Photo Courtesy of Ken Stanek

Company at the Vagabond

-Theatre Review by Rachel Wooley–

Company, a musical now playing at the Vagabond Theatre in Baltimore, was written by George Furth, with music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim. First performed on Broadway in 1970, the show has appeared in many big name theaters, including the Kennedy Center in DC in 2002. The Vagabond Players stage is a smaller venue than the show is usually performed in, but the actors make excellent use of space for the song and dance numbers, thanks to choreographer Ernie Richie and director Eric J. Potter.

Bobby, the central character (played by Vagabond veteran Tom Burns), is never short of company. His many paired-off friends constantly invite him to dinner and drinks, leaving him very little time for himself. Despite his friend’s many intrusions, Bobby insists that he loves them all. Company, after all, is “what it’s all about,” right?

Bobby’s friends in the show (all strongly cast) are five couples of varying age. They are puzzled by Bobby’s lack of marital prospects and espouse the joys of marriage and partnership as Bobby visits them each in turn, in a non-linear series of vignettes. During these meetings, Bobby’s friends continually fret over him or try to set him up with the “right girl.” Meanwhile, each couple also admits to having troubles of their own. They’re jaded, bored, or a little too worn in. As for Bobby… well, we’re not sure what his “problem” is, but he seems content (though a little fatigued) to humor his friends, meet their prospects and “play the field.”

So who’s living the dream? Someone else’s grass is always greener; it’s up to the audience to decide. Although Bobby thinks his friends are right to believe that a spouse will bring him happiness, all of their efforts (and his own) to find one seem to get him nowhere.

Photo Courtesy of Ken Stanek

The play remains light-hearted throughout, though Bobby gets into some serious and sometimes awkward one-on-ones with his partnered friends during the second act. His spontaneous proposal to Amy (played by the adorable Molly Doyle), who’s just told her fiancé, Paul, that she doesn’t love him enough to go through with the marriage ceremony, is earnest though misguided. “They’ll leave us alone,” Bobby insists, but his pleas make Amy realize that she doesn’t just want to settle for anyone. If she’s going to marry someone, it’s going to be Paul.

The proposition from Peter (David Minges) is the first – and perhaps only – overt suggestion that Bobby might be gay. During the conversation, both men admit to past homosexual encounters, but the scene ends with Bobby laughing off Peter’s advances as a joke. The script itself is ambiguous, and it seems the director has made a choice to downplay questions about Bobby’s sexuality. Nevertheless, audiences observe that there’s no real chemistry between Bobby and any of the three girls he’s dating either.

Photo Courtesy of Ken Stanek

This being a musical, many of the characters’ complicated feelings which can’t be spoken aloud are instead expressed in song. The singers in this performance or, rather the actors who also sing, are marvelous. Tom Burns is strong as both the lead and as a singer; the entire cast harmonizes well together, especially the three girlfriends in their number. Likewise, Molly Doyle’s rendition of “Getting Married Today” – a fast-paced lyrical number performed with frazzled nervousness as she contemplates her impending wedding, is hilarious. Sarah Ford Gorman, who plays Marta, one of Bobby’s girlfriends, also gives a brilliant performance in her song, “Another Hundred People” as well as in her scenes with Bobby.

The set design, too, is lovely. Large pre-9/11 panoramas of New York City make up the back walls and serve as either a window view or artwork, depending on the setting (which range from friends’ apartments to a club) in each scene.

Musicals aren’t for everyone, but Company is unique, combining talented acting, with musical intrigue.  The show runs through November 17, 2013, with performances Friday and Saturday evenings and Sunday afternoons. Treat your partner or drop in solo; the cozy theatre and lively entertainment leave no one feeling lonely!

Post Photo Courtesy of Ken Stanek 

Blue Jasmine

-Film reviewed by Lisa Umhoefer–

Blue Jasmine is one of Woody Allen’s darker, less optimistic films about human nature. Allen’s masterfully crafted script gives the actors and actresses room to experiment in their roles and Cate Blanchett’s delivers a steller performance as Jasmine. Smoothing the plot, the overt sarcasm and comedic touches we have come to expect from Woody Allen are limited to the subtle musical choices that comment on the characters, a choice that works well.

