Tuesday, October 1, 2024

Unknown filmmaker | Arrivals / 2013 [travel advertisement]

greetings and departures

by Douglas Messerli

 

Unknown director Arrivals / 2013 [travel advertisement]

 

In 2013 the Quebec government of Canada developed a TV, radio, and web campaign to prove just how open to different kinds of sexual orientation the province of Quebec was.

    The first of these ads shows a man texting his lover while he awaits at the airport.


   Soon after we see both a man and woman coming down the exit ramp simultaneously, a basically everyday scene in which we have not yet any clue to the sexuality of the arrivals or the man waiting.

     The woman, however, quickly breezes past him, and he quickly joins the man for a deep kiss on the lips for joy of his arrival.

      In a second ad, a woman returns home to find a note from her partner, catching her a bit off-guard since it announces a surprise party with a group of friends. But soon after, with the gathering around her, she shares a passionate embrace with her lover, another woman.

  


   In both instances, the narrative voice asks the viewer (in French): “Does this change what you were thinking 20 seconds ago?” almost as if the provided evidence were a test of the viewers own attitudes toward sexuality.

      Clearly, the Quebec government makes clear, we are liberal minded here.

      Martine Delagrave, who oversaw the project for the ad firm, insisted that their intention was not to shock the viewer, but simply to help people begin to think just how open-minded they really are. A survey conducted by the government suggested that although people tend to see themselves generally as more open-minded than the society in general, they were not perhaps as permissive as they believed themselves to be.

      Interestingly, while 78% of those queried claimed they were comfortable with homosexuality, in their survey of 800 Quebecers, although 90% said they were open to sexual diversity, and 78% declared they were comfortable with gays and lesbians, the percentage dropped to 45 in the case of transgender individuals. And 40% of those queried observed that they were not comfortable with seeing two men kiss in public.

      A second series of ads, revolving around issues like same-sex parenting, was planned for 2014 or 2015. With a slash of $3 billion from their budget the next year, those ads never appeared.

 

Los Angeles, October 1, 2024

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (October 2024).

 

 

 

 

Gosho Heinsosuke | Osorezan no onna (An Innocent Witch / Woman of Mount Osore) / 1965

inside out

by Douglas Messerli

 

Hideo Horie, screenplay (based on a novel by Hajime Ogawa), Gosho Heinsosuke (director) 恐山の女(Osorezan no onna) (An Innocent Witch / Woman of Mount Osore) / 1965


Why some film industry executives were intent on translating Japanese Gosho Heinsosuke’s film Osorezan no onna as An Innocent Witch is rather inexplicable (USA distributors called it, more properly, Woman of Mount Osore, although Criterion has reissued it with the more melodramatic title).

     The young woman, Ayako (Jitsuko Yoshimura), is forced into a position through the conditions of her family, that might seem to the small-minded citizens of the town in she works, they might describe as a kind of femme fatale, it is never clear that anyone in this film perceives her as a true witch—except perhaps the punishing shaman at the end of the film, who determines to beat her to death in a process of purging her evil spirits.

     Yet the film does begin—after its briefly travelogue-like explanation of Mount Osore, one of the three holy mountains of Japan, about which, we quickly learn, it is believed the souls of the dead gather (critic Gwilym Jones also explained that this mountain is also perceived as “the reputed entrance to Hell”)—along with Sei Ikeno’s score of brass, drums, and cymbals—all suggest a very dark view of what is about to happen. With the appearance of Ayako’s aged mother, desperate to once again make contact with her dead daughter, we realize her guilt, and we do perceive that this is going to be a work about some unholy doings.

      At the heart of this wonderful film, however, is not witchcraft, no matter how you might define that, but rather a completely patriarchal society that sends it young sons to war while putting its young daughters into sexual slavery.


       When we first meet Ayako she is a lovely, quite innocent, and free spirit, willing to wade out into the cold waters to help bring home to her poverty-stricken family to obtain seaweed and small fish for their sustenance. But, even before the movie has gotten underway, we realize that she has already been sold into servitude.

      Strangely, the young innocent seems to completely recognize what will be her future, and quite easily accepts it, glad at first to do house cleaning duties before actually performing the act of sex. Unfortunately, her first client is the local timber merchant Yamamura, who leeringly and lecherously rapes the virgin girl, and there is little question that the entire experience for Ayako is a painful one.

