January 19, 2023
Allegiance with George Takei Comes to Londonby Randi / January 26, 2023It’s Theatre Thursday! Today’s show is the premiere of A Mother’s Song: A New Folk Musical, which just played the Macrobert Arts Centre at University of Stirling last week.
I am realizing that I’m as close to a groupie as one can be for a relatively new Scottish musical theatre composer. Cool! After falling truly madly deeply in love with Finn Anderson’s Islander a few years ago, we had to go to Stirling to see the premiere of this New Folk Musical, A Mother’s Song. A Mother’s Song has promise and could be great. It’s a fully fleshed out full-length musical with some real moments of gloriousness that gave me chills. Anderson has collaborated with director Tania Azevedo to create this show about motherhood throughout many, many generations of one family line, from long-ago Scotland to present day Brooklyn via West Virginia (for once the American accents were Southern for a reason!). They tell the generation-weaving story with music that blends traditional folk songs with modern takes on them, plus some plain old modern songs.
Anderson has his own sound, that folksy sea-shanty-loving if-you-close-your-eyes-you-can-see-the-Highland-coos-in-the-foggy-fields sound with its tight, sometimes spellbinding multi-part harmonies. This score had several moments where I was like ‘yes! this is it! the Finn sound!’, and if he finds and adds some more of that, this would be a score you could compare more to Islander. That show’s amazing use of overlapping percussion to aid in storytelling is largely missing here, and would really serve this show well (also it’s just an awesome element to his sound that I missed). The great moments happen mainly in the first act, especially when the use of traditional Scottish folk songs blend seamlessly with his new songs. When our oldest ancestor Cait (Kirsty Findlay, also in Islander) sings the traditional The Four Marys and it goes right into An Unwelcome Visitor (the visitor in question being a bebe, damn), WHEW but that was pure fire! It helps that Findlay is one of the strongest performers I’ve seen in years, so keyed into nuance and able to harness the power of her voice in precise little acrobatics that serve as a masterclass in how to act through singing (none of that ‘I’m going to speak a few words for emphasis even though that’s never really effective’ stuff from her). She was so incredible in Islander and here she proves again she’s in a class of her own.
Cait’s storyline, of a minister’s wife who is unwillingly pregnant, weaves with her descendant Jean’s storyline, of a 16-year-old girl who gets pregnant, is not really fussed about it!, and runs away to have the bebe in the new world. Blythe Jandoo’s Jean is as likeable as her real name is baller, with maybe the most enjoyable story of the bunch since at least (compared to Cait’s) you know you aren’t going to have to think about the precursor to wire hangers. These two stories (and these two performers) rise above the more modern ones and are moving, powerful, compelling.
As for the modern story, we have Bethany Tennick (the performer and one of the writers of Land, from last year’s Fringe, and one of the two Islanders) as Sarah, a PhD candidate but also a professor (once again I am begging British playwrights to let me just have a once-over on an scripts that take place in America just to find inconsistencies like this) living in Brooklyn in an apartment she just bought with her newly qualified lawyer girlfriend (I repeat what I just parenthesized) (in the USA no one is described as newly qualified or fully qualified like in the UK, you’ve either passed the Bar or not yet) (also no way this new lawyer is a human rights lawyer in a firm, no). She is holding onto a box from her deceased Aunt Betty from West Virginia, full of cassette tapes of Betty’s research into the folk songs that shape their history. Which is a nice framing device, but in practice Betty’s scenes work kind of like a lecture and weren’t as enjoyable as the historical scenes. I did find the info she shares interesting, but I like school (we were in a university after all, I’ll give you that).
One thing I truly loved though was the use of Scots language! LOVES IT. I went home and immediately read some Rabbie Burns. Okay no I didn’t but I meant to. It was so well done, and yes there were two screens with captions (very helpful and only blocked my view a handful of times!) but I think it was clear what was being said without relying on reading. Kirsty in particular did such a good job expressing the musicality of the language I was like fully ready to add another language to my Duolingo to forget about in a week.
So as the stories weave and build, the show is intriguing and can be moving, but there are a few spots that need work. Specifically, the cut from one of the greatest songs, Cait singing about the rage inside of her, that goes right to the modern song about the modern couple’s karaoke nights?? It was a harsh juxtaposition, and it felt completely incongruous, able to be lifted right out of the show (and maybe should be). It also showed how much more compelling the historical stories are than the modern one.
Generally, I think the second act needs work. The show goes from 3-4 stories woven fairly nicely together in the first act, to being almost just one straightforward regular one-plot play in the second. Mainly, it’s a bit tedious, weaker than the first because it’s entirely about the modern storyline, and how their relationship ends because the aunt’s tapes made Sarah realize she wants kids? It’s all a little ‘wait what? listening to some tapes made you change your mind about a huge life decision?’ (It’s also peculiar that it’s been two years since aunt’s death. Maybe if it just happened (maybe even suddenly) then Bethany’s huge change of heart would be in part explained due to grief and guilt.)) But even if that was all substantiated, it’s just that no one cares as much about the modern storyline or this relationship as we do about the other two storylines. So having so little from the other two and instead having the whole act about this decoupling that we kind of are like ‘okay, whatever, you do you’ about, is a let down. And we lost the Finn sound. Needs more of those supertight multipart harmonies!
