Florida Agenda

By Warren Day

Nobody plays an oddball character as convincingly as Johnny Depp, and it’s a good thing, too, since oddballs comprise most of his roles. Throughout his film career—from such characters as the extremity-challenged Edward Scissorhands, to the worst-movie-director-of-all-time, Ed Wood, as well as a mental hospital patient who thinks he’s Don Juan, the demon barber Sweeny Todd, the ever-so Mad Hatter, and the swishy Capt. Jack Sparrow—Depp has done what many stars only dream of doing – maintaining his status as a leading man while playing the quirky roles normally relegated to character actors.

In his latest walk on the “Wilde” side, “Dark Shadows,” Depp portrays a character as adept at chewing upon necks as he is chewing the scenery, a love-sick, blood-sucking vampire named Barnabas Collins. Once again, this ain’t the boy next door. “Dark Shadows” is Depp’s eighth outing with director Tim Burton. Among their collaborations, this movie feels more like “Sleepy Hollow” than “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” meaning it falls noticeably short of their best work together. As is true with all Tim Burton films, the look of “Dark Shadows” is never less than stunning.

No one uses CGI (computer generated images) better to set a mood, particularly in a gothic tale like this. In every detail, the film is a feast for your eyes. Unfortunately, as the old saying goes, “There’s a lot of sizzle, but where’s the steak?” In the end, “Dark Shadows” takes you in all directions without really going anywhere. Burton can sometimes pull off making style look like substance, but not in this case. Here is a P.T. Barnum-inspired, three-ring circus of a vampire story, about as subtle as a World Wresting Entertainment championship bout.

It’s as if Burton was a celebrity chef who went into the kitchen without any clear idea of what he’s cooking, and just starting throwing in every ingredient at hand, so that instead of his usual distinctive style, you end up with mush. With “Dark Shadows,” more money has been thrown into this concoction than originality. As always, Johnny Depp is good, although here he aims for the jocular more than for the jugular. It’s also refreshing to see Michelle Pfeiffer back on the silver screen, even portraying the matriarch of this Addams Family clone.

Unfortunately, Eva Green (“Casino Royale”) seems to have been told by Burton to play Depp’s nemesis like an imitation of Lisa Marie (the director’s former girlfriend) impersonating Vampira. It is a caricature too far. When “Dark Shadows” first appeared as a “daytime drama” on ABC-TV in 1966, it was something of an original, the first gothic-inspired, supernatural soap opera. Since then, vampire stories have become a vein—pun intended—that’s been mined to death.

In films, we currently have the “Twilight Saga” and the “Underworld” series, television viewers can get their blood-drinker fix with “True Blood” and “The Vampire Dairies,” and this summer, a popular novel-turned-blockbuster-movie depicts honest Abe Lincoln as a vampire hunter. Enough already! It’s time for the living dead to become the dead dead—at least for a merciful while. Let them all Rest in Peace.

By WARREN DAY

To paraphrase the Weather Girls’ hit song, “It’s raining Superheroes” at your movie multiplex. Officially known as “Marvel’s The Avengers” (after Marvel Comics, the film’s literary source) has 6.5 superheroes—Ironman, Thor, Captain America, Black Widow (the movie’s only heroine), the Incredible Hulk, Hawkeye the Archer, and an eye-patch wearing guy named Nick Fury as their beleaguered organizer.

There’s a long tradition in Hollywood of taking popular individual characters and putting them together in the same movie. Universal Studios made a fortune doing that with Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein’s monster, but this film may set the record for its sheer number.

The fact that the filmmakers pull it off so well in this quintessential popcorn movie is something of a show-biz miracle, the equivalent of a page-turner in pulp fiction, and culminates in nothing less than nerd Nirvana. For some time now we’ve been teased in the post-credit endings of the various “Ironman,” “Thor,” and “Captain America” movies that a combined movie story was coming. The success of those films, along with the 49 year history of these comic book series, has guaranteed huge worldwide interest.

Right from the starting gate, “The Avengers” was the number one boxoffice hit in every one of the 52 countries where it opened—including the U.S., where it enjoyed the biggest first weekend in history. As of this publication date, the film will rank in the top ten greatest grossing movies of all time. The fact that the movie is also a solid work of entertainment is mainly due to the fanboy’s best friend in Hollywood, Joss Whedon, who directed and wrote the screenplay.

Whedon—who was responsible for the cult-favorite TV series, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”—pulls off a juggling act here by giving each of the superheroes some special moments while creating a cohesive teambased film. The story is a kind of sequel to 2011’s “Thor,” with Thor’s evil brother Loki here seeking to conquer the earth. (Don’t all super-villains want to conquer our little blue planet?)

This crisis impels government super-agent Nick Fury to bring together all the superheroes “to fight a foe that no superhero can fight alone,” thus ensuring not only the confrontation with Loki and his army, but also a clash of the super-egos. These may be the good guys, but they aren’t very good at playing with others. As Whedon says, “These people shouldn’t be in the same room, let alone on the same team—and that is the definition of family.”

