The 5th-grade production of Macbeth: An eerie highlight in Slings & Arrows season 2

The second season of "Slings & Arrows" will focus on the production of Macbeth, in which the "ghost" of Oliver will speak to Jeffrey and guide him through the production, in an eerie echo of the ghostliness of the play. In the 2nd episode we meet the lead actor, Henry Breedlove, and he's such a pompous ass - this will be great. We can see Jeffrey seething as Breedlove draws all the attention to himself and basically takes over the first table reading of the play. So the conflict between them will move the season along, all to the good. I'm still troubled by the lack of clear definition of Jeffrey and the late Oliver and their relation. I get that Jeffrey is a little mentally unbalanced and prone to outbursts when he thinks he's speaking to Oliver - what to him (and to us as viewers) is a conversation to others is a Tourette-like mania. But is Jeffrey a genius director? We don't see that. Was Oliver? At times he's written off as an old-fashioned, out-of-touch has-been, but elsewhere he's a revered figure and an inspiration to Jeffrey. It's just never made clear enough, and I think honestly that the writers want to have it both ways, whatever way will suit the needs of a particular scene of episode. A highlight of this episode was the 5th-grade production of Macbeth, all done in summary (no Shakespearean language) in its simplicity and in the innocence of the young faces makes the horror and spookiness and violence the play all the more real and frightening. When Jeffrey gets the idea to do the play on a thrust stage, we actually get a chill - who wants to be that close to Macbeth? Scenes of Richard meeting with a PR "branding" expert are great, too.

A tragedy that ends up as a comedy : Hamlet, in Slings & Arrows

First episode of Season 2 of "Slings & Arrows" is really or seems to be the final episode of season 1, as the crew wraps the production of Hamlet and indulges in a cast party and which there are various declarations of love, inebriations, fights, and spats - typical cast party. The tragedy ends up as a comedy, as the business manager apologizes for being such a shit, joins in the fun to sing a G&S aria, drunkenly talks about winning the drama award in high school, pledges a great season for next year. Jeffrey and Ellen get together, Kate and Jack leave together for Hawaii, all's right with the world. But on the horizon for the next season is a production of MacBeth, with all the trauma and superstition that evokes among theater people, so we'll see how it goes. The series continues to be warm and amusing, if not an absolute knockout - each episode does have its moments and its vivid sketches of character - perhaps especially of those on the periphery of the show, e.g., the stage manager and the executive assistant. Much of this episode concerned Jeffrey's working backstage during intermission giving actors "notes" for their final performance - some of whom are very resistant and just want to mail it in. Does seem odd to be giving these kinds of notes at the final show - in part it seems the writers just wanted to work in a few more points about Hamlet (OK) or else wanted to demonstrate that theater really matters in a big way to Jeffrey (I think we should get this point by now).

A revealing and entirely credible look at the evil of Bush-Chenyvil

"Fair Game" is fairly good - by no means great. On the plus side, this film about the Valerie Plame-Joe Wilson incident, in which Wilson wrote an NYT op-ed documenting that the GW Bush assertion that Iraq was buying enriched uranium (Bush made the clain in a State of the Union address justifying the invasion) was patently false, which led Cheney's team (Scooter Libby was the heavy and of course became the fall guy -Cheney himself never ever did anything wrong) to out Wilson's wife as a CIA operative and make their lives a living hell. The movie seems very closely based on the facts as we know them (I suspect it might have played up the importance of Plame in the CIA and her bravery), and it's entirely revealing about the Bush admin. I work in government and can assure anyone that there are plenty of times that someone in public life makes a statement or writes a piece that the agency head feels is very damaging and wrong - but our response is always to respond with reason in a public forum. I have never once heard anyone say: hey, let's go after him. Let's dish the dirt on his wife, etc. But it's entirely believable that Cheney et al. acted that way all the time, and if I never see the image of him or Bush again that will be just fine, the movie does a service in reminding us of their nefarious nature. On the down side, Fair Game stays on the surface of events. We rarely get a glimpse into the interior lives of Plame and Wilson - what made her choose such a career, how did they get together, what makes them tick? Naomi Watts (as Plame) and Sean Penn (as Wilson) are both really good, though, as they always are. Amazing the range of roles Penn has played recently.

