My Time Traveling Family

There is a legend in my family, passed down through time. In the legend, members of my family are capable of traveling through time. There is one hitch in that legend, you can only do it once and for about an hour at most. Thus, when members of the family reach a certain age they are informed of this ability, how to access it, and the very important rule about its use. One time, one hour. That, naturally, sets the stage for how you want to use your one time and one hour. 

How do you decide? Where do you want to go and what do you want to do? It's an impossible choice as what if you choose to go right away and find that something tragic happened? You could have used your one time, one hour, to save someone you love from death. But, if you're too cautious and you don't use it, what if you die before you can use this amazing power? I had an Uncle who held on to his one time until he was 72 years and before he could finally go back and do something he wanted to do, he dropped dead. 

Don't be Uncle Tony, that's what my Dad told me. Dad used his one time, one hour, to visit his father. Dad went back to 1975 and had lunch with his own father before Granddad passed away. He said it was the best choice he could have made. He could have gone back and done many things, really anything. Like anyone else, Dad made bad choices here and there, he had regrets that he could have perhaps corrected. He could have tried to find a way to make a quick buck, but for dad, spending one last lunch sitting across from his father was everything. 

Granddad recognized him immediately. Dad may have been 8 years old at the time he traveled back to but Granddad still recognized his nearly 60 year old son when he saw him. They cried together, laughed together, enjoyed a meal together. My Granddad passed away on May 15th, 1975 he was shot while trying to stop a convenience store robbery. Before he died, he told my dad not to try and change his fate. He was worried that the ripple effect of his death that day would be too catastrophic to the future of the lives he saved that day stopping that man from killing more than just him. 

That's another thing about this ability of ours, you have to be responsible with it. You have to understand the ripple effect of your actions. One false move and you could remove a generation of your future family. You could come back from an hour in the past to an entirely different present. It's best to try and observe history or, in some cases, nudge it in your favor. Repair a failure, fix something you regret. Just know that there are potential consequences to every choice and make sure you can live with what you choose to do. 

Which leads back to me. I have a huge decision to make. What will I do in the past? How can I keep what I do from negatively affecting the future? What can I do that will be emotionally satisfying and useful to my present situation? I think I know what to do. It's a bit mawkish, if I am to be self-critical. There was something I wanted to do as a kid but never had the chance to do. I always wanted to see a baseball game with my grandfather at Wrigley Field. 

Find my full length short story at Fiction.Media 

Movie Review: Chicago

Chicago (2002)

Directed by Rob Marshall 

Written by Bill Condon 

Starring Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta Jones, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, Taye Diggs

Release Date December 27th, 2002 

Published December 26th, 2002 

The play Chicago dates back to 1924, a non musical play inspired by a pair of real life murder cases in which woman were accused of murdering their lovers. It was adapted for the screen two times, including a version called Roxie Hart starring Ginger Rogers. It wasn't until 1974 that Chicago the play became Chicago the musical. Bob Fosse and partner Fred Ebb took the story and added sensational song and dance, and Fosse's trademark raunchiness, to make a play that while popular, it wasn't initially the massive hit many had expected. 

In 1996 a revival of Fosse's Chicago, the musical was brought back to Broadway, but slightly tweaked. With a little less raunch and a slightly less cynical tone, the all new Chicago the musical was now a smash hit. The revival went on to earn 9 Tony Award nominations and win 7 Tony Awards over. Now, 6 years later, it is the revival version of Chicago that comes to the silver screen and unfortunately, they may have done better with Fosse's version.

Set in 1924, Chicago centers on a pair of scandalous murders that splash across the front pages of Chicago's trashy newspapers. One case is that of a chorus girl named Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta Jones), who shows up at a jazz club for a performance a little late and without her dance partner. Velma and her sister Veronica were becoming famous for their double act, but on this night, it is just Velma on stage performing their signature routine to the tune of All That Jazz. We quickly realize as the police arrive that Velma has murdered her sister after finding her in bed with her husband.

In the audience on that night as Velma was taken away by the cops, is a starry eyed, dim bulb blonde named Roxie Hart (Renee Zellwegger). At the club with a man who is not her husband, Roxie is expecting her boyfriend will speak to the manager about putting her onstage to perform. Cut to a month later Velma is in jail and Roxie is still waiting for her man to make her a star. However, when he admits he made up the story just to sleep with her, Roxie shoots and kills him.

