Addictions (Mostly Benign)

Last week I started working with a new group of students for a summer course at the university I attend. One of the things I told my students about is my addiction to email. I can't help but feel that I need to work on this addiction, but as some of my friends have pointed out, I could be addicted to worse things. However, this realization has made me think about all of the things I compulsively use on a regular basis. While most of them are fairly benign but others are just downright embarrassing.

• Email - My addiction to email does not stem from a love of email. I could actually take or leave it. However, I hate having a full inbox or unread messages. As soon as I get a message, I will read it and respond to it if possible. It drives me more than a little crazy to know that I might have a message that needs attention. If I ever get an iPhone, there will be no going back
• Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me! - I listen to Wait, Wait... on a regular basis (particularly when doing office work at one of my jobs). I keep working through all of the different episodes and I listen to the current episode all week on my iPod. However, it is an NPR show, so it can't be an addition that is too bad...
• Books - This should come as no surprise, but I adore books. I would (and have) lived off of peanut butter sandwiches just so I can use money for books rather than food. Unfortunately, this is a somewhat problematic addiction. For one, buying books (which makes me really happy) is expensive; even buying remainders (which are deeply discounted overstocked books) or used books can be expensive. Even though I use BookMooch, I can't always find what I'm looking for. The other problem that comes with constantly buying books is the fact that I have run out of shelf space, and my one-bedroom apartment isn't necessarily conducive to collecting books.
• Magazines - I suppose this goes along with my book addiction. Right now, I'm trying to convince myself that renewing all of my 7 magazines is not necessary.
  
• The Food Network - There's something about this channel, which is really just food porn, that intrigues me.
• Harlequin Presents romance novels - I don't read these, but I do find the titles and plots so bizarrely amusing that I can't help but chortle to myself when I pass a display in a bookstore. What makes them so funny? Well, these books seem to feature an absurdly large number of Greek tycoons, sheiks, millionaires, and virgins. Any book entitled The Spaniard's Defiant Bride is guaranteed to make me laugh.

Book Review: When You Are Engulfed in Flames

Humor in almost any form (film, music, print) is difficult to navigate. While a certain percentage of people may laugh at anything, most people are more discriminating. Smart humor is an even more slippery slope, but no one negotiates it better than David Sedaris. His ability to take the remarkable and the pedestrian and find humor in both is unique and much harder than many people realize. Translating that humor into writing is even more difficult, but he does it and does it well.

At his best, Sedaris is able to evoke laughter from his readers while also causing them to think about what they have just read. Reactions often range from relief that the event in question has not happened to them to the dawning realization (or horror) that they have been in a similar situation. Past essays such as "Dinah, the Christmas Whore," "Rooster at the Hitching Post," and "Baby Einstein" all find the balance between being funny and being reflective without falling into the writer's sand trap of bathos.

If the essays in When You Are Engulfed in Flames do not always reach the giddy heights of Sedaris's past works, they still have the wry, trenchant humor that has made Sedaris famous. From discussing his fashion mishaps (shopping in the women's department with his sister) to detailing his attempts to stop smoking, Sedaris's wit is as sharp as ever. Perhaps the most noticeable difference between Sedaris's earlier works (Naked, Me Talk Pretty One Day, etc.) and When You Are Engulfed in Flames is a prominent shift in subject matter. While many of the essays in his other books are about growing up and dealing with his various family members, this book focuses more on Sedaris's present. Hugh, his boyfriend, plays a more prominent role in these essays, while Amy, Lisa, Paul, and the rest of the Sedaris clan are the featured players.

This approach is not, by any means, a bad thing. Instead, it offers readers a different perspective on Sedaris and his world, and it allows Sedaris more time for self-exploration and social commentary. Furthermore, the essays in When You Are Engulfed in Flames build upon the traits that Sedaris discusses about himself (and his family) in his other works. "The Smoking Section" makes an interesting follow-up to Naked's "A Plague of Tics." Lisa's reaction in "It's Catching" is more understandable after reading "Repeat After Me" in Dress Your Family... Consequently, Sedaris's new book is able to give readers a new look at the author while also expanding upon ideas and themes in his past books. This is not necessarily a kinder, gentler David Sedaris, but it is a look at his adult life that we haven't seen before. While I would like to hear more about his brother Paul and niece Madelyn (whom Sedaris has said he would not write about), I am enjoying the new view of Sedaris's world.

Website Recommendation: Vocabulary & Free Rice

One of Mental Floss's Morning Cup 'O Links for today was Time magazine's 50 Best Websites for 2008. As a person who loves to waste time, I immediately headed over to the site to check it out. One of the cooler sites listed is for Free Rice, a website that gives rice to the UN World Food Program based on player's knowledge of vocabulary.