More literary and intelligent that most American TV: Slings & Arrows

Ultimately, by the end of the first season, "Slings & Arrows" does win you (me) over, despite its flaws and limitations, as a real sweet story that does capture the essence of life in a provincial theater troupe (or among any group of actors, for that matter), that's funny at times, and that is actually quite insightful about Shakespeare and about directing on stage. In fact, the work the director, Jeffrey, does with his troupe, especially in episodes 5 and 6, is among the highlights of the series. Series hinted at the outset that Jeffrey was a revolutionary director, and in fact he's not - he's traditional, in ways that have probably largely vanished from stage direction and have definitely vanished from movie direction - in that he focuses on character, on helping his actors see who the character is, his or her condition, motivations, feelings. His doing so helps us understand Hamlet, too, which is great - made me think about going back and reading the play, or even seeing it live, if that were possible. As anyone would expect from scene one of this series, things will work out well at the end - theater will triumph, the evil Holly will get her comeuppance (I wonder if we'll see more of her in season 2? I do wish her downfall had been more dramatic, but still.) I am still troubled by a few elements - the lack of clarity about Jeffrey's character (would have been much stronger, I believe, if he didn't dress in all 6 episodes like a lunatic), and in Oliver's character. (Is he an old-fashioned out-of-it director or Jeffrey's mentor? Is he an old queen or a sexual rival? Series goes back and forth on this - as if it started out with one premise then modified that concept as series progressed.) Nevertheless, a lot of fun and way more intelligent and literary than almost anything on American TV. Oh, Canada!

A movie that succeeds where thousands have failed: The Secret in Their Eyes

"The Secret in their Eyes" definitely jumps to the top of the list as one of the best movies of 2010, even one of the best of the decade - a totally compelling story with lots of surprises and an absolutely terrifying end (which I will not even hint at) - a story so smart, it succeeds where thousands of movies have failed, right from its premise: starts with an aging man whom we soon learn is a retired jurist (in Argentina) who's trying to write a novel that is obviously based on a case he dealt with when he was a court investigator (the exact roles of the officials not ever totally clear to an American viewer but it doesn't matter much); the case was a brutal rape-murder, and a lot of things went wrong during the investigation. So first of all its a police procedural and a really good one. Also a strange and tormented love story, as the man (Esposito) shows his manuscript to the fellow investigator whom he loved way back then - she plays a big role in the investigation, but their lives go off on separate paths, till now. So we see the novel he's writing, his present-day life as he reconnects with the beautiful former colleague, further investigations in the present, and the suffering he feels as he tries to capture the truth and to write a good book. Part of the beauty is that Esposito is obviously not a good writer, his manuscript leaves out all the important emotions, but we see that full story in this great movie that embraces the manuscript. It's about love and politics and vengeance - a total knockout that in a better world would have a wide audience.

What we learn about Hamlet from Slings & Arrows

Episode 5 of "Slings & Arrows" season 1 takes a turn toward the serious, and that's all to the good I think. The show is weakest in its attempts at high jinx in that the comedy is more subtle and restrained, the best elements are how accurately it captures the world of theater and of an acting troupe - in this episode we for the first time focus on the production of Hamlet and how Jeffrey will bring it to life, and we see some pretty good scenes of his directing - how he gets various actors to really understand their characters (or tries to), culminating in his excellent direction of Jack Crew, the action-movie star hired to play Hamlet (and draw in a crowd). I like these scenes a lot in that they teach us about the practice of theater and about Shakespeare, too, for that matter. They're hardly revolutionary - just a good director at work with a modestly talented cast - which does show the limitation of this largely likable series - the implication from the outset that Jeffrey is a genius actor-director who went off the rails is never made good on. He's no Hall-Sellers-Brooks-et al., just a pro. I'm not sure what to make of the ghost of Oliver appearing - it's a good device in some ways, but the series cannot really settle on the degree to which Jeffrey is insane or impaired. Maybe that's a strength, the ambiguity, I don't know - it's obvious that to other Jeffrey seems to be delusional and suffering from perhaps Tourettes. I think it would help if they had him look less disheveled, and would also help if he weren't such an obvious leading-man type. We'll see how it wraps.

A good series - but what's missing? Why isn't it great? : Slings & Arrows

At last Jeffrey Tenant (?) takes over as director of the New Burbage Shakespeare Theatre Festival's ill-fated Hamlet in the Canadian series "Slings & Arrows." Good, but bad. The pretentious and craven director they'd brought in, with his snide remarks and leather pants and idiotic theories - emphasizing the "rotten" in the state of Denmark - was really pretty funny. Jeffrey is meant to be a super-talented director who's had a nervous breakdown (while playing Hamlet) and fears getting back onto the stage. Well, that's obviously where he's heading - he will not only direct but will take the lead, as the action-movie star who's been brought in to play Hamlet can barely read his lines (Oh, you angles... Stings and arrows ... ). This whole schema would be better and stronger if we could really see that Jeffrey was and still is a great actor and director, but we never do really see this convincingly. Still, he's likable enough, as is the whole cast really - the greatest strength is how well the show captures the nuances of theater types outside of the production, from the aging star to the ingenue to the apprentice, the visiting celebrity, and even the crew and the business staff. Part of the drama in episode 4 concerns the battle for control of the festival board - and I have to admit the obnoxious and scheming business agent and his control-freak, middle-brow girlfriend, Holly, are my faves to watch. The series grows on you a bit as it moves along, but I'm always kind of wanting to push it a little harder and make it better - make Jeffrey a great director, raise the stakes for him and for everyone - which I never feel when I'm watching a truly great series.