missing RICHARD II

Hmph. Looks like I missed my chance to see RICHARD II at the Shakespeare Theatre. The last show is sold out. Did anyone see it? cisic, perhaps? emma_elicit? tompurdue? Anyone?

Perhaps it's just as well that I missed it. I wanted to take Henchgirl, to introduce her to one of my very favorite Shakespeare plays (and one of my dream roles to perform... also my most intimidating). But then, I remember when I took Bloo to see the original Chicago production of Stacy Keach's KING LEAR, which was perhaps the second worst LEAR I've ever seen. It still kills me that that was Bloo's introduction to my very favorite play. Kills me.

Now, you may be wondering, "Gee, Heffie, what was the absolute worst KING LEAR you've ever seen?" That would be the Shakespeare Theatre production directed by Michael Kahn. Y'know, the same company and director who directed the RICHARD II that I'm missing. So yeah, I wouldn't want for Henchgirl's introduction to RICHARD II being a bad one.

Because good lord does RICHARD II have the potential to be a horrible production in the wrong hands. It's a play with virtually zero action of any sort happening, largely devoted to wangst and wallowing self-pity. And yet, by some miracle of Shakespeare's poetry and performers like Derek "Man-God" Jacobi, it can be one of the most moving plays I've ever seen.

The heart of this is how, for reasons I still don't entirely understand, Richard goes from being a self-absorbed, nasty little twit to somehow gaining more and more humanity the more power he loses. But some reviews I've read of Kaaaaaaaaahn's RICHARD II say that this production does away with that.

DC Theatre Scene--and the reviewer there said he never say anything in the text to support that Richard regains his humanity--says they just keep Richard a pompous self-absorbed ass up to the moment of his (spoiler alert!) murder. They reviewer said, "It's a bold choice, and it works." I'm skeptically curious. That choice seems to undercut the very thing which gives RICHARD II it's unlikely poignancy and power.

And I'm not saying it couldn't work, and I haven't seen a Michael Kaaaaaaaaaaahn production in many years, but from what I recall of the man's work, he's not the one to pull it off.

In the end, I'm sad only for my own eduction and experience that I'm missing RICHARD II. It's so rarely produced that I feel like I can only learn from any production, especially a bad one, which I have yet to see. But in the end, I'd rather introduce Henchgirl to it via either Derek Jacobi...

(cue to 7:50 onward)

.. or Mark Rylance:

(Dreamy sigh)


I saw that production live, at the Globe, with a class in London. I was the only one in the class who actually went and saw it a second time, I loved it so much. Apparently they filmed the whole thing and aired it on the BBC? DAMN IT, I WANTS IT ON THE DVDS!

Can anyone get it for me? And if so, can you also get the CRIME AND PUNISHMENT movie with John Simm and Ian McDiarmid? And the Paul Scofield KING LEAR? Damn it, should I just spring for a region-free DVD player and be done with it?

thoughts on KICK-ASS

As I should have done with AVATAR when I had the chance, I managed to see a free (thank god) screening of KICK-ASS.

Y'know, when I saw V FOR VENDETTA, it struck me how largely faithful it was to the source material, which is some pretty challenging stuff, to say the least. They didn't carry it through all the way, softening it for the audience's benefit for bizarre reasons,* but it was around 75% faithful.

Here's the thing, though: there wasn't a single great moment from that film that didn't come directly from Alan Moore's original comic. All of the new stuff for the film didn't add a damn thing to the experience.

So it's funny, then, that KICK-ASS should have pretty much the exact opposite thing going on. The only things good about the movie were the stuff invented expressly for the film.

Now, Henchgirl actually has much harsher words to say about the film than I do, without having read the actual comic. What I found striking were the words she used to describe most of it: "cynical, ugly, brutally violent crap." She can't quite comprehend it when I tell her that the comic is even worse in this regard.

