1 comments about Meaning in Motion: New Cultural Studies of Dance (Post-Contemporary Interventions).

1. Editor Jane C. Desmond brings together a collection of provocative essays analyzing ballet, modern, and post-modern dance from feminist and multi-cultural perspectives. Some prominent topics include: 1) The male gaze and dance performance; 2) Objective versus subjective performance; 3) Michel Foucault's Docile Body Theory and Dance; 4) Gender difference and aesthetic virtues; 5) Nationalism versus the racial "other"; 6) Combining the universal and the personal through autobiographical performance.

1 comments about Breaking the Rules: The Wooster Group.

1. For the last 25 years, The Wooster Group has been one of the most influential and important experimental theatre groups in the country. They have managed, along with such contemporaries as Richard Foreman and Robert Wilson, to redefine the boundaries of what theatre is and what it can do while all the while having a wonderfully fun and zany time. This book not only gives in-depth analysis of seven of the group's pieces, but also manages to record the feelings and personalities of the group members through the countless interviews and dialogues represented. The result is a terrifically informative book which captures much of the unique collaborative process that goes into each work, each one a theatrical "explosion" of visceral excitement. However, like all experimental theatre, it is terribly difficult to really represent theatre that is not based on standard written texts; a production of the Wooster Group must be experienced first-hand in conjunction with this book to really appreciate what the troupe has achieved. Any reader must also recognize that although this is the only text devoted solely to the Soho performers, it is, at the time of this review, twelve years old and does not represent the current productions but rather the processes and experiements, constructions and deconstructions, odds and ends that led to what they are today.

4 comments about Understanding the Film : An Introduction to Film Appreciation.

1. This is poorly written and I imagine anyone over the age of 14 would be insulted by the tone in which the authors speak to the reader. I found several passages in the book particularly insulting, such as "You may be most familiar with American Films and not realize that there is a large International film industry." It seems the authors have assumed that I'm an idiot or have been raised by wolves. This is being used as the text for my 300 level college class and I am stunned. There are much better texts out there. Don't waste your time with this.



2. I have been teaching a high school film class for the last three years. I ordered this book and decided to adopt this as the course text. However, the book reads like a long-winded and dull run-on sentence. Film terms are not clearly explored, and the text glosses over concepts. My students were bored to tears with this text. Most of the information presented was common sense and overly generalized. Now I am using the text Film: An Introduction which is an amazing first textbook filled with examples of film terminology. Beginning film students need specific examples to demonstrate film terminology and concepts. The new textbook explores mise-en-scene, cinematography, sound, and editing, all within the first four chapters with plenty of color and black and white photographs to illustrate the concepts. I wish that I could get a refund on Understanding the Film. Trust me, the book is worthless, and I am perplexed by the other two reviewers who really appreciated the book.



3. When I prepared to introduce film appreciation to my 9th graders, I found this book a good teacher resource. It not only gives a comprehensive overview of all aspects of the film industry (history, production and editing techniques, profiles of actors, directors, producers, film reviews and studies, list of good films, etc), but also provides compellings reasons for why film should be studied in the classroom. Movies are indeed the novel of 21st century, and this book is helpful for understanding why.



4. Every once in a while a classroom textbook will capture the attention and cause a student to read beyond the chapter assigned. Understanding the Film is one of those books. Its many quotes and anecdotal passages, along with its profiles of well known people in the film industry, would have me engrossed before I'd realize that what I was "supposed" to be reading was on the other end of the book.

   WARNING TO STUDENTS: If you browse this book, you'll never make it to your assigned reading.

   The authors, Bone and Johnson, cover every aspect of film, from the people who make movies to the people who review them to the people who go to see them. The chapters are digestible segments outlining each element of the film experience, yet overlap enough to give the whole thing unity.

   As a budding filmmaker, I particularly enjoyed the profiles, which were the first person accounts of actors, directors, special effects artists, and other industry professionals. Cutting through the Hollywood mystique, which has long made the movie business seem inaccessible to us mere mortals, the profiles allow us to see that there are real people behind the hype - people with dreams and aspirations that we can identify with.

   What didn't I like? Not much. The book did get off to a tedious start. In showing that film was "big business", the first chapter seemed like an endless string of statistics and figures. And, as with most textbooks, I thought it was a little pricey. I paid $35 at the university book store (I should have shopped Amazon), which is a little high for a paperback.

   All said, I definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in movies and the film industry.

5 comments about Swimming to Cambodia.

1. Swimming to Cambodia is fundamentally an autobiographical monologue, and one only peripherally connected to the (excellent) film that inspired it, The Killing Fields. Those unfamiliar with Spalding Gray's works may be perplexed to read his self-centered, occasionally manic or depressive, and deeply personal ramblings. This book is, in a way, misleading; even more so than Shakespeare's plays, Gray's monologues are meant to be watched, not read. It's difficult to imagine his drawling New England accent, the ironic and self-deprecating humor, and the incredible honesty with which Gray would sit at a table with a glass of water and share, fundamentally, himself.
   
