrical Medium" and I wrote about this! I also like how it was advertised around Montclair's campus. It was a very heartwarming, Christmasy show!
I also wanted to extend my wishes to you, my faithful readers! Merry Christmas! I hope you and your families have a blessed holiday! <3
Happy Birthday to Jesus Christ, our Savior! :D
I was thinking about writing a post about some of my Christmas specials like I did with my Thanksgiving post. However, though I have a lot in mind, I thought against it because a) There are so many and writing about them would be time consuming, b) Though it crossed my mind after Thanksgiving as well, I thought of this kind of last minute and didn't necessarily have the muse to write about them all because I have been focusing on school and other blog posts so I want to do it when I have more time to focus on it, and c) I wanted to give my computer a break today. Perhaps I will do it next year leading up to Christmas Day.
This year has been one of my favorite Christmas seasons. I did a lot to celebrate this season and I'm happy about that because I feel like all I have done this year has revived the exciting spirit of Christmas that I had experienced when I was a kid. These include:
Riding the carousal and walking around seeing the Christmas cheer at the Paramus Park Mall
My friend Janis's Christmas Concert
White Christmas at Paper Mill Playhouse
St. Thomas the Apostle 17th Annual Christmas Concert featuring the Garden State Concert Band
Christmas Dinners at Charlie Brown's Steakhouse
The Holiday Lights Spectacular at the Turtleback Zoo
Baking Struffolis
Helping my family decorate the house for Christmas
Going to Church (especially when the church is dim and quiet playing choral angelic Christmas music)
Helping my mom prepare for and cook the traditional Italian seafood Christmas Eve dinner (and eating it! It was delicious!)
Exchanging presents Christmas Day
Watching Christmas specials
Wearing Christmas attire
Wishing people Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, etc.
Listening to Christmas music and eating Christmas food
Taking pictures of everything (lol)
Wearing Christmas attire
Wishing people Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, etc.
Listening to Christmas music and eating Christmas food
Taking pictures of everything (lol)
All in all, it was one of my best Christmas celebrations ever. I found myself very cheerful and am happy I got to celebrate it with wonderful people by doing a nice list of experiences to remember it! It was also very relaxing.
Here's some footage of the production of White Christmas I saw at the Paper Mill. It's funny because a week later I had to take a final for my class "Introduction to the Theatrical Medium" and I wrote about this! I also like how it was advertised around Montclair's campus. It was a very heartwarming, Christmasy show!
During intermission, this happened. I took my own video of it, but this is one I found on YouTube.
 |
| I finally got my photo with Santa! I had been wanting to do this to relive my childhood and seeing him at the Paramus Park Mall a few weeks ago had inspired me. I got it out of my system by doing this. He was an awesome Santa Clause as well. He was really joyful and even asked me what I wanted for Christmas! This photo was taken at the Turtleback Zoo by my Aunt Ea. |
I also wanted to extend my wishes to you, my faithful readers! Merry Christmas! I hope you and your families have a blessed holiday! <3
Happy Birthday to Jesus Christ, our Savior! :D
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Yet Another Version of The Nutcracker...
I just found out tonight that "So You Think You Can Dance" judge Adam Shankman will be directing a gothic version of The Nutcracker that will be released in 2013. See? This is exactly what I was talking about when I wrote my other piece about this very idea!
I'm sure that all of these different versions are interesting and it's nice to see different perspectives and versions of the same story. It shows creativity, enriching The Nutcracker so that it never dies out and is always a new experience. A part of me wants to see this movie when it comes out and I am interested in seeing what is done with it. But still, I have my opinions and reservations on the matter. I just find this ironic considering I just posted a full essay about the subject so I just had to post it here. It's also ironic that a man involved with one of my favorite TV shows is directing it. Click here to learn more about Shankman's film.
I'm sure that all of these different versions are interesting and it's nice to see different perspectives and versions of the same story. It shows creativity, enriching The Nutcracker so that it never dies out and is always a new experience. A part of me wants to see this movie when it comes out and I am interested in seeing what is done with it. But still, I have my opinions and reservations on the matter. I just find this ironic considering I just posted a full essay about the subject so I just had to post it here. It's also ironic that a man involved with one of my favorite TV shows is directing it. Click here to learn more about Shankman's film.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
A Good Twist and Variation...or a Rip-off of a Classic Ballet? A Look at Changes in The Nutcracker
So I guess my question is, does change to an original classic piece ruin it, or enhance it?