When Roxie's husband Amos (John C. Reilly) comes home from work she convinces him the man was a burglar and tries to get Amos to take the fall. However after Amos finds out that the burglar is a guy he knows he changes his tune and Roxie is off to murderesses’ row where she will share a cellblock with the celebrated murderers of the day, husband killers whose brief glimpses of fame have dimmed as the gallows loomed over them. Among those celebrated killers is none other than Velma Kelly. 

Though Roxie tries to insinuate herself into Velma's world behind bars, the two are not friends. Velma only sees Roxie as someone trying to take her spotlight. Roxie meanwhile, after being rejected by Velma manages to convince her idiot husband to hire Velma's high profile lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere). With this move by Roxie, it becomes a war between Velma and Roxie to see who can make bigger headlines and hold the attention of their glory hound lawyer the longest. Billy Flynn's only interested in whichever client is on the front page that day. 

Director Rob Marshall, a veteran of the stage making his film debut, crafts a quickly paced and exuberant film that combines the best of old time Hollywood glamour with modern panache and star power. Though unlikely choices for the leading roles, Renee Zellweger and Catherine Zeta Jones's star quality helps to nail their temptress roles with surprisingly strong singing and dancing, aided no doubt by Marshall's quick cut style.

The biggest surprise in Chicago however, is Richard Gere. Forget surprise, Gere is a revelation. Though his singing could use some work, Gere's vibrant enthusiasm and energy carries you past any reservations you may have about his singing. In his best moments, Gere blows everyone else off the screen. In particular, a courtroom tap-dance near the end of the film is truly spectacular and in a film with a number of standout numbers, Gere manages to craft best performance of the film.

I have a few issues with this Broadway adaptation however, issues that keep me from fully embracing the film as a truly great movie. The first issue is the staging of the musical performance. All of the musical numbers are bound to Broadway style proscenium stages. Director Rob Marshall binds the movie to the stage and fails to take advantage of the dynamic film medium for staging. Marshall seems to think he is tied to the Broadway stage interpretation of each song.

Then there is the film’s tone, which wants to be bawdy comedy but can't go as far as it would like in fear of offending the family audiences. Adhering closely to the toned down revival version of Chicago, the film contains little of Fosse's raunchiness that marked his 1974 version. What Fosse's version did was frame the sensationalistic stories with bawdy comedy and a masterful turn of innuendo. There is little of that fun in this Chicago, save for Queen Latifah's "What Mama Wants.” The comedy in Chicago never finds a rhythm to match the music.

What made Fosse's version interesting, if not great, was its ability to drag the audience into the gutter with its characters. The raunchiness and the fearlessness of the characters was transgressive and exciting. With this toned down version of Chicago, you don't get the thrill that Fosse intended. Instead it's like watching the OJ Simpson trial, you can't help but admire the sheer audacity of Johnny Cochran, but you still hate OJ and you likely weren't rooting for him. 

In Chicago you can't help but admire Gere's Billy Quinn for his Razz Ma Tazz three ring circus, but Zellwegger's Roxie Hart is still a terrible person. This fact about Roxie is confirmed by the film’s only truly sympathetic character, John C. Reilly's Amos Hart. Sympathetic or just pathetic, Amos' big number "Mr. Cellophane" is the films one moment of emotional involvement. The rest of Chicago lingers somewhere in an uncanny valley of toned down dark humor, bloody murder crossed with big brassy musical numbers, all pitched to reach the back of the theater. It's a sloppy tone the film never wrestles into cohesion. 

Comparing Chicago to a similar but far superior movie such as Moulin Rouge would be unfair. Baz Luhrmann is a veteran filmmaker who is aware of all the tools available to him in the film medium. In Moulin Rouge, Luhrmann was working from material of his own creation in a realm he's comfortable creating in. Rob Marshall is still learning about the difference between directing a film and directing for the stage and I believe he has a bright future in Hollywood. Chicago is a good start, a flawed but brave attempt at a big screen musical that demonstrates Marshall's promise as a director while coming up short on the promise of the movie itself.