   Swimming to Cambodia is not the first of what became his signature internal dialogs, but as it is the earliest work available on film, it's a good place to start. Those who may recognize him from his work in small film roles (Beaches, King of the Hill), or theater (including a much-loved role as the Stage Manager in Our Town) may be surprised to learn of his collection of solo stage work. Some are available only as a manuscript (Sex & Death to the Age 14), others as a sound recording (Slippery Slope), and three have been filmed (Monster in a Box, Gray's Anatomy), including this piece. Gray's work should be explored as a whole; the narrative of his life informed and expanded on continuing themes of anxiety, his mother's battle with mental illness and early-middle-aged suicide, his relationships with women, his eventual fatherhood. His final, unfinished monologue, is accompanied by the epitaphs of those who knew and loved him, and who were saddened by but understood his final succumbing to depression in 2004. Start at the beginning, and get as close to the live versions of his works as you can.
   
   If you're looking for insight into the political history of Cambodia, or deeper meaning in the Oscar-winning film based on a true story about the friendship between an American journalist and his Cambodian counterpart, you've come to the wrong place. Gray does address topics like the sex trade in Cambodia (often graphically), and his experience filming The Killing Fields in Thailand, but he weaves these in with his thoughts on his adopted home town, New York, or a train ride from Philly to Chicago. But if you're interested in the opportunity for an honest (and often humorous) glimpse into the mind of a brilliant, insightful, and emotionally complicated performer, this is the beginning. Spalding Gray blurred the lines between life and performance, and so I urge you to experience his work as a living process, the way he shared it.



2. This is a readable enough book, but those seeking new and interesting inforamtion about Cambodia in the time period with which this book is concerned will not be particularly fullfilled.



3. I thought this would be a great insight into someone who had been involved in the film "The Killing Fields" the academy award winning film about the fall of Phnom Penh and the associated attrocities heaped upon the Cambodian people in 1975. But I was quite disappointed. Although I expected profanity and the like. I was put off with how much was communicated through its pages. Fair enough not everyone believes the same way or has the same value system. However this book was not a consuming read as I thought it would be. Yes, it spoke about the day to day trials of filmmaking. And in particular the activities of Spalding. Because Mr Gray had a relatively small role in the film, it could not enlighten the me with much insight other than Mr Gray's personal experiences and observations of other crew members.It may be a great work for some but it did not work for me.



4. First of all this is a monologue and I usually hate monologues. The first time I watched this was starting at midnight and I was quite tired. I was expecting to fall asleep to it but found myself wide awake and engrossed. I was absolutely mesmerized by this performance. Spalding Gray just captivates you from the very beginning and holds your attention all the way through. He mixes it with bits of wry comedy and anecdotes, and mixes in a bit of history and politics for good measure. He actually brings you to the places he is talking about, its like you can see Thailand and experience the production of the Killing Fields.
   
   Mr. Gray talks not as someone talking from note cars or a pre planned speech but from someone telling you about a great adventure. He has a natural and easy going style that makes you very comfortable. His energy and passion is contagious. The may is a born storyteller and narrator.
   
   It is one of the most amazing performances I have ever seen and I am usually an action movie kind of guy. I had never even heard of Spalding Gray before this nor had I seen the Killing Fields. But after watching I rented the killing fields and researched Mr. Gray.
   
   There is great lighting and film style to go along with it. Even though he's just sitting at a desk they add an exciting mood to it.
   
   Its ashamed that Spalding Gray is no longer with us as I found the man intensely interesting. I would highly recommend the VHS/DVD to anyone. I don't know how well it would be in a book as much of the attraction is Spalding himself. The man was simply amazing in this.



5. The recent disappearance of Spalding Gray has made me realize what I don't like about this film: its narcissism. It's Gray's defining characteristic. After a while, despite Jonathan Demme's fabulous direction (he makes the best of a limited repertoire) it just gets boring.

1 comments about Henry VIII (Folger Shakespeare Library).

1. This is my second book of Folger Shakespeare Library and I'm very happy with it as with my first purchase. I'm not a Shakespeare scholar. I read Shakespeare's plays because I love his beautiful language and always enjoy high drama. So for me Folger's edition of Henry VIII is just perfect. It has nice introduction featuring some information about Shakespeare's life, theatre, publication of his plays and understanding his language. It's quite informative but not overwhelming.
   Explanatory notes are following the original text of the play and conviniently placed at the left pages. That makes reading of even the most difficult pieces more injoyable and easier.
   After the play there is an essay by B. Mowat wich had some interest for me too.
   As for the play itself, I highly enjoyed it. Feeling an atmosphere of Henry VIII's coart, and following dramas of Chatherine's, Cardinal Wolsey's and Duke of Buckingham's lives gave me an actual thrill of enjoying a perfection.

No comments about Aerobic Dance Exercise (Winning Edge).

5 comments about The Oresteia Trilogy: Agamemnon, the Libation-Bearers and the Furies.

