The reviews are in for "Little Eyes"

Posted at 3:14 PM on February 14, 2011 by Marianne Combs
Filed under: Criticism, Theater

Braxton Baker, Luverne Seifert and Sarah Agnew in "Little Eyes."
Photo by Kevin McLaughlin

"Little Eyes" by local playwright Cory Hinkle runs at the Guthrie Theater through February 20. Set in post-9/11 suburbia, the show has drawn mixed reviews for its use of surrealism. Read the following excerpts to get a sense of the range of the reviews; click on the links to read each one in its entirety.

From Brad Richason at Examiner.com:

In the monologue that opens playwright Cory Hinkle's Little Eyes, the latest production from Workhaus Collective now playing at the Guthrie's Dowling Studio, an adolescent character named Martin expounds upon an ill-defined but pervasive sense of malaise that settled over suburbia in the wake of 9/11. Economic insecurities and family instabilities at home were now countered by menacing enemies abroad. Though not entirely new ground, the suburban anxiety depicted throughout Little Eyes possesses an urgency that dashes all false reassurances and propels the work toward a gripping conclusion.

....Some might view the increasingly surreal second half as straying too far from reality, but the encountered dangers never feel less than genuine. Whatever our fears of the outside world, Hinkle's work advises us to look inward. As perceived by Little Eyes, the worst of hazards may well reside within our very own homes.

From Max Sparber at MinnPost.com:

Set in the months following 9/11 in a small American town that's ahead of the curve, in that it's already failing, Hinkle's script has three sets of characters who form a continuum from realistic to absurd. There is a young mother whose husband just up and left, played by Sarah Agnew, who limns her character as believable stunned. Then there are the next-door neighbors, Steph and Mark, played by Maggie Chestovitch and Adam Whisner, who sleep under a painting of Jesus and have looping, nonsensical arguments with each other while Steph pretends to be pregnant by stuffing a pillow under her shirt. Finally, there is a large, loud-talking stranger in a cheap suit and an old camera, played by Luverne Seifert, who claims to represent the mayor and whose photography is bullying and occasionally sinister.

Each of these three groups could exist very comfortable in their own play, but Hinkle thrusts them into each other's, where they bewilder the other characters, and risk bewildering the audience. The play is filled with signs and portents that seem meaningful but go unexplained, and the entire production is spotted with moments of bleak satire. It's a play that refuses to explain itself, and the audience must not merely suss out the subtext, but some of the text. It's very hard to tell whether this is a careful piece that made some commendable, albeit risky, decisions to challenge its audience, or if it's an impulsive piece that relies on freighted hinting and glib suburban surrealism in the place of telling a story. Most of the local critics have so far assumed it is the latter. I'm not so sure.

From Graydon Royce at Star Tribune:

Hinkle's work, directed by Jeremy Wilhelm, would like to land in a sort of David Lynch surrealism; is it allegory, absurdist, realistic symbolism or just a dream? It's refreshing to find drama that doesn't always strike us on the nose, but Hinkle's play wobbles among these prevailing realities and lacks internal consistency. Who's playing for real? Who's faking it? What's happening?

...In fact, Hinkle's play never achieves cohesion with its metaphors of surveillance, protection, invasion of privacy and anxiety. Its cynicism has no moral purpose; its comedy rarely invites us to invest an emotion in these people. They are objects of ridicule, not sympathy. Hinkle might be close to something with "Little Eyes." Choosing a specific universe -- and he seems to favor the possibilities of a less-literal world -- might help shake out the chaff and find the nugget of his message.

And from Ed Huyck at City Pages:

In the program for Little Eyes, playwright Cory Hinkle mentions that one of the inspirations for his latest play was Gregory Crewdson's surrealist portrait of modern American life, Twilight. Perusing the photographs in that collection does show a kindred spirit. In image after image, we find everyday scenes twisted and merged, to the point where yard work is done in the living room or a flooded bottom floor is as much a swimming pool as a reason to call the plumber.

