BORE ME

The bad seed is such an old and boring story. Ech. If I wanted to see that story I would rent the film, starring Patty McCormick. I don't want to see it in Desperate Housewives. I want my housewives. I was already bored by the Tom's love child storyline when the mother of the love child was the pain in Lynette's ass; and when she was killed, I did a dance in the living room. Now that her demon seed turns out to be a chip off the old block, I find myself rolling my eyes and groaning. It's going to lose them audience members.. Remember season two? Betty Applewhite, which made the worst use of the great Alfre Woodard's entire career?

Yeah.

The producers should read this blog right now and have the underage cow be run over by a hit and run driver.

RIGHT

FREAKIN

NOW

WERK it OUT

I pushed really heavy weight today. Our workout was bis and tris with some abs thrown in; also thrown in was some philosophical talk about life, the state of the world, the science of simplicity and a good workout. My guru, our tainer Ray, and I see eye to eye on the workout thing. We are devoted to the gym, to good health, to our bodies, to our workouts - to the exhileration we get from working out. For the last couple of weeks he has been workint out WITH us, rather than training us. We three get into an almost silent groove, speaking only a little, just focusing on trianing ourselves as hard as we can. One day he and I were talking about the happiness this brings us, this moment when the sweat is dripping down your face and you and a couple of other guys who are serious about their workout are all pushing your heaviest weight. It is addictive and it's an addiction I am happy to have.

I'm beginning to wane off of another addiction that I have had - but it is one of a like theme.

It is a reality tv show on Bravo called Work Out.

I actually missed the first season of Work Out because I was so busy working all the time that I just didn't have the time to look for it, to find it, to tape it and to watch it. It wasn't until I caught an episode (while flipping stations) during season two that I found myself completely caught up in it. Now, I'm not really a fan of Reality tv. I like talent shows - specifically IDOL and DANCING WITH THE STARS and SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE. I, especially, like the dance shows because I used to dance (still do, in the living room, at the disco and on the subway platform) and because it is a physically based talent. I have no idea how a person sings like the people who win IDOL; I have a slight idea what is required to dance on these shows. It awes me.
We don't watch the competition shows like AMAZING RACE, OPRAH'S BIG GIVE... hell, I don't even know the names of any others. And I really don't like the nasty reality shows like I LOVE NEW YORK or the ones about SWEET SIXTEEN and FLAVA FLAV... the shows with people in rehab and nasty people living in the same house and making each other miserable - well, they make me sad. I DO watch SURVIVOR. We love that show. It's the only one of its kind we watch. OH! The dating shows...blech. Makeover shows can be ok. It all just depends on the show, honestly. I can't bear Project Runway or the Modeling shows because the contestants take delight in being bitchy (ick - the cooking shows look horrifying in commercials - NASTY PEOPLE) BUT I did watch Sheer Genius. The host was Jaclyn Smith! I had to! The other thing is -- there's no surprise on that show; a shitty haircut is a shitty haircut - bam! you're off the show.

I got into WORK OUT, though because of my obsession with health and fitness. I liked watching things around the gym. I LOVED watching the workouts and seeing what new things I could learn. And I really loved the change that the trainers were making in the lives of their clients.

Mind you.... Some of the trainers had the skankiest personalities.

Oh. Well. Whatcha gonna do.

I watched season two with devotion. I really liked the little blonde girl, Rebecca; she was fun, she had whimsy, she was honest about herself and her need to be paid attention to. I REALLY liked the trainer named Erika - she was a straight up gal who didn't seem to carry a lot of drama filled baggage around, baggage that opened easily and spilled out all the time. She was a good trainer and a good person and she just showed up and did her job. Me likee. Oh. Hot, too. There were some people on the staff of the gym who just seemed boring (and, indeed, didn't make it back for season two...): a sweet and cute gal named Zen who wanted to be a stand up comic, a misogynistic black dude who thought he was the shit (to his discredit) and often talked about resenting his boss for hooking up for a lot of lesbian sex with women he should have but can't-blech; and a boring one that DID make it back for season two but at least he was hot - that would be the other black guy, Gregg, who was never a drama mama but who, clearly, had issues regarding some matters. The cast rounded out with these two queens. Mind you, one of them is gay but the other is straight. No matter, though, they are these two queens. The gay guy, Jesse, I at least liked, in spite of all the crises he seemed to be at the center of. The straight one, Peeler, was just this overly inflated, testosterone laden hick. Together, they provided the perfect foils for the star of the show, the uber dyke, alpha female, trainer of the Gods, Jackie Warner.

