Higgs

That may be, but just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, so too can someone who's wrong a hundred times get it right the 101st, and analogously for someone who's usually right. I try to consider arguments independent of their proponents, and I should add that I came across the linked article on a favorite, extraordinarily eclectic site (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com) run by one of the most widely respected and read bloggers in the country - a gay, Catholic, Obama/Thatcher-loving, Maher/Colbert guesting, traditional British conservative, who generally agreed with Ellis' sentiments on this occasion.

While never having read Ellis' novels, I quote him because he's a very successful author and screenwriter commenting from the perspective of a gay man on the treatment of gays in TV dramas, among many other things. Agree with his views (as I do regarding what Glee has devolved into) or not, he can't be accused of being stupid, ignorant, or dull. But be that as it may, a careful deconstruction of that part of my previous post ought to reveal yet another gratuitous derogatory comment regarding Chris Colfer.

"No One is Alone" may be Lea's worst performance ever on Glee, for the simple reason that she's a mezzo on a song that calls for a true soprano, as in the original production: Lea has to strain for the highest notes, which greatly weakens the usual richness of her tone. Isn't she still better than everyone else there? Sure, but that's a pretty low bar and the song depends primarily on her.

I mistook your basic sentiments with my "resentment is delicious" response, and for that I sincerely apologize. I continue to believe that a Funny Girl triumph will itself be the major hurdle to overcome in finding her way "home" and that S6 will dramatize her existential struggle and its fallout. There is not likely to be much humor in it, however, as that Glee ship has long since sailed. They even missed a golden opportunity for a far from fatal funny failure (god, I loves me some alliteration) by not having her limp and drawl in her Laura Wingfield audition. Santana spikes the drink of a member of the stage crew with a known history of paranoid schizophrenia. He suffers a sudden delusional episode in which he thinks the show is "Phantom of the Opera" and, triggered by a triple forte minor chord, causes a huge chandelier to fall, but since it's over the center of the auditorium, ten audience members with $250. orchestra seats end up in serious but stable condition at Mount Sinai Hospital. The after-show party at Sardi's is cancelled.I think it appropriate that an author of stories for children write an episode for "what is a essentially a dumb kids show". (Per Bret Easton Ellis: http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/05/13/bret-easton-ellis-gay-men-magical-elves) Did he mean a show for dumb kids, a dumb show for kids, or both?

I went to YouTube to listen to ALL versions of "People" by professional vocalists and found that Lea's was as different from Streisand's as anyone else's, and her tonal beauty, emotional power, and interpretative subtleties achieved through variations in vocal coloring, enunciation, and phrasing were individualistic, second to none, and better in each element than virtually any of the others, especially including Babs herself. (This is not to deny that the song itself is pure sap, does nothing to advance the drama or provide insight into Fanny's emotional state, and the director of the original production was prevented from cutting it only because it was played on the radio before the NY opening and the public demanded it.) There are people I call "keepers of the flame", stans of artists for whom they will fight to the death to prove that not only was everything their idol did the best that ever was, but the best that can ever be. The sort of nonsense such people purvey can be readily seen in the comments sections of covers by anyone, although Glee performances in general, because that's its stock-in-trade, and Lea's in particular, because she is often clearly so much better than the originator, have come in for the brunt of it in recent years. My advice? Screw 'em. Just as I argued in another thread that the true test of Darren's superiority over Chris as a singer is best gauged by the dramatically different treatment of them by music business professionals, so too would I point out that by the same measure, Lea is in a league of her own among the Glee cast. Even forgetting Spring Awakening and Columbia's big investment in her album, looking ahead we find her lead performance in the Oz film about to be released, her seemingly likely role in a DreamWorks musical, Fanny in RM's FG (no, he didn't purchase the rights for Darren to play Nicky or Naya to understudy, but I do hope MM gets Eddie Ryan), and comments from pros who may actually know something about singing, such as: "There are certainly performers out there with the requisite talents: Karen Olivo (“In the Heights”), Idina Menzel (“Wicked”), Lea Michele (“Spring Awakening,” TV’s “Glee”), to name three possible Evitas.", by the lead critic of the New York Times. http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=12235502#page:showThread,12235502 "FUNNY GIRL starring Lea Michele may be only a proposition with some preliminary plans in place at this point in time in the real world, but according to the new Glee 5.0 we were shown a Broadway star being born that was bred before our very eyes and ears in preceding seasons - Lea Michele aka Rachel Berry aka Fanny Brice. Who else?! Delectably befitting for a star of Michele's crossover power and appeal, the prospect of the triple-threat in an actual revival of the iconic Jule Styne/Bob Merrill musical is incredible, nevertheless 30-odd episodes of Glee remain. Until then, a slice of the showstoppers via musical moments like last night's bare stage-set, solo spotlit "People" shall go a long way in instilling a sense of confidence that Michele will ultimately deliver on her promise to return to her roots on the Great White Way in a major and unforgettable way. A highlight of an extraordinarily strong ep in an otherwise somewhat uneven fifth season so far, without any question." by a critic for Broadway World. http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/SOUND-OFF-GLEE-Goes-Downtown-All-The-Way-To-NYC-20140402 And I would certainly be remiss to leave out this bit of silliness: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2597254/Jennifer-Aniston-wants-turn-Friends-big-Broadway-musical.html