     But when we next see her, a few weeks after, she—unlike any possible heroine of a US  movie—seems quite adapted to her circumstances. She has already become the highest earning prostitute of her institution, and, like her fellow comfort-workers, sits behind the slated windows trying to draw in young sailors and military students.

     The year is 1938, and Gosho’s film is very much thematically intertwined with the dreadful Japanese politics of pre-World War II. Indeed, she and the other women with whom she works are all caught up in fascist politics of the time, being described as home front supporters of war efforts.

      This time, Ayako herself draws a young innocent, a virginal boy, into her web, gladly giving up her body—if not her kisses—to the military student Kanjiro, who quickly falls in love with her, and to whom Ayako eventually does, despite the advice her of co-worker, Iroha, give up her heart.

    The young boy is soon scheduled to go into military training, but promises, even given his fears for his future, to return to her and rescue Ayako through marriage. But the problem, she and he suddenly discover, is that her elderly regular customer is, in fact, Kanjiro’s father.


      Ayako promises to reject any further connection with Yamamura, but he forces himself upon her and in the process dies, evidently of a heart attack—his son, soon after, dying at the front after, evidently having gone AWOL in order to return to her. Having “destroyed” two males of the same family, Ayako’s reputation as a dangerous woman grows.

     To stop this clearly absurd rumor, Yamamura’s elder son, Kanichi, makes a bargain with her that he will regularly visit her (without demanding any sexual favors) which, after surviving those encounters, he will lay rest to the ridiculous rumors. But he too—particularly when they travel to a countryside inn where, having missed the train, they are stranded overnight—falls under her spell, and; as they attempt to return home, he is hit and killed by a military procession, speeding through the countryside. In short, the same forces that have helped to entrap her, the patriarchal system and militarism, destroy the decent Kanichi as well, just as they have destroyed his older sibling.


     In punishment for now having done away with the male lineage of the Yamamura family, Ayako, incorporated into the system itself, demands that she be beaten by the shaman to rid her of her demons, a visually horrifying scene wherein the he literally beats her to death before reassuring her mother that she will soon awaken. Just as Yamamura has reassured her during his rape of the young girl, so now does this exorcist deny his own actions.

      Gosho’s entire film—with its constant mirroring of events and with the delimited frames in which all the characters, at one time another, seem imprisoned by events—is a beautiful but absolutely terrifying realist tale with supernatural elements. We all can perceive that the innocent Ayako is no witch, nor even a woman with special powers; but given the society in which she is entrapped the very powers of her youth and beauty make it impossible for her existence.

 

Los Angeles, February 5, 2018

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (February 2018).

 

Paul Thomas Anderson | Phantom Thread / 2017

slowing him down

by Douglas Messerli

 

Paul Thomas Anderson (screenwriter and director) Phantom Thread / 2017

 

The “Phantom Thread” of Paul Thomas Anderson’s new film does not refer, as some have asserted, to the secret messages the movie’s hero, Reynolds Woodcock (Daniel Day-Lewis) sews into the women’s gowns he creates, but rather to the almost incomprehensible “thread of love” between Reynolds and the young German-born waitress, Alma Elson (Vicky Krieps) whom he meets in a provincial British restaurant and, much-like Shaw’s Pygmalion, he takes home, dresses up, and puts to work in his fashion-house. We never do fully discover what these two see in one another: Alma is a vaguely beautiful, but a somewhat clumsy and outspoken woman; while Reynolds is a man dedicated to himself and his routine, unable to even tolerate any interruption, and set-on-edge by even the sound of Alma buttering her morning toast. Both are somewhat selfish and set in their ways, yet their ways go in very different directions.



      What’s even worse is that Reynolds is a kind of mamma’s boy, his life now run by his sister, Cyril (Lesley Manville), a more complex Mrs. Danvers (from Hitchcock’s Rebecca), who, at first, is dreadfully jealous of her brother’s new discovery, but gradually begins to appreciate Alma’s ability to learn quickly and her proficiency at fitting. Modeling, and helping with the sewing, as well as taking some of the load of caring for Reynolds temperamental fits, Alma’s very quietude seems, at times, the perfect antidote for Reynolds’ tirades.

      Of course, this is hardly the first time that Anderson has focused on inexplicable relationships and their personal obsessions: one need only remember the homoerotic connections between Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman in the same director’s The Master, or the similarly strange homoerotic interconnections between Joaquin Phoenix and the Josh Brolin character in Inherent Vice.   One may describe Anderson’s films as focusing on queer relationships that have as much to do with obsession as with love.