You may wonder how this is possible; well, head over to the site and check out the FAQs and About section to get more information. While you're there, spend some time playing and learn some new words. This makes me feel much better about the forced vocabulary lessons, quizzes, and tests I used to give my students (a surprising number of words were in our old vocabulary books). Sure, I will probably never use some of the words that I am learning (lignify comes to mind). However, it is a great brain workout (which never hurts) and it is for a worthy cause. If I'm going to waste time online, there are far worse things I could be doing.

Lest We Not Forget: What Happened to the Plays?

Yeah, I know that I said there would be three posts about the Tonys, but as I reviewed the three that I did, I realized I didn't talk a lot about the straight plays. Although I am more of a musical theatre person, this lack of info is due (at least in part) to the fact that the Tony Awards don't really focus much (if at all) on the plays. Par for the course, they did the one minute clip segment of all of the shows on Broadway from the past year, but it was over fairly quickly (look - Jennifer Garner in Cyrano!). I think they even gave the "Best Revival of a Play" award out before the televised ceremony. I suppose they did this so we could see Sierra Boggess skate in her heelies and sing "Part of Your World."

Of course, this has to do (partially at least) with supply and demand. While straight plays can be a hit, musicals can generate a ton of money. I suppose it seems economically sound for the Tony Awards to hedge its bets and focus on bringing home the bacon. There is also the problem of figuring out what to do with the plays. It is harder (in theory) to show a brief excerpt from a play and have it be entertaining and understandable than it is to have an engaging (and somewhat comprehensible) song and dance number. They tried short excerpts for a while, and those didn't seem to get a lot of response. I also vaguely recall the one painful time they tried to combine excerpts from all of the different plays into a reading.

This leads to the question: Should plays get equal (or, at least, more) coverage on the Tonys? If so, what should the Tonys do to fix this?

The Tony Awards: The Terrifying Lows, the Dizzying Highs, and the Creamy Middles (part III)

So we've come to this: my take on the highs and lows of this year's freakishly long Tony Awards Ceremony.

The Highlights:

• The number from Gypsy was incredible (even if Boyd Gaines and Laura Benanti weren't given that much to do). Patti LuPone is a force to be reckoned with, and I have little doubt that she would have stalked Kelli O'Hara under cover of darkness if O'Hara had won Best Actress in a Musical.
  
• Speaking of Benanti, I thought that she was charmingly flustered during her speech. Too many times, winners for any awards come off as being so cocky and self-assured that they are going to win that I just want to take their Oscar/ Tony/ Golden Bucket of Popcorn and clock them with it. Benanti was obviously happy and excited and I will take that any day over a planned, pretentious speech or a nonsensical one (see the lowlights for some examples - I'm talking to you Mark Rylance).
• I also liked Lin-Manuel Miranda's acceptance speech for Best Score. How many times do you get to combine rap, Broadway, and the Tonys? Special props to him for mentioning Sondheim. "Mr. Sondheim, look I made a hat.Where there never was a hat. It's a Latin hat at that."
• The entire vibe from the In the Heights crew was infectious and didn't reek of the "we are reinventing/ saving a dying art" vibe that I got from Passing Strange (and got last year from Spring Awakening).

The Lowlights:

• In the past, in order to give a performance at the Tonys, a musical had to be nominated for "Best New Musical" or "Best Revival of a Musical" (and typically had to still be running on Broadway). They changed things a bit this year in an attempt (I guess) to boost ratings and ticket sales. As a result, we were subjected to "Part of Your World" from The Little Mermaid, a song from A Catered Affair (I honestly don't remember what it was), and "Deep Love" from The New Mel Brooks Musical Young Frankenstein. Great, we have a singing mermaid and a penis joke.
• They presented a frightful number of awards before the televised portion of the ceremony. I think I would rather watch someone accept the "Best Book" awards more than hearing Megan Mullally sing about a monster's little friend...
• There were some really bad speeches this year. I've already mentioned Mark Rylance, but his was so odd that he deserves yet another mention. I don't care that he was referencing something else. Also, Patti LuPone's speech was just a tad too bitter for my tastes. Yes, she hasn't won a Tony since 1980 (for Evita). Yes, she probably deserved to win for Sweeney Todd. Yes, the Tonys can be a fickle lot. Get over it, take a cue from that Sondheim number, and move on.
• Although I vastly prefer to watch the Tonys than the Oscars (I'm strange like that), the Tonys could take a pointer or two from the Oscars in terms of giving out a Lifetime Achievement Award. Last year's presentation (for Hal Prince) was anemic. This year's presentation for Stephen Sondheim was even more anti-climatic (Sondheim wasn't there, so Mandy Pantinkin read a very gracious speech penned by Sondheim). Tony producers, please watch the 1998 Oscars, see the presentation for Stanley Donen's Honorary Oscar, and adjust accordingly.
• Trotting out the original cast of Rent only illustrated that none of them have any business doing the show anymore (Adam Pascal and Anthony Rapp are supposedly doing a national tour of the show in 2009). Since I'm not a Rent fan (for reasons too numerous to list in this post), I wasn't thrilled about the entire "Seasons of Love" sing-a-long, but Marissa Tomei's reaction clearly shows that I'm in the minority on this one.

