"The Essential Vegan Travel Guide" & Interview with the Author, The Vegan Word!by Randi / June 30, 2016
One time, in this screenwriting competition I entered, the judges said my characters were flames (that means good) but that there wasn’t really a plot driving their actions forward. If I could, I would go back in time and say to them, well, invariably white dudes, listen, August Wilson did it, so…
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a play from 1982, not a new play as I must admit I thought because I never heard of it before it won the Olivier for Best Revival of a Play this year. That’s the Oliviers (West End), not the Tonys (Broadway), so just keep that in mind. (Actually it won the Tony for Best Play when it premiered!) And this is a good production, with some powerful performances and an excellent set, but goodness, I did not feel the material working. There is no plot. Nothing really happens, and yet so much feels about to happen that it’s almost disappointing.
Ma Rainey was the mother (get it, ma) of the blues, an incredible musical talent and mentor to other queens like Bessie Smith. In fact, my previous exposure to her was mostly due to Mo’Nique in the movie “Bessie” with Queen Latifah. She was so good, Latifs. They both were! I would have loved if the movie showed more of Ma and her relationship with Bessie, so I was so excited for a play that was all about her. Her life seemed beyond compelling. I was pumped!
I was also so psyched to hear her sing a lot, as I assumed she would. I mean, I knew it wasn’t produced as a musical, it was a play, but so was “Lady Day” and that was all music (2 hours with Billie Holiday – you’re gonna want it to be mostly music!). I figured it was technically a play because, while full of music, it wasn’t music that advanced the plot or composed part of the plot, as musicals are defined. (For laymen: “Pitch Perfect”, for example, isn’t a ‘musical’ despite being very musical, because the characters actively know they are singing and it’s not like they are living in song or singing their feelings instead of talking them. The music isn’t the plot.)
Well, surprise, Ma Rainey isn’t even that kind of play.
It’s mostly Ma’s band, four musicians with differing viewpoints on life and race, talking in the rehearsal room before Ma arrives to record a session, and then talking after Ma leaves the session. Ma is a featured character, if that. I’m sure if you know this in advance, you’re good to go, but I didn’t, so this was incredibly disappointing. Ma sang for about 20 seconds and it was RG because she was played by the great Sharon D. Clarke, but then it was all talk and no Ma.
So what is it about, this revered play from the esteemed August Wilson? It’s Chicago in the 1920s and the band is being taken advantage of by the white producers, of course, and arguing about race and their experience as black men at this time. They talk and argue and wait, along with the producers as they wait for Ma. And they wait some more. They’re being held in the basement rehearsal room in the recording studio, which we several parts of in this impressive set.
The four men are Cutler, Toledo, Slow Drag (I can’t, best name ever), and Levee. Toledo is wise and cautious. Levee is a live wire who is loud and reckless. He’s obsessed with how he presents himself to the world and thinks he’s entitled to a lot more than he gets in life, which is undoubtedly true given both his talent and the fact that he’s a black man, but his abrasive attitude is a turnoff to even the people who could be his friends. While they wait, the men argue about their position in the world, about their struggles and how to get on, while Levee shows off his new white shoes that he bought. He also gives some new songs he wrote to the white producers and is sure they are going to buy them. We hear really upsetting stories from all the men, especially Levee’s personal background is enough to make you feel sympathetic for anyone. Everything they say reinforces how unjust and unfair society was and still is. Their commentary on race is compelling and provocative – it just doesn’t make for the most gripping plot.
When Ma comes really late, she sings a tiny bit, and pisses off the white producers because of how late everything is and because she demands that her stuttering nephew do the intro to the title song, which takes a while, and everyone gets pissed off, and then Ma leaves. The entire part that was advertised was the tiniest part of the show. Sharon was really good too. Darn.
After the session, the men retreat to their basement cave and argue more. Why aren’t they going home? (It’s unclear that they are waiting to be paid, which I just looked up.) They finished the session. I was confused! And one of them was fired! I was like past Bunuel asking questions of future Bunuel’s art in “Midnight in Paris’ – “why don’t they just leave?” Somehow the little micro (or not so micro) aggressions build and build to a point that you can’t believe it reaches.