1. The value of The Oresteia Trilogy, written by Aeschylus in the fifth century B.C., can be described as educational and informative. However, the entertainment value, by present day's standards, is extremely lacking. The lengthy speeches and lack of physical action are too restricting for today's drama. A performance of The Oresteia Trilogy, while well regarded in theater departments of universities, would not be well received by an audience looking for a night of entertainment. The tragedy set in ancient Greece in 1250 B.C. tells the background and story of Orestes, the son of a king. He vows to avenge his father's murder by his mother, Clytemnestra. The Oresteia Trilogy is missing the ability to provide the audience with entertainment and information at the same time, which is a key concept for an enjoyable experience.
   In the Golden Age of Athens, the time and city of Aeschylus, drama and the idea of a pure democracy were two of many advances. In The Oresteia Trilogy as well as many of the other plays Aeschylus wrote, he introduced many innovations to go along with the progressing times. A reduced chorus, more dialogue, poetic diction, as well as elaborate staging and multiple actors are all a result of Aeschylus's influence. The idea of democracy is also introduced in the third play of the trilogy, "The Furies." A court is held with what is now known as a jury of peers, which now plays an important role in today's courtrooms. The importance of The Oresteia Trilogy in today's society is that it gave one of the first glimpses of justice working in the democratic court system.
   In relation to many plays with tragic themes, it is fair to say Aeschylus's The Oresteia Trilogy is archaic, as far as relating to current society. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, also a tragedy, can be related to the modern-day teen, such as myself, easily. It involves the story of two young adults, in love, with the problem of their families being at conflict for many years. They struggle to stay together only to both resolve to suicide. However, many adolescents can relate to their own families disapproval of the person they date. Conversely, in The Oresteia Trilogy I found it difficult to relate to any one character. The story involves the sacrifice of a daughter, Iphigenia; the murder of a husband and king, Agamemnon; and the murder of a mother, Clytemnestra, by her son, Orestes. Throughout this whole plot, it was challenging to align with any single event or character in the story. The adultery present can be related to the contemporary culture as well as the trial of Orestes, but as a whole the play resulted in little connection with the youth in today's world.
   The predictability of the story line was also a disappointing part of the reading process. After the first play, "Agamemnon," the second two plays, "The Libation-Bearers" and "The Furies," seemed to be unsurprising and expected. The audience is able to predict the murder of Clytemnestra and the role of Orestes. One unknowledgeable fact in the beginning is the fate of Orestes. However, after the first several pages of "The Furies" that, as well, can be foreseen.
   Finally, while the entertainment value of Aeschylus's trilogy is not adequate, the educational worth is ample. After reading the plays, one has a better understanding of the time period surrounding 1250 B.C. These works resulted in a greater comprehension of the religious beliefs of the time, which include a polytheistic view with the gods working directly with the common people. Also, mentioned was the government, in the form of kings and queens, as well a brief glimpse of the Trojan War. Knowledge of the fifth century drama presentation using a chorus and less direct dialogue between characters was also achieved when reading The Oresteia Trilogy.
   As times have changed, so has the overall worthiness of Aeschylus's The Oresteia Trilogy. It is worthwhile for the reader to both attain knowledge and experience entertainment. Other representations of a tragedy are available that reach this goal. The Oresteia Trilogy does not accomplish both these goals, and therefore, cause the audience to lessen their purpose in reading. While the educational purposes of reading this particular trilogy are present and effective, if the fundamental reason to read is entertainment, it is worthwhile to look at different tragic plays available. The plot and the author's ability to relate the characters to the reader are downfalls for the audience and could lead to a great disappointment.



2. I don't consider myself a women's rights activist my any means, but upon reading Aeschylus' tragedy The Oresteia Trilogy I was able to sympathize with them. I felt these play, written between 500-400B.C. in Greece, portrayed women as the lesser sex. They were presented as evil, worthless, conspiring creatures. I truly appreciate the poetic text of the play, for it was beautifully written. But I feel that Aeschylus' portrayal of the women was a little harsh.
   The three plays that form the trilogy tell the story of the curse of the house of Atreus. In the first play, "Agamemnon," Agamemnon, king of the city of Mycene, is murdered by his wife Clytemnestra after he returns home from the ten year long Trojan War. In the second play, "The Libation-Bearers," Agamemnon's son Orestes avenges the death of his father by slaying his mother Clytemnestra. The third play entitled "The Furies" is about Orestes struggle with the furies, creatures from the underground that come to torment Orestes about his mother's death.
   In the first play the chorus, which consists of the elders of the city, tells the story of the start of the Trojan War and its causes. They blame the whole war on a woman, Helen. Helen was the reason for the war, but it wasn't her fault, as the chorus says it to be. When one reads the play they begin to hate Helen because the chorus belittles her so much. They don't place any of the blame on Paris who actually stole her, simply because she was the most beautiful woman in the world. Is it right to fault someone because of a pretty face? It was said that Helen went willingly, without any struggle. The chorus constantly ridicules her saying that she is an adulteress and the cause of all the fighting and death; "Slain for a women's sin, a false wife's shame!"("Agamenon"pg.17). She might have went willingly, but could she have prevented Paris from taking her?
   "Not the true parent is the mother's womb, she doth but nurse the seed new-sown: the male is the parent; she for him, as stranger for a stranger, hoards the gem."("The Furies" pg137). This is a quote from the god Apollo describing the role of women. He claims that the man is the only parent of a child. The only thing that the woman does is house the man's seed until the child is born. Apollo argues that a women has no role in the actual creation of a child, it is the man's seed that forms the child. He also claims that the killing of a husband is far worse than the killing of a mother. But is one truly worse than the other?
   In the third play malevolent creatures from the underworld arise to torment Orestes about the murder of his mother. These monsters, known as furies, are despised by all. They are known as spiteful, revengeful, and evil. They are also all women. One could possible argue that they are women because they are avenging a matricide, but we can't be fully confident of the underlying meaning of the all women furies.
   I understand that times have changed dramatically from the time that Aeschylus wrote, and that our perception of many things, especially the role and treatment of women, are different. But I feel that the women in this play really received a bad rap. Are women really the evil sex?