The film begins with Jasmine on a plane. She is talking incessantly to the woman next to her, revealing her character’s fragile emotional state, and giving us some needed back-story. We soon learn that Jasmine is reeling from a disastrous marriage. Not only was her husband, Hal (Alec Baldwin), unfaithful, his shifty business deals landed him on the white-collar most wanted list, and the government has ceased most of their property. Jasmine must now pick up the pieces of her broken life.

This brilliant use of screen time shows what comes with forty plus years of filmmaking experience. Jasmine is deranged, but she has a captive audience for the duration of the 7 hour flight from New York to San Francisco. Broke and desperately in need of a place to stay, she is on her way to live with her sister. But Jasmine’s definition of penniless might not match ours. She arrives dressed in designer clothes and tips the car driver generously for carrying her Louis Vuitton luggage up to the apartment.

Jasmine’s sister, Ginger (Sally Hawkins), has the complete opposite personality. Ginger brings a Brooklyn sensibility to the film that makes it easy to forget it’s taking place in San Francisco. There is underlying tension, but also a genuine desire for renewed friendship driving the two sisters to reunite and face their problems.

Jasmine’s mental state, however, is less composed. She talks to herself in bouts of blind reverie, and life has taken a spiteful turn. Her experience as socialite and wife is not a good resume builder, except perhaps for another job as a wealthy man’s wife. This is a position she aspires to, but in the meanwhile, she has to make money. Jasmine complains that the jobs she can get are “too menial,” an assessment of her abilities that may well be true, but which doesn’t receive much sympathy from audiences. She has a mean streak, and is horribly unaware of what she says. Some viewers may even take pleasure in watching her work jobs that she believes are beneath her.

Despite being in poor shape to judge, Jasmine is immensely critical of Ginger’s choice in men, and of her sister’s life in general. The look of horror on Jasmines face as she surveys what is clearly a dump to her, i.e. what the rest of us would consider a decent one bedroom apartment in an expensive city, is performed perfectly. Likewise Ginger’s men, Augie (Andrew Dice Clay) and Chili (Bobby Cannavale) fare no better when judged by Jasmine. They are high on honesty and effort, a currency not recognized or valued by Jasmine, and they score low in the area of money and designer labels. This provides a fantastic contrast to the men that Jasmine is drawn to, Hal and Dwight (Peter Sarsgaard). These men are smoother than smooth, and have the money for the right look, but is Jasmine really better off in their care?

The film makes a great statement concerning issues of wealth, and the character of mankind. Viewers familiar with labels will appreciate the attention to detail that was put into every costume choice, and every set. The designers and Woody Allen are on an intimate basis with the cast of characters they have set in motion, and audiences will feel transported into another world. It is a scene most people never experience in real life, but we get enough of a road map to know who is wearing what, and a rough idea of how much it all costs. This theme plays out not only in broad strokes, but also in the supporting details, such as the gigantic diamond we see on Jasmine’s finger while hearing about some of Hals unsavory deeds. The man who provided the diamond has also provided the pain, leaving Jasmine disillusioned and addicted to Xanax.

Of course Woody Allen’s interesting and quirky casting choices brings the picture in for a landing. Who else would choose Andrew Dice Clay, and turn him into a reasonable human being?  Or C.K. Louis and do just the opposite? It must be as fun for these actors to play these roles as it is for us to watch them, and audiences are wonderfully entertained. Cate Blanchett’s performance as Jasmine is riveting. We don’t know until the very end exactly how tormented her character is, or the depths to which she will fall. We’ve cared enough about her to follow her on this path, hoping she learns something along the way, and the revelation of what she has done makes the ending unexpectedly satisfying.

Post Photo courtesy of: http://www.openculture.com

photo-2

DSCN0900

photo-3

photo-1

Enraptured by Messages

-Gallery Report by Megan Stolz–

October 3 through November 22, 2013, the Foundry Art Centre outside of St. Louis is hosting an exhibition by Baltimore-based artist, and monologging.org contributor, Dara Lorenzo. The exhibit, entitled Enraptured by Messages was two years in the making and is comprised of work from Dara’s graduate thesis at the San Francisco Art Institute (SFAI). This is Dara’s first solo exhibition outside of her hometown of Baltimore.

