Long time no update...
I went to the first preview of "Xanadu" last night. I think it's taken 24 hours for me to process what I saw (that, and the whopper of a "Lost" season finale last night that left me so dazed that I couldn't do anything else for the rest of the evening).
Despite the awfulness of its source material, I think "Xanadu" could have been a fun musical. I mean on paper you have the songs from the movie (after all, the musical numbers are what make the movie worth watching), a new script by Douglas Carter Beane (after all, the film's screenplay is what makes the movie so painful to sit through), and a cast including everyone's favorite musical comediennes Jackie Hoffman and Mary Testa. So where does the end product go wrong? Where to start?
My main problem with the stage production was its obvious cheapness. I guess I should have been worried when I heard not only that this big musical was going into the tiny Helen Hayes Theatre, but that they were going to be putting seats on the stage. The excuse was supposedly that the whole theatre was going to be used, so stage seats wouldn't distract. The real reason for the stage seats (other than more moolah for the producers)? To make the playing area smaller so hopefully no one would notice how sparse everything looked, and to hopefully let the paltry cast of 10 hard working actors fill the stage. The set consists of a giant mirror (so we can see the floor of the stage), a couple of tacky white brick boxes for the on-stage audience to sit in, and a couple of Greek columns. Later on in the show, we get a couple of disco balls and a shiny "Xanadu" sign thrown in. The whole thing - from the small cast, to cheap set, to the tacky costumes looks like some low-budget off-Broadway musical. How this made it to Broadway, complete with $110 tickets is beyond me. I just don't understand how you can take source material made so entertaining by its lavish gaudiness, do it on the cheap and hope it all looks all right.
The new book by Douglas Carter Beane is full of winks to the audience, saying "Yes, we know this stinks. Isn't that great?" Well, the jokes are very hit or miss, and honestly the new story is full of gaping holes. Camp is all well and good, but would it hurt to camp up a story that made sense?
As for the cast, well they really work very hard. And all but Tony Roberts are really very talented. Why Tony Roberts (who obviously cannot dance) was cast in a role originated by dance legend Gene Kelly is beyond me. I mean, he tries to do the moves with the rest of the cast, but it's really pathetic.
So in the end, if you can ignore the bad sets and mediocre script, and try to focus on the fun silly songs and silly choreography, it is possible to have a somewhat enjoyable time at "Xanadu." If this were at an off-Broadway theatre I would probably be much more forgiving. But to do a show like this on Broadway, well it really is insulting to the audience.
I'm going back to see this again after is opens, so we'll see how things progress after the show gets on it's feet. I remain somewhat skeptical, but at least it's not painful to sit through. Nonetheless, it's probably cheaper and more enjoyable to pick up a copy of the dvd and just watch the musical numbers in the comfort of your living room.
And since I'm in writing mode, a quick recap of two other new musicals.
"10 Million Miles" is the new Patty Griffin musical at the Atlantic Theatre (original home of my beloved "Spring Awakening") and directed by Michael Mayer (director of my beloved "Spring Awakening"). So of course, hopes were high.
Now, I don't know anything about Patty Griffin, so I went into the show with an open mind. I figured if pop singer who I knew nothing about Duncan Sheik can write a good musical, why not folk singer who I know nothing about Patty Griffin?
Well, the show started and the first song was pretty entertaining. And second song, while sounding an awful lot like the first, and while having only a little bit to do with the scene, was also not bad. The third song, also sounding rather similar and still only having a little to do with the scene, was not so enjoyable. And so it went down hill from there. Along the way there was one (yes, one) song that was actually plot specific. The rest all just sounded like songs that would be played in the background of the film version while the audience watched some montage.
I learned afterwards that there's a dirty little secret about this musical that the Atlantic doesn't want you to know. It's not in any of the advance material I read, but watching the show, well... they just can't hide it. You see, "10 Million Miles" is (*cue thunder and lightning*) a jukebox musical. (Run! Run! Don't you see the fire pouring down from the sky?). Now there isn't anything inherently wrong with a jukebox musical (see: "Jersey Boys"). But there is a reason that people usually don't much care for them. And that reason is that songs shoehorned into a book generally don't make that much sense there, and so character development is hindered, audience don't much care for the characters on stage, and the whole thing tanks more or less.