3. "The Eumenides" was a captivating play with a few minor flaws. To fully understand the play, one must first understand the history that went on before the play took place. "The Eumenides" was written by Aeschylus and is also known as "The Furies", the third play of The Oresteia Trilogy. This play is set around the time period of 1250 B.C., approximately the same time as the Trojan War. The main character of the play is Orestes from Argos. In the plays before "The Eumenides", Orestes killed his mom, Clytemnestra, who killed Orestes' dad, Agamemnon, after he returned home from war. Orestes was told by Apollo to kill his mom in order to avenge his father's death. Therefore, this is the reason "The Eumenides" began at Apollo's temple.
   Aeschylus was an Athenian man who wrote thirteen first place plays. He wrote this tragedy around 458 B.C. This play had some new innovations for its time period, such as a second actor, elaborate staging, and poetic diction. Aeschylus was in the navy at Salamis and took part in the Persian Invasion in 480 B.C. He died in 456 B.C., when an eagle dropped a tortoise on his head, crushing his skull.
   "The Eumenides" was a great play, as were the other two of the trilogy. The poetic words seemed to flow from the actors' mouths, maybe a little too much when the Furies spoke prior to the trial. The Furies were annoying throughout the play and had too many rambling speaking parts. However, the play contained a practical plot line that is still fit for today's society, even though it was written some 2,461 years ago. I enjoyed seeing how the people from long ago dealt with similar issues, which still haunt our society today.
   The plot appeared to flow steadily throughout the play. All of the various scenes streamed together and gave an insight into what life was like for Orestes. However, there wasn't much action throughout the play, but the lack of action was made up with suspense provided during the trial. Overall, Aeschylus did an excellent job writing the play.
   Throughout "The Eumenides" Aeschylus chose his words perfectly. The poetic words surged smoothly through the actors' mouths. Perhaps one of the most interesting parts was listening to how Aeschylus managed to make rhymes that lasted for a good five minutes, while still making sense. He also used excellent metaphors and similes to emphasize certain points being made during the trial. Although the words may have been offensive to some, they helped highlight the common thought most people had in that time period. The language was difficult to understand at first, but as the play went on, the language became easier to understand. Perhaps one of the best qualities about this play is how it relates to today's society. We are still forced to judge whether a person is innocent or guilty of murder. We still ask God for help and believe that God knows best for us. We also have a similar court system, such as the one the Athenians used. "The Eumenides" shows how we should always obey our God, just as the Athenians did because God will always be on our side, just like Apollo was towards Orestes. In addition, it was interesting to see how the gods interacted with the humans in the Greek times. The play made it clear that gods played a huge role in the decision making at the trial and all other life decisions of the citizens.
   Most of "The Eumenides" was entertaining; however, there were a few dreadful parts. Before the trial, the Furies spoke way too much. The Furies points could have been made in a one or two minute speech, instead of an eight to ten minute speech. Moreover, the way the Furies talked was annoying. I couldn't stand to listen to one of them start a line, and another one finish it. It was hard to tell who was talking because they wore masks. Furthermore, the Furies continual swaying movement drove me crazy.
   The actors and costumes were a perfect match for the play. The actors appeared very natural at their roles. They weren't too dramatic, but they weren't stoic either. The costumes were great as well. They had just enough clues to be able to tell who was who.
   Overall, the "perfectly cast" actors speak their words poetically throughout the play. In addition, it is refreshing to watch a play in which the old-fashioned props and costumes are used. Plus, I like the idea of religion playing a prominent part in the characters' lives, since most modern plays try to avoid religion. "The Eumenides" isn't just the greatest play of The Oresteia Trilogy, but one of the greatest plays of all time.