The play, depending on how it’s performed, can build to this climax in a way where even though it is a shock, it’s not a surprise that something catastrophic happened like this. But in this production, it was so unexpected and didn’t feel earned. Not like ooh that’s an intriguing surprise, more like, that’s action from a different play entirely. How it was directed and acted, no matter how good the individual parts were, it didn’t feel like they had a cohesive goal. I honestly don’t know what the play was trying to achieve. The tone was all over the place. Amid the harrowing stories, there would be this air of levity in the direction of the show, almost treating it like a comedy, and I couldn’t tell what it wanted to be.
Also, I get that most people probably are more familiar with this show, but I found the advertising misleading. The main show art is of Ma at a microphone. If you saw that, what would you think the show was about? Same as I did, right? I should have done research but most people don’t. Not since the advertising campaign for “The Scottsboro Boys” in London have I found marketing materials to be so misleading. Nonetheless, I have to applaud the acting across the board and the production values. A lot of the men’s long talks were provocative and challenging, and it really does say genuinely important things about injustice and race. As monologues, they are effective, but as a play it is stagnant.
Related Posts
It’s Oscars Weekend! Predictions & Thoughts on the Academy Awards
The Oscars are Sunday! Prepare by reading about the important films here.
I shouldn’t be surprised that the absolute shitshow of our society has extended its reach to the Oscars, my favorite thing, but here we are. The 91st Academy Awards will have the inauspicious repute of being the ceremony that went from bad to worse for no good reason. If anyone knows Donna Gigliotti and Glenn Weiss, the Oscars producers, and John Bailey, the Academy president, I hope you show them this to read and then give them a lollipop so those babies feel better after I’m done. Guys, the FORK is wrong with you? You’re in the entertainment business but can’t think of a comedian other than Kevin Hart? I’m not even going to list potential comedians who would have been better – and who are not homophobic assholes (or the shortest man in America) – because it’s endless. Yet instead of finding a decent, funny human to host, you decided that the longest awards ceremony, the one that famously becomes untenable halfway through, didn’t need a host this year. Were you trying to make a pissy little statement about how much you love Kevin Hart and hate tolerance, because that’s the only thing that anyone gets from your behavior. Why are idiots in charge of literally EVERYTHING?
My favorite part is that after everyone already hated your decision, you doubled down on how wrong you are for this job and decided that not all the Best Song nominees would perform, only the ones you really liked. That’s some real unfair bullshit, to the viewers and to the nominees. And then just for shits and giggles you decided to cut the cinematography, editing, and makeup awards from the telecast, not like those things are important for movies or anything. Best of all, Queen & Adam Lambert (who I love, don’t get me wrong) are now set to perform a Queen medley on the telecast – even though none of those songs are nominated, even though there supposedly wasn’t enough time for actual nominated songs or crucial awards to get on air, even though Bohemian Rhapsody is not a good movie yet y’all keep acting like it is. What is going on at the Academy HQ?
The whole shebang now reeks of desperation and incompetence. I am absolutely beyond hysterical at the idea of Jose Andres – yes, the chef – presenting one of the Best Picture nominees. I assume it is going to be Roma and that this came about because Donna and Glenn were like “oh it’s about Mexico, didn’t we just meet a Mexican recently? Oh no, we had Mexican food. Let’s have a Mexican food maker present it! They probably know each other!” Jose is Spanish, not that they care, and a food maker is called a chef, Donna.
Hopefully, the winners won’t be as big of a mess as the show is, but that’s a really high hope considering the nominees are a g-d mess to begin with. We’ll get into that as we discuss the main categories – the only important ones, as Donna and Glenn taught me – below, but suffice it to say, it’s a shitshow. Remember to read about the big movies of the year before the show starts (on Sunday, 8pm EST, ABC).
Below, I’m going to list the nominees not in alphabetical order but in order of how I would be voting, with my pick at the top, because that’s who I am and that’s who I care about.