It’s also a situation that’s ripe for both drama and comedy, and what keeps “The Avengers” such serious fun is that it’s often so seriously funny. Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark/Ironman provides much of the quips and rejoinders. Chris Hemsworth is the divinely handsome Norse god Thor, and Chris Evans is chiseled and idealistic Captain America.

All three played these roles in separate previous movies. Mark Ruffalo becomes the third actor to play Bruce Banner (while the “Hulk” continues to be a CGI visual effect), but this divided hero works better here than he did in the two films devoted totally to him—“Hulk” in 2003, and “The Incredible Hulk in 2008 (maybe less Hulk is better than more). Scarlett Johansson is the dressed-inblack- leathers Black Widow, an idealized version of an adolescent view of the femme fatale.

Jeremy Renner stars as Hawkeye, and Samuel L. Jackson is Nick Fury. Superhero movies are only as good as their supervillain, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki (the Norse god of chaos) certainly fulfills that hiss-able role. Like every big effects movie that begins production with an opening weekend set firmly in stone, the visual effects here are uneven, with some of the CGI (computer generated images) appearing truly awesome, while others look somewhat rough and incomplete.

In the end the plot seems more an excuse for a $220 million demolition derby than it is epic storytelling, but its saving grace is that it’s able to spoof these larger-than-life heroes without demeaning them. Although providing a much better than average night at the movies, I am concerned that “The Avengers,” and the deluge of other comic book-inspired movies, only serves to deepen the dominating adolescent-mania of American films that’s reflected in so many of today’s comedies and action movies.

So often these days the protagonists are either far more powerful and intelligent—or more juvenile and dumb—than we should expect any grown-up to be. What’s wrong with a more varied movie menu, where the ideas are as big as the explosions, and which includes funny and exciting stories that show that it’s no fantasy what kinds of challenges ordinary folks can overcome? Sometimes you also need an escape to reality.

By WARREN DAY

Even in places that are LGBT friendly, such as South Florida, you wouldn’t get the chance to see many of the gay films if it weren’t for special festivals, such as the Miami Gay and Lesbian Film Festival (MGLFF) running from April 27 through May 6 in South Beach.

From production to distribution, making an independent gay film is still an arduous task, so it’s important the GLBT community support the people who are venturing forth to tell our stories. As the first major gay film festival in the calendar year, MGLFF is a platform for numerous World, North American and East Coast Premiers with over 65 movies from 15 countries. There’s literally something for everyone.

Films in this year’s festival continue to be dominated by the trials and tribulations of being gay, but there’s at least one major exception in the exceptional documentary “Out for the Long Run” (see below). It’s an interesting phenomenon that in recent years the better gay films have been documentaries, and that’s certainly bore out with the offerings of this year’s MGLFF.

I was able to see four of the films in advance, and you’ll find an asterisk (*) by their titles.

The opening picture on Friday, April 27, is from New Zealand and is called “Kawa”. It tells the dramatic story of a successful businessman who finds the courage to tell his wife, children, parents and traditional Maori community that he’s gay.

On April 29 is “Seventh- GAY Adventist,” * a remarkable documentary dealing with the conflict that happens, “When your church says the only way you can be true to God is by being false to yourself.”

Seventh-Day Adventists is a very conservative denomination believing in the literal interpretation of the Bible.

It’s more than a religion for it provides a rather encompassing culture for its members to grow up – Sabbath on Saturdays, Friday nights devoted to family, vegetarian in diet, its own scout movement called Pathfinders, a close knit community, and so forth.

The result is that by being openly gay, you risk your relationship with both the church and the culture, as also happens with Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Missouri Synod Lutherans, Southern Baptists and some other religious groups. The film follows three gay couples (two male, one female) as they confront these issues with good character and courage, and find support in surprising places. “Seventh- Gay Adventist” is an inspiring and upbeat film.

That same day finds my favorite film of the festival, “Codependent Lesbian Space Alien Seeks Same,” is both a spoof of sci-fi B movies and straight romantic comedies.

One of the two documentaries set in Florida is shown on April 30.

“Unfit: Ward vs. Ward” tells the true story of how a Pensacola judge ruled that a convicted killer, who didn’t even know which grade his daughter was in, was more fit to raise the child than her lesbian mother.

In the cliché clustered “Naked As We Came”* (May 2), a self-absorbed brother and sister are called to their mother’s rural home due to her failing health and find an attractive young man living with her.

A lot of confusion and some forced resolutions follow with a none-tooconvincing relationship developing between the brother and the young man. This movie is not particularly gay in either sense of that word.

“Taking a Chance on God” (May 3) is also a documentary about the conflict between the church and being honest about who you are, and is the second festival film dealing with a Florida resident. Eighty-five year old John McNeill has often been a voicein- the-wilderness as he confronted the anti-gay doctrines and powers of the Roman Catholic Church. This nonfictional film is a moving testament to McNeill’s influence as a priest, writer, and untiring activist.