Finn.S2 was a high school junior who HAD to be written as flawed in order to provide the dramatic basis for his long-term maturation (and to get some laughs in a show that is in parts supposed to be a farcical comedy). He was treated no worse than anyone else, including "St." Kurt, whose supposed canonization by RM was greatly misperceived.The fundamental precept of Glee was the choir room. In Friday Night Lights it was the football team, but they managed to change the players more successfully than Glee changed the singers. (The failure was primarily in the stories the newbies were given, not in their talents*.) Glee:NYC was a discordant second genre altogether, and when Rachel got Fanny any semblance of realism demanded a third. Without the clean break of a spin-off, Finn HAD to be geographically separated from Rachel, to establish his independent agency, and HAD to be connected to Glee:Lima via the choir room, in particular, to link the split narratives. Rachel's success (LESS remarkable than Smash's** Karen's, who had no experience of which I was aware, or Ivy's, who had never been more than a bit player for ten years, who both ended up competing for a Tony as the star of a musical, despite the fact that neither they nor anyone else who appeared on the show could sing as well as "Lea Michele, Lea Michele, say it again and she'll magically appear"; are you still with me? - I just had to get that off my chest; now where was I? Oh yes...) is not meant to be the culmination of her story arc, but a hurdle to be overcome in finding a path to personal fulfillment WITHOUT GIVING UP HER CAREER (necessarily) that would bring the show full circle in an emotionally satisfying denouement. So now, the biggest question of all with Finn gone, is how the hell they're going to do that. Following the eight-a-week grind of a Broadway run has, by itself, no dramatic potential. No Broadway show could achieve the peaks of a Funny Girl triumph. (Sondheim writes a musical for Rachel with unsimulated on-stage intercourse? No?) No man could equal Finn's "person" in his spiritual connection to Rachel. Help me out here, people, I'm desperate. * **http://annoyingactorfriend.com/smash-glee/

When a person's life has profoundly changed, so can, and often should, their adolescent purpose. Rachel could not come back to Lima with unfulfilled ambition, but as conquering heroine, why not? Geographically, it's still Ohio, but her psychological state would be entirely different. There would be nothing she couldn't do artistically except the open-ended theatrical runs with which she, as have others, grew understandably disenchanted. She wouldn't want Finn to join her in New York because she wouldn't want to be there herself anymore. It's not as glamorous or exciting as it looks to outsiders. The reference to the musical Mr. Chips was meant as an amusing sidelight, only. What Petula's character does there is dramatically different from RM's ending (which may have originated no earlier than Fox's denial of the spin-off), because she wanted to give up her entire career and move to a socially isolated milieu where she was likely to go stark raving mad with boredom. (Think 19th century pioneer farm wife, but with nothing useful to do.) Anyway, it's been fun, but I gotta go. TAXI! TAXI!! HEY!!!

