"Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" Ballet Is Magic Brought to Life

To contact us Click HERE

The National Ballet of Canada (NBC) production of Christopher Wheeldon's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is a reflection of the famous Alice stories themselves - fun, completely imaginative and filled with unexpected moments of awe.  Like many, Alice in Wonderland is one of my favorite stories.  With the countless interpretations of the books through film and other mediums, it's hard not to think that perhaps the tale has been stretched in every which way possible.  If that is your mindset, watching this production of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland will change it completely.


This ballet is unlike any ballet production I've ever been to.  Combining elements of dance, multimedia, and beautiful music by Joby Talbot, the cast of NBC take the audience into a truly fantastical world.  In describing the U.S. premiere of this production and the Music Center debut of the National Ballet of Canada, Music Center Director of Programming Renae Williams Niles writes

Alice is truly the most complex ballet we have presented to date, equaling more than three times the scale of many other full-length ballet productions. With its captivating choreography and inventive design and use of technology it is quite an iconic production. The music by Joby Talbot with 24 different movements, guides us on a thrilling journey...

With a run time of two hours and thirty-five minutes, this ballet holds nothing back.  It provides its own framework for the Alice story - we meet Alice as part of the Liddell family, with Lewis Carroll entertaining the children with magic tricks, as a garden party is being set up.  Alice also has a young romance with Jack, the gardener boy, that will carry into her adventures in Wonderland.  But from there the tale is very much true to the book.  The combination of multimedia and beautiful stage sets is part of what makes this ballet so memorable.  The audience truly feels as if they are falling down a rabbit hole with Alice and are with her as she shrinks and grows while drinking and eating cake. 

The characters themselves come to life in both expected and unexpected ways.  Dancers portray a familiar cast of characters, including the Duchess, the Cook, the Mad Hatter, the Caterpillar and, of course, the Queen of Hearts.  The Cheshire Cat is literally larger than life with its many pieces and dancers that bring him into the scenes.  Each scene falls effortlessly into the next and with every rise of the curtain for a new set design, there was a hush in the crowd at its beauty.  The ballet dancers carry you on this journey through Wonderland, with their technical skill and grace their dancing is part of the storytelling, their movements on stage more magical feats to add to the loveable madness.   

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland draws the audience into the emotional, the fun, and the funny.  Whether we're falling into a rabbit hole or watching the fearful entry of the Queen of Hearts or laughing at the outlandish antics of favorite, silly characters, this ballet does what the best shows do: it makes the audience forget the world outside and believe that anything is possible.


- Charity Tran 

Short Order's New Menu Items Inspired by Hoof to Tail Movement

To contact us Click HERE

Just over one year ago, Los Angeles chef legend, Nancy Silverton, in partnership with restauranteur, Bill Chait. opened Short Order at the Originals Farmers Market, just above Dupar's at Third and Fairfax.  At the time, much attention was focused on the burgers, as the Nancy Silverton burger blend had been featured for many years at one of the butcher stalls at the Original Farmers Market.  With increasing awareness in Los Angeles (for example Lindy and Grundy butchers just up the street) about hoof to tail use of an entire cow, Executive Chef Christine Page has set out to integrate the use of two steers per week, for a series of dishes that some would be featured just one day a week.  In discussion with Chef Page, his earlier training in supply chain economics while getting his MBA at USC in their entrepreneurship program was going to be really tested. 

One featured Short Order dish, of limited availability, is the Ruben, in which Chef Page is making his own corned beef: however, due to its popularity, the two entire steer order per week, are being augmented by additional brisket orders, and they still have been known to run out. Short Order is also making their own bacon for their BLT which they call a BPB-LTA for their inclusion of pork belly along with lettuce, tomato, and avocado. Another weekly dish on Tuesday is their Shepards pie, which makes use of leftover meats centered around a large marrow bone.  Probably a must try at Short Order is the deep frying of their renown pickles, probably better than any fried pickles that one might get at a County Fair.  The use of frying also comes into play, by frying the ordinary croissant and stuffing it with banana cardamon cream. This and other imaginative desserts are available to go from a separate take out section. For coffee lovers, you will find Short Order serving coffee from Verve of Santa Cruz. Plus a number of innovative cocktails making use of fresh farm to table ingredients. In addition to the upstairs dining, one can also eat and drink on the ground level portion of the restaurant that is set up as a bar.

