by on

I just discovered (and most probably I am the last person in the world to do so) that the classic film Back to the Future has undergone several cast changes. Even the main character, Marty McFly, was played by an actor other than Michael J. Fox during a few weeks of filming. The footage ended up being discarded, which contributed to nourishing the gigantic memorabilia of the iconic production.

The lead male role of Marty McFly was originally played by actor Eric Stoltz. However, after several weeks of filming, the producers and filmmakers decided to replace Stoltz with Michael J. Fox, who was the original choice for the role. The problem is that Fox was also involved in the sitcom Family Ties and would not have time for filming (the situation would later be resolved simply by doubling the filming routine of the actor, an experience that Fox himself later classified it as “insane”).

The decision of going not taking Stolz was based on the belief that his the portrayal of the character was not aligning with the comedic tone of the film as envisioned. As a result, they had to re-shot all scenes of Stoltz, leading to the final version of the movie that is well-known and beloved today.

Even a person like me, uninformed about the precise numbers of the finantial impact of reshooting weeks and weeks of footage (and let us not forget that they were dealing with the technology available in Hollywood in 1985), understands that the costs involved are immense, and that such a decision can lead to the failure of any project. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that no production will go through this, unless ii is absolutely necessary.

But what was the problem with Stolz? According to actors who shared scenes with him, Stolz was a “method” actor, meaning that following his acting rituals was extremely important to him. Examples of his method would include, for instance, being addressed only by the name of his character, not talking (and pretending not to listen) to his colleagues when they were not in a scene with him, and using real physical force (instead of staged moves) during fight scenes.

Since Stolz did not get the job, does it mean that having a method is a problem per se? Not at all! Having a method with rules that impose a deep dive into the character may have been the reason for the success of the previous roles played by Stolz, but it was for sure the cause of his departure from the cast of Back to the Future.

The search for character depth ended up taking the actor too far (and in the wrong direction). By privileging the detail, Stolz lost the sense of the whole. His compreehension of Marty as a tragic hero who ultimately returns to a future in which his family is financially well off, but where he lands as an outsider, certainly added layers to the character, but it also took away much of his charm and humor.

While the approach of Michael J. Fox is extremely humanistic in his fumbling quest to “do the right thing”, Stolz highlighted the futility of any action. As interesting as this “memento mori” version of Marty may seem, it takes a huge step away from comedy and it is no surprise that Stolz was removed from the project.

The biggest problem of Stolz, ultimately, was his method apparently made him a prisoner, instead of helping him. Reviewing from time to time the rules we impose on ourselves can be as important as the method itself, because if the rules are preventing our growth, then they are not rules, but chains holding us back.

No method is equally applicable in all situations, and it will always be necessary to contextualize and to adapt, which reminds me of another story told by the great Brazilian accordion virtuoso and composer Luiz Gonzaga in an interview.

In his youth, Gonzava tried to join the army band, but was dismissed after failing in playing the “E flat” the conductor demanded. At the end of the interview the reporter asked him if in order to be a great accordion player it was really necessary to know how to play an E-flat.

Gonzaga responded between laughs: “Look, to this day I do not know what a E-flat is. I play by ear.”

Be seeing you!

G.F.

by on

I recently wrote about a huge Madonna show in Rio. She was invited by a big bank to perform on the Copacabana beach. The performance was a great success, although musically it drew attention to the fact that in a show where all the numbers were grand, the number of musicians on stage was… zero.

Many analyzes were made following the event, drawing attention to the good shape of the performer. Far be it from me to dispute the good shape of the artist, but I confess that, artistically speaking, a 65-year-old woman using playback moves me to a much lesser extent than an 84-year-old woman singing live on stage.

Forget Madonna: Suely is the real thing!

Last week I had the opportunity to applaud the great Brazilian actress Suely Franco, performing a tribute to the star Virgínia Lame, who would have turned one hundred years old in 2020. The play is called “The Brazilian Vedete” And if you do not know what the word “vedete” means, the very infornative program of the play explains:

“The star actresses of the revue theater were known as “vedetes”. The word “védette”, of Italian origin, means “exposure” or “evidence”. In Brazil, the term also came to designate people or things that are extremely desired.“

The actresses of the revue theater, whose peak in Brazil occurred between the 1930s and 1950s suffered from double prejudice: both on the part of society in general, which considered the profession analogous to prostitution, and on the part of dramatic actresses and radio singers, who often considered their colleagues in the revue theater as less serious professionals.

