I seldom have a clue what is going to get people talking. Apparently my “Casting Games” post on Wednesday struck a nerve of some kind because more than a dozen folks have chimed in with their thoughts. I love it when people are talking/writing because that means they care and/or think about theater and that’s the whole point of this thing here. (Update: you might want to check out Mr. Miller's recently-posted discussion about casting on the Barksdale blog.)
Style had two stories this week tangentially related to theater that you might have skipped over if you were only looking for theater reviews. One is this week’s cover story on the VCU library’s comic book collection – one of the largest in the country – that was written by the other Style theater reviewer, Rich Griset. The other is Ed Slipek’s architectural review of the still-relatively-new theater space that the Richmond Triangle Players has developed in Scott’s Addition. It’s an interesting piece, and not only because it’s twice as long as the typical Style theater review these days (no, I’m not bitter). This gives me the opportunity to point out that “[title of show]” has been extended until next weekend so hustle up and make reservations if you haven’t seen it yet.
(PS: Style also snuck in a quick story on the Conciliation Project’s latest production yesterday. Check out a preview of “Stolen Land” here.)
In other news, an eclectic group of theater folk has organized a Tonys Awards viewing party at the RTP theater as a benefit for the Theatre Artists Fund. This is a great idea and one that I would be totally there for if I wasn’t headed out of town. Still, you lucky folks who are here should waste no time making your reservations because I wouldn’t be surprised if this shindig sells out.
Finally, the Charlie Brown double-play has opened at the Firehouse. In an effort to take full advantage of the “rep” situation, I’m going to try and see both shows this weekend, perhaps to see if either production somehow informs the other. I’m also curious to see how a troupe of actors cast for a straight play has adapted to a musical. A few folks from the cast were on Virginia This Morning earlier this week. I can’t figure out how to link to the specific videos but both an interview and a performance from the appearance are available here. Judging from just this brief sneak preview, it seems they have adapted fine.
Showing posts with label barksdale. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barksdale. Show all posts
Friday, June 03, 2011
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Casting Games
I haven’t linked to them explicitly before now but John Porter’s reviews of “[title of show]” and “Bloody Murder” were both posted relatively recently. For that matter, I didn’t link to the T-D review of “Murder” either – click here for Ms. Lewis’s take.
When the Barksdale “Signature Season” announcement came out a couple of weeks ago, one of the entries was listed as “rights pending.” Apparently, the rights for “God of Carnage” have come through and so now it’s their official “Acts of Faith” entry for next year, definitely an exciting development.
One of the fun things about season announcements has always been playing the casting guessing game. I know when word first started circulating that Barksdale was doing “Spring Awakening,” the speculation among “SA” devotees (e.g., my lovely wife) about who in town could / should play each part began in earnest. Now the same thing can happen with “God of Carnage.” The stars who originated the lead roles on Broadway definitely put distinctive stamps on them, making it hard for me to immediately plug local actors into each slot. It’s also interesting that the roles in this show have sometimes been swapped by the leads in each gender before so perhaps the specific person is not as important as someone who is just a damn good actor. Hmm.
The Barksdale shows aren’t the only ones that lend themselves to this game (“My Fair Lady” being precast took that one out of the running). Firehouse’s “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” certainly was rife for speculation (though not anymore since casting has been finalized). I’m still fascinated by thoughts of who among the extremely talented local youngsters will be tapped for Triangle Players’ “Stupid Kids.” Certainly, someone of substantial skill will need to play Shylock in Henley Street’s “Merchant of Venice.” Sycamore Rouge’s “Topdog / Underdog” should spark some intense competition for the two leads. And even Theatre IV’s season generates conjecture: who, for instance, would be appropriate to step into the shoes – or webbed feet, as it were – of either Frog or Toad?
This kind of casting conjecture happens all the time for movies: anyone remember the strum and drang over the casting of the "Twilight" leads? Similar anticipation followed the announcement of an American adaptation of the "Dragon Tattoo" series. More recently, the producers of "The Hunger Games" got a lot of press for their decision to make Jennifer Lawrence their Catniss (an excellent choice, IMHO). The final decisions are always the director’s, of course. But even so, it’s fun to imagine who might be perfect for a specific role. Anyone out there want to offer up your thoughts for upcoming Richmond shows? You'll probably have a better chance guessing who'll be Richmond's Stinky Cheese Man than Hollywood's Lisbeth Salander.