     If Alma enters the Woodcock mansion, however, much like the disoriented Rebecca as a spirited proto-feminist, she soon begins to take over, responding to Reynolds’ sexual lack of attention quite differently from the designer’s previous mistress, even arranging, against Cyril’s advice, a surprise private dinner with him that she has cooked. True to form, Reynolds explodes in anger, simply over the fact that she has cooked asparagus and served it with butter; he prefers oil. It soon appears that she will also be asked by Cyril to leave the relationship, just like Alma’s predecessor.

     The film begins with Alma recounting her experiences with Reynolds to an unknown individual, and within that context we hear her describing that it had become necessary to “slow him down,” to help him to realize that he, in fact, was truly dependent upon her, not the other way around.

     Her solution, hinted at very early in the narrative, is to feed him a ground-up mixture of poisonous mushrooms, which makes him terribly ill, while she watches over him, gently ministering to a temporarily helpless tyrant. Although Cyril demands a doctor, even the sick patient eventually tells the doctor to “fuck off.” Mother’s boy that he is, Reynolds, quite obviously, prefers the care of a woman who almost selflessly watches over him, a chair pulled up to his bed, while on the floor below his own, an army of seamstresses seek to correct the damage, through his illness, he has done to a princesses’ wedding gown.  

     He recovers, suddenly realizing that he wants to marry Alma, or, at least, have her care for him for the rest of his life. The two marry, but almost immediately begin to fight again, as what we might perceive as an almost gay-man realizes he has made a terrible mistake much like Henry Higgins has in inviting Eliza Higgins into his world in Pygmalion. And as the failures of their relationship escalate, Reynolds turns to Cyril to plead that she help him “get rid” of his mistake, again reminding us of another intense mother-son relationship, that of Alex Sebastian and his dominating mother in Hitchcock’s Notorious.


     By this time, however, Cyril has grown quite fond of her Rebecca, and refuses to dismiss Alma or to help her tortured brother. And overhearing this discussion, Alma determines it is again time to “slow him down,” to control his near hysterical* behavior by mixing up an even more potent mixture of the dangerous mushrooms in an omelet. Calmly she places the plate before him; but we realize that Reynolds has observed her actions and knows precisely what she is up to.

      Nonetheless, he bites into the egg dish, carefully chewing up the mixture, as, finally, Alma admits to what she desires: for him to need her caring for him once again. This “outsider” has most definitely become the “insider” in this house. As she tartly tells the legendary Belgian princess, who has previously shunned her: “I live in this house.”

     He too, finally, recognizes his child-like needs, kissing her before he falls deeply ill, insisting she call the same doctor, just in case he is more poisoned that she imagines; she agrees, and by film’s end we discover that the story she has been telling throughout the work is a kind of confession to the young doctor, himself a man who has been highly attracted to her.

     The final scene of the film, right out of Gigi, shows the happy couple strolling down the avenue with a baby carriage, which they briefly pass off to Cyril, while they joyfully walk off for a stroll, the previously “confirmed” bachelor having now been trapped into a heterosexual paradise. Surely they will live as happily together as Albee’s George and Martha.

     I will grant that this particular dress designer is primarily a heterosexual, or at least imagines himself to be one. Occasionally that happens. But in this narrative Reynolds is basically portrayed as a gay man whom the clever Alma, somewhat like a spider, has threaded into marriage by providing with him the non-negotiable mother’s love which he so desperately needs. Alma has become the “earth-mother” (a role claimed also by Albee’s Martha in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?) necessary for Reynolds to remain in the shell of heteronormativity.

   David Ehrenstein, writing in Gay City News, notes that when the movie first came out many immediately presumed that this film was based on the life of Charles James, the British-born designer regarded as a mentor to Halston, Karl Lagerfeld, and other fashionistas of note. James married Nancy Lee Gregory and had two children before their marriage was dissolved.