The Tonys (part II)

So you came back for more? Well, here's part II with my take on the "Best Revival" numbers. Never fear - my highlights, lowlights, and everything in between is coming in a third (and final) Tony post!

"Best Revival of a Musical" - These numbers were better or perhaps I just understood them more since I knew how they worked within each show's context. There were actually some great revivals this year, even though you wouldn't know it from listening to the hype, which pitted Patti LuPone and Gypsy against Kelli O'Hara and South Pacific (now there's a cage match that would be short but very frightening!). Sunday in the Park with George got lost in the shuffle (which is really a shame), and Grease didn't get a lot of attention except that the leads came from a reality television show no one watched (You're the One That I Want).

• Gypsy's number was "Everything's Coming Up Roses," which (when taken in context) is one of the scariest songs in musical theatre. No one writes a good breakdown in verse form like Sondheim (with help Jule Styne's intense music). The LuPone acts the hell out of it, and I back slowly away from my television set. Boyd Gaines (Herbie) and Laura Benanti (Louise aka Gypsy) don't have much to do but look frightened (Patti gives them plenty to be frightened about). It gets a well-deserved standing ovation, Arthur Laurents (the director and author) looks like he's going to cry, and Mandy Patinkin looks awfully happy.
• South Pacific opts to go the medley route; this is usually a tough sell, but since everyone who watches the Tonys probably knows the story and the songs, this is probably safe. A few random thoughts regarding this medley:
• Is it just me, or is a bunch of sailors singing "There is Nothing Like a Dame" just wrong, particularly given what we know about musical theatre? I believe that musical theatre in general and La Cage Aux Folles in particular have disproved this theory.
  
• I hate (with the fire of a thousand suns) "Some Enchanted Evening." I don't care how good the singer is, it just sets me on edge.
• On the other hand, I love "A Wonderful Guy" and Kelli O'Hara did a nice job with it (even if I dislike the choreography she's given).
  
• Grease does a strange combo of "Grease" (the theme song used in the movie) and "We Go Together." The end result is decidedly "meh." Incidentally, I've always been freaked out by Grease's moral (dress like a skank and get [or keep] the man of your dreams!) and this number is not redeeming the show at all.
• Sunday in the Park with George's contribution is "Move On." As much as I love Sondheim, even I have to admit that his work tends not to translate well into an isolated number. However, after seeing Sondheim characters play instruments (thanks John Doyle), it is nice to see a relatively straightforward interpretation.
  

The Good, the Bad, and the Whoopi: Thoughts on the Tony Awards (part I)

Although I was fairly positive at an hour into the three-hour televised event that has become the Tony Awards Ceremony, I must admit that, overall, I felt a little "meh" over the entire thing. It wasn't the worst Tony Awards show ever, but it all just seemed a little flat (for a full recap of the entire evening, check out Television Without Pity). There were a few very nice moments tempered with a liberal dosage of WTF? ones (Mark Rylance, I'm looking at you). As the dust settles, here is my take on the Tonys (part I).

The host - While Whoopi's attempt to have a surprising entrance based on every show on Broadway became a little tedious (the very thought of A Chorus Line starring just Whoopi and Mario Lopez is enough to scare me), she wasn't a terrible host. I must admit that she had a few inspired moments, and the scene with her and the Phantom was kind of awesome. I also loved that she inadvertently smacked down Clarence Thomas. It probably was a genuine mistake, but I still thought it was funny.

"Best New Musical" production numbers - I was underwhelmed by some of the production numbers from the new musicals this year.

• Although I'm not familiar with Passing Strange, I wasn't terribly keen on its number, which reminded me of an amalgam of "Light My Candle" from Rent and the choreography from last year's Spring Awakening excerpt.
• I liked the number from In the Heights simply because it seemed very original. The music was good, and the choreography was awesome - it had an authentic feel without being too disorganized or messy. Kudos to the fact that they managed to feature the entire company on stage without it looking or sounding fragmented. Too many shows try to shoehorn the entire cast and it looks really awkward (i.e. the Mary Poppins number from last year).
  
• Xanadu was okay - nothing horrible, nothing great. Like In the Heights, they were able to include the entire cast in an organic way and still feature the main characters prominently (a difficult feat in and of itself). The little moment with Tony Roberts was nice, and Cheyenne Jackson is nice to look at.
  
• I almost forgot Cry-Baby (which should tell us all something). It looked fun enough, but it is certainly no Hairspray. The choreography was very clever, the music not so much.

Part II is coming soon...