BEST PICTURE
BlacKkKlansman
A Star is Born
Green Book
Roma
The Favourite
Black Panther
Bohemian Rhapsody
Vice
Will win: Roma
Should win: BlindspottingI can’t remember another season where the actual best film of the year wasn’t even nominated, so that’s why my ordering might seem a little weird. No, I don’t think BlacKkKlansman is the best picture, but it’s the most deserving out of these. Spike Lee’s latest joint tells a riveting true story with a little humor, a lot of tension, and with a pointed reminder of how forked America is right now. It’s a good-to-great movie but its purpose and importance to our society right now is what pushes it over the top and gets my vote. I adored A Star is Born and wish it was doing better this season (it came out too early and lost momentum). However, it takes my second spot and not the top because it’s not the year for an all-white romance to win. We need a political film to win. I enjoyed Green Book the most, and honestly can’t wait to watch it again just for Viggo’s stellar tah-yen slang, but I get that it’s a problematic white-focused race movie, which is not what we need right now. The winner will most likely be Roma, which I found pleasing to watch (and it will definitely win for cinematography, and should) and interesting yet lacking in any real story, especially for what’s now the frontrunner. Such a weird year, guys. What should be up there is the nearly flawless Can You Ever Forgive Me?, and it’s ludicrous that it’s not nominated. But it’s not as ludicrous as the snub for what was actually the best film of the year and the one that would be actually worthy of winning this award: Blindspotting.
BEST DIRECTOR
Alfonso Cuaron: Roma
Yorgos Lanthimos: The Favourite
Spike Lee: BlacKkKlansman
Pawel Pawlikowski: Cold War
Adam McKay: Vice
Will win: Alfonso
Should win: Bradley Cooper
Can’t believe I have to keep typing his name: McKayIt is BEYOND (burger) insanity that Bradley Cooper was snubbed. Sure it was his first time directing, and he’ll be fine, but his work on A Star Is Born deserved this recognition. He would have been my choice to win this award. I have already written at length (I know, at very length) about Vice and about how much I just freaking want to slap Adam McKay across the face, but even if you liked that movie I can’t see how it’s sloppy rough direction impressed you.
I would be happy if Yorgos, who is always gonna Yorgos, won, because he seems like just the coolest guy. I was terrified of him from seeing his movies, but after listening to his interview with Marc Maron (on his WTF Podcast), I have to say I’m a huge fan of him now. He is responsible for taking The Favourite, which began as a straightforward period piece, and turning it into a super fun absurdist comedy. He deserves all the credit if you liked that film; he made it happen. But Alfonso gets my vote out of this crop, because his work on Roma is truly magnificent. Even if you don’t like the movie (I’m not saying he should win for screenplay), it’s undeniable that he created a visual masterpiece, with every single frame considered and important to his story. Sure we might not all agree on what the story was or why it was all important, but it’s clear that it’s a masterclass in direction (and cinematography, which he will/should also win).
BEST ACTRESS
Melissa McCarthy: Can You Ever Forgive Me?
Glenn Close: The Wife
Lady Gaga: A Star is Born
Olivia Colman: The Favourite
Yalitza Aparicio: Roma
Will win: Glenn Close
Should win: Melissa or GlennThis is definitely the hardest category for me this year, because it’s such a great one. I can’t think of anyone I would sub in. I know it looks like I didn’t enjoy Colman’s performance or that I wouldn’t be happy voting for Gaga, but I would be thrilled for any of the top four to win. All five were great performances, but I think it’s safe to say Yalitza’s was a surprise and she should be honored by the nomination. As for the top four, they would all be deserving winners. In other years, they could each be the standout. Lady Gaga’s debut as a leading lady was more than anyone expected or could have hoped for. She, like every part of A Star is Born, was just right. Olivia was hysterical and frightening and pitch perfect, and I’m glad America is finally noticing how great she is. If forced, I would have a hard time choosing between Melissa and Glenn, when both were spellbinding in wonderful movies. Melissa has proved to be one of the best actresses working right now, a delightful surprise, and she keeps surprising us with every new role she takes. Glenn, we’ve known how amazing she is for like a century now, but she rarely gets the acclaim she deserves. She’s been nominated six or seven times and hasn’t won, so I hope she wins just as much as I hope Melissa wins. Glenn’s role was mainly throwing mystifying looks, and she did a phenomenal job, but for my vote the edge goes to Melissa for disappearing so completely into her performance.