Also, the hardships compound so much that it feels a little like disaster porn, like everything that can go wrong or can be terrible will. At one point, the mood veers in a way that lets you see that a beloved character is deffo gonna die, and I said to myself, no, that’s too predictable, too overdone, too dire. And then of course she died like a second after I thought that. I understand the desire to show hardship – no one wants to see a story that pretends women had autonomy or all happy endings – but we’re getting a lotttt of sadness in this show. A spree of melancholy starts to feel a bit banal. You need to break up the tragedy with at least a drop of lightness.
However, I’m just sharing all these negative things because this show was overall really good and could be EXCELLENT with some of these changes, and obvs I want it to be EXCELLENT. You know I don’t go hoarse for a player with no potential! There’s a lot of brilliance already in it and sooo much more waiting to be revealed with just a little bit of digging.
Other thoughts: The old-timey costumes were well done. They seemed so elaborate and on point for such a short run. However, the modern clothes were wee headscratchers, namely the denim jumpsuit. I get how on paper that sounds right for a PhD candidate in Brooklyn but just take my word that Bethany deserves a cooler costume!
Lights: I remain convinced that lighting designers who enjoy adding in series of bright flashes of lights for ‘art’s sake’ have never sat in a seat to see how it actually plays. Luckily these artistic flashes were mainly at the start and finish, so it wasn’t too hard to cover my eyes, but it still was a rough go. I hope that this trend stops! Being temporarily blinded did not make me appreciate the dramaz any better!
INFORMATION
The show had a short run as its premiere last week, but given the people involved I’m sure we’ll be seeing future runs (hence why I’m writing all this).
Macrobert Arts Centre is REALLY HARD TO FIND AND TO FIND PARKING AT! It’s deep into the university campus and there are teeny little signs for finding it by walking and it was all very confusing and made me hearken back to trying to find an 8am lecture at college and not realizing it was a 70 minute walk to the top of campus! anxietyyyy!
The show ran about 2 1/2 hours with intermission (Act I ran 14:36 (at least that’s the last phone screen I saw) to 15:49, Act II ended at 17:06). The website said it ran 150 minutes so like, freaking bravo on that accuracy. The first act flewwww by, I guess because I loved it.
As I said there were two big screens on each side of the stage with captions, which are mostly helpful, although they kept saying its’ which is not a word. This was apparently one of only two special captioned performances, but if they shifted them a little so the screens don’t block the action for the first few rows, I don’t see why they can’t have these all the time (and like…for most shows! If someone needs them and they don’t hurt then…? yes I’ve started watching TV with subtitles what about it).
Related Posts
What Do You See: “Red” Brings Rothko Back to the West End
It’s Theatre Thursday! Today we are talking about “Red” on the West End, playing until the end of July.
Although giving props to white men right about now is the last thing we should be doing, I have to give some (is it a mass noun?) to white male playwright John Logan for being the first person to depict serious art and the modern art world without making me scream from the cringe. (“Sunday in the Park with George” is not about modern art and it is still the best depiction of the artist and the creative process ever to exist in the history of the world.) Whenever I’ve watched stories about self-important artists, fictional or not, or even just gone to a modern art museum (ew and oh no) my main thoughts have been ‘oh my gooooood get over yourself’. The whole ‘I have something to say and this splash of paint thrown against a singed canvas represents that but also progress and our birth’ charade makes my blood boil. Maybe it’s just because artists are so often portrayed in pop culture as pretentious wankers who really believe they have something urgent to say but they really really don’t, like Sky in “Red Oaks” (great under-the-radar show, go watch it). And all of her insufferable artist friends man alive they are the perfect example of this. You just want to Cher in Moonstruck all of them. Anyway before I start ranting even more about all the various portrayals of arrogant, affected artists in movies and TV, let’s talk about this representation of a modern artist that I actually bought into and understood, the play “Red”, about Mark Rothko’s tortured creative process.
Although giving props to white men right about now is the last thing we should be doing, I have to give some (is it a mass noun?) to white male playwright John Logan for being the first person to depict serious art and the modern art world without making me scream from the cringe. (“Sunday in the Park with George” is not about modern art and it is still the best depiction of the artist and the creative process ever to exist in the history of the world.) Whenever I’ve watched stories about self-important artists, fictional or not, or even just gone to a modern art museum (ew and oh no) my main thoughts have been ‘oh my gooooood get over yourself’. The whole ‘I have something to say and this splash of paint thrown against a singed canvas represents that but also progress and our birth’ charade makes my blood boil. Maybe it’s just because artists are so often portrayed in pop culture as pretentious wankers who really believe they have something urgent to say but they really really don’t, like Sky in “Red Oaks” (great under-the-radar show, go watch it). And all of her insufferable artist friends man alive they are the perfect example of this. You just want to Cher in Moonstruck all of them. Anyway before I start ranting even more about all the various portrayals of arrogant, affected artists in movies and TV, let’s talk about this representation of a modern artist that I actually bought into and understood, the play “Red”, about Mark Rothko’s tortured creative process.