For this body of work, Dara used a printmaking method called photo-etching. This medium had interested her before, although it was not until graduate school that she found the opportunity to experiment and create such a large body of prints. Her previous work in other mediums – installation and sculpture – have clearly informed and influenced her new style.

“When I got to SFAI, I asked about the photo-sensitive film called Image-On and my studio coordinator. He told me there was a film called Z-Acrylic, designed by my now good friend Mark Zaffron,” Dara explains how she arrived at her medium of choice. “Z-Acrylic is a photo-emulsion film that allows non-toxic properties to occur in printmaking if you don’t etch the plates in acid.”

For a struggling grad student this was a perfect medium to explore because Dara could save money on copper plates by simply reusing them. The process invigorated her interest in concepts of reuse and time based work as well as layering. “I also used a few different kinds of traditional printmaking methods on the photo-plates,” Dara says. “I used a method called ala poupee and viscosity which are two different ways of painting on the plates. This is necessary for me because I come from a painting background and often revisit these gestural techniques in my work.”

The inspiration for the work now on display in Saint Louis actually came out of a period of artistic frustration. “I was in a rut in grad school feeling paralyzed in my work. This had never happened to me to such a debilitating degree,” Dara says. Her explanation of the period derives from feelings of displacement. “I had moved all the way across the country. It was exciting, shocking, empowering and nerve-wracking all at the same time. I was afraid suddenly that I didn’t have anything to make art about.”

Dara confronted the pressures of her new life in San Francisco and the challenges of her program during her walks from the BART station to the SFAI campus. Attracted to textures and signs in urban landscapes, she noticed carvings in the concrete and graffiti everywhere. This street art became an “obsession”.

In the present show, Dara has a special attachment to the picture entitled Alex. The piece features images of a carved name in the concrete as well as Dara’s own feet. “I felt that I was documenting a path that many had taken,” Dara says. “Alex incorporates ideas that originally met with objections from my colleagues and professors. I never wanted to conform to some of these objections, even though I sometimes tried to sever ties from my old practices.”

Dara was accepted by the Emerging Artist series in St. Louis last year. She flew out to St. Louis before the show to help with the installation. This commitment is not always expected of artists, but Dara felt it was important that she was involved.  “I wanted to convey the concept of the work better through the actual installation,” she says, adding; “participating in the exhibit’s setup was an opportunity to try and help the viewers see things through my vision.”

The artist’s work is never finished. Dara is already working on her next series of prints, using photographs from both her and her father’s collection to tell a juxtaposed story. In the meantime, Saint Louis may be busy hosting the World Series, but there is certainly another worthwhile show in town!

Post photos courtesy of Dara Lorenzo

JBv86oeFqL0

Humming House

Album Reviewed by Jake Kresovich

Humming House, a five-piece band lead by Justin Wade Tam and originally from Nashville, TN, released their self-titled debut album Humming House in January 2012.  Their musical style draws from many different genres, including bluegrass, folk and Americana, and their songs range from upbeat and energy-packed to drawn out and exhausted.  After the album was released, talk of the band spread rapidly. Humming House was featured on NPR’s ‘Live in Studio C’. They also appeared on television in the FX show, “Justified” as well as MTV’s “World of Jenks.”  Currently they are touring in the United States.

The album was recorded with the help of Vance Powell, who previously worked with The White Stripes and Buddy Guy, and Mitch Dane, who previously worked with Jars of Clay. Collectively they created an album that paints a picture of the American landscape. The band’s single “Cold Chicago” hits the ground running from the first note.  The song focuses on the band’s travels throughout the country, from Missouri, California, Seattle and Nashville, but emphasizes their desire to be blown “back to the banks of Chicago” where things feel right.

Later, the song, “Gasoline” sounds another tone. The song is down-trodden and evokes fatigue.  Gasoline begins with the lyrics “Everyone’s had their icebergs slowly melt away/ Nursing bottles of vodka just to swallow the wake,” setting a mood of exhaustion and helplessness. The song’s refrain “Gasoline I need some gasoline/ Stuck on the side of the road/ Gasoline I need some gasoline/ To burn my way back home” offers broken down listeners a beleaguered solution; only more gasoline will help us continue down the path that likely leads nowhere. In saying this, the band asks audiences to weigh the negative consequences of apathy in our lives.