Here are my Short Order pictures shared  from Flickr as a slideshow below, and for those with an Ipad, click here.



So if visiting the Grove or the Original Farmers Market, plan on a visit to Short Order for some very tasty menu items. If you go on a Thursday, then you can catch the Bacon wrapped filet.  My picture in the slide show is a mini-version using a quail egg that will eventually show up on a happy hour menu in a slider version. I have now been to Short Order several times, and I have added it to my other favorite Los Angeles food destinations with Nancy's imprint, Mozza, and Bill's ownership, Rivera, in partnership with Jon Sedlar.

FIDM Museum Annual Motion Picture Costume Design Exhibition

To contact us Click HERE

For the 21st year the Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising (FIDM) Museum and Galleries showcases, up close and personal, costumes from a wide range of 2012 movies at their campus in the South Park neighborhood of Downtown Los Angeles until April 27, 2013.  If you love going to the movies, then this is a must see exhibit, and it is even free, although donations are greatly appreciated.   Plus, they have one of the best museum stores in all of Los Angeles, showing unique items from many former students. The FIDM exhibition and store is open from Tuesday through Saturday from 10 am to 5 pm.

This year FIDM has all five of the movies nominated for an Academy Costume Design Oscar, and eight of the fifteen movies nominated in the Costume Guild's three categories of competition.  My embedded Flickr slideshow gives one a walk through of the motion picture costumes on exhibit, and if you are on an iPad, click here.



As I write this, the Costume Guild will be having their award dinner tonight to announce their three winners.  For each of the categories, my predictions for Costume Guild awards would be Skyfall, Anna Karenina, and Mirror Mirror. [Update on morning after: My predictions were correct.]



The following listing of movies and costume designers is from the Costume Guild website, along with my notation as to an Oscar nomination, and the ones in bold are on exhibit at FIDM.

NOMINEES FOR THE 15TH ANNUAL COSTUME DESIGNERS GUILD AWARDSEXCELLENCE IN CONTEMPORARY FILM* Beasts of the Southern Wild – Stephani Lewis
* The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel – Louise Stjernsward
* Silver Linings Playbook – Mark Bridges
* Skyfall – Jany Temime
* Zero Dark Thirty – George L. LittleEXCELLENCE IN PERIOD FILM* Anna Karenina – Jacqueline Durran (Oscar  Nominated)
* Argo – Jacqueline West
* Les Mis̩rables РPaco Delgado (Oscar Nominated)
* Lincoln – Joanna Johnston (Oscar Nominated
* Moonrise Kingdom – Kasia Walicka-MaimoneEXCELLENCE IN FANTASY FILM* Cloud Atlas – Kym Barrett, Pierre-Yves Gayraud
* The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – Ann Maskrey, Richard Taylor, Bob Buck
* The Hunger Games – Judianna Makovsky
* Mirror Mirror – Eiko Ishioka (Oscar Nominated)
* Snow White and the Huntsman – Colleen Atwood (Oscar Nominated)I personally have seen all 15 of the above movies, and in fact my personal goal is to see every film that has been nominated in 2013 for an Academy Award.  I am getting close, and have already seen more movies for this award season then any other time in my life. My personal favorite 2012 movie  is Beasts of the Southern Wild, although these costumes are not on display at FIDM.  My Oscar predictions for Best Picture would be Argo, Best Director - Steven Spielberg for Lincoln, and Best Costume for Anna Karenina designed by Jacqueline Durran.  However, there is definitely the possibility of an Oscar Costume Design upset for Mirror Mirror which would honor the life time work of prior Oscar winner Eiko Ishioka who died in January 2012.  Her costumes for Mirror Mirror are spectacular, which is what one would expect from the person who did the costumes for the Beijing 2008 Summer Olympics.With regard to Jacqueline Durran, some may remember her for the famous green dress from Atonement.  And with Anna Karenina, she again had the chance to design costumes for Keira Knightley.  What was amazing were the intricacies of all of the costumes that were made for Anna Karenina.  The movie itself opened to mixed reviews, but with the fabulous costumes, score, cinematography, and production design, it is a movie that is best seen on the large screen.  The Academy Oscar award for costumes in prior years have tended to go to period dramas, especially those centered around royalty.  Thus, Anna Karenina is considered the odds on favorite for those having fun with Oscar predictions.Other costumes on display at the FIDM Museum are the following:* Paranorman – Kym Barrett, Deborah Cook (costume boards and figurines at FIDM)* The Artist: Mark Bridges (winner of 2012 Costume Design Oscar)* The Avengers - Alexandra Byrne* A Royal Affair – Manon Rasmussen