So, as I watched season two, as I picked up work out tricks and tips, as I got into the stories and the lives of the trainers and their clients, I found myself wondering how? why? who? I mean, really... who out in Hollywood decided that we needed a reality show set in a gym that was run by Xena The Warrior Princess, who charges four hundred dollars an hour to train people? Believe you me, if I could charge that much, I would too. But who had this idea? What is more, I began to notice that each episode became more and more about less and less. Jackie is a lesbian and her mother doesn't approve. There's a surprise! The trainers are all dating and hooking up ... some of them with the boss. There's a surprise! The trainers are all catty and bitchy with each other, about each other, behind each other's backs. There's a surprise! So I would start to get a little bored. Then BAM! Something would happen to get my attention.

There was this man. There was this man.

There was this trainer named Doug Blaisdell. I am sure that a lot of people tuned in to see him because he was your basic nightmare: gorgeous and great. He was beautiful of body and generous of self. He had an indomitable spirit and he was one of the greatest trainers a person could hope to find. There were scenes of him handling fragile clients, visions of him handling inter personal relationships with his colleagues, moments of him handling the special needs of his medically challenged ex. He was the heart of the show.

And then he died.

Doug's death was much written about and much discussed but it remains (for me) shrouded in mystery and best left alone. He was a good man and now he is gone. That is all one need know, truly, unless one were a member of his family (of friends).

Watching Doug on the show was an inspiration to me.

Also an inspiration to me was watching the way that Jackie and her trainers helped (actually helped) a group of overweight people deal with their food and body issues and begin to heal.

These are the kinds of things that made me keep watching WORK OUT.

The new season of the show has started and I just watched the third (I think..maybe fourth) episode. I've seen all the episodes this season and they have replaced some of the boring people with more interesting people... a man so hot to look at and so aware of the camera (at all times) that he comes off as pretentious and phony. Yeah, I'm gonna tune in cause THAT'S a lot of fun to look at. There are two new female trainers - one, clearly, wants to be a lady gunny sargeant and the other, clearly, wants to be a porn star. Ok, THAT'S gonna be a big draw. The biggest change of the new season, though, is that there is almost no working out at all anymore. It's just a soap opera -- it's a soap opera where the producers don't have to pay the cast as much money as they would pay them if they were actors and MEMBERS of a UNION. This is why reality tv exists, isn't it? Small salaries for people who are so desperate to be famous that they will humiliate themselves on tv in a reality show on a small network. There's a lot of gossiping, a lot of instigating, a lot of back biting, a lot of kvetching and (as always) a lot of sex. Snore.

How many times can we see Jackie in the therapist's office? How many times can we see her make out with her girlfriend at the dinner table (surrounded by the other employees of the gym) or worse, in a public restaurant (and I don't mean a kiss - I mean tongues, for extended periods of time). And that's another thing.... Jackie has stopped being a trainer, a health and fitness professional, and started being this monster. She runs roughshod over everyone, treats employees, friends and lovers alike as though they were items on an obstacle course she must run in order to get to the top of the mountain. What she appears to be ignoring is what everyone who has read a movie star biography, watched an Aaron Spelling soap opera or seen a Bette Davis movie already knows: Hollywood is in California and both specialize in earthquakes - when you get to the top of the mountain, it is going to shift and you are going to fall off.

Let's face it, the show isn't THAT interesting and if it keeps on the path it is on, they will lose all their devoted viewers. You can only play the same record so many times before you begin skipping certain tracks.

I have to admit that I do have some hope... it's the new masseur, JD (I think that is his name) - he appears, after two episodes, to have the heart that Doug Blaisdell had and brought to the show. That might be good for the dynamic of Work Out - if they don't get a hold of him and drag him to the dark side, making him another nasty. Or maybe he and Erika will continue to be positive forces around the gym. We'll see.

Well...MAYBE I'll see.