In its origins, revue theater is linked to a presentation, a “review” of the outstanding political and social events of the year, and in the case of Virgínia Lane, who was a singer, a dancer and a composer, the world of feathers and sparkles of revue theater intersects with political milestones of Brazil, since she was for ten years the declared lover (or, as it was presented in the newspapers of the time, “the favourite vedete”) of President Getúlio Vargas.

She was one of the first to see him dead, in what would go down in history as a case of suicide, but which Virginia swore until the end of her days that it had actually been a murder.

Reviewing the importance of the revue theater and reliving the stories of these great artists is already quite moving, but when it happens through the work of an actress like Suely Franco it means much more than that. Proud and majestic on stage, at the age of 84, singing live, loud and clear and delivering her text with timing and panache, Suely turns the play into an anti-ageism ode, as well.

I left the theater deeply moved and with my faith in humanity renewed. There is something very powerful in this type of experience, a power so great that it is capable of shining brighter than cell phone screens (the fact that people are no longer able to turn them off for two hours is a very sad topic that I do not want to talk about now so as not to starve the mood ) and sounds louder than all the annoying ringtones.

It reminds us that the strength of art asserts itself over time and the inevitable finiteness of our existence. Or, as the 1979 song While Ironing Pants, by Ednardo, would say:

Because singing feels like not dying
It’s like not forgetting
That life is right

Be seeing you!

G.F.

by on

In the seventeenth episode of the fourth season of the sitcom Sex and The City, acclaimed actress Candice Bergen made her first appearance as the character Enid Frick, the Vogue editor of Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker).

Enid is not easy to get along with and criticizes Carrie frequently, but when the editor insinuates that Carrie does not know anything about shoes, the protagonist responds with a very witty phrase, half snobbish, half wise: “Men I may not know, but shoes… shoes I know!”

I remembered the scene this week when I went to a beauty salon. It was my turn there, but I had been following the social media of the place for some time and thought it served what I needed: trimming the ends of my hair.

Some context: I cannot remember a time when I actually enjoyed going to beauty salons. It probably has to do with the fact that, in general, I do not leave the place looking amazing, as with many women do. Why? I have no idea, but maybe it is because trendy cutting and finishing styles (straightening, drying with a diffuser, etc.) do not usually give good results on my hair. In the end, I always return to my good, old homemade way of doing things, and that is how I really like it.

In practice, this means that I have extensive and lengthy experience with my hair and have a good idea of what damages or improves its appearance. I am not a professional in the field, and I probably would not know how to give good advice about anyone’s hair. But when it comes to my locks, I am like Carrie Bradshaw to Enid: I know my hair.

So, when a hairdresser, after talking about himself for 20 minutes and not even touching my hair, starts listing a list of things I can or cannot do, I tend to perceive it as a bad start.There is no point in trying to cover up the fact that there is no hot water in the taps, with the false advice that warm water (not hot, just not cold) will be extremely harmful to me, because I will notice.

There is no point in swearing to me that your way of styling is unique, and in the end just clogging my head with styling cream, especially if it is a low-quality one. I might be going through a low-budget phase (who hasn’t?), but my nose still knows how to differentiate between a good cosmetic and an imitation. You see, the hairdresser was not bad, only too, let us say, pretentious.

After I got home, washed it, and styled my hai my way, I gotta admit I actually liked the cut. The only issue is having to play the whole “influencer game,” you know, having to accept something just because the person has tons of followers on social media. That is what happened with this professional. I mean, the social media of the place was on point, most posts had lots of likes and amazing reviews, and they never hinted that reality was any less glamorous (trust me, washing your head with super cold water is anything but glamorous).

When it comes to taste, contrary to what people say, there is a lot to discuss, debate and inform. Perhaps people would change their opinion about many products and services if they had the chance to use them, intead of only getting the opinion from the so-called influencers. A good way to value services and products is to learn about their costs of production in terms of work, skills involved, preparation time and execution.

