February 11, 2013

Play Review by Patrick Mulvihill:
Next to Normal


A review of the Lord Leebrick Theater's (Eugene, OR) production
 of the hit broadway musical, Next to Normal. 
Performance date:  January 24th, 2013.
            
            The backbone of musical theatre is, of course, the music. For a small-scale production, the musical score of the Lord Leebrick version of Next to Normal was remarkably mature, strengthening the play as a whole. The actors and musicians almost always managed to convey emotions with both power and clarity, using music as an emotive force to draw the audience deeper into the narrative.
            Instead of relying on pre-recorded instrumental tracks to sing over, (a tactic that some small local theatres employ), this production hosted a full band: a drummer, a bassist, an electric guitarist, a cellist, and a pianist. The accompaniment was subtle and never overpowering, but it still provided a level of energy and passion that a recorded track could never have achieved. In terms of volume, it was quite easy to disentangle the vocalists from the mix and understand the lyrics. The band’s musical sensitivity made this possible. For example, when the electric guitarist switched to a distorted hard rock tone, he kept his amplifier volume level very low so that his playing would not intrude on the vocal performances. This dynamic restraint is of great importance in a musical like Next to Normal where the majority of the dialogue is sung.
            Another example of restraint was the drummer’s use of multi-rod drumsticks instead of conventional ones. These are made up of many smaller sticks banded together – which gives them a softer attack than regular drumsticks, yet a more aggressive sound than metal brushes which many jazz drummers prefer. Just like the guitarist, the drummer was concerned with achieving the powerful sound of rock but without the ear-shattering volume associated with the genre.
            With an excellent support from the instrumentalists, the actors were allowed to shine. The actresses who played Diana and Natalie had soaring mezzo-soprano voices suitable for the big, dramatic emotions they were attempting to convey. Another powerful singer was the actor portraying Gabe. His voice was much more steely and biting than his Broadway counter-part, but this was a welcome change. Several of the songs about pain and longing such as “I Am the One” were vastly improved by his shouting, urgent tone.
            
                          Lord Leebrick theater in downtown Eugene. New address is 198 W. Broadway.
                 
            The actor who played Dan was also a skilled singer (and thespian) but his voice did not fit that of a middle-aged man. His tone was so young and pure that it was difficult to imagine him as a father figure. Remember that Dan is supposed to be a tired, weary husband whose youth has long since passed – and this actor failed to project that idea visually and sonically. Also, because all the male actors sang in the tenor register, it was difficult to tell them apart. An easy solution would have been to make Dan a lyrical baritone. However, talented baritones are much more rare than tenors. Therefore, it is more likely that the man who played Dan was chosen for his considerable theatrical talent, not for his accuracy in depicting the character.
            Still, the music was quite effective. The catchy songs helped me stay focused on the complex narrative. Numerous times, I felt chills. I was drawn into the story’s world and I suddenly cared a great deal about Diana and her family even though they were fictional characters in a bizarre, surreal situation that I would never be put in. Reading the play did not give that same sense of empathy. True, it was a cleverly written play, intricate and richly nuanced, but text alone cannot reveal the efficacy of a musical – one must witness it and hear the songs in action. The music of Next to Normal is the key to its emotional power.

November 3, 2011

Jurassic Park Book Review


As a huge fan of Spielberg's dinosaur-packed movie, I decided to seek out the novel that sparked the Jurassic Park fire. The book is a sci-fi thriller written by Michael Crichton in 1990. Let's dive in and take a look.

The main plot is very intriguing. A billionaire, John Hammond creates a theme park which hosts biologically recreated dinosaurs. The story picks up when Hammond invites a team of experts to investigate the park and make sure it's safe.

On the team is Dr. Grant the paleontologist, his assistant Ellie Satler, Ian Malcolm the chaos theorist, and a lawyer, Donal Gennaro. Also, Hammond invites his obnoxious grandchildren, Lex and Tim Murphy. They quickly discover that the island isn't as safe as it seems -- the dinosaurs break free and the humans are tossed into desperate struggle to survive.

Jurassic Park was written in a very detailed, scientific way. Michael Crichton was clearly dedicated to creating a realistic situation. He offers many scientific explanations that actually sounded plausible at the time like extracting DNA to create the cloned dinosaurs. Still, Crichton's technical jargon feels dated now. It's hard to take the book seriously when its idea of "cutting edge" technology is a main frame computer that runs on a couple gigabytes, the storage space of an iPod Shuffle.