Humming House concludes with the uplifting and potentially inspiring song “Young Enough to Try.” Here Wade Tam contemplates whether he is old enough “to leave all this synergy and drive down a different dream” or if he is old enough “to let it all slip by…” Both options seem to carry their own significance in the singer’s mind. This question isn’t unanswered outright, but the buoyant tone of the song hints at the triumph of a proactive personality. “Wonderin’ if I’m young enough to try…”  Wade Tam’s voice repeats and fades as the song draws to a close, reminding listeners that not all of life’s questions have an immediate answer.

Humming House is a thought invoking and well-rounded album aimed at individuals who appreciate an eclectic style. The changing tones and melodies depict the diversity of America and prompt many different moods. A terrific album, the band is even more impressive seen live. On stage, another layer of energy transforms their sound with the power to sweep crowds off their feet. Don’t miss a fantastic show. As previously mentioned, Humming House is currently touring. With a full tank of gas and a growing following, it doesn’t look like they will slow down anytime soon!

Post Photo Courtesy of: http://www.altamontbrewingcompany.com

ANNOUNCING THE WINNERS!

Monologging.org is pleased to announce the winners of its second annual “Summer Monologue Contest.” The contest drew entries from all over the world, and has helped connect a greater network of writers. Participants compiled short, 250 word responses to daily prompts, and their entry fees were added to an ever growing jackpot. The contest was judged by Jeffrey F. Barken and Menachem Kaiser. Submissions were rated based on their use of language to stylize stream of conscious remarks. Monologging.org looks forward to repeating the contest next summer.

The 1st place winner of this round of monologging and a $50 prize is Kelsey McMurtrey. Kelsey’s submission, entitled “Customer Service” offers a humorous tour of the office on a day when little is at stake and passion for the job is fading. To read Kelsey’s monologue please scroll below. Additional monologues by contest runners-up, Luke Hughes and Diana Mumford can be read HERE: 

Photo Courtesy of: http://www.inc.com

Customer Service

-Monologue by Kelsey McMurtrey-

Stacatto thumbprint on the “hold” button.

I move through the cubicles,

twisting, walking, step step step.

“She, uh, wants to know why she hasn’t received her order.”

He turns, nods, continues typing.

“She can’t get a hold of someone to fix it.”

Hits a, then n-d, t-h, and e.

Rubs his eyes with two fingers, asks me

“What was the question?”

I repeat.

He mumbles,

not an answer.

Something about getting coffee.

He smells like an old meatball sub.

“Take it to your team leader,” he tells me.

I turn, twisting through cubicles, walking,

step

step

step.

I halt at a desk decorated in sticky notes

and photos of a grandson.

“So, this woman’s order,” I say.

She sits, chewing jelly beans, painting her thumbnail mauve.

“Uh huh. That’s not my department.” she says, “You gotta’ go see Lionel. In autoships.”

I turn.

I twist through the cubicles, sit at my desk.

I pick up my phone receiver and say,

“I sympathize.”

***

Photo Courtesy of Joan Marcus: http://www.elevator.org

Arguendo Argues

Its Case

-A Theatre Review By Tatiana Serafin–

Arguendo, currently playing at the Public Theater in New York through October 27th is a satirical verbatim portrayal of a portion of the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Barnes v. Glen Theater case. What begins as a seemingly serious court case soon devolves into an outrageous reality competition, spoofing the bizarre trial in which an Indiana statute requiring exotic dancers to wear “pasties” and a “G-string” was challenged by go-go dancers from the Glen Theatre and Kitty Kat Lounge.

Created and performed by the outstanding experimental theater troupe, Elevator Repair Service, the show is directed by John Collins and features Maggie Hoffman, Mike Iveson, Vin Knight, Susie Sokol, and Ben Williams.

The minimalist set – the curtain opens revealing three black leather high-backed chairs that face the audience an elevated platform with two ramps on either side – morphs into an interactive space when images from the Supreme Court steps and façade as well as legal briefs are projected on the back wall.

Legalese is parched language and no amount of watering can nourish it. But the Elevator Repair Service actors have a knack for nurturing nuances, pairing each word with an exaggerated antic. When it works well in Arguendo (especially in one of the final scenes, more later), the juxtaposition reflects the ridiculousness of the arguments about G-strings and free speech that are being heard.