Well, book writer Keith Bunin apparently didn't worry too much about whether the audience cared about the characters, because the was he wrote them, they're just not very likable. The show starts out with two people going on a road trip. I don't think you need me to tell you anything else about it, you can easily fill the rest in on your own. The writing fairly cliche-ridden, disappointing coming from the promising playwright who wrote the very enjoyable "The Busy World Is Hushed" last season.
The cast of four is very talented. The set is serviceable - it's basically a truck that turns and has lots of parts that fold out to create different scenes. Eh.
Full disclaimer: I went to the first weekend of previews for "10 Million Miles" so it's always possible that it's improved since then. I somehow doubt it.
Since I went to see "In The Heights" last week, it has announced that it will be moving to Broadway. Uh huh.... The musical and lyrics and fairly strong (though there was a bit too much rapping for my taste - the last number especially just sounded like lyrics that the composer didn't get around to writing a melody for), but the book is a mess - too many characters with rather uninteresting stories - and it's all so bland and G-rated wholesome - this supposedly edgy musical felt awfully tame and a bit too family friendly. Anyway, hopefully something can be done about the book before the Broadway run, but since the show isn't selling that well off-Broadway (I saw it on tdf) I don't really see it selling well at a much larger theatre on Broadway. We'll see. It certainly has promise - Lin-Manuel Miranda is definitely an exciting new voice for the musical theatre. I look forward to hearing the cast recording.
That's all for now. Bed time :O)
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Gaslight
"Gaslight" was always one of those movies I meant to watch but somehow never got around to. I have a vague recollection of Tivo-ing it once a few years ago, watching a few minutes of it, falling asleep, and then never finishing it. Well, a Tivo auto-record wishlist has been once again set up, so the next time it's on, I will be sure to watch it.
The reason behind my newfound re-interest in the movie is that I just returned home from the first preview of the Irish Rep's production of the play that the film was based on - a play originally titled "Angel Street," and conveniently re-titled for this production, presumably because the film's title is better known, therefore theoretically resulting in stronger ticket sales.
Well, one thing about going to live theatre is that even if you dose off for a bit, you don't really have the option of pressing stop or delete - you're stuck there until intermission. All that worked to my advantage, because even if I did nod off a bit in the first act (not because the production was bad, but simply because I was really tired), I was awake to watch enough of the show to pique my interest and make we want to stay for the whole thing.
The production values for the production are excellent - the costumes are lovely and the set definitely fills the tiny little stage and makes it look as lush as possible. The acting is all around quite good, especially for a first preview. One of the reasons that I dragged myself to the show was the name Brian Murray, an actor who never disappoints - and certainly didn't let me down this time. He is delightful in the role of the detective.
As for the play itself, I found it to be very entertaining. A nice light thriller that is well suited to the warmer months when people don't really want to use their brains too much. I guess it could be said that the production wasn't really menacing enough - I don't know if I was ever really frightened, which I probably should have been - but I was rarely bored, and overall definitely entertained. Not a must see, but worth seeing if you have some free time.
The reason behind my newfound re-interest in the movie is that I just returned home from the first preview of the Irish Rep's production of the play that the film was based on - a play originally titled "Angel Street," and conveniently re-titled for this production, presumably because the film's title is better known, therefore theoretically resulting in stronger ticket sales.
Well, one thing about going to live theatre is that even if you dose off for a bit, you don't really have the option of pressing stop or delete - you're stuck there until intermission. All that worked to my advantage, because even if I did nod off a bit in the first act (not because the production was bad, but simply because I was really tired), I was awake to watch enough of the show to pique my interest and make we want to stay for the whole thing.
The production values for the production are excellent - the costumes are lovely and the set definitely fills the tiny little stage and makes it look as lush as possible. The acting is all around quite good, especially for a first preview. One of the reasons that I dragged myself to the show was the name Brian Murray, an actor who never disappoints - and certainly didn't let me down this time. He is delightful in the role of the detective.
As for the play itself, I found it to be very entertaining. A nice light thriller that is well suited to the warmer months when people don't really want to use their brains too much. I guess it could be said that the production wasn't really menacing enough - I don't know if I was ever really frightened, which I probably should have been - but I was rarely bored, and overall definitely entertained. Not a must see, but worth seeing if you have some free time.
Monday, May 7, 2007
It's History! Live On Stage! Oh Joy...
