‘Fatal Attraction’ is
predictable, sensual
By Lisa Stankus
Staff Reporter
“Fatal Attraction” (Douglas
Three)
“Fatal Attraction” is a thinking
person’s thriller. It doesn’t rely on a
host of blood and guts to keep you on
edge, but rather browbeats the bc
jcezus out of you.
The story line is simple: happily
married man stumbles upon desir
able, unmarried woman. His wife and
kids are out of town for a couple of
days.
Movie Review
They have one sexually charged
weekend romp.
For him, the liaison is over. For
her, it’s the proverbial straw that trig
gers a pathological obsession, thus
- beginning her “fatal attraction.”
The screenplay is predictable and
turns the
movie into an absorbing mix of ordi
nary circumstances, leaving the
viewer with a “what if’ on the mind.
As the story progresses, Alex
(played by Glenn Close) becomes
pregnant from the illicit affair and
plans to keep the child.
Then the action begins. Dan Gal
lagher (played by Michael Douglas)
tries to ignore Alex and dismisses the
fact that the weekend ever existed,
going on with his life as a successful
lawyer, husband and lover extraordi
naire.
But Alex has ideas of her own.
A tremendous performance by
Close takes us deep into the Alex’s
psyche as she allows this “one mar
ried man too many” to turn her life
into a series of subplots harassing and
haunting Dan about their encounter.
The telephone becomes Alex’s ally
and is as terrifying as any rip-’em-up
slash scene. The effect is subtly
nerve-wracking and works splen
didly.
Completing the love triangle is
Anne Archer as Beth, Dan’s loving
and completely naive wife. Through
out the first half of the movie, Beth
was just a little too naive to ring true.
Some of the odd goings-on would
have even the most trusting spouse
shulfling through some trouser pock
ets looking for cheap matchhnoks.
But not Beth.
The happy wife neither suspects
nor questions, but once the tete-a-tete
is unearthed, out come the big guns.
The transition of Beth’s personality
was too abrupt.
Director Adrian Lync (“Flash
dance,” “9 1/2 Weeks”) is masterful
in his use of symbolism to create and
maintain an air of sensual realism
throughout the film — from the open
ing credits of stark white on black
with silence as a backdrop to the
simple suggestivcncss of water.
The most disturbing aspect of
“Fatal Attraction” is that it is a very
credible happening. The movie is so
convincingly portrayed that we are
reminded of this possibility, both
directly and indirectly.
In preparation for the role, Close
said, she did intense research with
psychiatrists to sec if Alex’s actions
were credible. Once confirmed, we
arc taken into the frightening world
that exists in each of us that could
surface once that final extreme is hit.
Michael Douglas is very convinc
ing as anybody’s husband who lets
that vulnerability of being human
surface and become a married man’s
worst nightmare.
The opposing sides of a co/y fam
ily life vs. the cold, empty but intrigu
ing lifeof Alex has you pulling for the
sacrcdncss of the fam i ly uni t but at the
same time feeling for Alex, who
reacts with a “he can’t get away with
that” sense of justice.
All aspects of filmmaking paintan
ingeniously disturbing picture. Us
ing the appropriate setting of New
York to show the eclectic mix of
character, as well as using dull hues of
background, music and costuming
Lync becomes a provocative Brian
DePalma.
If only Lyne had quit while he was
ahead. The first three-quarters of the
movie are a refreshing approach to
the thriller genre, but unfortunately it
ends up in a predictable “Psycho”
esque climax that cheapens the film.
Still, “Fatal Attraction” is a won
derful film and might have swept the
Oscars if the ending had kept up with
the originality of the beginning.
BL9H
Courtesy of Andy Schwartz
Glenn Close and Michael Douglas in “Fatal Attraction.”
Wild Seeds germinate at Zoo Bar
By Charles Lieurance
Senior Editor
Bands of the New Sincerity is a
phrase rock critics blab about. An
infinite number of bands have been
pigeonholed by it. Yet, the more it’s
used, the more it has taken on all the
heartfelt significance of a Hallmark
card.
Concert Review
Just when you think some Ameri
can band is sincere, really concerned
about its rock ‘n’ roll heritage and
oblivious to corporate rock star pit
falls, it winds up hawking Budweiscr
for the man.
“Sincerity is a buck fifty, dollar at
happy hour,” says the guy in the
leather fringe jacket with all the hair.
Austin, Texas, has spawned its
share of rtxns rock pretenders to be
sure, but the Wild Seeds, playing at
the Zoo Bar tonight, almost make up
for them.
Vocalist, guitarist and songwriter
Michael Hall comes at music with an
ex-rock critic’s desire for variety,
storming nearly every creative ave
nue on the band’s first LP, “Brave,
Clean and Reverent.” From Jonathan
Richman-like wide-eyed innocence
to raw, masculine bar-band rock and
soul, the Wild Seeds make flawless,
kinetic tracks through fringe and
well-trod territories alike.
Poring through the press bios one
runs across a lot of comparisons for
the Wild Seeds’ sound: Neil Young,
Richie Valcns, Tom Petty, the Long
Ryders, Pontiac Brothers ... all just
ever so slightly off the mark.
For every piece of wild rip-oul
thc-bar-stools bravado there’s some
indescribably pretty little pop song,
that if produced just a bit more im
maculately might wind up on com
mercial radio, pale and drained of
emotion under a blanket of synthesiz
ers.