Arguendo is not as searing a success as the troupe’s Gatz, a seven hour verbatim reading of the Great Gatsby, that transports audiences into the world of glitz while a worker bee reads the novel aloud in a mundane office. In that much longer work, you never get tired of seeing the words spring from the page and scenes acted out by the wonderful cast. In Arguendo, however, sometimes the legal tit for tat gets heavy.

Photo Courtesy of Joan Marcus: http://www.elevator.org

The play begins with a nude dancer, (she is not nude – that doesn’t come until later in the show –  but dressed in bright late eighties shoulder pads and big hair)  surrounded by a bevy of reporters, justifying her right to freedom of dance expression. Then come the judges whose facial ticks, and heavy body language mimic the real justices perfectly. Kudos in particular to Susie Sokol (troupe member and second grade school teacher at St. Ann’s in Brooklyn) who resembles Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg so closely you almost can’t tell it isn’t the sprightly nymph herself; but then with the hunch of a shoulder Sokol morphs into Justice Clarence Thomas (three actors alternate playing the nine justices).

The judges aren’t here to rule on nude bars – they make that clear. But nude bars don’t appeal to everyone, and it’s the level of nudity and freedom of expression that’s up for grabs in the case. After all, how much do pasties and a G-string really cover up? Why shouldn’t the dancers be allowed to wear whatever they want?

The orators are walking as fine a line as that G-string. Luckily, they are helped along by the other person in the room – the swirl of animated text projections by visual artist, Ben Rubin. The animated text even takes a bow at the end of the play.

The effect of the projections is dizzying. What is really being argued here? They ask as letters zigzag across the screen and papers are thrown around. A close inspection after the play reveals the papers to be sheets of music. Bravo to the actors who memorized all this mundane Supreme Court text!

Photo Courtesy of Joan Marcus: http://www.elevator.org

Isn’t freedom of expression due in every performance?  Towards the end, in a wild fit of passion, First Amendment lawyer arguing on behalf of the dancers, Bruce Ennis (1940-2000), to whom the performance is dedicated, sheds his clothing piecemeal, gyrates in his G-string and finally takes it all off. He’s a perfect 10 and the justices seem to orgasm in their chairs. (In a disclaimer in the playbill, Elevator Repair Service writes, “We are certain that the real Bruce Ennis would never present his case in the same dramatic fashion that our “Mr. Ennis” does; nevertheless we are ever grateful for his work (and the work of many others) defending the rights of artists to take creative license and express ourselves through performance.)

It’s hard to come to your senses after such a wild day at court, but audiences walk away with a better understanding of the real verdict in the Barnes Vrs. Glenn Theatre case. In a fractious vote of 5 for upholding the ban on G-strings and 4 against, the court upheld the public indecency trumped freedom of expression – “The proscription on public nudity is unrelated to the erotic message the dancers seek to convey.”

 ***

Mechanical Bull-Kings of Leon

Album reviewed by Kendra Anne Bartell

Undoubtedly, the Kings of Leon have one of the greatest backstories of most bands out there right now: they’re all brothers (well, three brothers and one cousin) that were raised by a preacher and almost became preachers themselves. That is, until the rock gods spoke to them and they picked up musical instruments. Mechanical Bull is their newest release (their sixth), out this September after a three-year hiatus.

And what a wonder that break did for the band. After the disappointing release that was Come Around Sundown (and that cover, really!?), KOL seems to be working with something that pulls from their down-home, raw and weird Southern rocker roots. “Supersoaker,” the first single, has definite resonance with tunes like “Red Morning Light” off of their first album. There’s an energy, a life force in these songs that seemed to be lacking in Come Around Sundown. The guitars are fierce, and lead singer Caleb Followill’s voice seems to have regained some of that roughness and raw ferocity that made the first albums by KOL so addictive.

That being said, there are some songs on the album that feel, for lack of a better word, mechanical in their appeals to a certain kind of listener. “Don’t Matter,” for example, seems to be practicing what it preaches, with lines like “It don’t matter to me/It’s always the same/I’m always the same” on top of a guitar riff and beat that feel heard before.