To its credit, the film actually gave some measure of depth to a couple of the characters. Now, I haven't read the comic in depth, in one sitting, so maybe there actually was some of the charming father-daughter dynamic between Hit-Girl and Big Daddy in the comic. And maybe, just maybe, I've forgotten that Red Mist actually had some internal conflict and wasn't just a Superboy-Prime-style brat.

The movie made it a point to occasionally ground the characters. These were the moments that the film genuinely charmed me, and I found myself liking it despite my utter loathing of everything else. That's what happens when a story is genuinely good. No matter how much I want to hate it, if it's good, I can't. It's all stuff like the mob boss deciding what snacks he wants at the movies, or Nic Cage's Adam West impersonation. The little touches.

But the vast majority of the film was exactly what I was expecting/fearing it to be. And the worst part is, the audience we were with ate it the fuck up. A quick scan of the crowd revealed it to consist almost entirely of geeks with their friends and douchebags with their girlfriends (not surprising, as the passes were distributed by comic shops and a sports radio station). Perhaps the film would have been more enjoyable if it weren't for that audience.

Mark Millar's talent is writing for the 15-year-old boy in all man-children. The smug, snickering boy who thinks fart and dick jokes are the height of hilarity, boobies are worth cheering for, and explosions are something new and utterly awesome every single time. Like how goldfish constantly forget one another, these people think that seeing a 12-year-old girl curse is comedy gold.

And really, what's with everybody loving Hit-Girl, calling her THE character of the year? Why is everyone so blown away by that gimmick of a character? If anyone was the best character in the film, it was Red Mist, and I think that credit must go largely to Christopher Mintz-Plasse's performance. There's this one scene where he's alone and pretending to be a mob boss, much in the same way that Kick-Ass is alone and pretending to be a superhero.

For the entire first half hour, Kick-Ass is a worthless, unlikable douchebag. But when McLovin does the same sort of thing in a matter of ten seconds, he's instantly more likable and endearing than the actual focal point of the film. Check out this clip below. Most other actors can't pull off the unrelenting douchiness of Millar's dialogue, but somehow, he pulls it off. Maybe it's the lisp. He's like Hank Venture trying to be the Monarch's sidekick by emulating Dermott.

Could he have made a better lead? It's possible. All I know is that it's a day later, and the bulk of the film is already fading from memory, but the mere thought of Red Mist in the film actually brings me a warm affectionate feeling.

He even managed to pull off the groan-worthy final line of Millar's comic. There, it was dripping with Millar's trademark smirking smugness. Here, even I found myself laughing and wanting to applaud. If I have even an iota of desire to watch the sequel, it'll be to follow Red Mist.

Although in the sequel, the Red Mist will be taking on a new name, one that displays the utter pinnacle of Mark Millar's wit: he'll be called the Motherfucker. Seriously. Why do people buy this shit? That said, it further speaks to McLovin as a performer that I can imagine him pulling it off and still being endearing. He has all of the oh-look-at-that-he's-trying-so-hard charm that Millar spends too much time smirking like a douchebag to pull off.

Ultimately, KICK-ASS the movie isn't worth hating. The comic is utterly loathsome, and the fact that the film is just gonna further Millar's clout is disgusting, but the film does improve upon it enough to simply render it an ugly waste of time that will appeal mostly to people I want nothing to do with, so whatever.

Although don't get me started on how they changed the love interest's subplot here. WOW, was that offensive. The comic was merely "ugh," but the film actually managed to outdo Millar in tastelessness. IRON MAN 2 can't come along fast enough to wash this crap out of my mouth.





*If you're gonna have the guts to actually show V blowing up Parliament, why would you soften his character to make him, say, actually show remorse at what his did to Evey? The book's V showed not a damn lick of remorse, which is one of the most shocking, compelling parts of the book, because he was so firmly secure in the knowledge that he was right in his every action, and it converted (or "freed") her. Why did the filmmakers wimp out on stuff like this?