“Out for the Long Run”* (May 5) is one of the best gay documentaries ever made and I urge you to see it because it’s that rare stereotypebreaking GLBT film that focuses on the positives rather than the usual angst of being homosexual.

Expertly made, it follows four openly gay young athletes, two of high school age and two in their first years of college.

Like the excellent d o c u m e n t a r y “Bully” (showing in theaters now), the parents are totally supportive and provide a constructive counterpoint to the images often portrayed in films (as do the gay young people themselves). Austin is a high school senior and long-distance runner who, unlike many of his straight friends, has never had a relationship, and then, through Facebook, he meets Taylor in North Carolina, another openly-gay athlete who will also be attending Brown University. The camera is there when they meet for the first time in person and the look on Austin’s face is worth any trouble to see this movie. All four of these young people set a stirring example, not only for their peers, but also for the older generation. This movie will give you hope for the future.

The beautifully photographed and acted “North Sea Texas”* is a Belgium film in Dutch with English subtitles (talk about diversity) and is the closing night event on May 5. Pim is a lonely 14-year-old dreamer, ignored by his crass mother who works in a bar named Texas. It’s a heartwarming and heartbreaking story of his crush on the older boy next door who may or may not return his affection.

Filled with poignant emotions, “North Sea Texas” proves there’s still power in a well-done coming of age drama. Bavo Defume has previously directed only short films with gay themes. In this his first feature-length production, he raises great expectations on what gay films we might expect from him in the future.

These are just eight of the over 65 movies being shown throughout the 14th Annual Miami Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. For a complete list of the movies, showtimes, special events, and venues, go to mglff.com. And then go see some of these films yourself.

Send comments or questions to
AgendaReviews@aol.com

By WARREN DAY

After a winter of disappointing films, “Bully” is a powerful reminder of a time when motion pictures sought to not only entertain, but to move people to action by showing injustice in a way that touched both our hearts and heads. And while most films fade from memory in a day or two, “Bully” will linger in a positive way for a long time. In other words, you’ll be very glad you saw it.

The term “moving pictures” is not just about films themselves: it also speaks to what they’re supposed to do, because the core purpose of a film is to move us toward some reaction: to laugh, to be startled, to sit on the edge of our seats, to think, to hope, to dream. In the so-called Golden Age of Movies, those moving pictures elicited a wide range of emotions and responses, but nowadays the majority of Hollywood films seem only interested in going for laughs or thrills.

“Bully” is a non-fiction film that holds your interest from first frame to last. It isn’t a dry documentary at all, nor is it in the end a downer (so don’t stay away from it for that reason): rather. It’s an uplifting story of how some very ordinary people face some extraordinary circumstances.

This film tells the story of five young people, age 11 to 17. Four are from small towns (in Oklahoma, Georgia, and Mississippi), and one is from a small city in Iowa (population: 82,684). They all reside in what coast-dwellers like to call “fly-over country,” and none of them come from families with much money or what passes for sophistication.

What these five kids share in common is that they’re “different,” and because they’re different, they’re subject to vicious bullying at school. Like some of the adults in the film, you may remember a kind of “PG-rated” bullying from your school days. You may not be aware of how many kids today experience an “R-” or “X-rated” kind of cruelty; always emotionally and often physically abusive. In the last decade the problem has escalated: we now have three million kids a month missing school because they’re too scared to go, and with good reason.

For these children, the halls of school have become a minefield, where at any minute their heads could be pounded into a wall. Recess is not a welcome but dreaded time, because it means they’ll be standing alone at the edge of crowds that will never invite them in. At an age when they need the most acceptance, they’re experiencing the most rejection.

In one scene filmed on a school bus with a hidden camera, Alex—just 12 years old—is stabbed with a lead pencil twice, held in a choke hold, and punched several times, while the bus driver does nothing to stop it. This same scene was shown to a school administrator, who shockingly tells Alex’s parents that she’s ridden that bus many times and the kids are “lovely.”

Kelby, a 16 year old lesbian from Tuttle, Oklahoma (population: 6,019), was forced off the basketball and softball teams, and subjected to ridicule from teachers as well as classmates. Yet she still hopes that by living openly she can help change minds in her little town. During the school year covered in “Bully,” she goes into a new class where the students move away from where she’s sitting, leaving her isolated in a circle of empty desks.

Only two of these five kids might be gay, but all of them know that from their peers, the worst thing to be called is a “fag,” a word that’s hurled at them like a cannonball and intended to do just as much damage to their psyches. While some states have tried to pass anti-bullying laws, they have been opposed by the far right, who claim that not allowing their children to publicly dislike gays violates their freedom of religion.

Lee Hirsch, who photographed and directed “Bully,” doesn’t try to explain why kids can be so cruel—who can?—nor does he offer easy solutions. Instead he presents an up-close and personal view of a problem that’s sweeping the country. One commentator says it’s all part of our growing “culture of viciousness,” something you see reflected not only in the schoolyard, but also in popular video games, as well as political discourse, sports—consider those coaches who pay their players a bounty to maim other kids—and in our movies. The biggest boxoffice hit of the last four weeks, “The Hunger Games,” tells the story of 24 teenagers who are forced to hunt and kill each other.