As with other albums, some of the gems come out of the middle of the album. “Comeback Story” is a real hit on this one–a sweet melody that puts Caleb’s voice more front-and-center than on other tracks, again, trying for what worked so well for them in earlier releases. What sets this track apart from others on the album is the way the vocal melody, whistling chorus, and the lightened-up-reverb guitar work together. It’s also got a killer joke of a line: “I walk a mile in your shoes/Now I’m a mile away/And I’ve got your shoes.”

“Family Tree” is another surprise hit for me, in terms of its use of a bass heavy funk rhythm rather than fast paced guitar riffs at the center of the song.

Ultimately, Mechanical Bull seems to be aiming to unite the two factions of KOL fans: the die-hard purists that swear by the bands’ first three albums, and those that fell in love after the runaway success of songs like “Sex on Fire.” The record is clearly more produced and concerned with technique (as evidenced by Caleb’s clean vocals), but it’s also a really melodic, easy listen. There may not be as big a radio hit or “perfect” back-to-basics early Kings song on this album, but it doesn’t stop it from being a fun listen to tap your feet along to.

Post Photo Courtesy of http://www.crismanphoto.com

Photo Courtesy of: http://www.indiebound.org/

Surge: Drafts 96-114

Book Reviewed by Dorothy Chan

Surge: Drafts 96-114 by Rachel Blau DuPlessis is one of the best contemporary answers to poetics and critical theory. Be forewarned: dense material ahead—definitely not a lazy Sunday read. Surge is one of those books that’s perfect for poets studying process writing. Process writing is where you add layers to a single poem and inevitably end up with multiple poems, or even a full collection. This process is linked to the study of forms, exploring the way in which different structures can work off each other, accentuating and enriching a larger collection. I’ll also dare to say that Surge is for the more ambitious poets who think free verse is lazy and prefer to experiment with an elegy or sonnet crown.

“Each poem of the whole project can be read individually as a separate work,” DuPlessis explained the raw essence of her work during a recent interview. “Poems can also be read in any order. But they are joined together by all being ‘drafts.’”

Surge: Drafts is really a continuation of DuPlessis’ earlier works, including Drafts 1-38, Toll (Wesleyan 2001), DRAFTS, Drafts 39-57, Pledge with Drafts, Unnumbered: Précis (Salt Publishing, 2004), Torques: Drafts 58-76 (Salt Publishing, 2007), Pitch: Drafts 77-95 (Salt Publishing, 2010). The Collage Poems of Drafts appeared early in 2011, and finally, Surge: Drafts 96-114 was published by Salt in 2013.

Surge is of course, an ambitious project, and length in poetry is a daring feat. However, DuPlessis makes the distinction that Surge: Drafts 96-114 is not a long poem in itself, but drafts 96-114 come together as a collection. When 96-114 is linked to the 1-95 works that precede it, the result is a longer, and richly textured poem. This is where process writing comes into play. As writers, we are always looking for the relationship among all our previous works. What common themes are explored? Is there a hidden agenda that links all these works together? Strictly speaking, where poetry is concerned, how does form come into play?

DuPlessis lists genres, such as odes, elegies, proverbs, ballads, and haiku as having influenced her work. These forms help create a beautiful musicality in her work; for instance, Draft 98 is titled “Canzone,” also known as an Italian song or ballad. In “Canzone” and throughout her book, DuPlessis achieves a whimsical musicality with the juxtaposition of her words: “pass into a mirroring account of alphabets” and “…though at first it had seemed fenced off—Vietato l’ingresso.”

DuPlessis also grapples with the larger juxtaposition of musicality and analytical intensity. In her preface, she explains the theory behind her decisions in Surge: Drafts. Traces of these concepts can be found embedded within the poems themselves. For example, the sixth stanza of “Draft 100: Gap” reads, “______. The poem, unwritten/is concealed by the poem.” First off, the gap in the line adds another dimension to this draft. The intensity of “gap” is emphasized by this preceding physical gap. The idea of poems concealing other poems can be traced back to the preface when DuPlessis states that poems in collections work as a collage, and no poem ever feels “whole.” “Draft 99: Intransitive” also reflects this: “The complete is never complete.”