It’s quite surprising that the subject of a play that made me more sympathetic to the strife and struggles of tormented artists is Mark Rothko, whose famous canvases are exactly the sort that would normally make me comment ‘well I made that same thing when I was five um what’ so yes this play is an achievement. It’s easy to recognize a Rothko work because it’s the one with a smudged rectangle of one color painted on it and if you’re lucky you get a second smudged rectangle of a different color. It’s the epitome of art that I simply don’t understand. It’s not that I like or dislike it but there’s only so much you can ‘feel’ from looking at a smudged rectangle, you know? How do people pay millions of dollars for big canvases with just a messy red square on it? Happily, these are questions that Logan addresses in his play “Red”, which originally premiered in London and now is back on the West End with original star Alfred Molina as Rothko.
Molina’s Rothko is the kind of performance that makes you forget that you are watching one. It quickly lets you dive in and accept that you’re watching Rothko the artist work, without ever thinking about his acting. It’s a rare performer that can so completely inhabit the character like that, erasing any trace of the actor or his well-known past performances and just presenting Rothko on that stage so fully. I didn’t get to see Fred (as his friends call him) perform this role on Broadway after its premiere but I understand now how he could have won that year’s Distinguished Performance Award from the Drama League, the best acting award there is really. I get how this performance could have defined what acting is and should be for a whole season. Fred’s costar in this production fares well but not nearly as expertly. Alfred Enoch plays Rothko’s assistant, and so we have probably the first play in the history of the theatre/the world where 100% of the cast is named Alfred. So, Enoch’s playing the role that won Eddie Redmayne a Tony. I imagine Redmayne, a stellar actor, probably also disappeared into the role, while Enoch, though he does a great job, still showed me that he was Acting quite often, mainly when using props – opening jars, mixing paint. It was often a little too stagey. Honestly, I kept thinking of the part in “Oh, Hello” when they talk about using props and John Mulaney says, “Please, do WAY too much business with the phone. Really show the audience you’ve been working with the prop all week” and Nick Kroll says “Really make a meal out of it.” So that’s what his performance, while commendable, kept reminding me of. A little too unnatural, maybe because most of his career has been onscreen (although that’s over right now #wesforever).
The play begins with the new (fictionalized) assistant arriving for his first day of work. I just looked up what the assistant’s name is and it’s Ken and I’ve never been so surprised by a fact in my life. I don’t think they ever say it but also like who is named Ken anymore. I guess this was supposed to take place more than 50 years ago but were there even Kens then? Ken (I mean) arrives in a suit for his first day of work and that’s cute but his work is in Rothko’s messy, splattered art studio so Rothko’s like “that’s cute, go change” and I like that he was a no bullshit kind of guy like that but at the same time sooooo full of bullshit like when he talks about how his red glop of paint represents everything anyone has ever felt and all that. But wait, like I said I don’t actually think that’s all utter bullshit anymore, actually, because of this play. Watching the creative process and hearing the artist debate what his work means with another artist, kind of in their own Socratic method to get to the heart of the matter, was enlightening for me, a renowned modern art truther.
Mark and Ken work together to produce Mark’s famous four murals for the new Four Seasons restaurant in the Seagram building in Midtown Manhattan. Ken is shocked that Mark accepted such a commission, creating art for a dining room full of rich obnoxious people that he despises. But Mark’s hope is to destroy their appetite, ostensibly by making them confront their inner demons and fears and passions and maybe realize how terrible they are by forcing them to confront what they feel the red means. And that question, what the red means to the individual, is mainly what Ken and Mark discuss in between mixing the paint and prepping the canvas – the latter of which is the most fun bit of the play, and from the looks of the Alfreds afterward, the most exhausting cardio. The question of what the red means, and how different and complex it can be for each individual, and all that talk talk they make in my earholes about it, is honestly what got me to come around on the whole modern art thing. Well at least Rothko’s. Well at least his red series. There is meaning and such depth of emotion and personal history and tragedy and fear and hope behind those colors, even though it looks like a simple square of paint that could have been done by a child. There really is more to it than that. And while I don’t think it should be necessary for a play to make you appreciate art, I’m grateful that this one makes me a little less hateful towards that gallery across the river from me (cough *Tate Modern* cough).