...We all can use a guide through the madness, which Hinkle steadfastly refuses to give any of the characters. By the end, even though much has happened and situations have changed, they are all as lost as in the beginning, just frozen in a fresh pose.

So, have you seen "Little Eyes?" If so, what did you think? Share your review in the comments section.

Pop fans sing the blues at 2011 Grammys

Posted at 1:40 PM on February 14, 2011 by Marianne Combs (1 Comments)
Filed under: Criticism, Music

Jazz bassist Esperanza Spalding took home the "Best New Artist" award at last night's Grammy ceremonies, to many people's dismay. Photo by Johann Sauty

Editor's note: there's been a buzz in the air this morning as music fans deal with the honest-to-goodness surprise of last night's Grammy Awards. MPR's in-house jazz aficionado David Cazares thinks the outrage over Justin Bieber's loss in the "Best New Artist" category is unjustified, and he can tell you why. Here's his commentary:

You could almost hear the collective national gasp Sunday night when a singer most people have never heard of won the award for Best New Artist at the 2011 Grammy Awards.

Esperanza Spalding, a jazz singer and bassist who has performed at the White House, won the nod over 16-year old Canadian phenomenon Justin Bieber, the music industry's superstar hope.

I was thrilled. Spalding, a Portland, Ore. native and Berklee College of Music alum, is among a number of young artists winning critical acclaim for their contemporary interpretations of jazz, America's art form.

But millions of teenage girls - and a lot of adults -- were stunned. Almost immediately, Twitter lit up with posts of "Esperanza Who?" The masses wanted to know how a hero with the perfect voice could lose to someone who performs a "dying" genre. Some defaced her Wikipedia page.

Even some who should know better posed that question. The writer Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, who has a degree in jazz performance from Berklee, told her Twitter followers that Bieber is more fun to listen to than the "mediocre" Spalding, and a better singer.

Valdes-Rodriguez faulted Grammy voters for rewarding a singer who sings like "people who were popular 70 years ago" and decried what she called musical elitism.

"Jazz is the most garrulous, narcissistic form of music on earth," Valdes-Rodriguez wrote. "For the artist, not the listener."

Well, I'm glad she at least clarified that.

Valdes -Rodriguez is wrong. Jazz is not dead. It's alive and kicking, thanks to young performers like Spalding and many others. Despite cuts to the arts nationwide, high school students are still learning and playing this great music.

Jazz also remains popular with international audiences hungry for its authentic, imaginative and improvisational sound. Wed to the majestic blues, it is not a pretentious art.

It is true that jazz is no longer the popular dance music it once was. In perhaps a period of intellectual and artistic hubris, jazz musicians turned inward half a century ago focusing their imagination on complex musical ideas that proved inaccessible to a mass audience. Though such efforts created high art, they were reason for some to worry.

The trumpeter Miles Davis once told pianist Herbie Hancock, that if there were no women in the audience, the music wasn't happening - a reminder to never lose touch with real people.

There were crucial periods when jazz did fall out of favor, when rhythm and blues and rock 'n roll lured young fans. That wasn't lost on the music industry, which is all about the latest thing.

So when I tuned in to the award show, I wasn't at all surprised to see the heavily produced numbers with legions of dancers trying to channel Michael and Janet Jackson, the mind-numbing auto tuning or the over sexualized spectacles. Or Justin Bieber trying to prove he belonged on the same stage as Usher.

That is what the music business has come to as it seeks to capture all those young fans hooked on simple beats, celebrity and hair.

But Grammy voters got it right. It's so cool that the awards can still honor an earthy, inventive and honest sound that remains relevant and timeless. In honoring the afro-wearing Spalding, they directed the nation's attention to a singer and musician with three lively and inventive albums. They honored music over formula.

Yes, plenty of people are upset that the Best New Artist award went to someone they never heard of. She deserved it. And I love her 'fro.

So, do you think Spalding's win was justified? Is jazz "the most garrulous, narcissistic form of music on earth?" Share your thoughts in the comments section.