Regrets

Lately, I haven't been able to devote as much time and energy to Jester (jesterjournal.com) as I might like, but from time to time, I'll still be adding new reviews and content. This became more obvious to me this past month or so, as I had two books I planned to review, but the time for honestly reading them became scarce due to a lot of other additional commitments. I'm only just today getting a review posted of the R. Crumb comics compilation, published last month. I've had the review copy since this past summer and feel a little bad it took me this long to get to it. But that review is now up, and another book just published this month, which I also got a review copy of this summer, will be reviewed soon. Thanks for your patience.

Louis CK on SNL

In short -- I was a little disappointed with how SNL used Louis CK as host last night. The monologue was great because they let Louis simply do some of his stand-up, as they should. There were two great bits -- the filmed parody of his own show "Louie" with him playing Lincoln in similar loser-ish situations and with the exact same tone, and then a sketch buried late in the show with Louis and Kate MacKinnon as the last two drunks hooking up at a bar at last call.

Other than that, I really don't know what the writers were thinking, having Louis CK do odd funny voices as he did as the FEMA spokesman on the "Fox & Friends" parody and the hotel clerk reciting a litany of unlikely charges to a guy trying to check out. Impersonations or characters aren't Louis CK's thing. The writers didn't seem to be thinking about playing to his strengths as a comic actor. And the sketch where Louis played a deluded Norseman annoying everyone by repeatedly blowing a giant ram's horn didn't really go anywhere at all, characters or no characters.

People say you can tell how the SNL crew liked the host or vice versa by the closing bows -- are they standing close to them or hugging them, or as far away as possible? Louis CK was flanked by the musical guest, .fun, in the end of the show -- but that seems to be more of a failing of the cast and crew to really do him proud rather than Louis being an asshole to anyone, I would guess. About five hours before airtime, Louis sent out a great email to fans being thankful for the opportunity and especially in the moment of New York trying to recover from Hurricane Sandy. It's too bad that SNL didn't really support him in helping relieve the drama of the news when showtime came.

Journey to the old country

A viral video, particularly for our English friends:

Post Script on "Love Junkies"

Following the Jester Interview conversation with writer, director and co-star Karina Arroyave and co-star Gary Hilborn of “The Love Junkies of Hell’s Kitchen,” which has its closing night in the Theater for the New City’s Dream Up Festival on September 2, another dimension of humor and comedy in the play came alive at the August 31 performance.

Arroyave’s character, Chula, tries humor to defuse her feelings and distance herself from her own dysfunction of retaining feelings for a husband who may or may not be coming back. She goes off into angry, but very funny rants, into the camera set up in the foreground of stage that serves as a reminder that Chula is recording everything that happens as her own reality show.

As a writer, with this play, Arroyave has used comedy as a building block for the drama, and between the laughs, she gets across the truths about the characters without ever spelling them out in the dialogue. And the funny dialogue of these characters makes it all the more touching when the dramatic moments surface in the play – especially when Chula’s deflections no longer are enough.

 

Risk's rewards

Something in Amy Poehler's interview show at the 92nd Street Y last week echoed what comedian Carl LaBove had said in the interview he gave Jester. At the end, LaBove talked about risk being key to creating the best comedy material. Asked about the difference between performing comedy and being a fan of comedy, Poehler said it's willingness to be vulnerable on a stage, and be embarrassed. In short, she said, it's "taking risks."

This is just two performers pointing to the same thing, but it strikes a chord. To be funny, a performer has to take some sort of risk; to be funny, a scene or a comedic work has to take some sort of risk. They have to cross some sort of line, and take a chance. And that certainly can apply to more than just comedy.

Book Expo

Managed to catch a little bit of the BEA Expo, the publishing industry's big annual show in New York, this week. At one point waited in the line for an autographed book from comedian Kevin Pollak (which will be published in the fall). I thought it worth noting here that Pollak went above and beyond what I've seen from most authors at this show, having been twice before in prior years.

Although he had high demand for his signature and a long line, Pollak brought a professional photographer with him so anyone who wanted could have their photo taken with him, without holding the line up. He also had questions and patter ready for every attendee. It really was a masterful marketing effort on his part -- above and beyond what I've experienced from other publishers, who can't be bothered to even respond to review copy requests that could promote their products, at a time when publishing is suffering.

Decline of AMC Theaters (and all movie theaters, for that matter)

Had a less than satisfactory experience at the AMC Orpheum movie theater on the Upper East Side last night. Gabi & I ended up there after I played softball in Central Park -- we bought tickets for a 9:50 pm show of Men in Black 3, and went to have dinner nearby before the movie. We had a little bit of leftovers in a bag with us by the time we went to the theater. They had a ticket taker and security person at the door that seemed more appropriate for a club than the movies, and they hassled us about the leftovers and wouldn't let us in.

I went immediately to the theater manager, who was basically no help. Apparently no one is ever supposed to eat dinner in the neighborhood and go to their theater to see a movie afterward. They offered to hold the food for us, but frankly, after being hassled like that, I wouldn't trust them with our food. I demanded and got a refund, and we ended up not seeing the movie and not giving this theater our business.

It is beyond stupid on their part, when home video is quickly surpassing movie theaters in attendance/business, to turn away customers with this lack of discretion. I'll certainly never go to that location again. We're already less often going out to the movies, because the ticket prices and concessions are so greedily inflated, and this pretty much seals it for me -- as far as the whole AMC chain goes, and maybe movie theaters in general. Who needs to be treated like this? Even if we were going to eat our outside food in the theater, which we weren't, why turn away paying ticket buyers when this location was far from busy, or full?

I'll risk sounding like a pompous ass saying this, but having just taken a course on "Leadership and Change" as part of studying for a media management degree, I don't think AMC Theatres is really getting what they're up against in their industry if they think raising prices and lowering customer service standards is really the way they will survive. It's certainly evident that's their current strategy from the experience I just had.