* American Reunion - Mona May (FIDM Graduate)*End of Watch - Mary Claire Hannan (FIDM Graduate)*Hitchcock - Julie Weiss*John Carter - Mayes Rubeo*The Master - Mark Bridges*Sparkle - Ruth E. CarterWith men's hat's being a current fashion statement, I have this second set of Flickr 2013 FIDM motion picture costume pictures with a focus on head wear along with some other close-ups of the costumes. There are no hats in Argo, but the use of a down jacket vest is so right on for the 1980 time period, reminding me of my own clothing that I was wearing while being in Iran with the revolution going on in Fall 1978.  The Argo costumes are by Jacqueline West who some will remember for her contemporary costumes from The Social Network.
During the year, one can see costumes in the lobby of the Hollywood Arclight and sometimes in the Dome in conjunction with such motion pictures being shown in their great theaters.  However, they are always behind protective plastic.  And that is what is great about the FIDM Museum exhibitions.  There is nothing between you and the costumes.   Thus, you get a great view.  For those looking for ideas on where to eat at nearby restaurants within walking distance, you can partake of the just announced 2013 James Beard semi-finalists at Mo-Chica (Ricardo Zarate)  and at Rivera's (Jon Sedlar) for the category Best Chefs of the West. Ironically, the James Beard awards are considered to be the foodie Oscars, and there are other downtown Los Angeles restaurants that are also in the running for James Beard awards.

What did Jesus write in the sand? (Or: things I should have learned in church that I figured out from the Althouse comments.)

To contact us Click HERE
Yesterday, when many blogs were talking about the Islamist Facebook page with a cartoon showing how to stone a person who had committed adultery, I added the New Testament story, from John 8, in which Jesus said: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." Jesus had just been teaching some people, and the scribes and the Pharisees, looking for a way to trip him up — they wanted to bring charges against him — present Jesus with a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery and remind him that the Law of Moses commanded that she should be stoned. "So what do you say?" Instead of answering, Jesus bends over and writes in the dirt. They keep pushing for an answer, and it's only then that he says: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

I didn't include the next few sentences, but the story was very familiar. After Jesus makes his brilliant remark — which finds a new way into the question — the crowd disperses and Jesus tells the woman to "go and... sin no more."

Some of the commenters focused on what it was that Jesus wrote on the ground. I'd always assumed that what Jesus was writing was irrelevant and that he was simply gesturing I'm not going to talk to you. He invoked his right to remain silent, as we say in the United States of America. He knew whatever he said would be used against him. Later, when he arrives at the New Testament doctrine — the higher law — he speaks up and articulates it pithily. He doesn't write it. Jesus isn't the put-it-in-writing type. The scribes are the bad guys here, and he's about talking to the people. The Word is spoken. (It's only written down later.)

But, reading the comments, I see interest in the subject of what Jesus wrote.

Sydney says: "In the movie The King of Kings, each accuser comes up to Jesus and sees written in the dirt his own sin, and turns and walks away. I love that scene." Is that the standard theory of what Jesus wrote?

And Chip Ahoy, linking here, says: "But what did he write in the sand?" At the link, we get added details from The Urantia Book (which I'd never heard of). There, the idea is that Jesus knew the woman's husband was a "troublemaker" and "perceived" that he'd forced the woman into prostitution and that the husband was now cooperating with the Pharisees to get Jesus to say something that could be used to arrest him. In this version of the story, Jesus doesn't just bend over and write in the dirt right where he is. He walks over to the troublemaker husband and writes something in front of him that makes him rush off. Jesus comes back to his original place and writes on the ground again, and the men, "one by one," leave. Last to go, is "the woman's companion in evil," who gets his own special message written in the dirt.

Kentuckyliz gives us the Old Testament quotes (the law of Moses, which is what the Pharisees threw at Jesus to trip him up):

Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife — with the wife of his neighbor — both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

Kentuckyliz adds:

What's interesting about the Jesus scene, is that the law had become misogynistic in practice. The man is not being stoned according to the mandates of the law. In fact, I suspect he was standing in the crowd holding a stone.