    But, in fact, as Ehrenstein observes, Anderson “immediately shot down” that notion, asserting instead that “his film’s anti-hero Reynolds Woodcock was drawn from the lives of Cristóbal Balenciaga, Hardy Amies, Norman Hartnell, Michael Sherard, Digby Morton, Edward Molyneux, Victor Stiebel, and John Cavanagh…each and every one of these designers [being] gay. Reynolds Woodcock, while acting like a younger and ever-so-slightly less imperious version of Clifton Webb’s “Waldo Lydecker in Laura (one of the greatest “coded gay' characters of the pre-Stonewall era), is seen (in long shot) taking the hand of the film’s heroine Alma (Vicky Krieps), a café waitress Woodcock makes his model and muse, and pulling her into his bedroom. What goes on inside that bedroom Anderson doesn’t show. And that’s because he has no idea what gay men think of straight women or how we interact with those whose beauty inspires us despite a complete lack of sexual desire.”

      Ehrenstein, finally, argues that Anderson’s male character is perhaps most clearly modelled after Norman Hartwell, a designer, whose Wikipedia page reports, “never married, but enjoyed a discreet and quiet life at a time when homosexual relations between men were illegal. In many ways, the consummate Edwardian in attitudes and life-style, he considered himself a confirmed bachelor, and his close friends were almost never in the public eye, nor did he ever do anything to compromise his position and business as a leading designer to both ladies of the British Royal Family and his aristocratic or ‘society’ clients upon whom his success was founded.”

      Reynolds also describes himself, as I mention above with Reynolds' Henry Higgins proclamation, as being a “confirmed bachelor,” which generally meant in all cultures the same thing as not “being the marrying kind,” phrases that spelled out one’s homosexual inclinations.

    When speaking of Sir Norman, fellow dressmaker to the Queen cattily commented: “It’s quite simple. He was a silly old queen and I’m a clever old queen.”

      Whether Anderson knew the kind of being he had created or not is basically beside the point. He clearly had been interested in just such figures in the past.  

       

*Although today “homohysteria” is associated with severe homophobia, the deep fear of men behaving in a manner that represents stereotypes of gay behavior, we must remember that in the late 19th century, gay men themselves were often described as being hysterics, responding abnormally, as it appeared, to the touch or even gaze of another male being. Reynolds’ temperamental fits are certainly akin to this notion of male hysteria, a manner of behaving that gays themselves have long described as “hissy fits” or gay tantrums.

 

Los Angeles, January 28, 2018

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (January 2018).

 

 

 

 

Youssef Chahine | باب الحديد‎‎ (Bāb al-Ḥadīd) (Cairo Station) / 1958

a matter of perspective

by Douglas Messerli

 

Mohamed Abu Youssef and Abdel Hay Adib (screenplay), Youssef Chahine (director) باب الحديد‎‎ (Bāb al-Ḥadīd) (Cairo Station) / 1958

 

This dark film so outraged Egyptian audiences of the day, that it was quickly banned. And, outside of international film festivals, it has been difficult to see in the West until recently, even though it was nominated as the Egyptian entry for best Foreign Film; the Academy Awards did not accept it as a nominee.

     Yet the film is a sprawling neo-realist-like drama that engages us with the workers, travelers, and others inhabiting and visiting the vast Cairo Train Station, gradually spinning into a Hitchcock-like thriller that predates Psycho the film it most resembles.


      Chahine’s work is painted on such a vast stage of various events and actions that it would be nearly pointless and highly academic to describe them all: among its minor tales, for example, is a story of a young girl about to lose her lover as he leaves Cairo with his family; an incident concerning marvelous rock’n’roll group who perform under the name of Mike and His Skyrockets, terrorizing the traditional Muslim travelers; and a strand of storytelling regarding a delegation of young women opposing marriage. All three are interlinking series of characters that bring together the numerous cinematic threads woven by this excellent director.


       More centrally, an elderly newspaper seller, Madbouli, takes pity on a down-and-out boy who is lame, Qiawi (played by the director himself), and gives him a job selling papers as well as finding a shed in which he can sleep. Qiawi, we soon discover, is a would-be ladies’ man, despite his poverty and rag-tag appearance, and has plastered the walls of his station hovel with pictures of women movie-stars and other glamorous figures, falling in love with one of the several women who illegally attempt to sell soda to the passengers, Hannuma (played by the noted Egyptian film beauty Hind Rostom). Hannuma is ready to marry the burly porter, Abu Siri (Farid Shawqi), who spends most of his time attempting to build a union of his fellow workers so that they can be protected and make decent wages. But Hannuma is also a flirt, and teases Qiawi, who dreams of marrying his would-be lover and taking her to his home village by the sea, far away from the crowds.