I went to the gym on Monday to do chest and shoulders (and cardio) with my two guys. Heaven. I was talking to Ray about this show - I have discussed it with him before. He doesn't watch tv, he isn't interested and he doesn't have time. He has a wife and kids and a life. He works out because it is his passion and joy; he is extremely centered and peaceful and non judgemental. It is all about the workout. I told him that I had been watching the show and was appalled by all the drama. He said to me "It's all entertainment. You have to remember that it isn't that way in real life, most of the time. It's all staged because it is all entertainment." I realized that he was right. At our gym there doesn't seem to be a lot of mess and drama (occasionally there might be a dust up, usually at the hands of one particular trainer who seems to thrive on chaos); people show up and train and go home. Ta da.

I told Ray that I had seen the latest episode, in which all the male trainers went on a six mile mud run and that the most self agrandizing of the men (he always claims that his hands are the hands of Michelangelo) got a cramp after one mile and couldn't keep up; I told him that (natch) they all had to run bare chested and that I laughed and laughed because two of them were SLICED and the other PERSONAL TRAINERS were FAT. Oh, yeah. Big pecs, big shoulders, big arms and BIG BELLIES. I said "that made me feel better" Ray asked me why and I told him "It tells me that I'm not the only one with problems with my body, I'm not the only one with issues and struggles and that even people on tv who work in this profession aren't perfect."

And do you know what my guru, my teacher, my gunny said to me?

"You're up. Pick up those 30 pound weights and give me 15 perfect presses."

Please note that the photos of Work Out are from the internet; the photos of me with Pat and Ray were done with my camera.

There's Less To This Than Meets The Eye

The first time I watched American Idol was a few weeks before the end of the season that Carrie Underwood won. I love Carrie Underwood and always have. In subsequent seasons I have watched, devotedly, cheering singers who would invariably get voted off, changing my favourites to suit whomever was left to accept my cheers. I loved Chris Richardson and he got the boot; but I was lucky because I also loved Blake Lewis. He didn't win either. Now the winner of that season has had some accident with her voice and I hear she may not sing again - if they don't fix things right.

It's all drama.

It's all tv entertainment.

I was a little interested, though, in something that Pat read in PEOPLE magazine about how this season has had a dip in the ratings because there is nothing exciting happening...no raw talent for the show to mold. Ah ha. Is that it? Because, yeah, I felt it too. Don't get me wrong: I loved this season's performers - almost every single one of them - to varying degrees. I was, though, irritated to hear (a few weeks ago) that some of these performers already have cds out. Huh?

Now, not having been on the AI bandwagon from the very beginning, maybe I missed out on this - but I thought this was an amateur contest. Maybe I am mistaken.

That's the thought I had when I read that some of the performers had cds, Broadway (and other) acting credits, that one had won a nationally televised talent contest; in short, that these were seasoned pros (and, no, stripping in a gay club doesn't count). I thought they were taking raw talent and turning it into the next big star. Guess I had that wrong.

That's one of the reasons I liked Kristy Lee Cook... Each week she got better and THAT is exciting to watch. She, though, was really the only one to grow in that manner - a manner that makes a lot of people tune in to something like this. The same can be said of Dancing With The Stars... remember how Kelly Monaco and Jennie Garth (in their individual seasons) just kept getting better? Cameron Matheson? Yeah. That's what it's about.

But then I read this blurb in PEOPLE magazine that echoed my thoughts. These are seasoned pros - there are no surprises. Well. No wonder it's been anti climactic. After all, from the outset it looked like Archuleta's prize to lose. He captured, immediately, the hearts of the judges and of America. Then, one by one, more seasoned pros have been picked off. Ah well.

I, too, love Archuleta. He has the voice and the face of an angel. He has been touched by God and I hope he appreicates it. I did NOT like David Cook at the onset - but I have learned that it is because I did not like his horrible dyed-red hair. Once they fixed his look and I was able to concentrate on his performances and talent, I realized he is an astounding singer and sexy as all hell. I always liked Jason Castro but he has stopped stepping up to the plate - it's the same thing every week and, frankly, the last three weeks he seems to have stopped caring and last night proved it in a big way. Then we have Sayesha, the last woman standing. From the first time I saw her, I liked her. Liked her and her singing.. but once they got into competition mode, I got bored by her. Brooke had more sincerity, Carly had more talent... Syesha just seemed to be coasting by on something - most often, though, she did boring copycats of great divas like Whitney Houston.

So last night the final four came out and what surprises were there?