The computers are the dinosaurs that steal the show.

Another aspect of the book that didn't appeal to me was the characters. Unlike in the movie where Jeff Goldblum's charisma shines, the book's cast feels stiff. Dr. Grant, for instance is the definition of a bland character. He has nothing witty to say, no character intrigue, just a paleontologist who seems fairly interested in the park.
     
In honesty, the only character who felt fleshed out in the whole book was John Hammond. This man is technically a villain filled with greed (and a complete disregard for safety) but we also feel sympathy for him -- we can relate to his dream of bringing dinosaurs back to life.

While Jurassic Park is sub-par with its characters, it does succeed in the action department. There are many thrilling adventures in the book didn't make their way to the film like the escape from a T-Rex on a river raft or the Pteradon Hatchery scene. Crichton has a knack for describing dinosaur violence and gore, too. The dilophosaurus' slaughter of Dennis Nedry is written in rich, gruesome detail. We see that the author has a much firmer grasp of action than character development.


Conclusion:

Jurassic Park has a fascinating premise and exciting action scenes but it lacks warmth or heart to its characters. John Hammond may be deep but the other characters are too shallow. Also, the overly-scientific prose seems dated. Still, this is a fairly enjoyable read that I would recommend to fans of the movie or fans of dinosaurs in general.

Score:
2.5/5 Fairly Good

October 18, 2011

Book Review: 'Salem's Lot by Stephen King


A while back, I reviewed the 1897 classic, Dracula by Bram Stoker. Now, I'm taking on a modern vampire story by the master of written horror, Stephen King. This novel, 'Salem's Lot is a very straight-forward chiller but its main power is its engrossing, realistic setting.

Like the vast majority Stephen King's novels, this story takes place in the writer's home state of Maine. It's set in the fictional town of Jerusalem's Lot ('Salem's Lot for short) where nothing interesting happens…until a vampire slithers into the story and starts hunting human prey. Essentially, it's a grittier retelling of Stoker's novel, except it's set in 1970's rural America.

                 
Like the classic story, the plot centers around a team of average people dedicated to slaying a crafty, scheming vampire. Stephen King's cast is much richer than Stoker's, though. Ben Mears, the protagonist, is a novelist struggling to fight his inner demons. He's a man we can root for.
Some other likable characters are Matt Burke the wise schoolteacher, Susan Norton the lively romantic interest, and Mark Petrie, a twelve year old boy who gets caught in this horrific mess.

King has a real gift for crafting a realistic setting with lifelike characters. This story may contain blood-sucking, undead monsters, but we still feel like 'Salem's Lot could happen. King knows rural Maine like the back of his hand and he and paints a vivid picture of small town life -- just so he can tear it down with a barrage of supernatural terror.

The first half of the novel is just a calm ride through the town of Jerusalem's Lot. This is actually not boring. We get to understand town life and get to know its characters. Little touches like the scene where old men argue endlessly over weather give us a strong impression of what it would be like to live there.

Then, all Hell breaks lose when the vampire, Kurt Barlow begins his devilish work. Barlow is rarely seen in the novel (to build suspense) but we do get to encounter his human sidekick, Straker, quite often. They are both intimidating villains with sharp wits, always one step ahead of the protagonists.

'Salem's Lot may be similar to Dracula but it turns up the horror dial a couple notches. It's more graphic with its descriptions of violence and it features a more modern, streamlined writing approach. There are no long, winding passages, only King's sharp and precise style. He creates some genuinely scary scenes like a school bus full of undead children and a terrifying dissent into the vampire's lair.

          
Are there faults with this story? Well, it was only Stephen King's second novel and he hadn't fully flexed his literary wings yet. The first problem is that, in an effort to make the setting more realistic, he focused too much on minor characters and tiny details. For instance, why did we have to hear about Jerusalem's Lot's petty police force when we could have been reading about Ben Mears' vampire hunt?

Another problem I had was with the ending. The novel builds up to an astounding, gripping climax but then fizzles out. I don't want to reveal anything and spoil the story but the ending feels too vague. We get a pretty rushed, unclear resolution that leaves lots of answers. Still, it doesn't ruin the book. You can't really ruin something as entertaining as 'Salem's Lot.

Conclusion:
'Salem's Lot is a great tribute to Bram Stoker's Dracula and a thrilling modern story. It may not be my favorite Stephen King novel but its realistic setting and characters, excellent prose, and frightening atmosphere make this a great read.

Score:
4/5 Excellent