As I said, this film is not a downer. It uplifts because of the courage and fortitude with which these kids and their parents respond.

The parents may not have the resources to understand what’s happening, but they do stand up for their children in every way they can. Kelby’s father looks and speaks in a way that might be called “redneck” by the vulgar or uninformed, but he supports his gay daughter completely and offers to quit his job and move the family to a city where she might be better accepted: it’s not often in a movie that you see such unconditional love toward a gay child.

Alex—the 12 year old who commits an act of bravery just by getting on the school bus each day—says at one point, “I don’t believe in luck anymore, but I do believe in hope.” You will, too, after seeing “Bully.”

By WARREN DAY

If you’ve ever wondered just how bad a big studio movie can be, then “The Wrath of the Titans” provides an excruciating answer: cringe-inducing dialogue, blurry and unimaginative special effects, actions sequences without wit or originality, characters you know little about and about whom you care even less, costumes from Wal-Mart, and acting that would embarrass a small town church pageant. To put it simply and accurately: EEEAAAGH!

For over 3,000 years, Greek mythology has been a rich source of stories and inspiration for some of the world’s greatest literature: “The Odyssey” and “The Iliad” by Homer, the works of Sappho, Euripides, Sophocles, and others of classical antiquity. Along with some other mythologies—notably Norse—it’s also been a life spring for many of the comic book heroes who’ve provided kids of all ages with a modern mythology of their own.

However “Wrath” has about as much to do with Greek mythology as reality TV shows have to do with actual reality.

“Wrath” is a sequel to the remake of “Clash of the Titans” that came out two years ago. “Clash” made a lot of cash: hence “The Wrath” is upon us. Ten years have passed in the storyline since “Clash,” which provides an excuse to give Perseus a young son to be used as a pawn in the battles between the gods. Sam Worthington returns to play Perseus, although “walks through” is probably a better description than “plays,” because he has none of the humor or self-awareness that made Arnold Schwarzenegger so entertaining in similar roles. Worthington is in danger of being his generation’s version of the promising and attractive actor who gets cast in the leading roles of major films before he’s had a chance to establish true star-quality. Although central to “Avatar” in 2009 as well as 2010’s “Clash of the Titans,” he’s easily over-shadowed by “Wrath’s” constant barrage of special effects.

Liam Neeson returns to the role of Zeus he originated in “Clash:” the 59-year-old Belfast-native seems to be vying with Nicolas Cage for the record of appearing in the most forgettable movies in a row. The color palette in “Wrath” is brown (yes, just brown) and most scenes are filled with dust, which may be the filmmakers’ way of trying to hide just how poorly executed are the movie’s computer generated effects.

The best writer of them all, William Shakespeare, could have been penning the best review of this amateurishlywritten film 500 years ago when he wrote: “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.”

Send comments or questions to AgendaReviews@aol.com

By WARREN DAY

As far as the major studios are concerned, there are three seasons in which they release films, and once you understand that you’ll know why theaters are currently showing such dreck as “This Means War,” “Journey 2,” “Project X,” and “A Thousand Words.” None of these was able to muster even 50 percent positive reviews among critics and bloggers, who tend to give positive reviews to almost anything. “A Thousand Words” set a new record with an abysmal 0 percent rating, and “John Carter” is turning out to be one of the biggest bombs in movie history, losing Disney over 200 million dollars.

From mid-January until the end of April, it’s the “Dump Season:” when studios tend to release the movies in which they have the least faith. There are several reasons that this time of year has the lowest movie attendance: winter weather, an increase in school activities, major sports events (Super Bowl, March Madness, etc.), along with other conditions. (It used to be that a large percentage of Roman Catholics didn’t attend movies during Lent, but that isn’t so true anymore.)

Sometimes a studio will try to take advantage of the poor competition, and release one of their better films, such as “21 Jump Street” (the funniest movie of the year so far), or commence a new franchise, like “The Hunger Games,” a box office bonanza that is attracting the same teenage girls who flocked to see the Twilight Saga—and critics say “Games” is better than the Twilight films–or to commemorate a calendar milestone, as with the April release of the 3D version of “Titanic” to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the maritime disaster.

From May 1 until the third week of August, it’s the “Blockbuster Season:” when the most crowd-pleasing (and nonbrain- engaging) films show up in your local multiplex. It used to be that this season didn’t start until Memorial Day weekend (that’s when all the “Star Wars” films were originally released), but it has now progressed to the beginning of the month, hence the full offerings this May:

MAY 4 “The Avengers” delivers a coterie of comic book heroes–Ironman, Thor, The Hulk, Captain America, etc. The trailer looks messy and disjointed, but this movie could be a fanboy’s wet dream.

MAY 11 “Dark Shadows” is a high-rent version of a low-rent TV Gothic soap opera that ran during the 1960s. Directed by Tim Burton and starring Johnny Depp as the vampire Barnabas Collins, it promises to be both a hoot and a holler.