And then there’ll be a soul song,
and there you arc, scratching your
neck trying to peg where it came
from.
Courtesy of Pat Blashill
Wild Seeds
Spin’s editor hopes
for publication’s rise
SPIN from Page 6
Guccionc Jr. echoed that belief.
“There are some people who won’t
talk to us,” he said.
He said Spin refuses to “play the
( press game” when it comes to inter
viewing stars and won’t pander to
prima donnas who demand celebrity
treatment.
Guccionc Jr., who was born in New
York City but raised in England, never
attended college or had any formal
journalism training because, he ex
plained, “I always hated school.”
He received most of his journalism
training from his father, who he once
said was his “publishing professor,”
according to the New York Times.
Guccionc Jr. said he believes Spin
will eventually become even more
successful. That belief reels back to
his philosophies about journalism and
the public’s need for something dif
ferent and irreverent.
“Journalism is sacred,” he said.
“It’s the oxygen for society.”
‘Glass Menagerie ’ poorly directed, and abjectly acted
By Scott Harrah
Senior Editor
“Three’s Company” docs Ten
nessee Williams? It’s an absurd
thought, but it certainly applied to
The Missouri Repertory Theatre’s
appal I ing production of “The Glass
Menagerie” at Kimball Hall Friday
night.
Theater Review
“The Glass Menagerie" is not
only Williams’ finest work, it’s
also one of the most realistic plays
of the modem theater. But Tnc
Missouri Repertory Theatre turned
this simplistic, sentimental classic
into a cheap, slapstick farce pep
pered with poor direction and ab
ject acting.
Bruce Roach’s version of Tom
Wingfield, the romantic would-be
writer who is nagged constantly by
his mother, Amanda (Nora Den
ney), about success, was most
annoying. Tom is supposed to be a
workina-class Southerner in St
Louis, but Roach couldn't decide
whether he was doing Williams or
Shakespeare. At times his accent
was Southern, but for some reason
it kept slipping into aristocratic
British tones. It seemed that Roach
was too busy projecting his “thes
Eian” enunciation to worry about
is character’s true persona.
This was especially true in the
opening and closing scenes, in
which Tom narrates the play and
discusses his family’s fate with all
the great poetic soliloquies that
were Williams’ forte.
Set in a tenement section of St.
Louis before World War II, the
story revolves around the Wing
fields. Amanda, the overbearing
mother, perpetually haips on the
fact that Tom and his crippled sis
ter, Laura (Elizabeth Robbins), are
doing nothing with their lives.
Amanda is especially domineering
and outspoken when she discovers
that Laura dropped out of business
college. Laura spends her days
playing old records and admiring
her menagerie of glass animals.
The tone is supposed to be
tragic, but the cast’s pacing was so
inappropriately fast and the small
bits of humor were played up so
much that the play appeared to be a
comedy. Williams’ other works,
especially “A Streetcar Named
Desire,’’are sometimes made unin
tentionally humorous by melodra
matic overtones, but that’s not the
case with “Menagerie.” The melo
drama in “Menagerie” works in the
play’s favor, but apparently The
Missouri Repertory Theatre tried
to tone down the melodrama with
some added laughs.
The best example was the fam
ily portrait of Tom and Laura’s
father, who deserted them when
they were young. In past and far
superior productions of “Menag
erie,” the portrait was understated,
serving as nothing more than a
portentious reminder of the Wing
fields’ bleak reality. But The Mis
souri Repertory pul a flashing
disco light behind the portrait and
flashed it whenever the father was
mentioned, creating a ridiculously
comical touch that’s hardly ger
mane to the story.
Amanda's petulance is hardly
worthy of compassion, tel audi
ences are supposed to feel sane
- > .. n,
sympathy for her. Nora Denney’s
approach to the character was too
harsh, her diatribes were way over
done and it was difficult to relate to
her. Laurctlc Taylor and Maureen
Stapleton, who both played
Amanda in Broadway productions,
added enough warmth to her psy
che to make her distantly three
dimensional.
Mark Robbins’ version of Jim,
the “Gentleman Caller" whom
Tom invites to dinner, also was too
forceful. Amanda spruces up the
dismal apartment and hopes Jim
will marry Laura. Jim and Laura
have a deep conversation about her
inferiority complex and come to
terms with her alienation, but the
poignant mood was destroyed by
unnecessary “hamming.”
Mark Robbins acted like a
cocky high-school jock instead of
an understanding yet confident
inspiration for Laura.
The soft atmosphere Williams
created tor the play was supposed
' to lighten the dark surroundings.
♦v* ;♦ 'Jr
Williams once said the metaphori
cal gloss of the animals and Laura’s
fragility symbolized “all the soft
est emotions that belong to recol
lections of things past... all the
small and tender things that relieve
the austere pattern of life and make
it endurable to the sensitive."
But The Missouri Repertory
Theatre’s levity used a theatrical
sledgehammer where it wasn’t
needed. Each line of dialogue and
each tone was sullied by a gro
tesque misunderstanding of the
thematic acumen of “Menagerie."
As Tom leaves the family in the
end and goes off to find a more
meaningful existence, the
audience’s eyes arc supposed to
moisten as Amanda and Laura are
left to rot in the automatism of life
without direction.
But on Friday night at Kimball
Hall, all this reviewer fell was dis
may — that a professional theater
group had somehow ruined a usu
ally thought-provoking, illuminat
ing play.