Despite being far from warm, the relationship between the two men is the provocative aspect of the show. I love how time passes for these men – two years at least – and it doesn’t seem like it. Ken seems just as unsettled at the end as he did at the beginning, and Rothko is just as detached, despite their heated discussions. I bet that Ken never showed him any of his own work. Mark wasn’t that kind of guy, the one you show your work to and ask for his ‘honest’ opinion. It would be too honest. Yet it’s clear they care for each other; you just have to understand how the artist’s mind works, as I do now (laugh). Even in his final act towards Ken, Mark doesn’t seem affectionate or caring, but his actions speak much more than his words or demeanor. There’s so much more to them than whether or not Rothko can be a nurturing father figure (he can’t) or whether that’s even what Ken wants. And there’s more than meets the eye with how the action is staged too, like how Ken finds a superdrunk Mark with his hands in his paint bucket one night, an undeniable reference to his real-life suicide. This kind of subtle direction plus the way the characters communicate with each other all feel connected to the issue of the colors and how sensitive the interpretation of them can be to each person, how just the color red can reference an entire lifetime of emotion. “Red” isn’t a big important political play or anything; it feels like a pleasant but small exploration of personalities more than anything. But if it can say so much about art and moreover get you to consider art more thoughtfully and genuinely than you had before, then that seems pretty important.
INFORMATION
The toilets at the Wyndham’s are atrocious. There are TWO ladies toilets for the entire stalls/orchestra section. The line was insane. They need to refurbish and until they do, sit on an aisle upstairs.
Also in need of a redo is their box office. For people picking up tickets at will call (literally everyone), there was ONE person at a makeshift podium handling collection. It was so inefficient I wanted to scream. I can’t with this incompetence all over the West End.
STAGE DOOR
The Alfreds are probably the nicest people who have ever come out of a stage door. Not the most efficient – there’s no Zachs Braff or Levi-style assured handling of the crowd (they would line everyone up for easy photo-taking or just take your phone and do it themselves, pros) but they were just so freaking nice, not turning anyone’s request down, even when they clearly wanted to leave and some old biddy was asking for them to sign her receipts after they already signed her ticket stubs. I wanted to be like ‘you don’t have to do this you can leave now!’ but they were just the sweetest.
Molina’s Rothko is the kind of performance that makes you forget that you are watching one. It quickly lets you dive in and accept that you’re watching Rothko the artist work, without ever thinking about his acting. It’s a rare performer that can so completely inhabit the character like that, erasing any trace of the actor or his well-known past performances and just presenting Rothko on that stage so fully. I didn’t get to see Fred (as his friends call him) perform this role on Broadway after its premiere but I understand now how he could have won that year’s Distinguished Performance Award from the Drama League, the best acting award there is really. I get how this performance could have defined what acting is and should be for a whole season. Fred’s costar in this production fares well but not nearly as expertly. Alfred Enoch plays Rothko’s assistant, and so we have probably the first play in the history of the theatre/the world where 100% of the cast is named Alfred. So, Enoch’s playing the role that won Eddie Redmayne a Tony. I imagine Redmayne, a stellar actor, probably also disappeared into the role, while Enoch, though he does a great job, still showed me that he was Acting quite often, mainly when using props – opening jars, mixing paint. It was often a little too stagey. Honestly, I kept thinking of the part in “Oh, Hello” when they talk about using props and John Mulaney says, “Please, do WAY too much business with the phone. Really show the audience you’ve been working with the prop all week” and Nick Kroll says “Really make a meal out of it.” So that’s what his performance, while commendable, kept reminding me of. A little too unnatural, maybe because most of his career has been onscreen (although that’s over right now #wesforever).
The play begins with the new (fictionalized) assistant arriving for his first day of work. I just looked up what the assistant’s name is and it’s Ken and I’ve never been so surprised by a fact in my life. I don’t think they ever say it but also like who is named Ken anymore. I guess this was supposed to take place more than 50 years ago but were there even Kens then? Ken (I mean) arrives in a suit for his first day of work and that’s cute but his work is in Rothko’s messy, splattered art studio so Rothko’s like “that’s cute, go change” and I like that he was a no bullshit kind of guy like that but at the same time sooooo full of bullshit like when he talks about how his red glop of paint represents everything anyone has ever felt and all that. But wait, like I said I don’t actually think that’s all utter bullshit anymore, actually, because of this play. Watching the creative process and hearing the artist debate what his work means with another artist, kind of in their own Socratic method to get to the heart of the matter, was enlightening for me, a renowned modern art truther.
Mark and Ken work together to produce Mark’s famous four murals for the new Four Seasons restaurant in the Seagram building in Midtown Manhattan. Ken is shocked that Mark accepted such a commission, creating art for a dining room full of rich obnoxious people that he despises. But Mark’s hope is to destroy their appetite, ostensibly by making them confront their inner demons and fears and passions and maybe realize how terrible they are by forcing them to confront what they feel the red means. And that question, what the red means to the individual, is mainly what Ken and Mark discuss in between mixing the paint and prepping the canvas – the latter of which is the most fun bit of the play, and from the looks of the Alfreds afterward, the most exhausting cardio. The question of what the red means, and how different and complex it can be for each individual, and all that talk talk they make in my earholes about it, is honestly what got me to come around on the whole modern art thing. Well at least Rothko’s. Well at least his red series. There is meaning and such depth of emotion and personal history and tragedy and fear and hope behind those colors, even though it looks like a simple square of paint that could have been done by a child. There really is more to it than that. And while I don’t think it should be necessary for a play to make you appreciate art, I’m grateful that this one makes me a little less hateful towards that gallery across the river from me (cough *Tate Modern* cough).