MAY 11: “The Dictator” brings the far-out Sacha Baron Cohen (“Borat,” “Bruno”) and his far-out satirical style to the whims and woes of a despot. No bounds will abound.

MAY 25: “Men in Black III.” Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones return in this highly popular series about how aliens (the out-ofthis world kind) are everywhere. They are joined by Josh Brolin and Emma Thompson, and even Lady Gaga makes an appearance.

JUNE 1: “Snow White and the Huntsman” is the second film of the year based on the popular fairy tale (“Mirror Mirror” opens on March 30), but from the trailer this looks far more interesting, with Charlize Theron as the prototype evil Queen, Kristen Stewart as Snow White (turned into Joan of Arc), and Chris Hemsworth (“Thor”) as the hunter who absolutely deserves to be hunted.

JUNE 8: “Prometheus” is one of the most anticipated films of the year, a prequel by director Ridley Scott to his classic sci-fi film “Alien.” The trailer is awesome, and so is the cast: Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Patrick Wilson, Guy Pierce, and Noomi Rapace (the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”).

JUNE 15: “Rock of Ages.” A film by openlygay director Adam Shankman–who also helmed “Hairspray”–it depicts Tom Cruise coming out as an aging rock star (who knew?). Based on the Broadway musical and filmed last year in Miami and Fort Lauderdale (hence the horrible traffic around Living Room and Revolution:LIVE last summer).

JUNE 29: “Magic Mike” promises to be an eye-candy paradise for gay men and a nightmare for insecure straight ones. Directed by Academy Award winner Steven Soderbergh, it’s based on the true experiences of Channing Tatum when he worked as a male stripper in Tampa. The G-string-attired cast also features Matthew McConaughey, Matt Bomer (the openlygay hottie star of USA’s “White Collar”), Alex Pettyfer (“I Am Number Four”), and featuring Joe Manganiello (“True Blood”) as the aptly named “Big Dick Richie.” From the end of August until the middle of January, it’s the “Award-Seeking Season,” when the more prestigious, pedigreed, and Oscar buzz-generating films are unfurled.

Beginning with the Venice Film Festival (August 29), and continuing with the Toronto, Telluride, and New York festivals through October 16, the critics and opinionmakers get their first look at the movies the studios feel are award contenders, giving those studios bragging rights and a bigger box office to boot. Of the last ten movies to win the Best Picture Oscar, all of them received their first showing at a film festival.

The highly anticipated movies this fall include Stephen Spielberg’s “Lincoln” with Daniel Day Lewis, “The Great Gatsby” in 3D with Leonardo DiCaprio, “The Hobbit” starring Ian McKellen once again as the wizard Gandalf and directed by Peter Jackson, “Gravity” with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock, “Hope Springs” with Meryl Streep, and finally–and at last– the musical version of “Les Miserables” with Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Russell Crowe.

From the trailers, it looks like a very promising time at the movies this summer and fall, but the trailers and the films don’t always line up. Once I accused a friend of wanting his life to be similar to the movies. He replied, “Oh no, I want it much better than that. I want it to be as good as the trailers.”

Send comments or questions to AgendaReviews@aol.com

By Warren Day

Stephen Schwartz has had an illustrious career as the composer of musicals for the stage (“Wicked,” “Pippin,” “Godspell”), and also for animated musicals produced by Walt Disney (he’s the winner of three Oscars for Best Song). The one musical that didn’t seem to work so well seems to have stuck in his craw, however. “Working” opened on Broadway in 1978, but closed after just 23 performances. After nearly 35 years, Schwartz has recently revamped the show, adding two new songs, cutting others, and updating the book. This new version is experiencing one of its first productions now through April 1 at the Caldwell Theater in Boca Raton. And as usual for this company, it’s a first-rate production.

Based on a non-fiction book by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Studs Terkel, the musical tells–through a series of vignettes—stories about the everyday experiences of a variety of working people: a fireman, a cleaning lady, a teacher, a trucker, a housewife, a money manager, a receptionist, an iron worker, a fast food clerk, a prostitute, and even a retiree, whose time is spent talking about not working. Rather than a traditional book musical with a main storyline, it’s a kind of staged cantata devoted to the poignant, unexpected, and funny experiences of the workplace, providing insights into the dreams and disappointments of people who are often otherwise invisible to us.

The workplace has seldom been the focus of a musical. Offhand, I can think of only two others among the hundreds of musicals in the Broadway canon: “The Pajama Game” and “How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying.”

It’s strange that the workplace should be so ignored since we spend far more of our waking life at our labors than we do anyplace else. At least 70% of our time awake is spent either at work, or traveling to and from–much less preparing for or thinking about it. It’s estimated that the average American worker spends 100,000 hours of his lifespan in full or part-time jobs. (If that cold fact isn’t excuse for an instant mid-life crisis, what is?) So it’s refreshing when a musical finds the workplace as its rhyme and reason, particularly one that’s as well directed and well performed as this one. Clive Cholerton, the Artistic Director for the Caldwell Theater Company, has personally directed and given the production a creative and energetic flow that makes the evening pass quickly. The cast of six professional and highly talented actors play various roles, and succeed in making you both laugh and cry. Particular notice should be given to Laura Hodos, who sings a show-stopper of a song about what a waitress does to turn her job into art.