BEST ACTOR
Viggo Mortensen: Green Book
Bradley Cooper: A Star Is Born
Rami Malek: Bohemian Rhapsody
Christian Bale: Vice
*Didn’t see: Willem Dafoe: At Eternity’s Gate, but I love him and I bet he’s RG.
Will win: Rami
Should win: Viggo or BradleyChoosing between Viggo and Bradley is surprisingly difficult! I didn’t realize before this very moment that I would have a big struggle on my hands if I were an Academy voter. Bradley was perfection, and has been ever since he played Jenny Garner’s friend on Alias, cementing his place in the history books with his epic recitation of the words “I’m here, she’s here, we made it!” I love that Bradley worked on deepening his voice with a vocal coach for two years before filming his movie. I love everything about his work on A Star Is Born. But my vote would probably go to Viggo because seriously, I forgot that he was Viggo Mortensen. He’s played RULLY scary characters, like in most of his movies, yet in Green Book he became the most lovable (if slightly racist but THEN HE GETS BETTER) goofball and every single word out of his mouth made me pee myself laughing. I forgot all about his work in A History of Violence (yikes!) and his sauna fight in Eastern Promises (double yikes and ow!) and instead I was hundo p watching one of my relatives talking bout faccia brutes and stoonads. He was AMAZING. He should be getting so much more acclaim. Rami was wonderful, don’t get me wrong, but I feel like at least 70% of his performance was the fake teeth and it was just so distracting. Also, it’s hard to win me over with a character based so much on musical performance when it wasn’t him singing. Lastly, I found Bale’s performance to be more an impression of Dick Cheney, with some Batman thrown in, instead of an interpretation.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Rachel Weisz: The Favourite
Emma Stone: The Favourite
Regina King: If Beale Street Could Talk
Amy Adams: Vice
Marina De Tavira: Roma
Will win: who tf knows, probably Regina?
Should win: Rachel WeiszI know, I know. Amy Adams is the Danny Burstein of the Oscars, and NEITHER of them should be. Amy Adams is incredible in everything, but I just didn’t feel her performance in Vice. It wasn’t that she was so unlikable; I honestly wanted her to be more unlikable. It just didn’t feel cohesive to me. I couldn’t pin down what her Lynne was supposed to be. I wish she could win this year for Arrival; now that was an Oscar-worthy performance (and movie). I would absolutely vote for Regina King if Beale Street was composed of just two scenes – the incredible early scene with both families and the one in Puerto Rico – but other than that, she didn’t seem to be in it very much. I wish they used her more, because she was the best part. And I would be happy for her to win, absolutely, but the two gals from the Favourite were the best, and Rachel was the best best. Her role was the most important to the film, and she was, like gum, perfection.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Richard E. Grant: Can You Ever Forgive Me?
Sam Elliott: A Star Is Born
Sam Rockwell: Vice
Mahershala Ali: Green Book
Adam Driver: BlacKkKlansman
Will win: Mahershala Ali
Should win: Richard!!!It boggles my mind that Mahershala has been leading this awards season. He’s fantastic, don’t get me wrong, and he is solid in Green Book, but except for that one climactic scene in the rain, his character was stoic and deadpan most of the time, not exactly the stuff of Oscar-winning performances. I just don’t get how that performance has risen above the others so far. My favorite supporting actor this year is without a doubt Richard E. Grant, who owns every frame he’s in in CYEFM with a captivating charm. He’s hilarious, he’s disconcerting, he’s infuriating at times, and he’s likable throughout all of it. I would vote for him in a heartbeat. My second choice is a little harder to make, because both Sams were wonderful. Elliott couldn’t NOT be in A Star Is Born; he was the most perfect choice for that role. I just wish he had more to do (like, as I’ve said before, be shown taking care of the dog at the end so we didn’t have to worry), but what he did have he did so incredibly well. Rockwell, always wonderful, is doing what Christian Bale doesn’t do – an interpretation instead of an imitation – and his W is pretty terrific. Mahershala and Adam are great, and always are, but neither role felt special enough.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
A Star Is Born
Can You Ever Forgive Me?