Now that it is December and we are in the Christmas season, now is a good time to write about this. Last month I discovered a trailer for a 2010 3D film version of the classic Christmas ballet, The Nutcracker. Check it out:
Before I go on, allow me to provide you with the basic premise of The Nutcracker with this simple video. You'll probably need this information to understand what I am talking about. Something I forgot to include in this clip is that the "Land of Sweets" is also referred to as the "Land of the Sugar Plums." This is actually the title I grew up with. No two versions of the actual ballet are the same, but they all seem to follow a basic structure.
This 2010 movie isn't the only version of The Nutcracker that exists. There are plenty of other versions as well. Even Barbie had her own version in 2001, which doesn't really follow the set up of the original ballet in any way. What I am wondering is, do these many different versions enhance The Nutcracker and continue and perhaps strengthen the tradition it brings to the holiday season by making changes and adding different flairs to it, or do these flairs make The Nutcracker out to be a watered down joke and not as much of a classic as it once was? Should it just be left alone in its original state, should it be altered for creative purposes, or does it make any difference?
I guess you can argue that there are plenty of remakes of anything. Movies have been remade, songs have been remade, so this shouldn't be an issue. However, that doesn't mean that these remakes are necessarily good. My argument is that this is a ballet with classical music composed by Pyotr Tchaikovsky we are talking about. A lot of times it seems like dance isn't as showcased or appreciated as it should be in today's world. Today, in popular culture, dance is people in the background bouncing around in little clothing. There's not much of a focus on the art behind it. A reason why I like "So You Think You Can Dance" is because that show tries to rekindle passion in regards to dance. I think that might be why I don't take too kindly to other versions of The Nutcracker. There are too many different storylines and not enough focus on dance! It's odd that I would be saying this because in a majority of my other blog posts I discuss on how to improve storylines. In this one, however, I recognize how in The Nutcracker, dance is more of the focus rather than the actual story.
Now that it is December and we are in the Christmas season, now is a good time to write about this. Last month I discovered a trailer for a 2010 3D film version of the classic Christmas ballet, The Nutcracker. Check it out:
Here's the thing. I grew up with The Nutcracker. My family and I would try to go see it every year. It is one of my fondest childhood holiday memories and actually might be the first theatrical show I had ever seen in my life, so this show is a big deal because it triggered my interest in theater. I remember the dancing, the costumes, the scenery, etc. I am attached to it.
Before I go on, allow me to provide you with the basic premise of The Nutcracker with this simple video. You'll probably need this information to understand what I am talking about. Something I forgot to include in this clip is that the "Land of Sweets" is also referred to as the "Land of the Sugar Plums." This is actually the title I grew up with. No two versions of the actual ballet are the same, but they all seem to follow a basic structure.
This 2010 movie isn't the only version of The Nutcracker that exists. There are plenty of other versions as well. Even Barbie had her own version in 2001, which doesn't really follow the set up of the original ballet in any way. What I am wondering is, do these many different versions enhance The Nutcracker and continue and perhaps strengthen the tradition it brings to the holiday season by making changes and adding different flairs to it, or do these flairs make The Nutcracker out to be a watered down joke and not as much of a classic as it once was? Should it just be left alone in its original state, should it be altered for creative purposes, or does it make any difference?I guess you can argue that there are plenty of remakes of anything. Movies have been remade, songs have been remade, so this shouldn't be an issue. However, that doesn't mean that these remakes are necessarily good. My argument is that this is a ballet with classical music composed by Pyotr Tchaikovsky we are talking about. A lot of times it seems like dance isn't as showcased or appreciated as it should be in today's world. Today, in popular culture, dance is people in the background bouncing around in little clothing. There's not much of a focus on the art behind it. A reason why I like "So You Think You Can Dance" is because that show tries to rekindle passion in regards to dance. I think that might be why I don't take too kindly to other versions of The Nutcracker. There are too many different storylines and not enough focus on dance! It's odd that I would be saying this because in a majority of my other blog posts I discuss on how to improve storylines. In this one, however, I recognize how in The Nutcracker, dance is more of the focus rather than the actual story.
This has gotten me to thinking about why the Mouse King, the ballet's villain, is so evil. So many of these different versions always try to come up with explanations as to why he tries to take the Prince's (whom he turns into a nutcracker) kingdom away from him. In fact, it seems to be a reason why these versions are even created. They find something missing from the ballet and decide to use their own imaginations to fill that void. I can relate to this because it sounds like something I would do with my own writing and I appreciate creativity. But does it really matter? When I was a kid watching it, it never really occurred to me why the Mouse King was the bad guy, and the lack of reasons didn't alter my enjoyment of the ballet in any way. The battle sequence between the toys and the mice was actually my favorite part that I looked forward to it each time I saw it. I still love that part to this day. I think here and there I may have wondered what his motives are, but I never really sat down and truly thought about it.