Schwartz is the creative force behind the show, but the songs are not only his alone: six others, including five-time Grammy winner and Rock & Roll Hall of Famer James Taylor, and Mary Rodgers, daughter of legendary “Great American Songbook” composer Richard Rogers, contribute to the libretto.

In the end, “Working” does what good theater has always done: help you see the life and choices of another person in a new and clearer light.

The Caldwell Theatre Company is located at 7901 N. Federal Highway, Boca Raton, FL 33487.

Performances at 8 p.m. Wednesday through Saturday, and 2 p.m. on Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sundays.

Call 561-241-7432 or visit caldwelltheatre.com.

By WARREN DAY

It’s been called “the Super Bowl for the LGBT community,” celebrated along with Gay Pride and Halloween as a major touchstone of the gay calendar. The Academy Awards usually pulls in the biggest TV audience of the year for any non-related Super Bowl program, and yet there are signs that the Oscars may be going the way of the Miss America Pageant: sliding towards increasing irrelevance for both gays and straights.

On Sunday, the 84th Academy Awards will be held in Hollywood, California at a venue that has been known for the last ten years as the “Kodak Theatre,” but which is now nameless since the Kodak Company has filed for bankruptcy after experiencing its own decline towards insignificance.

Another uniquely American icon–the Miss America Pageant–was, from the late 1940s through the late 1960s, one of the nation’s most popular annual events, ranking particularly high among gays: after all, it was a kind of drag show–a high camp event before straights even knew what that meant. But with the changing role of women in society and the growth of feminism, Miss America increasingly seemed out of touch. In 2004, with its television audience just a third of what it once had been, the pageant went into the cable wilderness for nearly a decade before returning to network TV in 2011, with little notice or ratings.

There are those in Hollywood–as well as those who live off of what Hollywood produces–who worry that the Academy Awards could be on the downward slide to obsolescence. Sadly, there are signs this could be happening:

Sign 1: A Disparity Between the Movies the Public Actually Sees and the Ones the Academy Rewards Among the nine films nominated for Best Picture, only one ranks in the top-40 most popular films of the year, and it’s at number 13 (“The Help”). The next one, “Moneyball,” is at 41. The likely winner, “The Artist,” is at number 105, and earned just 7% of the box office receipts as “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part II.” There’s a direct correlation to the size of the TV audience and whether any popular films are in the running, such as “Titanic” in 1997, or “The Return of the King” in 2003. It’s great that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seeks to reward filmmaking excellence rather than popularity, but when there’s this much of a gap between films that interest the public and the ones featured on the Oscars show, there’s a serious disconnect for the audience.

Sign 2: Academy Voters Are Very different from the Average Moviegoer Whites make up 66% of movie-going audiences, but they account for a whopping 94% of the Academy’s 5,765 members. Women comprise 52% of moviegoers, but only 23% of Academy voters. Perhaps most revealing of all, 67% of moviegoers are under the age of 40, but only 2% of the Academy falls within this age group. Is it any wonder that moviegoers don’t always agree with the Academy’s choices?

Sign 3: The Glut of Film A wards Shows When the Academy first started handing out Oscars in 1929, the show had the field pretty much to itself. But now there’s an avalanche of awards and awards shows, beginning in May with the Cannes Film Festival, and eventually becoming almost a daily affair from early December until the end of February. Someone might be forgiven for thinking the Oscars had already been awarded by the time the actual telecast comes along.

Sign 4: An Inability to Keep the Telecast to a Reasonable Length In a country with an A.D.D. affliction, any show that lasts over three and a half hours (well past midnight for the Eastern Time zone) that doesn’t involve easy-on-the-eyes Olympic athletes is going to be in trouble. There’s wide agreement that one answer is to reduce the number of awards presented on the telecast, but so far no workable consensus on what those awards should be.

Sign 5: How Bad the Recent Oscar Shows Have Been Many people believe that it’s been at least eight years since the show had a great host (Billy Crystal, in 2004), with James Franco last year being considered one of the worst (he was upstaged by the 94-yearold Kirk Douglas, for crying out loud). The public is barely aware of the difficulty of putting together the Oscars show: one that balances the demands for an industry-insider evening with mass appeal for those outside that industry (while at the same time accommodating some of the biggest egos this side of Mount Olympus).

Sign 6: Some Years, the Winners Are Predictable in Advance With the barrage of pre-awards events and the constant babbling of Oscar-predictors, oftentimes you don’t have to watch the show to know who will win, and with that lack of suspense comes a lack of interest (and audience). This year, it’s widely predicted that “The Artist” will win Best Picture, Best Actor (Jean Dujardin), and Best Director, with “The Help” winning Best Actress (Viola Davis) and Best Supporting Actress (Octavia Spencer). Christopher Plummer is expected to take home the statue as Best Supporting Actor for playing a gay man who comes out of the closet at age 72 (“Beginners”).