4. The Oresteia Trilogy, written by Aeschylus, consisted of three well written plays; Agamemnon, The Libation-Bearers, and The Furies. Even though Aeschylus lived in Athens from 525 until 456 B.C., he wrote the play to take place around 1250 B.C. Even though I struggled with the language, the characters had such strong feelings they made the play easier to understand. Aeschylus always gave his characters great emotional range, their feelings moved from one extreme to the other. For example, when Clytemnestra found out that Agamemnon had killed their daughter Iphigenia, she knew the only way to avenge him would be to kill him.
   Orestes plan to avenge his mother was complicated. The god Apollo, as well as Electra, thought Clytemnestra deserved to die because she killed her husband. Apollo thought it might help
   end the curse on the house of Atreus. Regardless, the Chorus thought Orestes' murder was much worse than the murder Clytemnestra committed. Orestes committed matricide, the murdering of one's mother. I liked this passage. I could relate what Orestes was going through, but on a different level. I know what it's like to be indifferent and have everybody expect you to do something, regardless of how you actually feel. Peer pressure is hard enough to deal with and worse if your beliefs aren't set in stone. Being confused and pressured made Orestes' character seem real to me.
   I would definitely recommend The Oresteia Trilogy to anyone as a spectacular play to read. The way the characters' emotions were portrayed and toyed with made the play come to life. I thought Aeschylus did a great job of bringing all of his characters, especially Orestes, to life. The plot was really well developed and made the play much more captivating to read. Overall, this is one of the best plays I have read in an extremely long time. Aeschylus definitely deserved all of his awards for being a playwright.



5. Aeschylus wrote many works in the 400's B.C. He lived in the city of Athens, Greece. He was known for the addition of a second actor in his plays. Aeschylus also brought about the idea of reducing the role of the chorus and the use of more dialogue into his plays. One of his well-known plays was The Oresteia Trilogy. The third part of this trilogy was the play "The Furies," also known as "The Eumenides." "The Furies" took place in Delphi at the Temple of Apollo and in Athens at the Temple of Athena around 1250 B.C. A few years earlier, the Trojan War had ended. The people of Argos went to Troy to take back Helen, Menelaus' wife, whom Paris had captured. The war went on for ten years until Agamemnon, Menelaus, and the people of Argos finally prevailed over the Trojans. The play centers on the curse of the house Atreus, which has held the doom of many family members for years.
   I am reviewing the movie, "The Furies," by Aeschylus and judging his writing and the themes he included in his work. I am centering in on the idea of justice and how it was portrayed in the movie. Aeschylus did a striking job of dealing with the issues of justice in ancient Greece.
   Many of these same issues are still a part of our society today. He managed to capture a theme of great importance and interest to mankind. I believe there are lessons that can be learned today from his work. What he wrote about more than 2,000 years ago is still relevant to modern society.
   In the third installment of The Oresteia Trilogy, "The Furies," the plot centers on Orestes and his dilemma concerning the murder of his mother, Clytemnestra. Orestes came home from exile by his mother to avenge the death of his father, Agamemnon. Clytemnestra killed him because she felt he was disloyal and she wanted control of the country. Orestes came back and murdered his mother because the god Apollo told him that he must avenge his father's death. Orestes fled Argos to receive judgement from the goddess Athena. Pursuing him are the Furies, sent after him by Clytemnestra. They want to kill him because they say he was guilty of matricide. Both parties end up in Athens to hear what Athena has to say about the matter.
   In the movie, costumes were used to an extreme advantage. They enabled the actors to more vividly express their characters. The ghost of Clytemnestra, for example, was dressed in white netting with streams of red coming from it. The netting symbolized how she killed Agamemnon by ensnaring him in a net. The red streams paralleled the blood coming from her wounds inflicted by Orestes. Another good usage of costumes was the Furies. They were evil creatures, which their costumes depicted with dark colors against fiery red hair. I believe the guise of the characters gave the play zest and made it more vivid.
   The main notion of this play was justice in society. The movie illustrated this befittingly with the scene of the trial in Athens. I think this part of the play is a highlight of Aeschylus' trilogy. This shows a perfect example of how justice is executed. Orestes is standing trial for the murder of his mother. He and the Furies oppose each other, as he believes he should be acquitted, while they believe he is theirs to do with what they wish. This scene in the movie has extraordinary elements that make it so important. The way the Furies throw questions at Orestes in a never ceasing bombardment is awesome to see. They are testing him and actually show that he is guilty of matricide. Another impressive thing about this scene is the voting by the jury. They simply took rocks, closed both hands, and placed their rock in the jug either for or against Orestes. The music in this scene brought it out and highlighted the dropping of the rocks. It played a big part in the ceremony and gave it a dramatic effect. The simplicity of this rite compared to the justice system of today is quite different. I think that the way the Athenian jury voted was simple but effective and to the point. It wasn't long and drawn out like it is in the present day.
   The biggest issue in the play was whether there was justice or not. Orestes was furious with his mother for killing his father. The Furies were furious with Orestes for killing his mother. While Clytemnestra had her reasons for killing Agamemnon, Orestes also had his reasons to kill her. While some may consider both killings justified, others may think them unjustifiable. In the movie, this was shown with the fury and hatred between Apollo, a supporter of Orestes, and the Furies. While the jury was casting the votes, Apollo and the Furies had heated debates over who was right and tried to sway the jury. I believe that Orestes deserved some punishment. If I was one of the jury, I think I would have said he was guilty. Of course, I wouldn't have wanted him killed. That is like our present day death penalty, which I absolutely disagree with. However, I do agree that people must be punished for their sins, and therefore, Orestes should be punished for the murder that he committed.
   The play's core of justice took into account issues so complex and consequential to society. Aeschylus made use of the importance of justice and created a work of art based on it. We have all heard of the saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." It says that beauty depends on who is seeing it. This saying applies to "The Furies" in a slightly a different way. I believe that this play deserves the saying, "Justice is in the eye of the beholder." There is no real way to have everyone satisfied that justice has been fulfilled. Each person has a different view of what is just and what isn't. So, whether Orestes is freed or not is up to twelve people, and if they behold justice or not. I am not fond of the subject of justice and therefore this play was not exactly noteworthy to me. However, if you do love to contemplate and behold justice, then I would suggest this play.