       This quartet of characters is what truly drives Chahine’s epic story and shifts it from a kind of generalized portrait of train-station life to a tense murder mystery worthy of our attention.



      Particularly through the relationship of the gentle Madbouli and the outcast Qiawi, we begin to perceive not only that something is amiss, but that “the boy” Madbouli has taken in has two personalities. On the surface he is a kind and believing dimwit, but within deep passions are stirring, and when he is mocked—as he is throughout this film—he becomes something closer to Hitchcock’s Norman Bates than to a simple street urchin.

       We first begin to notice this when we see him not only cutting “out” the newspaper beauties that line his walls, but later beginning to cut them “up.” And, after hearing of a murder in which a woman was stabbed, cut up with a butcher knife and placed in a wooden crate, the kind boy is transformed into a would-be monster, particularly after admitting his love and dreams to Hannuma, which she rejects, trying to help him perceive the absurdity of his plans.


      Ready to leave by train with Abu Siri for her wedding—a theme repeated in reversals throughout the movie—Hannuma packs her trousseau, while Qiawi finds his own crate, pretending to use it for Hannuma’s transport of her possessions. Chased by the police, Hannuma has been forced to hand over her incriminating drink bucket to Qiawi, and he suggests she visit him in a nearby warehouse where he has placed it. But at the last moment, in a hurry to catch the train, she sends another friend to fetch it. In the dark of the warehouse, Qiawi does not notice that it is not Hannuma come for the bucket and reaches out with a recently purchased butcher knife to stab the unknowing victim again and again before shoving her body into the crate and locking it up. As one reviewer wrote, you might have thought Hitchcock had seen this film, repeating elements in his Psycho, if you didn’t know the work was generally unavailable.

     Through a series of events, both Madbouli and Abu Sir begin to perceive that something is terribly wrong with the lame boy, and we watch him growing madder by the moment as, at one point, he speaks to stray cat as if she were Hannuma, replaying out all the dreams he has created for their life together. When the cat seems to mock him, he brutally beats it. And when he soon after discovers that he has not actually killed Hannuma, almost at the same moment the others discover the girl he has brutally stabbed still living in the chest, the entire station comes alive in an attempt to track down the would-be murderer and carry him away to an asylum at the very same moment when Hannuma herself returns for the still missing bucket.



      The last few chase scenes of this movie are incredibly intense, as Qiawi again tries to attack Hannuma as she attempts to fend him off to save her life, the entire series of intense intercuts ending with both characters on the railroad tracks, Qiawi holding a knife over her as the mob approaches. Only the gentle Madbouli, now the boy’s surrogate father, can convince him that the marriage about which Qiawi is obsessed is now blessed, and will take place immediately, if only he put on the robe prepared for him; as the boy stands in near-ecstasy, others slip him into a straight-jacket as he is carried off.

       The strange voyages we have encountered in this film seem to be but a few mad days in a world of such intense cultural shifts and class and social differences that we wonder whether they might ever be mended, a question we still might ask about Egyptian culture today.

     Combining these broader tensions with the inner turmoil of a young man, a bit like Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom (there are several scenes, in fact, where Qiawi is truly caught “peeping” at women, spellbound by their bodies), who knows he may never consummate his sexual desires, Chahine has created in Cairo Station a brooding masterpiece that speaks of cultural wars which place deep demands on both insiders and outsiders, upon both the people who are blessed and those who are not. And finally, we realize through the director’s kaleidoscopic vision, that these differences in status and power are often merely a matter of perspective.

 

Orange, March 10, 2017

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (March 2017).

Jim Gable and Barbra Streisand | Barbra: The Music, the Memories, the Magic / 2017

songs porcelain and silver-plated

by Douglas Messerli

 

Richard Jay-Alexander, Jay Landers, and Barbra Streisand (screenwriters), Jim Gable and Barbra Streisand (directors) Barbra: The Music, The Memories, the Magic / 2017

 

Just before Christmas, I sat down to watch the first recording of a Barbra Streisand concert that I had seen since I was a teenager.

      In several ways, this older Barbra is even better than your younger self of the 1960s when she performed in My Name Is Barbra and Color Me Barbra. Certainly, she now seems less showy and far surer of herself. She loves, as this Netflix-sponsored film makes clear, to be in charge. And she is in charge, apparently of nearly everything: the songs she sings (even in Funny Girl she insisted to Flo Ziegfeld that she had to choose her own songs), the instrumentation, the pacing of her performance, and, most importantly, she utterly controls her amazing tonal modulations, altering between a quiet hum, melodic whispers, and old-fashioned vocal “belting out.”