What annoys me about the 2010 movie is how the Mouse King doesn't even look like a mouse! He looks more like a Dr. Seuss character in a live action film. Growing up I remember the Mouse King having multiple heads and looking like a rodent, considering he is a MOUSE King. Also, he actually scared the crap out of me at times. Recently, the Mouse Kings don't look as frightening. At one point in the trailer the Mouse King randomly hisses...or growls...or whatever you want to call that. Is this supposed to add some scariness to his character? Well, it doesn't succeed. The growl seems to be just another ploy added to a trailer to add some exciting shock value. Randomly hissing out of nowhere does not add the same level of intensity the original Mouse Kings have.
Another thing that bugs me a bit about the numerous versions of The Nutcracker is the constant debate of the main little girl's first name. I grew up thinking that her name is "Clara," but then I find versions of her named "Marie," and finally, in this 3D film, apparently her name is "Mary." Just choose a name! Why does this kid have so many first names? Perhaps it has to do with cultural versions of it, and I don't hate the name "Marie" for her, but I just find it odd how a main character doesn't have an official first name. I also found out that the uncle who gives the little girl the Nutcracker is called Uncle Albert in the 3D version. Uncle Albert? The original guy's name is Uncle Drosselmeyer! What they're pretty much doing is Americanizing German characters. Yes, this is supposed to be a German story in a German setting. There's no need for that. American audiences can still enjoy a flick even though the characters' names are a little bit cultural. Oh! And the Mouse King is actually called the "Rat King." Wow, they are seriously going out of their way to make this guy bad, aren't they? Um, did the word "rat" just sound more evil to the writers? Hey, at least the Barbie version got a majority the names right! However, they do make her Uncle Drosselmeyer her Aunt Drosselmeyer...
From what I hear, the 3D film didn't do too well. This does not come as a surprise, people.
But another thing I often wonder is if Clara (I'm calling her Clara. I refuse to call her anything else.) and the Nutcracker Prince fall in love. Obviously they probably aren't going to touch on this in the 3D film because they have children playing the characters, but it is suggested in the ballet itself sometimes, because it did cross my mind as a kid. But it is made obvious in the Barbie version.
I'm noticing that part of the magic of The Nutcracker is making a majority of the story up for interpretation. As long as the audience knows the gist of the story and what is going on, the minor details aren't much of a bother. However, the Barbie version doesn't leave anything up for interpretation. I actually enjoy the Barbie version and own my own VHS copy of it (It's also on YouTube if you want to check it out.), but it's just not traditional! I mean, one of my biggest problems with the Barbie version is that the dances are all mushed together at the end when the Mouse King is defeated, a feat that also takes place at the very end. Dances and music that should be during the Christmas party scene or any other scene in the actual ballet take place sporadically throughout the movie out of context. Scenes like these prove that it does not follow the original structure of The Nutcracker at all. The rest of the film is dedicated to the storyline of them traveling the mystical land, developing the love story, and other additional ideas that aren't in the original ballet. It may be a good creative story, but it is not necessarily The Nutcracker.
E. T. A. Hoffmann wrote the novel, The Nutcracker and the Mouse King, on which the ballet is based. Only Hoffmann knows the real deal. So I guess there could've been arguments back then about remaking a book into a ballet as well. I don't mind if movies remake ballets, as long as they do it right.
Okay, so I just ranted a lot and gave plenty of points, so let me try to answer my original question: Do changes to The Nutcracker ruin it or make it better? It definitely depends on the individual. I don't see how any altered version can surpass the original ballet, but that's not to say that it is a horrible movie in itself. It also depend on your age. If a child watches a newer more enhanced version of The Nutcracker, with no previous knowledge of the original ballet, he or she may think it is the most epic piece of work ever. Maybe this whole time I am comparing film versions to the stage ballets. We all know that film and stage are two entirely different mediums so that isn't entirely fair. More can be done with fun so filmmakers take advantage of the technology to use their imaginations.
The changes I noticed have a lot to do with audience and popular culture. In the 2010 version, it seems that they incorporate modern forms of technology, such as what is used in the story itself and the fact that this is the first 3D version of The Nutcracker from what I see. I'm also thinking that because these film versions seem to be gearing towards children, they include storyline and slapstick to keep them interested. However, as a person who was a fan of the ballet as a child without anything additional, everything about it kept me entertained except for one scene, and that is the final dance, the Pas de Deux, between the Prince and the Sugar Plum Fairy. It is beautifully danced and the music is just as beautiful, but boy is it boring. To me, it is the longest routine in the whole ballet. Well, at least it feels that way. The other dances can drag on a bit as well, so maybe the time that was once dedicated to the routines is now dedicated to storylines to once again keep children interested.