5 comments about Gene Kelly: A Life of Dance and Dreams.

1. I have my own personal barometer to indicate whether or not a book is second-rate (or worse). I start counting the typos, and when I hit "five," I officially distrust the author/editors. I hit five by the third chapter and knew I was in for a bumpy ride. This author should have concentrated on spell-checking and fact-checking, rather than obsessing with his thinly veiled,homophobic assertions (as mentioned by another reader, his repeated reference to "Leo McCrary" nearly made me hurl the book across the room!). This really was a maddening read, and it is hardly the biography that the great Gene Kelly deserves. Makes one even sadder to ponder that Kelly's own autobiography was lost when his house burned down in the 80's. That would have been a helluva read.



2. I'm currently only up to page 175, and for the first time in recent memory, I'm giving up on a book. I've wasted way too much time on this piece of utter garbage. I have to thank the other knowledgeable and discerning reviewers here on Amazon for making me realize that there's just no point in continuing with this thing.
   
   From what I've actually managed to get through, it's clear that Yudkoff is many things, but, first and foremost, he's a bad writer. No, strike that: He's a horrible writer. One thing I've always felt is important with biographies is accuracy. Not Yudkoff. He seems to value contradictions and poor research. How poor? I just read the section about HUAC, and he expressed great disdain for director Leo McCarey. He had several paragraphs about him, and mentioned his name numerous times. Now, if you're going to mention someone over and over in your book, one would think that you would at least research him enough to get his name right. Yudkoff calls him Leo McCrary.
   
   The inaccuracies aren't the worst part of the book, by far. Yudkoff seems to be a Communist sympathizer, and that viewpoint is one of the main thrusts of his book. A couple years ago, I read Myrna Loy's autobiography. She was one of those who let her politics run her life, instead of the other way around, and every opinion, encounter and experience was tinged/tainted by her political view. She seemed to have a desire to bed every man in Hollywood, but only if they were a "good Democrat." As awash with politics as her book was, though, it pales in comparison to the hammer and sickle-waving contempt for all things right of Lennin found here. Combined with the glaring inaccuracies (not to mention the outright libel in some passages--Yudkoff takes courage from Cary Grant being in the grave to state his rumored homosexuality as fact), it's impossible to take this book seriously, and nearly impossible to take it at all.
   
   One thing that's essential when reading a biography is trust: you have to be able to trust the author and his account of the person's life, otherwise it's a wasted effort. Very little of what Yudkoff writes--outside of direct quotes (and even those are suspect based on his glaringly poor fact-checking)--can be accepted as fact. This book was clearly written with an agenda, but unfortunately, that agenda doesn't seem to include an accurate retelling of Kelly's life. Avoid this like the bird flu.



3. I love Gene Kelly but I don't love this book. I don't see the point in the AFI tribute, just get to the history. The only good thing I can say about this book is that Gene Kelly's talent and determination come through, but that is nothing the author did, that was Gene Kelly and you can get that from any book, any movie, and any story told about him.



4. Ugh, where to begin? As others have written before me, there are so many basic errors in this book that I wonder at the author's "research." If he had spent more time getting the facts straight instead of pretending to know what Gene Kelly was thinking during the AFI tribute, then this book may not be the shambles we readers have had to endure. As I was reading, finding the errors actually became a game for me. I would sit there with my book and pen and paper, just daring Yudkoff to pitch out another mistake. Here are the ones I found: (I'm sure there are several others.)
   
   1. Shirley Maclaine's dress at the AFI Tribute is BLACK not RED. An error that is SO basic, it shows how careless this author is throughout the entire book.
   