     If anything, she now has greater vocal control, but she’s always had one of the most remarkable voices in song-singing history. Like the very greats, Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Rosemary Clooney, and a few others, Streisand’s voice is always recognizable and memorable in a way that has attracted what seem to be worshippers more than a mere audience. The Miami audience here felt that they not merely needed to madly applaud each song, but turned every number into a standing ovation, to which Streisand generally and seemingly honestly awarded with a “Thank you,” “Wow!” “I’m glad you liked it!” or “You’re a wonderful audience.”

     If you like good music and, like me, are a hardened liberal, what is there not to like? Although Streisand restrained herself at this concert, you clearly knew what she felt about Trump and his kind, and if you live in Los Angeles, it’s hard not to know that she has given millions to hospitals and other charities. And, because of her talent and goodness of heart, you can almost forgive her from some of her crazy obsessions, like constructing a kind of mini-mall, just for herself, in the basement of her Malibu house. The very fact that she’s still singing so very gloriously is a cause for celebration. So what if she centers much of this concert around her own past achievements, singing far too many of her standards such as “The Way We Were” and “Evergreen?” Give the girl some credit.

      And credit she certainly got from her audience. As Robert Lloyd summarized it in the Los Angeles Times:

 

Like any great artist, she is at the mercy of the character she converts to art. ("I could not help but do it my way" is a theme of the evening.) She is complicated and contradictory, a Countess from Brooklyn, ethnic and elevated. Her singing is the sound of aspiration, of arrival, of indomitability. It is practiced and it's punk, it's tender and ferocious; she can create an impression of great power by getting very quiet. Her diction is impeccable, her accent unreconstructed. She is precise with her consonants and extravagant with her vowels.

 

      Yet why did I still have this strange feeling that I would have preferred to be hearing Garland and Clooney, or even the far rawer Bette Midler; certainly for Broadway theater Barbara Cook would have been more fun. Or listening to a great Broadway songstress like Christine Ebersole, Bernadette Peters, Audra McDonald, or Patti LuPone, all of whom I’ve heard live on stage. Of course, I too liked Streisand on the movie musicals of Funny Girl and Hello Dolly! What I kept asking myself was wrong with this wonderful performance?

       When Streisand sings a stage musical number such as Sondheim’s “Being Alive,” Anthony Newley’s and Leslie Bricusse’s “Who Can I Turn To,” or Jerry Herman’s “Before the Parade Passes By,” I immediately wake up; I too might have given her a standing ovation just for the Newley piece. And I have to give her an award for hutzpah for tackling the dead-on-arrival Rodgers and Hammerstein walnut, “Climb Ev’ry Mountain” (with Jaime Fox, no less).


     But the problem is, and always has been, is that, at heart, Streisand prefers the kitsch. She clearly prefers working with Alan and Marilyn Bergman and other pop composers as she did in her Yentl’s “Pappa Can You Hear Me?” (sorry not the same Yentl I recall from Isaac B. Singer)—gifted purveyors of populist nonsense, as opposed to the greats like Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, or Stephen Sondheim. Even with all her talent, Streisand still prefers the musical silver-plated and porcelain-like knock-offs produced for Hollywood in the manner of The Franklin Mint. Almost every time she has a choice, Streisand chooses sentimentality over wit. A rose and teacup are her emblems. And in the end, despite the wonderment she brings to nearly every musical offering, her artistry suffers.

       It’s not that LuPone or McDonald have never sung the Broadway versions of these same knock-offs, written by the likes of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Disney composers; it’s simply that they keep it in proportion, returning to Sondheim or even Jule Styne (the man who actually made Streisand famous), whereas Streisand obviously would rather work with her long-time friends, the Bergmans. I am sure that many in her Miami audience actually prefer “Evergreen” and Neil Diamond’s “You Don’t Bring Me Flowers” over her nearly perfect rendition of “People.” But Streisand, seemingly, doesn’t even recognize the difference.

 

Los Angeles, December 27, 2017

Reprinted from USTheater, Opera, and Performance (December 2017).

 

Index [listed alphabetically by director]

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.