Whimsy

I went to see this movie last night – “Crazy Stupid Love” – with a couple of friends. It is a very entertaining movie that is very smartly written. It subverts at least a couple romantic comedy tropes and, in fact, in the one scene that is the most obviously cliché, one of the characters says, “this is so cliché.” It also mixes a kind of standard romantic comedy trajectory with the intertwined plot line sensibilities of dramas like “Crash,” resulting in some great payoffs.

However, my friends and I agreed that, as much as we all enjoyed the movie, it had nothing whatsoever to do with how real people interact and carry on relationships. Almost every pairing in the movie was cut from some fairy tale Hollywood model of how people meet, fall into bed, fall in love, fall out of love, etc. It is full of gestures both big and small that only happen in the minds of screenwriters. As one of my friends said, “I remember going to movies hoping to find some message or insight that might be relevant in my life.” As many laughs as this movie provides – and eye-candy moments, thank you Mr. Gosling – it certainly doesn’t provide insight.

Another friend of mine recently used the word “whimsy” in an email. It occurred to me that it’s one of those words that I’ve used before never knowing exactly what it meant. I checked Dictionary.com, which defines whimsy as “extravagant, fanciful, or excessively playful expression: a play with lots of whimsy.” It was an interesting coincidence because the person talking about whimsy was referring to a play, specifically “All’s Well that Ends with Monique.” Given that I also saw “Boeing Boeing” this week in addition to “Crazy Stupid Love,” I’ve pretty much overdosed on whimsy.

“Monique” has several things to recommend it: spirited performances, a very innovative set design, and some great uses of sound and music to support the action. Kristen Swanson totally commits to her self-obsessed character and director Donna Coghill has given her a talented supporting crew. I enjoyed each of Kimberly Jones Clark’s characterizations, Stephen Ryan playing a sock puppet was very funny, and it was a real treat to see BJ Kocen on stage again. I was wondering through the first act whether Mr. Kocen would sing in the show and, when he finally did, it was completely unexpected and delightful.

A lot of clever thinking went into each scene and there are several sharp lines delivered along the way. The way Monique kind of obliviously helps people she interacts with in their lives was a nimble conceit. Even so, my overall impression of the show was of a piece of work that still wasn’t clicking on all cylinders. Some bits didn’t cohere in the way that some Saturday Night Live skits never quite translate into feature films. The show seemed “writerly” to me at times, with characters’ reactions following a written rhythm not necessarily the organic rhythms between people on stage.

In that way, it contrasted with “Boeing Boeing,” which is clearly a work that has been honed over years of productions into a Rube Goldberg device of interactional madness. All the pieces of farce are juggled with precision in this production, directed by Bruce Miller, with potentially disastrous entries coinciding with perfectly timed exits, many doors slammed, and choice bon mots delivered along the way. The three “air hostesses” in the show (Maura Burroughs, Caylyn Temple, and Donna Marie Miller) are all sumptuous beauties that transcend their stereotypes, each with a special spark all her own. Ms. Lewis at the T-D likened Derek Phipps to vintage Jerry Lewis in his supporting role and that’s a spot-on characterization. And Susan Sanford is just so gloriously continental as the French maid, alternately deadpan, world-weary, and flabbergasted. In the midst of it all, Denis Riva holds his own as a man trying desperately to keep his life orderly as it starts to spin out of control.

My reaction to “Boeing” was similar to the one I had to “Crazy Stupid” – many laughs but operating in some alternate reality where people are more like cartoon characters than, you know, people. In the midst of such a whimsy-intensive week, my appreciation for the work did not exactly translate into a love of it.

But maybe I’m just getting old and crotchety. And maybe I’m just prejudicial in my preference for whimsy being kept to musicals where outrageous behavior is commonplace and expected (though two of the musicals I’ve enjoyed most lately – “Ragtime” and “Next to Normal” – were anything but whimsical). I certainly wouldn’t warn anyone away from any of the entertainments I enjoyed this week. I expect there are aspects of “Monique” that could translate into a more completely satisfying work. By all means, go to both “Boeing” and “Crazy Stupid” if you want a laugh-filled, occasionally ridiculous slice of romantic farce.

Personally, I’m in need of a little cleansing of my entertainment palette. Luckily, I came across this little piece to point to potential works of the decidedly unwhimsical kind. Also, at least “Hairspray” marries its silliness to social consciousness and some kick-ass songs so perhaps I’ll emerge next week better able to appreciate the more whimsical aspects of life (and theater).

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.

30, 31, 32

Reviews of “[title of show]” came out over the weekend, both Ms. Haubenstock at the T-D and Mr. Miller at GayRVA seeming to like it quite a bit. I finished up my review yesterday and it should be in next week’s Style. The best capsule review I can offer is also the simplest: don’t miss this show or you’ll be sorry you did.

This past weekend was a little weird in that seemingly all of a sudden, a big slew of shows were all closing. “Art,” “Honk!” and “Quilters” all wrapped up and, to complete the slew of one-word titles, “Shorts” opened and closed. (For those of you who might have missed it, Ms. Lewis in the Times-Dispatch wrote up “Shorts” and Mr. Miller weighed in on “Honk!” last week). I’m always more aware of openings and those occasional weekends when several shows arrive at the same time and there’s a buzz of new possibilities in the air. Now it’s like a big deflation as I look around and rue the shows I didn’t get a chance to see.

My recent out-of-town adventures allowed me to take in my 30th and 31st shows of the season. Several years ago I started keeping track of the local shows I’d seen during a season and this year I expanded my little spreadsheet tally to include any production whatsoever, including staged readings and out-of-town shows (I only counted the Radio City Xmas Spectacular once, even though I saw most or all of it at least 4 times). So “[title of show]” became the 32nd production I’ve seen this season, the 23rd local professional production.

Twenty-three was the total number of local pro productions I saw last season so I’m certainly going to beat that number this year. I’m looking ahead and thinking I could possibly make it to 30, particularly given that the Firehouse will have two shows in rep that I haven’t seen (thanks, Firehouse!). Even if I make it to 30, that’ll mean 39 productions overall for the year which will fall short of the 2008-2009 season when I saw 35 local pro productions and 5 non-pro ones.

Forty productions. That means that, on average, three weekends out of the four in the typical month I went to see a show. I’m not tooting my horn here or anything. It’s just a little staggering when I look at the numbers. Even more staggering to me is that I know people whose theater consumption dwarfs mine (looking at you, Ms. Haubenstock!) How do they find the time?