The judges didn't like what Jason did and, boy howdy, neither did I. The judges loved what Archuleta did, and I thought he was simply heavenly. The judges split on the Cook performances and I was with them.

Then there was Syesha, who split the vote on her PROUD MARY but who really delivered on her Sam Cook song. Paula and Simon thought so. So did I. Finally, after weeks of dismissing Sayesha, I found myself crying because of this performance. She really moved me - and maybe it is because I am not, greatly, familiar with Sam Cook's work (or this song) and I could sit back and really enjoy her performance. Also, though, I saw what I have been wanting to see: Syesha. She became a diva and a person all at once. I got a glimpse into her. It really changed my perception.

So, as a pretty surprise-free American Idol goes in to the home stretch, I find my thoughts on the show to be changing. I thought it would be the battle of the Davids; now I find it could be one David against one Diva.

Finally, it gets interesting

Judgement Call

It has been a week of headlines and drama and scandal. all regarding a little photo from a little photo shoot for a little magazine. It has been covered on the internet, on the news stations and on the cover of publications from sea to shining sea. And, finally, last night (having had a week to think about it), I turned to Pat and said


"Shame on Annie Leibovitz."

He wanted to know why I would say that - after all Robert Mapplethorpe took photos of younger children, completely nude. Yay, quote I; he did. They are considered art but they are innocent photos of innocent children in a non sexual manner (and I have blurred the privates of the the little boy in the Mapplethorpe photo I took off the internet for this story - not because I find it, in any way, pornographic; but out of respect for the comfort level of my readers). People take snapshots of their kids, nude, all the time. It's a natural (and often humourous!) state for a young 'un to run around the house naked. Ha ha, isn't that cute, get the camera.

In the case of Miley Cyrus and Annie Leobpvitz, though, we aren't talking about an innocent child. We are talking about a young girl, old enough to bear children, old enough to spark the interest of boys and girls, men and women, child molesters, rapists and pervs, around the world. In my opinion, no teenager should be photographed in a state of undress, no matter how provocatively or unprovocatively that state of undress may be; and I find this to be provocative. It doesn't matter that all that is shown is her back; it doesn't matter that she might be fully covered underneath that sheet: what matters is the public perception of the fifteen year old. Miley Cyrus works for Disney. Miley Cyrus has millions of underage fans who are going to want to emulate her. Miley Cyrus has overage fans who are going to want to do more than emulate her. She is a fifteen year old girl photographed with a hairdo that looks exactly like (what I can only describe as) "freshly fucked" and makeup that is far too pronounced and sophisticated for her. This is an iconic image people have of the greatest sex symbol of all time, Marilyn Monroe. If you open books on Marilyn, do a google image search on Marilyn, hell - if you go to some museums or art stores, you will see photos of a naked Marilyn Monroe wrapped up in a sheet. This is not the way a fifteen year old should be photographed. And I am aware that Britney Spears was photographed in sexy ways when she was a teenager.

WELL.

Does that say enough?

Pat, having heard my reasoning, suggested that it was the parents' fault and that, had they been there, it wouldn't have happened. He's right. That says a lot, too. Miley may be a superstar but she is a FIFTEEN YEAR OLD. She shouldn't have to make these decisions on her own. Any adult guardian, be in parent, grandparent, manager or agent, should have said NO, Miley won't do that. But, for me, the bottom line is that NO photographer should have suggested it in the first place. I DON'T CARE what Mapplethorpe did. I don't care if Miley was shot on a bear rug at the age of two. I don't care if Miley suggested it. A responsible photographer, famed or not, should not promote (especially in this day and age when a pervert with an active imagination, who cannot get to Miley Cyrus; and who will set his or her sights on another young girl..say, for example, one of OUR daughters, neices, grandaughters, goddaughters!!) teenage sexuality. THIS should NEVER have been suggested, let alone executed.

If I were Miley, though, I would be much angrier about the fact that I was used in so uncontionable a manner.

She should be pissed off because she doesn't even look pretty in the photo.

My Love Is Dangerous

Is it the danger? Is it the sex? Is it the raw look into the ruthlessness of humanity? What is it about Les Liaisons Dangereuses that has captured the fascination of the human race? Why have there been so many incarnations of this racy novel by Choderlos de Laclos, published in 1782? It has been recreated as play, film (many times, on screens big and small), radio show, ballet and opera. It has been enjoyed by generations of fans, young and old; its' appeal appears to be universal and it is still going strong. But why? What is there about it that, so, captures the imaginations and interest of so many?