   2. In For Me and My Gal, Judy Garland's character was NOT engaged to the George Murphy character. Hey Yudkoff, it would help if you saw the movies of the person about whom you're writing, don't you think???
   
   3. Again, in For Me and My Gal, the Judy Garland and Gene Kelly characters are NOT "immediate sensations," as the author states. Sheesh.
   
   4. Yup, another one regarding For Me and My Gal: the "author" (I'm beginning to use this term more loosely) states that Gene Kelly's character is a solo act in Europe. NOT TRUE. Watch the movie you careless dolt!
   
   5. In Living in a Big Way, Yudkoff says that there is a dance with a trained dog and a dance with a statue. AHEM! They are the same dance. Yikes, this is getting embarrassing! I'm glad I'm not this author!
   
   6. Here's one of the worst: When Yudkoff refers to Vera-Ellen's character in On the Town as "MISS SUBWAYS!" Oh my gosh. Her title was "Miss Turnstiles." Hmm..sounds like someone really needs to sit down with some of the movies before writing any more books.
   
   7. Now here's something I've never seen before in any book, using the exact same quote TWICE. On page 197 and on page 202 he uses the same GK quote in referring to the pioneering on-location film technique of On the Town. (Of course, by this time, who knows if those are even real quotes? So much has already been fabricated!)
   
   SHAME ON THE AUTHOR, THE EDITOR, and THE PUBLISHER who bought the book!!! Gene Kelly fans have waited for 20 years for an updated biography of this legendary dancer, choreographer, and director. The readers deserve better and so does Mr. Kelly himself.
   
   Other annoying things are the way the author's internal monologue Gene Kelly is having with himself at the AFI Tribute(which I gave up on and stopped reading) basically just criticizes and insults everyone. And don't even get me started on the way he keeps hinting at homosexual rumors and portrays a young Betsy Blair as this side of a nymphomaniac. Plus, the book only focuses on about half of Gene Kelly's life. Twenty years are sideswiped in a couple of paragraphs and 40-some years are glossed over in a few pages. How about giving Gene Kelly some credit for being a single widowed father who raised his two younger children who lost their mother to cancer at ages 8 and 11? How about informing your readers that this generous father turned down numerous projects so that he could provide a stable home for his children and this was when he was in his 60's? All Yudkoff cares about are the glamour days. Not a nice way to treat your subject, who you claim to admire.
   
   If you're as frustrated as I am, do what the author did, just learn what you can about Gene Kelly from the 1974 book written by Clive Hirschhorn. You get several treats in one: ACTUAL quotes from Gene Kelly and those who knew him, ACTUAL facts about the man, and a thoroughly enjoyable read.
   
   As for this book: IT IS A DISGRACE! The entire thing is written like the author is wearing a neon sign saying, "Hey everyone! Look at me! I'm writing a book about Gene Kelly!" OK! So you wrote your terrible book, now do something useful like apologize to your readers. If I was Betsy Blair, or Kerry, Timothy, or Bridget Kelly, I would sue the pants off this guy. Ugh, ugh, and again I say, UGH!



5. This is a rather strange little tome that succeeds to some extent almost in spite of itself. It has a cheap look and feel. It is not especially well-written, and it contains many, many factual errors. But it nevertheless turns out to be a fairly interesting read -- especially once Gene hits the big-time on Broadway and in Hollywood. (The first -- and dullest -- part of the book contains way too much detail about Gene's life and times running his chain of dance studios in Pittsburgh, PA, and the surrounding 'burghs. This part may be of some regional interest to those from the Pittsburgh area, but otherwise it can easily be skipped by the reader.) In any event, the author takes the high road throughout, focusing almost exclusively on Gene's many professional successes (and, of course, a few major failures) as he climbed the ladder to 1940s and 1950s superstardom. A bit more information about Gene's family life, particularly with his first wife, actress Betsy Blair (who was blacklisted as a Commie sympathizer during the Red scare of the '50s, and had to leave the United States to find work -- which this book doesn't mention, by the way, and who, also by the way, a few years ago wrote a wonderful and heartfelt memoir of her exceptional life -- including the periods before and after her marriage to Gene -- entitled "The Memory of All That," that is well worth reading) and his three children, might have added some additional interest. But it would also appear Gene may have had a few . . . ummmmm . . . pecadillos (concerning his attraction to "barely legal" young ladies -- one of whom, the aforementioned Betsy Blair, he married when he was over thirty and she was just 18) that are best left to the imagination, so the author's discretion in terms of Gene's personal life may be a blessing in disguise. Anyway, this is not a bad book for what is it, and it may come in handy as a ready-reference the next time "For Me and My Gal," "Cover Girl," "An American in Paris," "Singin' in the Rain," "Brigadoon," and many other film's graced by Gene's one-of-kind talent appears on TV. But if you want a true taste of Gene's genius, get ahold of a copy of the DVD entitled "Gene Kelly: Anatomy of Dancer."

5 comments about The Q Guide to Broadway (Pop Culture Out There Q Guide).