Despite being far from warm, the relationship between the two men is the provocative aspect of the show. I love how time passes for these men – two years at least – and it doesn’t seem like it. Ken seems just as unsettled at the end as he did at the beginning, and Rothko is just as detached, despite their heated discussions. I bet that Ken never showed him any of his own work. Mark wasn’t that kind of guy, the one you show your work to and ask for his ‘honest’ opinion. It would be too honest. Yet it’s clear they care for each other; you just have to understand how the artist’s mind works, as I do now (laugh). Even in his final act towards Ken, Mark doesn’t seem affectionate or caring, but his actions speak much more than his words or demeanor. There’s so much more to them than whether or not Rothko can be a nurturing father figure (he can’t) or whether that’s even what Ken wants. And there’s more than meets the eye with how the action is staged too, like how Ken finds a superdrunk Mark with his hands in his paint bucket one night, an undeniable reference to his real-life suicide. This kind of subtle direction plus the way the characters communicate with each other all feel connected to the issue of the colors and how sensitive the interpretation of them can be to each person, how just the color red can reference an entire lifetime of emotion. “Red” isn’t a big important political play or anything; it feels like a pleasant but small exploration of personalities more than anything. But if it can say so much about art and moreover get you to consider art more thoughtfully and genuinely than you had before, then that seems pretty important.
INFORMATION
The toilets at the Wyndham’s are atrocious. There are TWO ladies toilets for the entire stalls/orchestra section. The line was insane. They need to refurbish and until they do, sit on an aisle upstairs.
Also in need of a redo is their box office. For people picking up tickets at will call (literally everyone), there was ONE person at a makeshift podium handling collection. It was so inefficient I wanted to scream. I can’t with this incompetence all over the West End.
STAGE DOOR
The Alfreds are probably the nicest people who have ever come out of a stage door. Not the most efficient – there’s no Zachs Braff or Levi-style assured handling of the crowd (they would line everyone up for easy photo-taking or just take your phone and do it themselves, pros) but they were just so freaking nice, not turning anyone’s request down, even when they clearly wanted to leave and some old biddy was asking for them to sign her receipts after they already signed her ticket stubs. I wanted to be like ‘you don’t have to do this you can leave now!’ but they were just the sweetest.
“Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt” Season 2: Episodes 1 & 2!!
DOGGIE
We’re back dammit! It’s a miracle!
If you didn’t sing that to the catchy af theme song of “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt”, that likely means that you don’t watch it, which definitely means that you are missing out ON LIFE. This show, from Tina Fey and a guy my brother knows, had one of the funniest first seasons for a sitcom, full stop (look I’m British now). Sure, Season 1 had its low points (the whole trial b.s. and the Native American stuff), but its high points were so high it all averaged out to be above average. So good at math. This goofy show makes viewers so happy. Lucky for the world, so in need of more happiness, season 2 is out today!
If you didn’t sing that to the catchy af theme song of “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt”, that likely means that you don’t watch it, which definitely means that you are missing out ON LIFE. This show, from Tina Fey and a guy my brother knows, had one of the funniest first seasons for a sitcom, full stop (look I’m British now). Sure, Season 1 had its low points (the whole trial b.s. and the Native American stuff), but its high points were so high it all averaged out to be above average. So good at math. This goofy show makes viewers so happy. Lucky for the world, so in need of more happiness, season 2 is out today!
If you really don’t watch it, go watch it on Netflix right now. If you don’t have Netflix, go buy it; you get a free trial anyway. If for some reason you can’t buy a Netflix membership or get the free trial and then cancel that shiz, I will give you my account info. That’s how good this show is and how much I think you deserve to watch it. Something I said in this paragraph may be a lie, and it’s up to you to find out what it is.
So, quick recap: Kimmy Schmidt is the true adorkable television heroine of our time, played to silly and ridiculous perfection by Ellie Kemper, the redhead from “The Office” and “Bridesmaids” whose last name for some reason I really really want to keep saying/actually do keep saying as “Kempner” for no apparent reason. Did I go to camp with a Kempner? Do you know? Can you see me? Kimmy is this totally naïve, sheltered gal from the Midwest whooooo was kept as an unwitting hostage by a crazy doomsday cult leader (Jon Hamm) in an underground bunker for the last 15 years. Finally freed, she has a lot to comprehend (for starters, that the world didn’t end) with the knowledge, awareness, and social skills of a tween. But it’s a comedy. She moves to NYC, the perfect place for her blind trust and total innocence, and finds an apartment owned by Carol Kane’s landlord Lilian, with the most incredible roommate maybe in television history, Tituss Burgess’s Titus Andromedon. (Real name 2 s’s (esses?), fake name 1. Actually, real name 4 s’s/esses.) And, she gets a job as a nanny for a rich beeyotchamaphone named Jacqueline Voorhees, a role I assume was written specifically for Jane Krakowski because she is red underlined 100 emoji. Titus, on the other hand, is the red 100 emoji surrounded by 10 flame balls on each side. His role was indeed written for him. I love how much he saaaaaaaaaaaaang in season 1! Let’s see what happens next!