Note that even in the extremely concise story told in John 8, we hear that the woman was "caught in the act." Whether he was in the crowd or not, the adulterer was known. Why aren't the authorities proposing to stone both the man and the woman? Kentuckyliz doesn't refer to what Jesus wrote in the sand, but this made me imagine that Jesus wrote "the man and the woman." And if the woman was a prostitute, all of the men who had ever slept with her would deserve stoning too.

In this scenario, Jesus acknowledges the written law of Moses by writing it. That's the Old Testament, which Jesus won't reject, even as his enemies are trying to lure him into rejecting it. He's showing that he knows the law, and in very few words, he's made it obvious to the legal experts that they are getting the law wrong and making them see their own faint-heartedness about equal justice, applying the strict law strictly on its written terms and to everyone. Then Jesus speaks, and the spoken word is the New Testament, calling us to a higher place, above the strict rules, under which we are all sinners. The New Testament demands that we look at our own sins. Go and sin no more.

That ought to keep you busy for the rest of your life. Now, leave other people alone.

Speaking of being called to a higher law and speaking of speaking....

To contact us Click HERE
In the previous post, we're talking about what Jesus wrote in the sand and what he said out loud, in the New Testament story where the scribes and Pharisees present Jesus with the question of what to do with a woman who was caught in the act of adultery. In the Gospel text, we're told Jesus that wrote on the ground, but not what he wrote, and we're told that he subsequently spoke and said "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."

I'm putting up a separate post because I found the scene that sydney said he loved in the movie "The King of Kings." Made in 1927, it's a silent movie, so no one is saying anything out loud. We see what Jesus says written out on the intertitles, and we also see what he writes in the sand.



Beautiful filmmaking, particularly as the sand-words, not written in Roman letters, transform into our English words, naming the sins that the men in the crowd realize they've committed, and that's why they all turn and walk away.

That's not an accurate depiction of what happens in the biblical text though. The movie shows a mob on the verge of stoning the woman and Jesus intervenes and announces his rule about casting the first stone. Only thereafter, does he write the names of the sins in the sand. But in the Bible story, there is no angry mob with stones in hand. There are scribes and Pharisees demanding that Jesus deliver a legal opinion. Jesus bends down and writes on the ground instead of answering the question.  Only after they persist does he stand up and pronounce his new rule, which causes the scribes and Pharisees to walk away — "beginning with the older ones." The movie would have you see the members of the mob acknowledging their sins and their consequent lack of qualification to cast the first stone. But the text has intellectuals trying to box Jesus in on a question of law, and Jesus getting the better of a conversation he didn't want to have in the first place.

It's not surprising that a movie plays up the visible drama, and it's also not surprising that when I — a law professor — read the text, I see something akin to a law school class. The professors try to stump the student and the student transcends their tricky game. To me, the part where Jesus bends over and writes in the sand is like what happens in a law school class when the lawprof poses a difficult hypothetical and the students bend their heads down and go through motions of writing. They don't want to answer. It's not that they're writing something magically revelatory and startling. But if the lawprof keeps pushing and calls on someone, an answer will be spoken out loud.

I guess the law-professorly interpretation of the text isn't terribly cinematic. It's no wonder the movies present an angry mob with stones in hand and Jesus miraculously knowing and changing the hearts of the sinners. (And the adulteress is an actress evincing exactly the form of sexiness that was fashionable in the year the movie was made. I love the eyeliner!)

But to me the lawprof interpretation is thrilling and dramatic. The professors think they've got the upper hand. They know the legal text and it's tough. And then the brilliant student who will soon be the greatest professor of all gets on top of the dialogue and says something they must accept as correct: If you're going to have strict rules and severe mechanisms of enforcement, you must apply them equally to everyone. This is the structural safeguard of equal protection of the laws that is the necessary component of a democratic system. If there can't be exceptions and special treatment for preferred people, legislatures will resist imposing harsh rules and painful punishments.

In this context, let me give you my favorite Justice Scalia quote, which happens to include one of the key words of Christianity: "Our salvation is the Equal Protection Clause, which requires the democratic majority to accept for themselves and their loved ones what they impose on you and me."

The Obama administration's brief in the Supreme Court's DOMA case.

To contact us Click HERE
Lyle Denniston summarizes the briefs filed yesterday in United States v.Windsor — the case attacking the federal law that excludes same-sex couples, married under state law, from being treated as married for the purposes of federal benefits and tax laws.