I was a man in my twenties when I went to see a production of the Christopher Hampton play at the Dallas Theater Center. I was destined to like it: the opulent sets and costumes and all that intrigue - but then, as a gay male, I love that stuff that made the nighttime soap operas of the 80's so popular. I remember that I really loved the character of the Vicomte, even though the actor playing him was the worst. Of course, completely true to form, I was drawn in by the Marquise de Merteuil, as played by a local actress, Linda Gehringer; and I remembered seeing a scene from this play on the Tony awards a few seasons earlier. This memory flooded back to me the moment that I heard the dialogue onstage at the Dallas Theater Center. You don't forget that kind of poetry. I went, immediately, home and found my vhs of the Tonys from the year in question and watched that scene. The actor, I recognized; he was gaining fame on film as of late. The actress, I did not recognize but I would come to know her work (and know it well), as would the rest of the world. With that, began my own love affair with Les Liaisons Dangereuses.

I know what it is that I love about this piece - be it on paper, on stage or on film. I have never seen the ballet or the opera but I have seen numerous stagings and numerous films. They are all different. They all have some merit and they all have some downfalls. I believe Les Liaisons Dangereuses to be like The Great Gatsby; it is so personal a piece that any individual who loves it is destined to be a little disappointed by each piece that they see. I am, rarely, as completely satisfied by a viewing of Les Liaisons Dangereuses as I am when I read the book. That's life. That book is a work of art. Especially capturing my favour is the fact that it is an epistolary novel. A book that is told, solely, by presenting the letters of the characters is an effective device (if used properly - I must admit that the novel The Color Purple lost me the moment the letters changed from Celie's to Nettie's - by that point I was only interested in Celie's letters; I didn't want to hear about Nettie). Les Liaisons Dangereuses, in print, traps my attention and holds it, captive, until the very end.

For me, I think what it is about the story is the humanity, the honesty. There are few struggles in this life as great as the fight between (what we are taught to be) good versus evil. Right or wrong, if you will; however you care to see it, it is all about the battle between opponents. Note how, in today's society, the righteous are always condemning those whom they believe to be deviants; note the fervor with which the so called deviants refuse to surrender their beliefs and pasttimes. We are a planet of adversaries.

The humanity of a person who chooses to be a manipulator, the earnestness of a person who strives to be (what they perceive to be) good, the honesty of the fact that we are all sexual creatures, the horror of the crimes we humans inflict on one another, the gift of intellectual strategy... all of these qualities are ones which every human being has the potential to possess, should they care to nurture them. For me, that makes Les Liaisons Dangereuses a fascinating look into humanity; and we all know what a voyeur I am, not to mention my obsession with the truth. Many times in this life I have wished I had a greater knack for cruelty and for strategy. I do not. The pain I have felt at the hands of others has led me to many daydreams in which I can be the cold, the indifferent, the (if you will) evil. Both sadly and happily, that is not me. So I watch and read stories like this and others like it and live, vicariously, through them. I imagine that I am not alone; and THAT is wherein lies the ongoing fascination with Les Liaisons Dangereuses.

Oftentimes, the subject comes up: are there any parts I would go back to work to play? Yes. The King of Siam. Reverend Shannon. Formerly Mozart, currently Salieri. Georges Seurat.

The Vicomte de Valmont. I've said it a number of times. I think I'd do a bang up job of playing him. I think I have a handle on several parts of him; not all of him. I imagine that Alan Rickman was the best Valmont ever and that is a big shadow to stand in. I will say, right out loud, that I did not like John Malkovich (though he did do a few things of which I approved), I thought Colin Firth was sexy enough but too charming, I was too driven to distraction by Rupert Everett's cosmetic surgeries to pay attention to his acting, I could not take seriously the adolescent performance or character created by Ryan Phillippe and Gerard Philipe adequately acquits himself in the french film by Roger Vadim. Something I came to realize, recently, though:

I'd rather play Merteuil.