Actually, by the end, I don't believe Finn did want out of Lima. Nor should he have, if we can learn anything from this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/unambitious-loser-with-happy-fulfilling-life-still,33233/

Rachel going "home" need not imply any such thing. There's a lot more to show biz than Broadway. Streisand left Broadway never to return, and Lea has tried to do the same. Compared to movies/TV/recordings/concerts, which can be done while maintaining a main domicile in Lima, OH, or anywhere for that matter, it's much harder work for a lot less fame and fortune. Even Broadway musicals, in the form of limited-run shows, would be possible. It was during the kerfuffle following the reveal of the Finchel endgame in The Quarterback that I was amused to encounter the following dialog; "I'm just a schoolmaster" "And I just want to be a schoolmaster's wife." It occurs in a movie that I'd never seen nor even heard of before. The first line was spoken by Peter O'Toole, the second by PETULA CLARK. She plays a famous star of the London musical stage, living a hedonistic life, and pursued by rich and handsome men. She gives it all up to marry a homely Latin teacher at a private boys' school out in the country. The movie is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodbye,_Mr._Chips_(1969_film) Oh, and there's singing.

There is an alternative (and far more realism-based) story line, but it would have involved hiring a whole new set of actors and eliminated virtually any interactions with the ex-Lima crew, except for the rare tête-à-tête with Kurt.For many months now, Rachel has been spending five or more full days a week in the company of adults who are at or near the top of their Broadway professions, and who are counting on her, and her alone, to return their investment of time, money, and reputation in a big-budget revival of FG. It is with them that she would be going out after rehearsal for a beer, and on the tryout tour their camaraderie would be closer than ever. From the instant of the announcement of the casting of a college freshman, she would have been teated as a phenomenon, garnering the show more publicity than even a Lea Michele would (e.g., cover story in "New York Magazine" and probably TV interviews, NYTimes feature story-they even did one for Darren's "How To Succeed"-etc.), and been under constant social media attack by the Streisand crazies (http://thebarbrastreisandforum89123.yuku.com/reply/226356/Re-Ryan-Murphys-Funny-Girl) and the stans of many of the leading ladies of musical theater, especially of those who auditioned for Fanny. (Just ask Carrie Underwood about "Sound of Music" - http://www.ibtimes.com/carrie-underwood-im-getting-hate-tweets-over-sound-music-role-says-country-singer-1489880) The psychological pressures on her would be intense, and she might be a woman "on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown" at any moment. Now that might have been a great story line, but only as a spin-off, or at the very least as a compressed and isolated "Smash" within "Glee". This episode began with the producers' thank you of a town car (NOT A LIMO!), presumably due to audience reactions and major newspaper reviews she garnered in the tryout run that were sufficiently positive to fuel the optimism necessary for the further investment in a Broadway opening.. By now she'd be almost famous in Manhattan, and to the administration and faculty of NYADA she'd be seen as a meal ticket to increased donations, prestige, tuition, and even salaries (not that there's anything wrong with that). That she EVER has the time or energy (or nostalgia) to get together with the Bushwick not-so-wild bunch would be taken (both positively and negatively) as an act of noblesse oblige (and as bizarre as having an attractive 30-something architect of a Manhattan skyscraper hang out exclusively with a group of arrested adolescents and desperate for love). Waitressing, NYADA classes, week-long trips to Lima? Fuhgeddaboudit.

Your resentment is delicious.