1. Seth is amazingly funny and witty. His writing style is not comparable to anyone.
   He really goes deep in the subject (no pun intented) and is acurate everytime!
   
   love, love, love it!



2. Great little guide to all the hot spots for any Broadway obsessed person - Q or otherwise. If you are a Broadway fiend be sure to read this before your next trip. Also gives great website recommendations for those like me -- too poor to travel. Every time I listen to Seth Rudetsky on Sirius Broadway, I think "I have a friend in the Broadway business."



3. Seth's humor and passion for Broadway are a gift to all who love The Great White Way. Thank you Seth!!!



4. I consider myself a begining Broadway buff, and this book was the perfect book to push me on the path of Broadway knowledge. First of all, it's hilarious; and I mean every page has something to make you laugh. Secondly, all of the inside info and web links made me feel like I was living in New York and was a louse for not having tickets to see the hotest show in town tonight. But this book you will not be sorry. I have a lot of current event/ history books about Broadway and this book was awesome.



5. This is a great little guide to broadway!
   Lots of great basic information for newcomers peppered with insider tidbits to keep it entertaining for those who already speak the language.
   Gay, straight, newbie, long time broadway fan, there's plenty in here for everyone!
   A quick fun read that begs to be read aloud to the people around you (a better idea if you are at your home as opposed to on the subway).

5 comments about Star Trek : Starship Spotter.

1. Each ship listed has basic info, specifications, and a wire-frame view on the first two pages. That is followed by a 2 page full cgi rendering in the black of space.
   
   The renderings are dimly lit and don't show the ships well, unless you only wanted to see engines glow.



2. This was an ill-concieved item and the publishing company was looking for a quick buck. This book debuts a month after Enterprise debuts on television. What were they thinking? Just from the table of contents, it isn't worth the cost or the effort to produce this.
   
   Where's the Breen, The Gorn, The Tholians. Bajoran ships are missing, Ferengi ships are missing. Both Enterprise B and Enterprise C are missing, what a glaring error on the part of the writers and the publisher. Even among those that are mentioned, this book just barely touches on what can be found in the Star Trek Encyclopedia.
   
   This book has nothing to offer the fans or the occasional watcher. It toutes itself as a reference for "Academy Students" of the class of 2383. It's a good thing this is science fiction, because it would leave them with nothing useful to have embarking on their careers.
   
   This really shouldn't have a rating of any stars, but...
   
   Don't go near this book unless you like wasting money.



3. This book has many important info about some interesting ships seen on the TV series. The graphics are good but are in double page, so sometimes you don't a good overall vision because the division of the pages.



4. The previous reviews are quite accurate, and should be read before deciding to purchase. For my part, I was overall content with the book, since I was more interested in the ship statistics and some of the "historical" descriptions than the artwork, so the admittedly disappointing nature of the ship renderings did not put me off as badly. However, the omission of key ships (see below) was a major disappointment, particularly galling was the insistence on describing things I could care less about, such as the Midas Array, "worker bees", etc. If one is going to limit oneself to 128 pages and 30 ships, then perhaps a little more common sense ought to have been devoted to selecting which "ships" to describe!
   
   Another problem I had with some of the more exotic alien ships was a lack of information on their statistics, especially the Species 8472 bioship. While one cannot reveal all secrets, having everything listed as "unknown" is more than a little unsatisfying. At the least simply state observed qualities (i.e. maximum warp (observed) 9.46) or something similar.
   
   I also agree that the line drawings of the ships were not as useful as they could have been. I would suggest either replacing or perhaps augmenting them with more standard 3 view drawings (front, profile, and top) as are given in the Star Fleet Technical Manual, for example.
   
   It is my sincerest hope that a revised and heavily expanded 2nd edition will be released. Should the author(s) read this, here are some glaring omissions in need of being added:
   - Excelsior class
   - Ambassador class
   - Constellation class
   - Oberth class
   - Daedalus class
   - Borg cube
   - Borg sphere
   - Borg tactical cube
   - Enterprise NX-01
   - Klingon Negh'Var battleship
   - K'Vort class cruiser
   
   Very nice and much appreciated additions would be:
   - Vulcan ships from Enterprise
   - Klingon ships from Enterprise (a number of new designs are in evidence)
   - The Romulan ship from Enterprise (the minefield episode)
   - Other Earth ships from Enterprise (particularly the 2nd season finale)
   - "Kobyashi Maru" Neutronic Fuel carrier
   - Freighter destroyed in STIII by Bird of Prey
   - Tholian ships
   - Kazon ship
   
   In spite of the unflattering reviews, this is a neat little book. For the price (on Amazon, that is), it is not a terribly bad buy. Wouldn't pay any more for it, though! However, there is much room for improvement, and I fervently hope the authors will take it upon themselves to release a vastly enhanced manual in the near future.



5. There's plenty of Star Trek websites that feature schematics of starships featured in this book. Most of them provide more information than published. A Google search will turn up these sites and you'll enjoy the lot of them.