Because of this musicality and analytical intensity, reading the poems out of order becomes a fun task. It’s interesting to evaluate the unity of a collection based on whether the overall “story” of the poems still holds true out of order. Besides order and form, Surge raises the even more important issue of the long poem’s role in literature—think Chaucer, Milton, Eliot, Pound, etc. All these poets created works that are immortalized to this day, so there begs the question: where is the long poem of today’s world? In addition, how does the long poem of modern society distinguish itself from its predecessors? What forms(s) would that poem take? Does the poem fill one book or multiple books? Poets, are used to writing works of breadth yet depth, but it is very rare that they are satisfied with a longer poem. The task in itself is daunting.

Thus, DuPlessis’ Surge: Drafts 96-114 should be acknowledged as an important study. It’s a work that needs to be read several times to fully absorb everything. A meticulous reading of the preface will provide useful hints and strategies for absorbing this collection’s intricate content. Don’t be afraid. Daring readers will be rewarded, and perhaps even inspired to take on a much more ambitious work. And it’s about time that critical theory meshed with the contemporary long poem.

CjP54lV8qFI

“In a World”

Film Reviewed by Lisa Umhoefer

You are always hardest on the children that have potential, expecting the best from them. In a World, starring Lake Bell and Fred Melamed had potential; it had all the right elements and some fantastically funny writing, but simply doesn’t live up to expectations.

Although the movie offers some amusing moments in the style of “Best in Show,” it suffers from the greed that often marks writer-director debut films. Bell’s film flits from parody to romantic comedy to family drama. We are never quite sure if we are supposed to be laughing at the world we are in, or more dramatically intertwined with the characters.

The story revolves around Carol (Bell), a struggling thirty year old voice coach still living with, and under the shadow of her father, Sam (Melamed), a successful voice-over artist. Sam is so successful, in fact, that he is poised to win a Lifetime Achievement award for voice-over. Carol would like to enter this profession, but as her father tells her point blank, the world is not interested in female voice-overs. This revelation comes in one of the most entertaining scenes of the movie. Watching Fred Melamed act, with his wonderfully smooth voice was absolutely mesmerizing. The fact that he wasn’t entirely nice only adds to the pleasure. Sam announces that his young girlfriend is moving in and summarily evicts Carol. She is on her own to face her problems.

Luckily for Carol, her problems are quickly resolved. She moves in with her sister, and finds professional success simply by asking a producer to fill in for a sick voice-over star. This is where “In a World” takes a turn for the worse. Bell glosses over the challenges that professionals face in the voice-over world, never addressing the complicated career barriers that women professionals working in voice-over face. Even Carol’s romantic entanglements are straightforward: the final relationship involves the right guy finally working up the courage to admit his feelings. Carol responds by saying she likes him back. Easy.  Wouldn’t it be nice if life were always that simple?

Ultimately, the film’s central conflict is unfulfilled. The biggest challenge Carol faces is dealing with the wrath of those she is poised to replace, yet it’s left unclear whether she would self-sabotage her career in order to avoid alienating her father with her success. Carol briefly struggles with the thought of pulling back from claiming the life she wants. There is tension when she avoids confronting her father, but then her supporters quickly come to the rescue. Had Carol been granted space to waver independently between successes and failures, her character would appear more empathetic, and audiences would enjoy watching her quirky personality evolve.

Carol’s success is further downplayed when the studio executive (Geena Davis) tells her that she was not the best person for the job, she was chosen merely because she is a woman. The conflict is contrived. If Carol satisfies the executive’s need of a woman voice-over artist, isn’t she the best person for the job? This is one of the most interesting points of the film. What constitutes “the best”?  Is it some absolute scientific measure of frequency and pitch, or is a conglomeration of factors including the desired effects on the psyche of the audience?

In a World attempts to address the battle of the sexes, but its treatment of this topic is superficial. Jokes about shoe size and warrior princesses leave audiences wanting more substance. Likewise, the men are portrayed as young boys in adult clothes and most of the women characters matter only in relation to the men in their lives. A more intriguing question might be: why does it matter if the voice-over artist is a man or a woman?

This is a coming of age film where the protagonist ends up changing location, not her mindset. Hardship and failure elude Carol, rendering her achievements less significant. Even her father’s self-improvement is not much of his own doing, but the result of an ultimatum from his girlfriend. Finally, the film’s direction is confusing. Audiences will be entertained by spots of humor, but frustrated by a wandering plot and underdeveloped themes.