It's a reasonable thing to do, since they're presenting Mercedes as a recording artist, and any extra publicity and possible expansion of the audience can't hurt. OTOH, it wouldn't be appropriate to do it for the very real "Louder", and as a Lea fan I want her outside work to be kept as far away from Glee as possible. Chris should only sing solos, as he ruins for me every song he's in**. I have to mute him out of all group songs while watching, and perform all sorts of timing filtering to get him out of my (illegal) audio files. I'm extra sensitive to the painful overtones from the upper end of his range in his singing and speech because of my shameful secret. You see, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg **I can think of one exception: "Happy/Happy", where Chris was better than Judy.

The underlying question is whether Darren, or any actor on Glee, can go on to bigger and better things, the way Mila Kunis, say, did after her comedy show. It's not only not fair to compare Darren to the "known world of actors", even if that world is restricted to older teens on TV sitcoms, because of the many significant differences that affect perceptions of performance, it's not even fair to compare him to Colfer, in general, because of the very different purposes they've served on the show. What I believe is fair is to compare him to Colfer in the one aspect where both are being required to do almost the exact same thing in the exact same environment: to seriously express all the feelings that arise in a romantic relationship. Because it's the most universal element in drama of all genres, it at least provides a grounded starting point for predictions of showbiz success.

Considering that each scene may have had multiple takes over extended periods, and that directors had major influences, first on the performance, and ultimately on the selection and editing of cuts, what if:1. It was the show's INTENTION that you laugh at exactly, and only, the moments you did. 2. Darren was given those ridiculous clothes and styles to deliberately enhance his absurdity and make virtually everything he does seem OTT. 3. Homophobia, in all its meanings, benign and dangerous, was being consciously exploited. 4. Some smart-ass writer was taking a not-so-secret delight in expressing contempt for the audience. So, yes, your laughter counts, but it's not entirely clear as for what. Judgment of any performance rests on three questions: 1. What was the intention? 2. Was it legitimate? 3. How well did it succeed in fulfilling its purpose? Q #1 must be answered before rendering a verdict on any actor's ability, but not before I can decide to FF all songs and speeches by K/B unless you-know-who is a major participant.

In general, a statement that describes quality demands an answer to: "Compared to what/whom?" Chris and Darren play a couple of the same gender, age, and with nearly the same emotional feelings for each other (currently, but not always), in what is now the only pivotal romantic relationship on the show. Thus comparisons between their acting skills are fairer and more significant than those between any other two performers. To reduce it to its simplest and most basic element, which actor has best conveyed their character's supposed feelings towards the other? Given that they're probably endgame in a major SL, all the rest they do is filler.

The distinction between "at" and "with" is that the latter doesn't require skilled acting when there's great writing (see Seinfeld, Jerry), while the former demands great acting regardless of the writing. The two examples cited for Naya and Chris were tellingly referring to physical actions, only, and relied on the humor inherent in Zizes' body and persona and in the equivalence of the very old banana peel trope.The clue to Darren's shortcomings lie not in his OTT line readings, which are quite intentional (and very different from when we first met him at Dalton), but in the clothes and hairdos they feel the need force on him to buttress the comedy. (See also, tracksuits, Sue.)

There is one aspect of acting, in addition to the expression of romantic love, in which Darren has proved superior to Chris: comedy. For me, a comedic actor is one who can get you to laugh at their own character. On Seinfeld, it was the portrayers of George, Elaine, and Kramer. On Glee, it's Jane, Lea, Iqbal, Jessalyn, and many others, but not Naya or Chris. The latter two often read lines that get laughs at the expense of other characters, but who has ever laughed AT Santana or Kurt, as I almost always do AT Sue when she's insulting someone? Laughed AT Blaine? I have. Often. And that's even with the mute on, as it usually is when he's onscreen.