Why Watch? With all that said, there are some excellent reasons to watch this year. Arguably the best Oscar host ever–Billy Crystal–returns. There are new producers who promise some real surprises. And no matter what the consensus on who will be the winners this year, there are always one or two upsets. A performance by Cirque du Soleil will do homage to the movies, with the largest cast they’ve ever assembled. One or two actors are sure to say something totally outrageous, and an equal number will say something that’s genuinely moving. Someone will wear a dress that will cause eyes to roll, and the “In Memoriam” segment on Elizabeth Taylor will cause many eyes to well up in tears. So let others bitch and moan, this once-a-year telecast is still the place where guilty pleasures come in abundance, where people who have everything can be observed losing something they desperately want, where people who are typically well-scripted become tongue-tied on their own, and where you can witness the rich and famous engaging in the sort of faux pas you would never do yourself. Most importantly, some good but neglected movies will receive some much-needed national attention.

Sounds like a worthwhile Sunday evening to me.

Warren Day

By WARREN DAY

Just-released, “The Woman in Black” starring Daniel Radcliffe (none other than Harry Potter himself) is a throwback to an older form, a classic Victorian ghost story in the grand tradition, something that’s been missing from the screen for a long time. The Haunted House in cinema dates back at least to “The Old Dark House” from 1932, which was directed by the openly-gay James Whale, who also did the original “Frankenstein,” and what many consider to be the greatest horror film of all time, “The Bride of Frankenstein.”

In “Woman,” Radcliffe plays London lawyer Arthur Kipps. Kipps is on shaky terms with his strict employer because of his lackluster performance since the death of his wife in childbirth. Her passing left him with a son who’s now four years old (yes, Harry Potter has definitely grown-up).

Kipps is dispatched to the remote southeast coast of England to close out the accounts of a highly reclusive and recently deceased client. For years she lived alone in a decaying mansion called Eel Marsh House, located about 800 feet off the coast on a rise of land only reachable at low tides. The nearby village residents aren’t happy to welcome an outsider. It becomes apparent that they are harboring secrets about the old house, which is surrounded by marshes and tidal pools. Kipps hears strange noises and catches a fleeting glimpse of a woman in black amidst the family tombstones.

You can see why I called it a classic Victorian ghost story, even though the novel was written in 1983, and a stage version has continuously performed in London since 1989, making it the second longest running play in the West End (Agatha Christie’s “The Mousetrap” has been running since 1952).

The movie, as well as the novel and play, are old-fashioned, and I mean that as a compliment. It has what most horror films have been lacking for the last decade or more: it’s subtle and more suggestive than literal in its depictions of things that go bump in the night. In other words, it’s more of a chiller than a thriller, which may go against the A.D.D.-inspired grain of what audiences expect today.

As in all good ghost stories, the fascination is in the back story: why does the title’s eponymous and nameless woman haunt Eel Marsh House, and why does a child in the village die every time she’s seen?
Daniel Radcliffe handles himself well, but the director sometimes confuses being startled with being scared, and more of the back story from the novel would have–forgive the pun–fleshed out the ghosts. In the end, this film may not be as scary as a Kardashian family reunion, but thanks to the acting, production design, and photography, it is a lot more real. H

Send comments and questions to AgendaReviews@aol.com

Warren Day

WHY DO GAY MEN & LESBIANS LOVE SCARY MOVIES?

Gay men and lesbians seem to have a higher degree of fascination with horror movies than their straight counterparts.  If you doubt this, then just ask any studio marketing executive. What is less clear is “why?”

Some people suggest it’s our identity with those who’ve been labeled by society as outsiders and “not normal,” and certainly vampires, werewolves, and ghouls have had that experience. Others say it’s the genre’s sense of style and flamboyance, with its emphasis on mood and atmosphere, where the décor is part and parcel of the drama.

Or maybe it’s because from the beginning they’ve contained a noticeable gay sensibility in both the front and back of the camera, the one genre in the art form’s early years where you might spot a gay character, such as Doctor Pretorius in 1935’s “Bride of Frankenstein,” or Countess Zaleska in 1936’s “Dracula’s Daughter.” Remember: those performances occurred during the height of the studios’ Production Code era, when any depiction of homosexuality was strictly forbidden. Yet somehow they could blend the characters into these films, where almost no one depicted was “normal.”

What’s clear is that in recent years horror movies have been rather, well, horrible. Mainly, they’ve solidified themselves into two rigid categories: the “faux documentary,” to which the “The Blair Witch Project” gave birth, only to continue with such films as “Paranormal Activity (I and II);” and the much more prolific sub-genre of “splatter films” where the goal is to shock (or sicken) you more than scare you, and where the blood and guts flow like beer at a Super Bowl party. These films include “The Ring,” “Hostel,” “Saw,” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” and like the villains they depict, these films continue to xeroxing themselves into endless replicas. We’re even on the verge of a “Friday the 13th, Part 13”.

Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, and then BOO!

By Warren Day

You might think 2005 was the best gay year in movies based purely on the release of “Brokeback Mountain.” But in terms of sheer quantity, 2011 has all other years beat, and the quality was damn good too.

I’m not talking about the small, independent films that you usually see only in GLBT  film festivals, but mainstream movies with one or more recognizable stars, the kind of gay-themed movies that escape the distribution ghetto to which most are assigned, and which your liberal-leaning relatives might see. And in addition, they are showing up on Best-of-the-Year lists. The celluloid closet is finally bursting open.

In June, it all began with “Beginners,” where Ewan McGregor plays an uptight straight son who learns how to take risks with his heart from his gay father, who comes out of the closet at age 75 and forms a better relationship with a thirty-something man than anything the son has ever experienced.  The unsurpassable Christopher Plummer is the father and he’s currently the front-runner to win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and the film itself is appearing on some ten best lists from straight movie critics (yes, there are some).

If “Beginners” portrays the liberating normalcy of coming out of the closet at any age, then Clint Eastwood’s “J. Edgar” shows the soul-crunching consequences of dwelling there your whole life.  Leonardo DiCaprio plays J. Edgar Hoover, the founder and longest-serving head of the FBI, while Arnie Hammer plays his never-left-his-side assistant Clyde Tolson. If Mr.

Tolson had been as good-looking as Mr. Hammer (he wasn’t), then it’s doubtful Mr. Hoover could have excised as much self-control as he did.  Straight audiences didn’t warm up to this almost tabloid version of a right-wing hero, but gays resonated with this unresolved relationship and found  meanings in the film that may have escaped others.

If “J. Edgar” dealt with one of the biggest bromances in American history, our next film lays out the biggest one in world literature, namely that between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson.  In “Game of Shadows,” with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law as the original dynamic duo, the script and the director (Madonna’s ex-husband) make the homoerotic nature of their relationship blatantly obvious.  Holmes looks like a heartsick puppy as he watches Watson marry, and then on their honeymoon night Holmes kidnaps Watson, throws the brand new Mrs. Watson into a river, and does all of this while dressed in drag.  Subtle it ain’t.

In “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,” taken from the novel that’s been a world-wide phenomenon, the bi-sexuality of Lisbeth Salander is more subtle than it was in the Swedish film version. The first time Daniel Craig meets Rooney Mara, she’s in bed with a woman, but then she’s portrayed as more heterosexual for the rest of the movie. Directed by David Fincher, who did “The Social Network,” the film is grittier and has more resonance than the fine Swedish version.

Just the opposite happens in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” where the homosexuality of at least three characters receives more play than it did in the internationally-acclaimed TV mini-series. Rightly one of the best films of the year, and one of the best thinking-person’s spy thrillers ever made, Gary Oldman achieves a career high, with excellent support from Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch and John Hurt.  Like “Beginners,” the homosexuality or bisexuality of those three characters is treated with the same nonchalance as if they’d been straight, and that’s definitely a sign of cinema progress. For a good deal of this film, you may feel you don’t know what’s going on, but the director is merely letting you know how real espionage feels, where the whole nature of the enterprise is deception and confusion.

Benedict Cumberbatch

The British film “Weekend” escaped the attention black hole that most independent gay films find themselves in, and is appearing on some best of the year lists. Telling the story of how a relationship-inclined gay man and a very much non-relationship type gay man meet on a Friday and developed a strong bond over the weekend.  On some level, this is a rather run-of-the-mill story for gay films, so it was interesting that it received so many positive reviews from straight critics.

“Pariah,” which is still opening in theaters, is in some ways the gay version of last year’s “Precious,” as it traces the struggle of a Brooklyn 17-year-old African-American girl to come to terms with her sexuality and deal with her strait-lace mother.  Played by Adepero Oduye in a heartbreaking performance, she finds herself attracted to a girl even more closeted than she is.  The film succeeds in telling a particular story in a universal way, thus enabling whites and blacks, straights and gays, men and women to mutually find relevance and truth in its characters.

What is really amazing about these gay-themed movies is that to some degree they’re all worth seeing, and in what other year could you say that about seven movies with gay content?

And now we come to what may be the campiest moment in any film released in 2011, but it happened in one far different from any of those discussed here. I’m talking about Tom Cruise’s latest outing in the fourth “Mission Impossible” movie, but the scene didn’t involve him, but rather his comrade-in-arms Jeremy Renner (“The Hurt Locker,” “The Town”). The sole woman in the IMF team has been sent to entice a code from a multi-millionaire industrialist, while Jeremy is plunged down a shaft and suspended by magnetic force (I defy anyone to suspend belief enough to swallow that).  And when Renner barely makes it back up the shaft exhausted and bruised, he exclaims, “The next time, I get to seduce the rich guy.” Now the question is, was this in the script or was it an ad lib?

May the year 2012 further develop these delightful, diverse, and ever-deepening trends.

Warren Day

Send comments or questions to AgendaReviews@aol.com