The brief continued the efforts by the administration, begun two years ago tomorrow, to persuade the courts to adopt a rigorous test when they judged laws that discriminated against gays and lesbians.  Instead of the much more tolerant “rational basis” test, the government has been pressing for what is called “heightened scrutiny.”  And Friday’s brief defended that approach energetically.



This is the first time the federal government has proposed that constitutional test in a gay rights case before the Supreme Court.  The Court itself has never specified just what constitutional standard it will apply in such cases, but it may have to settle that this Term.

The DOMA benefit ban for married same-sex couples, the brief argued, cannot withstand the tougher standard.  “This Court,” the brief said, “has understandably reserved the application of heightened scrutiny to a small number of classifications.”  While the Court has not yet spelled out its own view of what the test is, the brief said, “under the factors articulated by this Court, such classifications warrant heightened scrutiny.”

More detail about the argument for heightened scrutiny at the link, and you can read the whole brief here (PDF).

There's a second pending Supreme Court case dealing with California's Proposition 8, and although the administration hasn't filed a brief in that case, the brief Windsor refers to Prop 8 as it makes the argument for heightening scrutiny, which — under standard equal protection doctrine — looks at a number of factors including whether a group has been excluded from political power.  From the brief:

Although some of the harshest and most overt forms of discrimination against gay and lesbian people have receded, that progress has hardly been uniform (either temporally or geographically), and has in significant respects been the result of judicial enforcement of the Constitution, not political action....

[There is no] convincing record of political power rendering protection unnecessary.

The brief cites various recent successful political efforts against same-sex marriage, including this footnoted reference to Prop 8:

By way of example, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court held that the state was constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage.... In November 2008, California’s voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.

My guess is the Court won't heighten scrutiny, but it will find an equal protection violation in both of the cases. I predict a 6-3 decision.

"In the military they have $5.2 million they spent on goldfish — studying goldfish to see how democratic they were..."

To contact us Click HERE
"... and if we could learn about democracy from goldfish. I would give the president the authority to go ahead and cut all $5 million in goldfish studies."

Said Rand Paul, and Princeton professor Iain Couzin protests.

It's not goldfish, it's golden shiner fish. And: "Our work aims to understand the principles of collective control in animal groups and what this can inform us about collective robotics. It has nothing at all to do with human politics."

"If you think about it, schools of fish have been on the planet for much longer than we have and they’ve evolved to find solutions to problems. They can sense the environments in ways that we simply didn’t know how to do that.... From ant colonies to schooling fish, it’s not that complicated but the feats they can achieve are extraordinary. The collective of a whole can solve problems in ways individuals cannot."

I'm glad he mentioned the ants, because if there is one tag that I love to get the opportunity to use on a blog post, it's "insect politics." The tag is based on the 1986 movie "The Fly," in which a scientific experiment — which I doubt Rand Paul would vote to fund — merged a scientist with a fly. Toward the bitter end, the fly/scientist — played by Jeff Goldblum — started raving about insect politics:

Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects... don't have politics. They're very... brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can't trust the insect. I'd like to become the first... insect politician. Y'see, I'd like to, but... I'm afraid, uh...

But now, apparently, the human politicians are funding not just insect politics but fish politics (and robots!). I'd love to see a movie called "The Fish," in which Jeff Goldblum does a science experiment that turns him into a crazy, raving Goldblum/Goldfish* and rants about fish politics.

Or... oh, wait!... was that already a movie with Don Knotts? "The Incredible Mr. Limpet"! Knotts is a little man who tries to enlist in the Navy in 1941. Rejected, he wanders down a pier, falls into the water, and turns into a fish. As a fish, he's able to join the Navy, and he helps locate and torpedo Nazi submarines. How do you like that, you doubter of science, Senator Paul?

Ah, but Mr. Limpet was a heroic individual superfish, and Professor Couzin is interested in fish because of the way they act in the collective. Typical left-wing elite university ideology. The value of studying fish is that they've evolved past individualism. They give us a way to look at how the collective of a whole can solve problems in ways individuals cannot. But this has nothing at all to do with human politics. This is about collective robotics. Nothing to worry about here. The collective. Robots. Nothing to do with humans.
___________________________

*Yes, I know. It's not goldfish, it's golden shiner fish. That makes me think of a movie too.