And what gay man wouldn't?! But how would it be done? Would it be a man playing a man? Would it be a man playing a woman? It's very tricky when one gender switches and it happens all the time -- it isn't a point into which I need delve a LOT because I'm never going to do it. It's just a little pipe dream, like being the first man to play the Witch in INTO THE WOODS. The truth, though, is that Merteuil is who we are there to see. She is the driving force of the piece, the puppeteer of everyone in the story.

The funny thing about Isabelle de Merteuil (this is the name that most often is applied to the character, though it is changed in some incarnations) is that there is a framework for her; and the actor being dropped into that framework has the chance (along with the director) to flavour her in any way that feels comfortable. It is all dependant up on how they see her - because the important foundation about the character is all in the text; and if the actor says those lines, the story will be told.

So let us consider (what is perhaps) the most famous Merteuil: Glenn Close in the film Dangerous Liaisons (based on the stage play by Christopher Hampton). I watch this film (I have watched it a LOT over the years) and what I see in Mereuil is a woman who (yes) plays games with peoples' lives for her own entertainment and who (yes) gets a thrill out of the power of controlling those lives but who also (in my estimation) is a woman with a self esteem problem. I believe that she is striking out at people who have hurt her (the plot to destroy Cecile, just to get back at her former lover), while she is trying to manipulate her true love, Valmont, because she is jealous and wants him back (note how angry she gets when she has to hear details about Tourvel, even though she starts out their conversations about the woman with the delight of a gossip mongering teenager; she is not able to keep up the pretense within herself, though she can mask it from him); also noteworthy on the subject of her self esteem is the fact that, twice in the film, she is seen with a much younger man (one of them being Dencany), clearly unhappy but using the younger man as an ego booster, a crutch. I see a sad and lonely woman trying to find something to make her feel better about herself and life.

With Annette Bening, though, I see a petulant and bored young girl who was married off at an early age, widowed a few years later and left with a fortune and too much time on her hands. She is scheming but she is not devious. She is playing a game that she (has not mastered but, instead) has great instincts and luck at.

In the French mini series starring the (insert string of superlative adjectives here) legendary actress and iconic beauty and fashion trend setter, Catherine Deneuve, there actually is scheme involved. Setting the story in the 60's (oh, my God, the clothing!) and making her a working woman with a foundation to run and a fortune to hold onto gives the film makers the opportunity to layer in those DYNASTY esque motives. It's not just a game to this Merteuil; it is about position on the ladder and money, as well.

The less said about the movie CRUEL INTENTIONS, the better; though I will say that I believe the actors who appeared in this film are all wonderful actors.

I wish, desperately, that I could comment on the Jeanne Moreau film but it has been years since I have seen it and (although I own it) I haven't had time to watch it recently. I remember that it is fascinating, that it is sexy and that she is riveting... but to discuss the finer points and details would show my ignorance on this particular telling... and I cannot show my ignorance.. oh, no, no, no.

Neither can I comment on the original stage Merteuil, Lindsay Duncan, having not been in New York at the time of that performance, which I suspect to be the definitive one. I have been told that she played the role like a cat, lounging lazily throughout the entire play. Interesting and intriguing. I wish I had seen it. Alas...

Now. I HAVE seen the new Merteuil. She is about to open on Broadway in a new production of this work, so close to my heart.

Pat and I went, a few days ago, to the Roundabout Theater Company to see Les Liaisons Dangereuses. The Valmont is a man named Ben Daniels who has come over from England to do the play; and thank heaven for it. He is the closest I have seen to the way I see Valmont. He has the acting chops and he can take Valmont to all the places he needs to go (I find, especially, interesting the fact that his physical appearance becomes more unkempt and disheveled as the game crumbles around him and he loses control of his position and his ability to hold it all together). Alongside Mr Daniels is a very gifted cast that includes the extraordinary Sian Phillips (how stunning to see her onstage again - we see her whenever she is in New York), an actress that everyone should know named Kristine Nielsen (in the play she manages to balance the drama of the piece and the comedy of her character without ever upstaging the other actors or the production - that's what I call being in the moment!). Then there are these two beautiful young actors named Benjamin Walker and Mamie Gummer. I saw Mr Walker play Bert Cates in INHERIT THE WIND with my favourite actor, Christopher Plummer (one day I really must write down that story) and was impressed by his honesty, his ability to be present at all times in a role that does a lot of sitting still and reacting. He got my attention then and he gets my attention here because Dencany isn't an easy role - he can become a simp if you don't work it right. He keeps him youthful but masculine, steadfast but unsure. It's impressive. And this Gummer girl - I hear she has a mother who is a famous actress but I have to say that I think she will have a lustrious career of her own, based on her own talents, her own merits; and she deserves them. She manages to find comedy in places that I think a lesser actress would just say lines and be still - her comedy is in the way she says the lines and the way she uses her face and body to accentuate the naivete and lessening innocence of a pretty dumb (by virtue of her being so sheltered) character. These two are worth catching. Rounding out the main players is an actress named Jessica Collins who plays Tourvel with a wonderful sense of youth, something that I see rarely in this character. I usually see her played as a woman without colour, a vanilla piece of melba toast with a glass of milk (not, though, Michelle Pfeiffer, who should have had an Oscar for the film Dangerous Liaisons); but Miss Collins appeared to me to be like a Southern Baptist who married at 19 and believes what she believes because her family had her in the church choir since the age of 4 -- and now she has discovered sex. It is a powerful conflict to see in one so young.