So, quick recap: Kimmy Schmidt is the true adorkable television heroine of our time, played to silly and ridiculous perfection by Ellie Kemper, the redhead from “The Office” and “Bridesmaids” whose last name for some reason I really really want to keep saying/actually do keep saying as “Kempner” for no apparent reason. Did I go to camp with a Kempner? Do you know? Can you see me? Kimmy is this totally naïve, sheltered gal from the Midwest whooooo was kept as an unwitting hostage by a crazy doomsday cult leader (Jon Hamm) in an underground bunker for the last 15 years. Finally freed, she has a lot to comprehend (for starters, that the world didn’t end) with the knowledge, awareness, and social skills of a tween. But it’s a comedy. She moves to NYC, the perfect place for her blind trust and total innocence, and finds an apartment owned by Carol Kane’s landlord Lilian, with the most incredible roommate maybe in television history, Tituss Burgess’s Titus Andromedon. (Real name 2 s’s (esses?), fake name 1. Actually, real name 4 s’s/esses.) And, she gets a job as a nanny for a rich beeyotchamaphone named Jacqueline Voorhees, a role I assume was written specifically for Jane Krakowski because she is red underlined 100 emoji. Titus, on the other hand, is the red 100 emoji surrounded by 10 flame balls on each side. His role was indeed written for him. I love how much he saaaaaaaaaaaaang in season 1! Let’s see what happens next!
EPISODE 1: Kimmy Goes Roller Skating
When we return, aspects of Kimmy’s life have already fallen apart. She’s been dumped by her Vietnamese immigrant boyfriend Dong so he can marry for a green card. She lost her job because Jacqueline ran off to confront her Native American history and the family she abandoned out west (don’t think about this too much, about how white blonde lady is playing a guilty Native American, or about how this plot line does absolutely zilch for the show). And now her living situation is threatened, because Titus’s ex-wife (whom he abandoned before their first dance because as a homosexual he just couldn’t for another minute) is back demanding spousal support for the last 17 or so years, and Titus tends to flee in the face of adversity.
Should we start with the best or the worst? I like to do crap first and then think happy thoughts, but I’m still laughing at the good parts of this premiere, so let’s start there.
Should we start with the best or the worst? I like to do crap first and then think happy thoughts, but I’m still laughing at the good parts of this premiere, so let’s start there.
THE GREAT
Lilian is on board as Kimmy’s wingman after the sadness of Dong, so that means we got a lot more Lilian onscreen than usual. Although Carol Kane still hasn’t had the opportunity to scream that anyone is a “LIARRRRRRRRRRR!”, this change is very welcome. My favorite parts were a) when she and Kimmy stopped into the Grim Dollar Store (actual name, nice) and she said to Kimmy “I’ll be in intimates”; b) her outfit for their date night – Frankie Says Relax tee and insane tutu; and c) talking about her golden spaghetti hair and how it will attract men. She is so damn winning. She was actually funnier than Titus this episode, at least in terms of speaking parts. Titus still made the best faces, but this episode made him unlikable for most of it. Yeah, that was so his apology/redemption at the end was more satisfying, but still: non-singing, mean Titus? Hard pass.
In the Dollar Store, Kimmy runs into Dong and tries to act super uninterested and confident, but of course it’s fake and funny. So fast and easy to miss this great line:
Dong: Kimmy?
Kimmy: Dong.
Dong: So nice to see you!
Kimmy: I’d like that.
But then Dong WINS the episode when he shares that his English has improved because he’s been watching “Keeping up with the Kardashians”, which he proves when Kimmy says “It’s working,” and he responds, “Awww, you’re sweeeet” exactly like a Kardashian, complete with the trailing off vocal fry at the end. DIED. It was only topped when Kimmy invited him roller skating and he responded, also in the Kardashian voice, “So yeah, that sounds amaaaazing.” It was!!
Proving that she deserves an Emmy nomination too, Ellie Kemper is so flinging flanging great as Kimmy that I can’t really tell if she’s acting or if she is playing herself. She makes every face and delivers every line exactly right. Only she could make Kimmy’s angry “Well fudge that sugar! Fudge it to heck!” as hilarious as it was.
Wait, I take it back about Dong winning. He came close. The real winners were the tiny tiny role of Amtrak train conductor and whoever wrote this incredible exchange about Amtrak’s true purpose. I can’t rob you of the joy that comes from watching it by showing the text here, so here’s the video, omg.
I really am still crying at this. Maybe you had to have ridden Amtrak thousands of times throughout your East Coast life to appreciate it, but man alive this will be hard to beat.