Try these reviews:http://www.wetpaint.com/glee/articles/did-darren-criss-succeed-in-his-opening-night-on-broadway-the-reviews-are-in http://exeuntmagazine.com/reviews/how-to-succeed-in-business-without-really-trying/ http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/darren-criss-crosses-tv-glee-bway-succeed-article-1.1000607?localLinksEnabled=false For those who might laugh at the contribution of all the Gleeks in the audience, check this out: "I can only guess but I'd swear that every Barbra Streisand fan in existence showed up via dog-sled, skis, and snowshoes for the opening night of the new musical, “Funny Girl” last night at the Shubert [in Boston].... ...Like Miss Garland, Miss Streisand is not without her cult of worshippers and they cheered and whistled at her every move last night. One might have concluded that the producers would have been better off to sell the costumes and scenery, disband the supporting players, and give the audience a three hour concert of Miss Streisand." Source: http://barbra-archives.com/live/60s/funny_girl_broadway_2.html "I Believe in You", sang Darren Criss live, in a major Broadway musical revival. "Woof, woof", said Robodog, voiced by the inimitable Chris Colfer, the greatest toy dog impersonator in the history of animated movies, in his always endearing falsetto. Which of these two is more likely to appear onscreen in a movie?

While I cannot deny a certain small delight in the vicious civil war between Chris and Darren stans, someone has to take a stand for truth and fairness. Now I might consider Darren to be a bland mediocrity as a singer, but it is he, and never Chris, who has performed, by invitation, on multiple and significant non-Glee occasions. It is he, and never Chris, who has been given the support of promoters to tour and record. So a person is free to wax eloquent over Chris' glorious high notes and manly tenor, but music business professionals have decided otherwise.But ah, say so many, it is surely a proven fact that Chris is the far superior thespian, one who can signal the most profound emotions with the slightest twitch. Well, let's put aside the fact that it was Darren who has already spent several weeks as the star of a Broadway musical and had a decent supporting role as a human being in a Hollywood movie that didn't require his financial support, and that Chris has never done any such thing. Instead, let's watch the scene in the S2 finale, when Blaine debriefs Kurt regarding ND's Nationals and The Finchel Kiss, and then tells him he loves him. And how did Kurt feel about that? Chris had to put out a definitive statement (yes, the love was requited, whew!) to quell the resultant debate among his own fans. 'Twas not a good sign of his emotive powers, to say the least. So, while Chris does a respectable put-upon-gay, conveying homoerotic desire may not be his strong point, which makes the likes of "Looking" beyond his reach. His high-pitched speaking voice will be a great fit for a robodog, but if anyone wants to see a sublime performance (by a still unknown actor) of a gay teen in love, forget Glee and Netflix "This Boy's Life" (1993, DiCaprio, De Niro, Barkin).

Lea always responds enthusiastically about anything she might do, and I take absolutely none of it at face value. In fact, I consider everything she does in public to be an act, and usually quite knowingly funny.Streisand left Broadway never to return, and Lea has tried to do the same. Compared to movies/TV/recordings, it's much harder work for a lot less fame and fortune. But let us not get dragged down into a hopeless inter-generational pissing match. The issues of real importance are the Art of Song and musical theater, and the real enemy is this: I consider it a positive that Funny Girl could not be revived in its original aesthetic, and a negative that a Streisand or Dion or Whitney could never have become as widely (and justifiably) popular as they did if they were beginning their careers today. Changes in taste and the demographics of those whose purchases determine Billboard ratings are a greater hurdle for Lea in becoming a pop star (just one of several possibilities) than her Glee association. In any case, rather than have her lip sync for 15,000 screaming tweens at the Staples Center, I hope she gets to do something like this: http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Kristin-Chenoweth-to-Return-to-Carnegie-Hall-with-THE-EVOLUTION-OF-A-SOPRANO-53-20140320

There are many paths to iconic status, not all of them picturesque. The sooner Lea separates from Glee, the better, and she's working on it. It was no accident she was just introduced on the KCA only as the voice of Dorothy in the upcoming Oz film. After her international album tours and RM's "Funny Girl", Glee will become a short paragraph in the middle of her resume. Don't cry for Lea just yet, America, nor pray too hard for her failure. It's likely to lead to disappointment in the Divine.