BlacKkKlansman
If Beale Street Could Talk
The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
Will win: BlacKkKlansman
Should win: A Star is BornThe only thing, literally the only tiny thing, stopping me from rooting for CYEFM is that it did the thing I hate at the end, where the character ends up writing the story we just saw. I forking hate that. The first time someone did that, I’m sure it was cute and everyone was like ‘oh wow I didn’t see that coming’ but now I’m like could you maybe trust the story enough to skip the cutesy ending? (I hope Jennie Snyder Urman is reading this.) Other than that, it would be my choice for such a tight, fantastic script. But as things stand, I would be voting for A Star Is Born, for how it took a classic/old story and made it relevant and interesting again. But I’m fine with BlacKkKlansman winning, obviously, since it was such a strong film. The last two would not be on my short list.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Green Book
The Favourite
Roma
Vice
Didn’t see: First Reformed
Will win: The Favourite
Should win: BlindspottingThis award is often the real Best Picture award, and I love when the most deserving original screenplay actually wins even more than I do for any other category. Probably because I think the writing is the most important part of anything. But this year it won’t be the real BP. I get why The Favourite is such a good choice, and a likely winner, but it bothers me a tad that one of its writers is the one who wrote the original dry period piece that is nothing like its end product. I mean, she should still be recognized, it’s just weird that like, this isn’t the movie she wrote. If anyone should be recognized for the success of The Favourite, it’s Yorgos for seeing its potential to be another of his weird ass projects. My vote out of this bunch would be Green Book because I honestly enjoyed it so much, and I want whoever wrote the stage direction “Viggo cradles the motel telephone and folds up an entire pizza like a burrito and houses it” to win an Oscar. The fact that Vice was nominated over Blindspotting, or over anything, is a real low-point of the season. Also, Bo Burnham’s Eighth Grade – which freaking WON the Writers Guild Award – should be up there as well. What is wrong with voters? (for anything?)
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Spider-Man Too: 2 Many Spider-Men
Incredibles 2
Isle of Dogs
Mirai
Ralph Breaks the Internet
I saw literally none of these.Anyway, I’m pretty tired from thinking about how messed up this year’s Oscars are so I’m gonna stop here. If you are doing an office pool or something, ask @millytweet on twitter for whatever I didn’t cover. This is the first year where I’m not too sad to be missing the telecast. Without the host’s monologue or a fun opening song about all the nominees to look forward to, I don’t think I’ll lose anything by reading the results the following day. THAT’S SAD. I hope I’m wrong. Honestly, the only thing I really care about is, if the documentary RBG wins, that RBG herself gets a statue. It would be forking bullshirt if she didn’t, considering the best thing about that movie was the footage of my queen talking and also she deserves every award. You hear me, Academy? Uhh STOONADS!
A German Life at the Bridge Theatre: Maggie Smith is a Treasure; This Show is Not
It’s Theatre Thursday! A German Life is playing at London’s Bridge Theatre until May 11.
First of all, let me be clear that Maggie Smith is one of a handful of global treasures (pronounced tray-sure, like fellow old-lady-treasure Emily Gilmore). If she wanted to be an honorary Golden Girl I’d allow it. She’s the best. I love her. I wish her decades more of life and health and work.
A German Life is one of the most painful theatrical events I’ve ever had the non-playsure of experiencing. And not in a good ‘oh that was dramatic and heavy in a necessary way’ kind of painful. I mean it was torture. It was almost two hours straight of wondering in agony whether Maggie Smith was losing her short-term memory and forgetting lines (the thought of which was heartbreaking), or whether this was a purposeful choice for her character. Either way, it was painful to watch. It was hundo p when you visit an older person in a nursing home and you listen to their rambling stories and how it takes them a year to get out one sentence, and once they get the sentence out, they repeat it three times so they can figure out where they wanted to go from there and you’re just like OH MY GOD SPIT IT OUT but you can’t because that’s a horrible thing to think and say (when you aren’t talking to a Nazi).