MEH
Titus, though not at his character-best this episode, had a freaking dance number at the end, on a train platform, with his ex-wife. How this was not a showstopper moment is beyond me! What a wasted opportunity! My dancing is funnier than theirs was! And he could have sung something, anything.
TERRIBLE
So much time was dedicated to Jacqueline’s time with her Native American family and how she is messing everything up because she doesn’t fit in, and honestly this stuff is not any better than it was last season. It seems offensive and really it’s not funny at all. I just don’t get it. Honestly, you could fast forward through those parts and not lose anything. Get Jane back in NYC being a terrible person and a terrible step-mother to Some Hippie pronto!
REAL TERRIBLE
Why, oh god why, does every single sitcom in the history of the world (2010s) hire Fred Armisen as a guest star? Mallory Ortberg, maybe (probably) (definitely) the smart-funniest person in the world, has a famous (at least on twitter/to her disciples) TV Rule:
“every great comedy will have one nearly-unbearable episode where Fred Armisen guest-stars as an unfunny man with a godawful accent.” – M. Ortberg
It is proved true time and time again, like, every week I’m talking. It was bad enough when it happened on “Difficult People”, a show I had previously thought was made for me, but for this terrible, truest law to rear its ugly head on Kimmy? Seriously, I am so so sick of it. I do not like him in real life, I do tend to believe his wife, I do not like Fred Armisen, I do not like him Sam I am. Dear everyone in television: get a damn hold of yourselves and stop falling victim to this law. It’s pissing me off. THERE ARE MORE ACTORS OUT THERE. HIRE THEM.
EPISODE 2: Kimmy Goes on a Playdate
OH yes, we are back to proper form with this one. I found very little to critique, and I paused the show to laugh it out more than I have any show in recent memory (except maybe Once Upon A Time, but that’s a different kind of laugh). Jacqueline – the real Jacqueline – is back! And she has a little doggie!!! She’s back in NYC trying to get back on her feet after the divorce left her with a measly $12 million and no townhouse. As such, she has to camp out with Kimmy (and Titus, whom she ‘recognizes’ as the doorman from Barney’s) while she looks for a new home and schemes for ways to get back in (or back at) her thin blonde rich woman crowd, led by guest star Anna Camp, who does privileged bitch really well especially when she isn’t vomiting. Titus, meanwhile, is trying to get rid of some of his clothes with Lilian’s help. So much of this episode was great that this is pretty much just a list of my favorite lines.
GREAT
Both the main storylines – Titus’s and Jacqueline’s – are whatever, not exactly inspired new ground for sitcoms, but they result in some hysterical dialogue. Even better – Jacqueline having to clear out the townhouse so it can be sold means Xanthippe is back!! Her very first moments were my favorite:
Xan, seeing Kimmy in her house: What are YOU doing here?
Kimmy, trying to act cool: Being in a stupid-face contest and coming in SECOND!
Kimmy and Xan’s interactions are my favorite because Xan tries SO hard to hate Kimmy, and Kimmy does everything she can to make a girl like Xan hate her, but you can tell they like each other. And Kimmy unfailingly says the dumbest, most amazing stuff to her, like the above, to which Xan can only shake her head in disbelief.
The sale of the townhouse and Jacqueline’s new apartment search leads to another fantastic scene, this time between Kimmy and Jacqueline. During their first encounter in the apartment, Kimmy pulls this amazingness:
Kimmy: “Mrs. Voorhees…wait, you’re divorced….What do I call you now, Mrs. Voorhers??”
Only Ellie Kemper can say crap like this and make it so freaking funny. But even better is when Jacqueline is looking at apartment listings, complaining about how all the plus-million-dollar apartments are either too expensive or are utter crap, leading to my favorite line of this episode, which I’m going to share in video form because it’s too good:
GREAT
Both the main storylines – Titus’s and Jacqueline’s – are whatever, not exactly inspired new ground for sitcoms, but they result in some hysterical dialogue. Even better – Jacqueline having to clear out the townhouse so it can be sold means Xanthippe is back!! Her very first moments were my favorite:
Xan, seeing Kimmy in her house: What are YOU doing here?
Kimmy, trying to act cool: Being in a stupid-face contest and coming in SECOND!
Kimmy and Xan’s interactions are my favorite because Xan tries SO hard to hate Kimmy, and Kimmy does everything she can to make a girl like Xan hate her, but you can tell they like each other. And Kimmy unfailingly says the dumbest, most amazing stuff to her, like the above, to which Xan can only shake her head in disbelief.
The sale of the townhouse and Jacqueline’s new apartment search leads to another fantastic scene, this time between Kimmy and Jacqueline. During their first encounter in the apartment, Kimmy pulls this amazingness:
Kimmy: “Mrs. Voorhees…wait, you’re divorced….What do I call you now, Mrs. Voorhers??”