When the Barksdale “Signature Season” announcement came out a couple of weeks ago, one of the entries was listed as “rights pending.” Apparently, the rights for “God of Carnage” have come through and so now it’s their official “Acts of Faith” entry for next year, definitely an exciting development.
One of the fun things about season announcements has always been playing the casting guessing game. I know when word first started circulating that Barksdale was doing “Spring Awakening,” the speculation among “SA” devotees (e.g., my lovely wife) about who in town could / should play each part began in earnest. Now the same thing can happen with “God of Carnage.” The stars who originated the lead roles on Broadway definitely put distinctive stamps on them, making it hard for me to immediately plug local actors into each slot. It’s also interesting that the roles in this show have sometimes been swapped by the leads in each gender before so perhaps the specific person is not as important as someone who is just a damn good actor. Hmm.
The Barksdale shows aren’t the only ones that lend themselves to this game (“My Fair Lady” being precast took that one out of the running). Firehouse’s “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof” certainly was rife for speculation (though not anymore since casting has been finalized). I’m still fascinated by thoughts of who among the extremely talented local youngsters will be tapped for Triangle Players’ “Stupid Kids.” Certainly, someone of substantial skill will need to play Shylock in Henley Street’s “Merchant of Venice.” Sycamore Rouge’s “Topdog / Underdog” should spark some intense competition for the two leads. And even Theatre IV’s season generates conjecture: who, for instance, would be appropriate to step into the shoes – or webbed feet, as it were – of either Frog or Toad?
This kind of casting conjecture happens all the time for movies: anyone remember the strum and drang over the casting of the "Twilight" leads? Similar anticipation followed the announcement of an American adaptation of the "Dragon Tattoo" series. More recently, the producers of "The Hunger Games" got a lot of press for their decision to make Jennifer Lawrence their Catniss (an excellent choice, IMHO). The final decisions are always the director’s, of course. But even so, it’s fun to imagine who might be perfect for a specific role. Anyone out there want to offer up your thoughts for upcoming Richmond shows? You'll probably have a better chance guessing who'll be Richmond's Stinky Cheese Man than Hollywood's Lisbeth Salander.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
I get a-round
My review of "Circle Mirror Transformation" is in this week's Style. Better late than never, right? Mr. Griset's review of "Art" also appears this week, which is a cool coincidence since I just saw another of Yasmina Reza's works last night. More on that tomorrow.
It's always interesting for me to go back and read a review of mine a couple of weeks after I've written it. There's a way that a show settles into my consciousness: my initial impressions age and mature and don't always end up where they started. Sometimes this process results in a bolstering of my opinion of a show. After I saw "Avenue Q" the first time, my feelings about the show just got more and more positive (enhanced by repeated plays of the soundtrack) to the point that I was actually a little disappointed when I went and saw it a second time.
I wouldn't take back anything I said about "CMT" in my review. I enjoyed this show but it hasn't aged as well in my memory as other shows. Trying to think about it analytically, I suspect it's because this is a show of moments, usually small ones, subtle and simple character turns that are intriguing but also fleeting. At the performance I saw, the audience was older and relatively impatient about the pauses and stretches of silence. In the face of that, I felt a sense of defiance on behalf of the actors. I wanted to turn to the talkers in the crowd and say, 'pay attention -- there's good work going on here!' I also wanted to get pedantic and say, 'theater isn't always about rapid-fire dialogue!' So while I highlighted the pauses in my review, the rest reads to me now like a defense of the actors who utilize the open spaces in the script to fully inhabit the characters they play.
As I think back on it, I would put "CMT" in the category of plays that I appreciate more than I love. The lack of an intermission is a problem experientially. Some of the scenes are pretty indulgent (like the one where people portray the items in Schultz's room) and I'm not sure what they added to the play as a whole. As my colleague Mr. Porter suggests, there is also a fair amount of telling not showing going on thanks to the monologues where each character lays out another character's back story. For a show with less dialogue than many, the proportion of telling to showing seems high in retrospect.
There are other smaller issues that have popped up in my reflections about the show. I have ended up feeling frustrated with the Marti character. There is obviously a lot going on with this character but, more so than with any of the others, I think she gets short-changed by the play. I came away feeling like I wanted to empathize with her, particularly as portrayed by the always-winning Kelly Kennedy. But in the end, I don't think she really earns much empathy, seeming kind of rigid all the way to the end.