The coolest experiences have always been the ones we live on our own, but I’ve noticed that we’re letting the algorithms of the platforms take over too much of this power, hardly ever stepping out of our bubbles where everything similar to our thoughts is right and everything different is wrong.

What bothers me most about algorithm culture is that it does not matter who you are or what you do: the important thing is to constantly brag about yourself, your achievements and your overwhelming qualities. How can we blame the hairdresser who would not stop talking about himself, if doctors, musicians, lawyers, students, travelers, in short, everyone is there, on the internet doing the same?

Following the manual exhaustively repeated in the thousand and one tutorials on how to sell anything and everything we turned all the “experiences” in our lives in sales pitches. We create empathy, we cite examples that prove our social validation, we primisse to solve the pain of our customer, we follow the journey of the hero… we read the whole script.

Maybe part of our collective anxiety comes from the feeling that we need to “close a sale” at all times, whatever that “sale” may be, from a cosmetic treatment, a service, a new relationship, a new single. This constant pressure to achieve a successful outcome in every situation can create a sense of unease and perpetual striving.

It is as if we are constantly on the lookout for potential opportunities to “seal the deal” in various aspects of our lives, whether it is through personal improvement, professional advancement, or social interactions. This mindset can lead to constant stress and the belief that we must always be in a state of negotiation with ourselves and others.

One potential solution to reduce the impact of algorithm culture on personal decision-making and self-worth is to prioritize self-awareness and mindfulness. By consciously reflecting on our values, goals, and genuine desires, we can make decisions based on internal authenticity rather than external pressures.

Cultivating a diverse range of offline experiences and real-world connections that are not governed by algorithmic recommendations also helps, for it allows fae-to-face interactions, unburdened by the constant pursuit of digital validatio.

By prioritizing genuine experiences over external validations, we reclaim our autonomy and self-worth, recognizing that true value lies in meaningful connections and personal fulfillment rather than in the metrics of algorithmic approval.

Advertising is good, but what really keeps customers is good merchandise, good stuff. And good suff, darling, good stuff I know.

Be seeing you!

G.F.

by on

I recently went to a small chapel that is literally across the street from my building. It is a welcoming place, with white walls and a very sober atmosphere, with a wooden roof. The austerity is broken only by the colored light of the stained glass windows. On this day, in particular, there was a celebration of the patron saint and after having lived on the street for more than a decade I thought it was time to check it out.

When I arrived, the place was practically full, but there were still some seats on extra benches placed along the side walls. I adjusted myself as best I could and, despite the need to keep my back straight in a seat without backrest, everything was going well, until a woman stood between me and the extra bench in front, blocking my view of the altar. Without seeming embarrassed, she turned to me and asked: “Do I get in the way?”

I thought it would be a sin to tell a lie in a church and I answered sincerely (taking care to embellish my words with a smile): “It does get in the way, because you are blocking my vision.”

She pretended to move to the side, which meant being right in the middle of the path and, as it would obviously be impossible to remain there, she returned to her starting point, that is, blocking my view. As, at that point, the mass had already started, I resignedly accepted her lack of politeness and thought I might turn my neck a little.

However, I was not prepared for the addiction of my vision to her cell phone. very thirty seconds, like clockwork, she would sneak a peek at the screen. Then, as if that was not enough, she would whip out her glasses from her bag just to read her messages better.

There is no way to dodge that distraction with a mere neck twist, so, once again, I had to muster up the courage to say, “Could you please stash your phone away? I am trying to focus on the Mass” And guess what? She gave me a death glare (yes, in the middle of mass!) and put down her phone, for the most part anyway.

Although much of the sublime experience of the divine was profoundly ruined by this setback, it also gave me a chance to think about the terrible contemporary inability to remain still, and even more so, silent.

In the realm of aesthetics and philosophy, silence often serves as a gateway to the experience of the sublime. Within this context, silence is not merely the absence of noise, but rather a profound and intentional act of creating space for contemplation and introspection. It allows individuals to connect with their inner selves, enabling a heightened awareness of beauty, truth, and the ineffable aspects of existence.

In embracing silence, we not only gain access to a profound form of expression that transcends verbal communication but also open ourselves to the vast realm of introspection and self-discovery. Silence carries the power to convey emotions, thoughts, and intentions in a way that words often fall short of. It allows us to communicate on a deeper, more authentic level, fostering a connection that goes beyond the limitations of speech.