Only Ellie Kemper can say crap like this and make it so freaking funny. But even better is when Jacqueline is looking at apartment listings, complaining about how all the plus-million-dollar apartments are either too expensive or are utter crap, leading to my favorite line of this episode, which I’m going to share in video form because it’s too good:
I also loved in this scene how Kimmy says “drinks at the Ramada.” It’s so random and nothing but she says the words in a weird accent that made it so funny!
The other Kimmy line that made me laugh hysterically happened after getting the job at the Christmas store, when she was dressed as an elf walking down the street. She says to herself,“Oh no, those Santas must be coming from a funeral” – and the camera cuts to two Orthodox Jews as she says “I’m sorry for your loss.” I cackled.
I didn’t love the whole plot of Jacqueline trying to impress Anna Camp by putting on billionaire airs, but that’s just because Jacqueline is the best when she’s the worst person on that screen. Putting her in a vulnerable position hurts the character, I think, because she’s supposed to be a caricature, not someone you feel bad for. But I can’t really fault a storyline that led to Jacqueline, her son, and Kimmy getting into a random man’s Bentley in front of Anna Camp, and then CRAWLING over the stunned man in the backseat in order to escape through the other side, out of Anna’s view. That was some absolute GOLD physical comedy. More please!
As for Titus, he is thank goodness back to his good old self, shrieking after his closet bar collapses and explaining “Much like Icarus, a friend of mine who put too much stuff in his closet, I put too much stuff in my closet!” His plotline of taking some of his lesser worn clothes (his culottes that also double as teddy bear clothes, his outfit from when Mickey Mouse-ing was a thing in the gay community) to a thrift store was kind of forced, but like Jacqueline’s above, it allowed for hilarity. My favorite Titus line was when he looked around the cluttered, dirty thrift store and said:
Titus: “My clothes will be plucked from this hell-hole like so many Orphans Annie.”
Titus also had a little surprise treat at the end, when it turned out that the person who took his clothes from the garbage was a hot construction worker who came out to him years ago! They bond over how hard it is to put yourself out there, and how hard it is for the construction worker to hide his true self at work. The best best best part of this segment was when the man said he had to fake being one of the guys by putting a picture of a hot girl on the back of his truck. Cut to his slamming the door so we see the decal of freaking TILDA SWINTON in a glamour shot. So funny!
Lilian’s best line? Her same best line from Episode 1!!! When she and Titus go back to the thrift store, she says, “I’ll be in intimates.” Ridiculous thing to repeat but I love it!
The other Kimmy line that made me laugh hysterically happened after getting the job at the Christmas store, when she was dressed as an elf walking down the street. She says to herself,“Oh no, those Santas must be coming from a funeral” – and the camera cuts to two Orthodox Jews as she says “I’m sorry for your loss.” I cackled.
I didn’t love the whole plot of Jacqueline trying to impress Anna Camp by putting on billionaire airs, but that’s just because Jacqueline is the best when she’s the worst person on that screen. Putting her in a vulnerable position hurts the character, I think, because she’s supposed to be a caricature, not someone you feel bad for. But I can’t really fault a storyline that led to Jacqueline, her son, and Kimmy getting into a random man’s Bentley in front of Anna Camp, and then CRAWLING over the stunned man in the backseat in order to escape through the other side, out of Anna’s view. That was some absolute GOLD physical comedy. More please!
As for Titus, he is thank goodness back to his good old self, shrieking after his closet bar collapses and explaining “Much like Icarus, a friend of mine who put too much stuff in his closet, I put too much stuff in my closet!” His plotline of taking some of his lesser worn clothes (his culottes that also double as teddy bear clothes, his outfit from when Mickey Mouse-ing was a thing in the gay community) to a thrift store was kind of forced, but like Jacqueline’s above, it allowed for hilarity. My favorite Titus line was when he looked around the cluttered, dirty thrift store and said:
Titus: “My clothes will be plucked from this hell-hole like so many Orphans Annie.”
Titus also had a little surprise treat at the end, when it turned out that the person who took his clothes from the garbage was a hot construction worker who came out to him years ago! They bond over how hard it is to put yourself out there, and how hard it is for the construction worker to hide his true self at work. The best best best part of this segment was when the man said he had to fake being one of the guys by putting a picture of a hot girl on the back of his truck. Cut to his slamming the door so we see the decal of freaking TILDA SWINTON in a glamour shot. So funny!
Lilian’s best line? Her same best line from Episode 1!!! When she and Titus go back to the thrift store, she says, “I’ll be in intimates.” Ridiculous thing to repeat but I love it!
DUMB
The very first line of the episode was a bummer, as it was Kimmy assuming that a man was a woman, and she’s corrected, and that’s the joke. So lame and such outdated humor, like an unoriginal vegan joke. It would have been excused as a one off but then they repeated it! Argh why! Thankfully, this terrible interaction led to Kimmy’s telling the ‘inspiring’ story of a reindeer named Rudolph, with the kind of optimism and genuine belief that only she could muster.
What did you think about the first two back? I hope the rest of the season keeps up the standard set by #2!!