When I am sitting in a darkened theatre and an actor playing a dead president walks onstage, I usually let out a groan and try to comfort myself with the knowledge that I won't be awake for too much longer. I generally find that playwrights who tackle subjects of the not too far past tend to assume that audiences will automatically connect with the subject on stage because a) they lived through the events being re-created, or b) they are young history/politic buffs who just love this sort of thing. I fall into neither of those categories, and therefore have had to suffer while watching such snoozefests as "Nixon's Nixon" (a conversation between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger on the eve of the resignation), "Golda's Balcony" (Golda Meir rambling about Israeli politics) and "The Accomlices" (evil FDR and American Government v The Jews). Why everyone was raving about those dry readings from history textbooks disguised as "drama" was totally lost on me.
So, I'm sure you can imagine how much I was looking forward to "Frost/Nixon" - what promised to be an oh so lively discussion between a talk show host I'd never heard of and a president I don't care much about.
Well, leave it to Brit Peter Morgan, the writer who made Queen Elizabeth interesting in "The Queen," to breathe life into American politics. And, in fact, just as Helen Mirren's brilliant acting made "The Queen"s a can't miss event, so does Frank Langella's Richard Nixon make "Frost/Nixon" a must-see.
Based on the little I knew about him, the basic image of Nixon that I had in my head was a man with pointy horns sticking out of his head, dancing around in flames, with his arms up in that signature pose. Well, Frank Langella totally erased that image from my head because get this - he actually makes Nixon into an extremely likeable and extremely sympathetic figure. I left the play basically wondering why everyone hates him so much. Sure, there was that little Watergate thing, but that seems like a bit of making a mountain out of a molehill.
Maybe it's because "Frost/Nixon" was written for a British audience who presumably know less about American history than Americans (ha... Americans knowing about American history... ha ha) but, he thankfully takes the time to explain all of the background information behind Nixon and his resignation, and everything leading up to the interview with David Frost - who we all learn all about. And he somehow manages to do this without making it feel like we're stuck in history class listening to a textbook. The play manages to be constantly riveting, leaving the audience wondering what is going to happen next - even if in the back of out minds we really do know all along.
Michael Sheen (aka Tony Blair in "The Queen") makes a very likeable David Frost. And Frank Langella, well... he is nothing short of brilliant as Nixon. His performance alone would make this play a must see. The fact that there is a compelling script and wonderful supporting performances is really icing on tasty tasty cake.
For some reason "Frost/Nixon" doesn't seem to be getting as much hype as I'd expect. I'm not sure why - maybe it's that the snob audience is still sleeping at the Hotel Beaumont (home to "Coast of Utopia") but "Frost/Nixon" is totally entertaining and the best drama of the 2006-07 Broadway season.
On Saturday, I finally went to see "No Child..." - Nilaja Sun's solo play about being a teaching artist in a school in the Bronx. I've been wanting to see it for a while and now since it's closing at the beginning of June, I finally went (with a tdf ticket). And I have to say that the show is indeed well worth seeing. The basic story is that Sun, through a government grant, is assigned to a nightmarish class in an inner city school and tries to get them to study and perform a play. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to figure out what happens. The play is funny and moving. Sun plays all of the roles including the narrating janitor, herself, and her entire class plus its teachers, the school principal, the school security guard, and a couple more characters. The play has been hyped a lot, and though I wasn't really looking forward to it, despite said hype (mostly because I never looking forward to solo plays), I thought this was well worth seeing. Well acted, well written, etc. Oh, and it's only 65 minutes long (well, with starting five minutes late, it's more like 70) - though to be perfectly honest, this was one of those rare instances where I wouldn't have minded if it was a bit longer. I didn't really want it to end.
So, I'm sure you can imagine how much I was looking forward to "Frost/Nixon" - what promised to be an oh so lively discussion between a talk show host I'd never heard of and a president I don't care much about.
Well, leave it to Brit Peter Morgan, the writer who made Queen Elizabeth interesting in "The Queen," to breathe life into American politics. And, in fact, just as Helen Mirren's brilliant acting made "The Queen"s a can't miss event, so does Frank Langella's Richard Nixon make "Frost/Nixon" a must-see.
Based on the little I knew about him, the basic image of Nixon that I had in my head was a man with pointy horns sticking out of his head, dancing around in flames, with his arms up in that signature pose. Well, Frank Langella totally erased that image from my head because get this - he actually makes Nixon into an extremely likeable and extremely sympathetic figure. I left the play basically wondering why everyone hates him so much. Sure, there was that little Watergate thing, but that seems like a bit of making a mountain out of a molehill.