I think what is best is taking it as a piece standing on its own, rather than comparing it to the original ballet. Though that can be hard to do considering the similarities they have, it should be fine to watch and considered Christmas enjoyment just like the original piece.
Another thing that bugs me a bit about the numerous versions of The Nutcracker is the constant debate of the main little girl's first name. I grew up thinking that her name is "Clara," but then I find versions of her named "Marie," and finally, in this 3D film, apparently her name is "Mary." Just choose a name! Why does this kid have so many first names? Perhaps it has to do with cultural versions of it, and I don't hate the name "Marie" for her, but I just find it odd how a main character doesn't have an official first name. I also found out that the uncle who gives the little girl the Nutcracker is called Uncle Albert in the 3D version. Uncle Albert? The original guy's name is Uncle Drosselmeyer! What they're pretty much doing is Americanizing German characters. Yes, this is supposed to be a German story in a German setting. There's no need for that. American audiences can still enjoy a flick even though the characters' names are a little bit cultural. Oh! And the Mouse King is actually called the "Rat King." Wow, they are seriously going out of their way to make this guy bad, aren't they? Um, did the word "rat" just sound more evil to the writers? Hey, at least the Barbie version got a majority the names right! However, they do make her Uncle Drosselmeyer her Aunt Drosselmeyer...
From what I hear, the 3D film didn't do too well. This does not come as a surprise, people.
But another thing I often wonder is if Clara (I'm calling her Clara. I refuse to call her anything else.) and the Nutcracker Prince fall in love. Obviously they probably aren't going to touch on this in the 3D film because they have children playing the characters, but it is suggested in the ballet itself sometimes, because it did cross my mind as a kid. But it is made obvious in the Barbie version.
I'm noticing that part of the magic of The Nutcracker is making a majority of the story up for interpretation. As long as the audience knows the gist of the story and what is going on, the minor details aren't much of a bother. However, the Barbie version doesn't leave anything up for interpretation. I actually enjoy the Barbie version and own my own VHS copy of it (It's also on YouTube if you want to check it out.), but it's just not traditional! I mean, one of my biggest problems with the Barbie version is that the dances are all mushed together at the end when the Mouse King is defeated, a feat that also takes place at the very end. Dances and music that should be during the Christmas party scene or any other scene in the actual ballet take place sporadically throughout the movie out of context. Scenes like these prove that it does not follow the original structure of The Nutcracker at all. The rest of the film is dedicated to the storyline of them traveling the mystical land, developing the love story, and other additional ideas that aren't in the original ballet. It may be a good creative story, but it is not necessarily The Nutcracker.
E. T. A. Hoffmann wrote the novel, The Nutcracker and the Mouse King, on which the ballet is based. Only Hoffmann knows the real deal. So I guess there could've been arguments back then about remaking a book into a ballet as well. I don't mind if movies remake ballets, as long as they do it right.
Okay, so I just ranted a lot and gave plenty of points, so let me try to answer my original question: Do changes to The Nutcracker ruin it or make it better? It definitely depends on the individual. I don't see how any altered version can surpass the original ballet, but that's not to say that it is a horrible movie in itself. It also depend on your age. If a child watches a newer more enhanced version of The Nutcracker, with no previous knowledge of the original ballet, he or she may think it is the most epic piece of work ever. Maybe this whole time I am comparing film versions to the stage ballets. We all know that film and stage are two entirely different mediums so that isn't entirely fair. More can be done with fun so filmmakers take advantage of the technology to use their imaginations.
The changes I noticed have a lot to do with audience and popular culture. In the 2010 version, it seems that they incorporate modern forms of technology, such as what is used in the story itself and the fact that this is the first 3D version of The Nutcracker from what I see. I'm also thinking that because these film versions seem to be gearing towards children, they include storyline and slapstick to keep them interested. However, as a person who was a fan of the ballet as a child without anything additional, everything about it kept me entertained except for one scene, and that is the final dance, the Pas de Deux, between the Prince and the Sugar Plum Fairy. It is beautifully danced and the music is just as beautiful, but boy is it boring. To me, it is the longest routine in the whole ballet. Well, at least it feels that way. The other dances can drag on a bit as well, so maybe the time that was once dedicated to the routines is now dedicated to storylines to once again keep children interested.
I think what is best is taking it as a piece standing on its own, rather than comparing it to the original ballet. Though that can be hard to do considering the similarities they have, it should be fine to watch and considered Christmas enjoyment just like the original piece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)