My appreciation of certain scenes has increased over the weeks, however. The "telling secrets" scene in particular is kind of stunning. I can pretty clearly remember each character's reaction as each secret was read. This is not a testament to my memory but to each actor's clarity in their almost entirely non-verbal response. Beyond being specifically impressed with Mr. Flannagan's performance, I thought he and Erin Thomas-Foley had a very compelling, very authentic chemistry, both as their relationship was heating up and as it frayed. In fact, every interaction between Theresa and another character had an energy a notch above the others, a reflection of Thomas-Foley's unique skills as an actress.
As I think back now, the scenes that most succinctly reflect how I ended up feeling about the show are the "lying in a circle, counting" scenes. I appreciate their purpose in the context of the play and there were some funny and/or interesting moments in them. But they also tended to go on too long and the pay-offs we're sometimes minimal. I can see how people with an abiding interest in theater and who happen to be fascinated by actors might be particularly enamored with "CMT." However, I can also see why some patrons, like the one who I overheard as I filed down the stairs at the Barksdale, might wonder, "...but what was it about?"
It's always interesting for me to go back and read a review of mine a couple of weeks after I've written it. There's a way that a show settles into my consciousness: my initial impressions age and mature and don't always end up where they started. Sometimes this process results in a bolstering of my opinion of a show. After I saw "Avenue Q" the first time, my feelings about the show just got more and more positive (enhanced by repeated plays of the soundtrack) to the point that I was actually a little disappointed when I went and saw it a second time.
I wouldn't take back anything I said about "CMT" in my review. I enjoyed this show but it hasn't aged as well in my memory as other shows. Trying to think about it analytically, I suspect it's because this is a show of moments, usually small ones, subtle and simple character turns that are intriguing but also fleeting. At the performance I saw, the audience was older and relatively impatient about the pauses and stretches of silence. In the face of that, I felt a sense of defiance on behalf of the actors. I wanted to turn to the talkers in the crowd and say, 'pay attention -- there's good work going on here!' I also wanted to get pedantic and say, 'theater isn't always about rapid-fire dialogue!' So while I highlighted the pauses in my review, the rest reads to me now like a defense of the actors who utilize the open spaces in the script to fully inhabit the characters they play.
As I think back on it, I would put "CMT" in the category of plays that I appreciate more than I love. The lack of an intermission is a problem experientially. Some of the scenes are pretty indulgent (like the one where people portray the items in Schultz's room) and I'm not sure what they added to the play as a whole. As my colleague Mr. Porter suggests, there is also a fair amount of telling not showing going on thanks to the monologues where each character lays out another character's back story. For a show with less dialogue than many, the proportion of telling to showing seems high in retrospect.
There are other smaller issues that have popped up in my reflections about the show. I have ended up feeling frustrated with the Marti character. There is obviously a lot going on with this character but, more so than with any of the others, I think she gets short-changed by the play. I came away feeling like I wanted to empathize with her, particularly as portrayed by the always-winning Kelly Kennedy. But in the end, I don't think she really earns much empathy, seeming kind of rigid all the way to the end.
My appreciation of certain scenes has increased over the weeks, however. The "telling secrets" scene in particular is kind of stunning. I can pretty clearly remember each character's reaction as each secret was read. This is not a testament to my memory but to each actor's clarity in their almost entirely non-verbal response. Beyond being specifically impressed with Mr. Flannagan's performance, I thought he and Erin Thomas-Foley had a very compelling, very authentic chemistry, both as their relationship was heating up and as it frayed. In fact, every interaction between Theresa and another character had an energy a notch above the others, a reflection of Thomas-Foley's unique skills as an actress.
As I think back now, the scenes that most succinctly reflect how I ended up feeling about the show are the "lying in a circle, counting" scenes. I appreciate their purpose in the context of the play and there were some funny and/or interesting moments in them. But they also tended to go on too long and the pay-offs we're sometimes minimal. I can see how people with an abiding interest in theater and who happen to be fascinated by actors might be particularly enamored with "CMT." However, I can also see why some patrons, like the one who I overheard as I filed down the stairs at the Barksdale, might wonder, "...but what was it about?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)