Maybe it's because "Frost/Nixon" was written for a British audience who presumably know less about American history than Americans (ha... Americans knowing about American history... ha ha) but, he thankfully takes the time to explain all of the background information behind Nixon and his resignation, and everything leading up to the interview with David Frost - who we all learn all about. And he somehow manages to do this without making it feel like we're stuck in history class listening to a textbook. The play manages to be constantly riveting, leaving the audience wondering what is going to happen next - even if in the back of out minds we really do know all along.
Michael Sheen (aka Tony Blair in "The Queen") makes a very likeable David Frost. And Frank Langella, well... he is nothing short of brilliant as Nixon. His performance alone would make this play a must see. The fact that there is a compelling script and wonderful supporting performances is really icing on tasty tasty cake.
For some reason "Frost/Nixon" doesn't seem to be getting as much hype as I'd expect. I'm not sure why - maybe it's that the snob audience is still sleeping at the Hotel Beaumont (home to "Coast of Utopia") but "Frost/Nixon" is totally entertaining and the best drama of the 2006-07 Broadway season.
On Saturday, I finally went to see "No Child..." - Nilaja Sun's solo play about being a teaching artist in a school in the Bronx. I've been wanting to see it for a while and now since it's closing at the beginning of June, I finally went (with a tdf ticket). And I have to say that the show is indeed well worth seeing. The basic story is that Sun, through a government grant, is assigned to a nightmarish class in an inner city school and tries to get them to study and perform a play. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to figure out what happens. The play is funny and moving. Sun plays all of the roles including the narrating janitor, herself, and her entire class plus its teachers, the school principal, the school security guard, and a couple more characters. The play has been hyped a lot, and though I wasn't really looking forward to it, despite said hype (mostly because I never looking forward to solo plays), I thought this was well worth seeing. Well acted, well written, etc. Oh, and it's only 65 minutes long (well, with starting five minutes late, it's more like 70) - though to be perfectly honest, this was one of those rare instances where I wouldn't have minded if it was a bit longer. I didn't really want it to end.
OMIGOD! It's A Musical!
(Written by me on April 28 - pre-the birth of this blog)
--------------------------
OMIGOD YOU GUYS!!! "Legally Blonde: The Musical" is like totally on Broadway now. It is so totally the best new musical ever since like "Wicked." It is like so good I so need to see it like forty more times.
(*muffled fighting sounds*)
Ouch! Out of my head! I apologize for that. I think I may have been momentarily possessed by some mysterious force. Such is the brainwashing power of "Legally Blonde" the new musical that opens on Broadway on Sunday. Try as you might, you just can't resist this musical's earnest sugary charms. It's like a big pink ball of cotton candy. You know it just colored spun sugar stuck on a lousy paper cone, but how can you resist its allure? And so you buy it and you eat it and your hands get sticky and your tongue turns pink, but do you really care? No. Because you are now on a sugar high and you're bouncing down the street happy as can be. Yeah, well that's sort of like "Legally Blonde: The Musical" - the show manages to be more than the sum of it's kind of mediocre parts.
For example, the score by Laurence O'Keefe and Nell Benjamin? Not one of Broadway's finer moments. There are a few songs like "Omigod You Guys" and "So Much Better" that take one line of melody and repeat it so many times that the audience has it stuck in their heads for weeks to come. And there may be one or two, probably sung by Orfeh, that could generally be called almost good. But the rest of the score is surprisingly mediocre. It's certainly nowhere in the same league as O'Keefe's "Bat Boy: The Musical," even if he did copy himself a number of time for this score. The fact that "Legally Blonde" leading lady Laura Bell Bundy's voice often sounds reminiscent of "Bat Boy" leading lady Kerry Butler's voice doesn't help matters.
Speaking of Laura Bell Bundy, well... she's no Kristin Chenoweth. Chenoweth is the gold standard for the perky blonde role, and all the other blonde girls out there? Well, they just have live in her shadow. And so even though Chenoweth never actually played the role on Broadway (though she apparently did in developmental readings), it's oh so easy to imagine how brilliant she'd be playing the same character she always plays. Bundy is fine - she certainly works hard enough, and she even does finally win her audience over in the end, but she just has a certain aura of generic around her. Which I guess is actually a good thing for the producers of the show, because she will definitely be easy to replace. Just look at the list of ladies who've played Glinda in "Wicked" and you've got yourself tried and true replacements for Elle in "Legally Blonde."