And that brings us to the driving force, the puppeteer of the entire piece.

For the role of Merteuil, the director of Les Liaisons Dangereuses picked the American actress that I consider the new Julie Harris. Her name is Laura Linney. I think Laura Linney is IT. She can do anything. She has had successes on film, on tv, onstage. She is beautiful. She is gifted at comedy and drama. She is one of the most accomplished and lauded actresses of her generation, garnering not only award nominations and awards, but fans of all ages and great fame. Somebody once told me that she was the most famous person in The Sweater Book and I thought for a moment and said "You're right. At this moment in time, Laura Linney is the most famous person I have photo'd." I say she is the new Julie Harris because when she is an old lady, people will call her the first lady of the American Theater. (I want to say, though, she needs to do a musical, fast. Julie Harris did SKYSCRAPER and it proved that she could do ANYTHING. Somebody needs to write a musical for Laura Linney.)

When I read that Laura was going to play this part I was very excited. Not only did I think she is perfect for it; I thought she could bring something completely new to it. And I was right. Oh, it's not different in some ways: she is as beautiful as the other women who have played Merteuil, she has the calm and cool demeanour required for Merteuil, she has the strength upon which the character is founded. What I saw that was different, though, was a different kind of strength. I actually SAW the housewife. Merteuil talks about how she invented herself; she talks about having been a wife, having become a widow, choosing never to remarry; she talks about her lovers. She says that her sex has few enough advantages, she talks about not being ordered about, she talks about avenging her sex. This is a woman who has been used by men and has conquered it. I looked at her and heard what she was saying and her entire history flashed in my head; she has learned to become implacable in order to protect herself from further misuse and pain. To me, it is extremely visible in two moments in particular. The first isn't even her scene. There is a scene taking place before the audience while, cleverly costumed and lit, she moves (painstakingly slowly) upstage - a ghost, hovering above the proceedings, ever present and ever protective of self. The other is when she and her partner in crime, Valmont, get into a fight and he wrestles her into a submissive position on the bed: she grabs the footboard with both hands and stays perfectly still - an impenetrable fortress. The expression on her face says it all: "I went through this with my husband - I know how to beat you." These moments and others make her into a human being, flawed, with warmth that is trying to get out; warmth she will destroy anyone to keep inside so that she can remain in control. This Mereuil is not a bored girl and not a demon. She is flesh and blood and she is trying to stay in control so that she can stay alive; she will win or die.

I found it to be a perfect, a nuanced, an individual creation. That is what a real actress does. She reinvents.

I heard some people after the play saying that it was slow, that they didn't get it, that they couldn't follow. Pat and I looked at each other and just shrugged. I think it is simply that society has been given a free pass by all the reality tv and easy to read news blasts. People aren't being forced to use their brains as much as they used to (I know, sweeping generalization; oops) and they don't want to sit down for two and a half hours to listen to poetry. I LIKE listening to poetry. I wasn't bored, it didn't seem slow or long. And the concept of the director, showing the oncoming destruction of the French society by the manipulation of the sets, really rang true to me.

So I sought him out. The play was in previews, after all; he had to be around. Once I found him I told him that I thought it was simply marvelous.

Simply marvelous.

And I meant it.



Please note that I didn't do any pictures in this story and I was not able to find photos from the new production on the internet. Bummer