And yes, all this means that Maggie was entirely successful in her portrayal (it had to be an acting decision, right, because Maggie Smith is still IN HER PRIME) of a 105-year-old woman. I mean, it’s incredible that a 105-year-old woman managed to communicate all that she did. But realism and accuracy in the portrayal doesn’t automatically make for good theatre.
What also doesn’t make for good theatre is that the show gets its message across in about 10 minutes, and the rest of the time is just playing that same one note for longer. And the message…isn’t enough. In A German Life, Maggie plays Brunhilde Pomsel, former secretary to Joseph Goebbels during WWII. The real Pomsel broke her silence at age 105 when she spoke to a group of filmmakers about her life. This play, by Christopher Hampton, is based on that. Maggie sits in a chair as Brunhilde and talks to us about her life like we are filming her for the documentary. The significance of her testimony is that she was a Nazi, who worked in Goebbels’ propaganda wing, who doesn’t think she did anything wrong. In her recounting of wartime, she spends more time explaining her favorite suit she got from Mrs. Goebbels than sharing anything she knew about what was happening in the war. It’s an effective portrait of willful ignorance, I’ll give it that. We spend this time with a self-involved person who hasn’t learned any lesson still, and so we are supposed to reflect on what makes someone ignore such atrocity, and what we would have done differently, if anything.
What bothers me about this show is how frustrated I am that the subtle messaging is not going to reach some people. Instead of thinking how horrifying it is that this woman still doesn’t get it, still thinks she was a victim for what she faced post-war, some people are going to go ‘hmm that really makes you think, there could be very fine people on both sides.’ I’m all for subtle theatre, but our audience needed to be told more clearly that Nazis were bad. I’m not joking. As usual, this show was a prime example of the disturbing humor of London audiences. Without fail, whenever there’s a soul-shocking line that would make normal humans breathe in sharply or widen their eyes or gasp, we’re with an audience that laughs. The most alarming example in my experience previously was when, in Caroline, or Change, Caroline told the young Jewish boy in her care that his people go to hell. It’s a big gasp moment. OUR AUDIENCE LAUGHED. And not in a nervous laughter way that some people on Broadway did; this was in a ‘oh that’s funny because making fun of Jews is funny’ way. Well, the Bridge audience at A German Life matched that distress by laughing every single time Maggie’s character made fun of Jews, especially their appearance, their penny-pinching ways, and especially when she motioned slightly at her nose to comment about Jews’ big noses. The audience roared. This is why anti-Semitism is back; it’s by popular demand.
And that’s why this show didn’t work for me and mostly frustrates me. It’s extremely subtle in its message, because all we get is her story and her words. It only works for people who know that the Nazis were bad and that anti-Semitism was, is, wrong. So, today, when more and more people don’t realize that anti-Semitism is wrong, they laugh along with Brunhilde like it’s their granny and then come away thinking ‘maybe not all Nazis were bad! She seemed fine!’ It’s ridiculous that I have to say this, today, but apparently we as a society haven’t reached the point where subtlety in anti-Nazi messaging makes any headway. I know some of you are like ‘you’re assuming all of that just because people laughed at the wrong things?’ No, I’m assuming all of that because of the conversations I have had every single day since 2016 about what is or is not anti-Semitic, and how often I’ve been told that just because something is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean it’s bad. When we still have people who are like ‘eh but Jews’, a restrained portrait of a non-actively-evil Nazi isn’t going to get through to anyone who needs it.
INFORMATION
I’ve previously raved about the human-friendly, modern design of the Bridge, but that was when I sat in the stalls. Sitting in the weird nether-region of the Gallery 1, which is really just more stalls at the back walls of the theatre, separated from the regular stalls by a half-step and a banister. It felt much more cramped than the regular stalls and at a weird side angle. Definitely won’t be sitting there again.
Infuriatingly, the show started 10 minutes late, in order to seat all latecomers. This is because this show has a policy of no admission or readmission once the show begins – but they also publicized the policy of ‘no latecomers allowed in’. Get your story straight! Don’t hold the curtain for people who are 10 minutes late, man alive.