Now, I would say the biggest disappointment for me was with David Rockwell's sets. Showing such promise with his marvelous creative designs for "Hairspray" and "All Shook Up," these are really bland. And flat. One particularly embarassing set piece - the storefront for the salon, which was just a flat piece that was lowered down on wires, actually swayed back and forth whenever someone went in or out of the door. Would it have killed them to somehow secure it the ground? It was just really embarassing. Very "tour" friendly perhaps, but certainly not impressive to look at.
So where does the show go right? Well, it has a first rate supporting cast. The biggest standouts for me were Chico and Chloe, who played Bruiser and Rugus... Elle and Paulette's dogs. Say what you will, but any time those dogs stepped paw on stage, all eyes (and awwwws) were on them. As far as humans go, the star was definitely Orfeh (who plays Paulette - hairstylist and friend to Elle), who stole the show whenever she was on stage (with only humans, anyway). I don't know if it was just that she had the best material or if it was that she just knew best what to do with it, but she easily stole the show from Bundy. Other notable humans were Christian Borle (charming as always, as the "nice" lawyer/boyfriend) and Andy Karl (an amusing UPS man and Irish step dancer).
Other than that, I'm not really sure what happens, but somehow when all of that ordinary sugar is plugged into that magical cotton candy making machine, something happens that science just can't explain, and a fun show pops out. Somehow, somewhere in the second act, the show changes from being "Okay" (said with a sigh) to "Cute!" (said with a smile). And we stop caring that the music is kind of bland and annoying. And we start to forget that Kristin Chenoweth isn't playing Elle and Laura Bell Bundy starts to seem pretty funny and appealing. And somehow we sort actually get involved in the story and start caring about what happens to these characters. And the jokes start to actually seem funny. The sugar rush somehow kicks in, the brain turns off, and the show just becomes mindless happy fun.
So no, "Legally Blonde: The Musical" is not OMIGOD like the best musical ever ever ever, just like cotton candy is not the best candy ever ever ever... well... maybe the latter part of the statment isn't exactly true... (mmm... cotton candy...), but it manages to mindlessly entertain its audience and puts smiles on our faces.
And unlike "The Wedding Singer" which did pretty much the same thing, and somehow flopped, this one is pretty much tailer made for the teenage girl audience...
OMIGOD did you see the yoga pants in the gift shop? I like totally need a pair.
(*bang* "Oh Mrs. Lovett? How about serving fresh pink meat pies this evening?")
...and will probably run forever.
--------------------------
OMIGOD YOU GUYS!!! "Legally Blonde: The Musical" is like totally on Broadway now. It is so totally the best new musical ever since like "Wicked." It is like so good I so need to see it like forty more times.
(*muffled fighting sounds*)
Ouch! Out of my head! I apologize for that. I think I may have been momentarily possessed by some mysterious force. Such is the brainwashing power of "Legally Blonde" the new musical that opens on Broadway on Sunday. Try as you might, you just can't resist this musical's earnest sugary charms. It's like a big pink ball of cotton candy. You know it just colored spun sugar stuck on a lousy paper cone, but how can you resist its allure? And so you buy it and you eat it and your hands get sticky and your tongue turns pink, but do you really care? No. Because you are now on a sugar high and you're bouncing down the street happy as can be. Yeah, well that's sort of like "Legally Blonde: The Musical" - the show manages to be more than the sum of it's kind of mediocre parts.
For example, the score by Laurence O'Keefe and Nell Benjamin? Not one of Broadway's finer moments. There are a few songs like "Omigod You Guys" and "So Much Better" that take one line of melody and repeat it so many times that the audience has it stuck in their heads for weeks to come. And there may be one or two, probably sung by Orfeh, that could generally be called almost good. But the rest of the score is surprisingly mediocre. It's certainly nowhere in the same league as O'Keefe's "Bat Boy: The Musical," even if he did copy himself a number of time for this score. The fact that "Legally Blonde" leading lady Laura Bell Bundy's voice often sounds reminiscent of "Bat Boy" leading lady Kerry Butler's voice doesn't help matters.