Through the stillness of silence, we can truly listen to our innermost thoughts and feelings, and in turn, understand ourselves and others more fully. This practice can lead to a heightened sense of empathy and a greater understanding of the complexities of human emotions. Embracing silence can be a transformative experience, enriching our lives and relationships in ways that verbal communication alone cannot achieve.

This paves the way for a deeper understanding of the perception experience, creating a sense of awe and transcendence.

In many ways, silence can be seen as a canvas upon which the sublime is painted, as it provides the necessary space for the mind to grapple with the profound and overwhelming nature of the sublime. At the same time, the sublime can also be thought of as a kind of metaphorical silence, representing a moment of profound stillness and overwhelming grandeur that transcends the limitations of language and human expression.

And the lady in front of me lost all of this. What a waste!

Be seeing you!

G.F.

by on

Mulholland Dr.ive is a 2001 film written and directed by David Lynch. In this intriguing work, a scene that has become iconic is that of the protagonists Betty and Rita at “Club Silencio” (love the name!): it starts with the master of ceremonies explains that everything is an illusion (there is no band, and yet we hear a band). The women soon cry to the sound of the Spanish version of “Crying” by Rebekah del Rio. The artist faints, but the singing continues, revealing that the audio is a playback recording.

I could not help thinking of this scene so full of meanings, while watching on tv to the recent performance of popstar Madonna in Rio de Janeiro, in a mega show for over 1,5 million people on the Copacabana beach.

The magnitude of the show was undeniable. From the dedicated members of her team to the remarkable audience numbers for the live broadcast, every aspect of the event was larger than life. Even the undertaking of cleaning up the Copacabana beach after the concert was colossal, highlighting the immense scale of the production.

All the figures surrounding the presentation are gigantic, except one, which, by the way, is zero: the number of musicians on stage.

Such nonsense, in addition to the fact that the vocals themselves are based on pre-recorded bases, made me think about how a performance like this cannot be considered, strictly speaking, a concert. After all, what is the place of music in pop?

When considering the performance, technology, and the perception of musical artistry within the realm of pop music, it is important to acknowledge the dynamic interplay between these elements. The evolution of technology has not only revolutionized the way music is produced and consumed, but it has also significantly impacted the performance aspect of pop music.

Advances in audio recording, digital effects, and electronic instruments have provided artists with unprecedented creative tools, allowing them to push the boundaries of their artistry. From the use of Auto-Tune to enhance vocal performances, to the incorporation of electronic instruments and samples in live shows, technology has become an integral part of pop music, raising questions about the authenticity and artistry of these performances.

It is disheartening to witness major international pop stars, Madonna being just one example among many, dismissing musicians during their world tours. This behavior raises questions about fair treatment and respect within the music industry. When artists who have reached the pinnacle of success neglect their supporting musicians, it is, well, disappointing, to say the least.

Maybe it is about time we start giving classical music some more love. I have always been impressed by how this genre manages to evolve while still holding onto its core essence. I mean, imagine shelling out to watch an opera, only to find out that the lead soprano is lip-syncing to pre-recorded tracks? That would be a real scandal, right? So why do we naturalize it in current pop?

I’m aware that it’s difficult to make such criticisms without sounding extremely old-fashioned, but I’m willing to take the risk. After all, I also find some things very old-fashioned, for example, hypersexualized performances. I know that the saying “sex sells” dictates the rules, but I also know that at this point in time, such performances seem more boring than revolutionary. It is all so repetitive!

Do you know what would be revolutionary now? a performance less polluted by stage elements and complicated choreography, based on the artists’ talent and ability to perform live on stage. In short, entertainment that actually entertains, instead of just distracting.

Returning to talent-focused entertainment can have a profound impact on the industry, emphasizing skill and artistry over other superficial qualities. Embracing talent-focused entertainment can lead to a resurgence of genuine artistry, captivating audiences with the sheer brilliance and passion of performers.

In a world saturated with manufactured personas, placing talent at the forefront can breathe new life into the industry, offering audiences an authentic and awe-inspiring entertainment experience.

Be seeing you!

G.F.