Far from being a "copy cat" version of "You Are Woman", Lea's performance was diametrically opposite in every respect. Where Streisand was a campy, OTT virginal ingenue, Lea was the sexual aggressor, yet allowing her Nicky in on her pretense, resulting in the erotic SHARED laughter at the end. I cannot imagine how it could have been more different, unless it were on HBO and she completely undressed during the song. To be fair to Streisand, her ludicrous portrayal was primarily the fault of the producers and director. To get the rights to Fanny's story, they had to agree to a lot of romanticizing of both leads. Fanny had already been married, came from a well-to-do middle-class family, didn't speak or sing with a Yiddish accent, and knew that Nicky was currently married and a real gangster before she moved in with him. Even if we ignore the real Fanny's past, the notion that a showgirl (even a Jewish one) would be shocked, shocked!, to discover a professional gambler's true intentions towards her is ridiculous on its face. And to prove it's not so impossible to outperform Babs, here's someone else who, while preserving the same dramatic concept (completely unlike Lea's), acts and sings the scene with more class and realistic humor than Streisand ever could: As to Streisand, although I share her ethnicity and politics, I'm in agreement with Fanny's daughter, who said, "That girl play my mother? I wouldn't hire her as my maid!" Source: http://barbra-archives.com/live/60s/funny_girl_broadway_1.html I went and listened to every "People" I could find on YouTube. Lea's was my favorite by far, but specifically with respect to Streisand in having a more beautiful (and less nasal) tone and free of some of Babs' annoying phrasing. Streisand was to become a much better singer than she was in the 60's, and certainly came to have a much superior vocal instrument than Lea's. But the better singer-actress? Lea Michele, no contest. She's the Callas to Streisand's Tebaldi. "Cover" is a term used almost exclusively in pop music, rarely in discussing jazz, gospel, opera, standards, or show tunes. In any genre, first ain't always best, and given enough time, everything is ultimately surpassed.

Rachel's acting in "You Are Woman" was better than Streisand's by an even greater margin than her singing was.http://vimeo.com/15772624 Rachel's Broadway triumph is being made quick and easy because, contrary to what I and virtually everyone else once thought, it isn't her main story, rather it's that which follows: her finding her "home".

Yeah, but it would have helped if they hadn't allowed Lea to sing "People" better than Streisand. (They've actually done that sort of thing with her in the distant past, as when Rachel auditioned with an "On My Own" that didn't compare to Lea's live pre-Glee performance at the Hollywood Bowl - - and in continually suppressing her lower range that would suddenly show up in live performances on Oprah and the tours.)

1. The out-of-town run was so successful that the promoters awarded Rachel a 24/7 car and driver (5x14 spoiler summary). (There would have been at least several weeks of performances in one or more large cities with professional reviews in major newspapers, as well as audience reaction accompanied by commentary in blogs and social media.) 2. Before opening night, there would have been several weeks of previews in the show's Broadway theater, again reported to have been successful. 3. One of the pictures shot during the NYC filming was of the outside of the theater, featuring a poster containing: " **** " - The New York Times. (The NYT only reviews opening night**, and NEVER awards stars or any other quantitative critical measure. But what can you expect from people who didn't realize Julliard doesn't do musical theater, NYADA wouldn't do ballet, and mentally dividing two large numbers is what autistic idiot savants, not mathematical "geniuses", do.) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2582245/Lea-Michele-shoots-scenes-Glee-New-Yorks-iconic-St-James-Theatre-Rachel-Berry-heads-Broadway.html So, unless TPTB are prepared to renege on what they have already made public (nah?) and RM, who has purchased the rights to FG and discussed directors and Nicky-casting with Lea, has suddenly forgotten on which side his bread is buttered, Rachel is likely to live up to the promise of "You Are Woman" and her upcoming (5x14) "People". **The NYT made an exception for Streisand's understudy's two-performance stand-in, and her former Erasmus High SCHOOLMATE promptly left the show to begin a substantial career after receiving a great review. (Where have you gone, Santana Lopez?)