Speaking of Laura Bell Bundy, well... she's no Kristin Chenoweth. Chenoweth is the gold standard for the perky blonde role, and all the other blonde girls out there? Well, they just have live in her shadow. And so even though Chenoweth never actually played the role on Broadway (though she apparently did in developmental readings), it's oh so easy to imagine how brilliant she'd be playing the same character she always plays. Bundy is fine - she certainly works hard enough, and she even does finally win her audience over in the end, but she just has a certain aura of generic around her. Which I guess is actually a good thing for the producers of the show, because she will definitely be easy to replace. Just look at the list of ladies who've played Glinda in "Wicked" and you've got yourself tried and true replacements for Elle in "Legally Blonde."
Now, I would say the biggest disappointment for me was with David Rockwell's sets. Showing such promise with his marvelous creative designs for "Hairspray" and "All Shook Up," these are really bland. And flat. One particularly embarassing set piece - the storefront for the salon, which was just a flat piece that was lowered down on wires, actually swayed back and forth whenever someone went in or out of the door. Would it have killed them to somehow secure it the ground? It was just really embarassing. Very "tour" friendly perhaps, but certainly not impressive to look at.
So where does the show go right? Well, it has a first rate supporting cast. The biggest standouts for me were Chico and Chloe, who played Bruiser and Rugus... Elle and Paulette's dogs. Say what you will, but any time those dogs stepped paw on stage, all eyes (and awwwws) were on them. As far as humans go, the star was definitely Orfeh (who plays Paulette - hairstylist and friend to Elle), who stole the show whenever she was on stage (with only humans, anyway). I don't know if it was just that she had the best material or if it was that she just knew best what to do with it, but she easily stole the show from Bundy. Other notable humans were Christian Borle (charming as always, as the "nice" lawyer/boyfriend) and Andy Karl (an amusing UPS man and Irish step dancer).
Other than that, I'm not really sure what happens, but somehow when all of that ordinary sugar is plugged into that magical cotton candy making machine, something happens that science just can't explain, and a fun show pops out. Somehow, somewhere in the second act, the show changes from being "Okay" (said with a sigh) to "Cute!" (said with a smile). And we stop caring that the music is kind of bland and annoying. And we start to forget that Kristin Chenoweth isn't playing Elle and Laura Bell Bundy starts to seem pretty funny and appealing. And somehow we sort actually get involved in the story and start caring about what happens to these characters. And the jokes start to actually seem funny. The sugar rush somehow kicks in, the brain turns off, and the show just becomes mindless happy fun.
So no, "Legally Blonde: The Musical" is not OMIGOD like the best musical ever ever ever, just like cotton candy is not the best candy ever ever ever... well... maybe the latter part of the statment isn't exactly true... (mmm... cotton candy...), but it manages to mindlessly entertain its audience and puts smiles on our faces.
And unlike "The Wedding Singer" which did pretty much the same thing, and somehow flopped, this one is pretty much tailer made for the teenage girl audience...
OMIGOD did you see the yoga pants in the gift shop? I like totally need a pair.
(*bang* "Oh Mrs. Lovett? How about serving fresh pink meat pies this evening?")
...and will probably run forever.
The First Post
Okay, so this is the first post in my blog. I have tried blogging before a few times, and usually after a few days (yes days) I get lazy and stop updated them. Will this time be different? Who knows...
I'm planning on using this blog to post my ramblings on the shows I see (I'm a little bit of a theatre junky) and maybe I'll expand to boring posts about how my days go, but let's not get too ambitious. We'll see how the whole regular updating thing goes.
To clarify on the whole rambling thing - I'm using that term as a carte blanche to be as lazy as I want with the grammar and spelling in my posts. I don't really like to read things after I vomit them onto the screen, so no complaints about my butchery of the English language, because well... I just don't really care.
And so endeth the first post.
I'm planning on using this blog to post my ramblings on the shows I see (I'm a little bit of a theatre junky) and maybe I'll expand to boring posts about how my days go, but let's not get too ambitious. We'll see how the whole regular updating thing goes.
To clarify on the whole rambling thing - I'm using that term as a carte blanche to be as lazy as I want with the grammar and spelling in my posts. I don't really like to read things after I vomit them onto the screen, so no complaints about my butchery of the English language, because well... I just don't really care.
And so endeth the first post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)