Big News (or the longest post ever...)

For immediate release

Local critics band together to recognize excellence in Richmond theater
Announce first annual awards show to be held October 19th

Richmond, VA - Theater critics representing several of central Virginia's major media outlets have created a new organization called the Richmond Theatre Critics Circle (RTCC) with the primary purpose of promoting and recognizing excellence in professional theater produced in the Richmond area. The group will do so via an annual awards gala, the first of which will be held on Sunday, October 19th at the Firehouse Theatre. Nominations for the First Annual RTCC Awards are listed below.

"For too long, the amazing depth and breadth of talent in the local theater scene has gone uncelebrated," asserts one of RTCC's co-founders, David Timberline. "We hope our awards will bring attention to the exceptional quality of the work being done by theater professionals in Richmond."

RTCC has made nominations in eighteen categories and will also present a special award in recognition of extraordinary ongoing contributions to the Richmond-area theater scene. This award is being named in honor of actress, producer, and casting director, Liz Marks, who recently succumbed after a battle with cancer and Ms. Marks will be the award's first recipient.

Winners in each of the categories will be announced at a black-tie gala awards ceremony that will feature performances from the nominated musical productions. The ceremony is being cosponsored by two companies that represent both the strength of Richmond's history and the vitality of the city's future: the C.F. Sauer Company and Y.Y Salon & Products.

A minimal admission will be charged to the invitation-only event. All proceeds from the awards ceremony will go to support the Richmond Theatre Artists Fund, a fund established by the Richmond Alliance of Professional Theatres to help those in the Richmond theatre community who fall on the hardest of times due to illness, injury or extenuating circumstances.

"Beyond just indicating which performances and productions we thought were most noteworthy during this past theater season, we hope these awards will showcase the richness and variety of Richmond theater," adds Susan Haubenstock, an RTCC co-founder and a theater critic for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. "It'll be a celebration of all local theater, not just a few favorites."

Members of the RTCC include Mary Burruss (Style Weekly magazine), Susan Haubenstock (Richmond Times-Dispatch), Julinda Lewis (Richmond Times-Dispatch), David Timberline (Style Weekly magazine), and Joan Tupponce (Richmond.com).

Nominations for the First Annual Richmond Theatre Critics Circle Awards
for the 2007-2008 theater season

Best Musical
Guys & Dolls, Barksdale
Peter Pan, Theatre IV
Reefer Madness, Firehouse Theatre Project
Urinetown, Swift Creek Mill

Best Direction - Musical
Patti D'Beck, Guys & Dolls (Barksdale)
Steve Perigard, Peter Pan (Theatre IV)
Jase Smith, Reefer Madness (Firehouse Theatre Project)
Tom Width, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)

Best Actor - Musical
Brett Ambler, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)
Ford Flanagan, Peter Pan (Theatre IV)
Scott Wichmann, Guys & Dolls (Barksdale)

Best Actress - Musical
Rachel Abrams, Guys & Dolls (Barksdale)
Audra Honaker, Once Upon A Mattress (Swift Creek Mill)
Nancy McMahon, The Two Svengalis (Richmond Triangle Players)
Angela Shipley, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)

Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Musical
Chris Hester, Reefer Madness (Firehouse Theatre Project)
Richard Koch, Rumpelstiltskin's Daughter (Theatre IV)
Jason Marks, Guys & Dolls (Barksdale)
Scott Melton, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)
Robert Throckmorton, Peter Pan (Theatre IV )

Best Actress in a Supporting Role - Musical
Audra Honaker, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)
Debra Wagoner, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)
Joy Williams, Once Upon A Mattress (Swift Creek Mill)
Joy Newsome, Reefer Madness (Firehouse Theatre Project)

Best Musical Direction
Sandy Dacus, Guys and Dolls (Barksdale)
Paul Deiss, Plaid Tidings (Swift Creek Mill)
Paul Deiss, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)
Leilani Mork, Reefer Madness (Firehouse Theatre Project)

Best Choreography
Brandon Becker, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)
Patti D'Beck, Guys & Dolls (Barksdale)
Leslie Owens-Harrington, Peter Pan (Theatre IV)

Best Play
As You Like It (indoor), Richmond Shakespeare
Doubt: A Parable, Barksdale
The Late Henry Moss, Firehouse Theatre Project
The Little Dog Laughed, Barksdale
Spinning Into Butter, Firehouse Theatre Project

Best Direction - Play
Andrew Hamm, As You Like It (indoor) (Richmond Shakespeare)
Bruce Miller, The Little Dog Laughed (Barksdale)
Morrie Piersol, The Late Henry Moss (Firehouse Theatre Project)
James Ricks, Richard II (Richmond Shakespeare)
Keri Wormald, Doubt: A Parable (Barksdale)

Best Actor - Play
Andy Boothby, Mr. Marmalade (Firehouse Theatre Project)
Frank Creasy, The Spanish Tragedy (Henley Street Theatre Company)
Justin Dray, The Late Henry Moss (Firehouse Theatre Project)
J. Ron Fleming, A Lesson Before Dying (African American Rep. Theatre)
Duke Lafoon, Doubt: A Parable (Barksdale)

Best Actress - Play
Terry Menefee Gau, A Streetcar Named Desire (Sycamore Rouge)
Margarette Joyner, From the Mississippi Delta (African American Rep. Theatre)
Katie McCall, Spinning Into Butter (Firehouse Theatre Project)
Susan Sanford, The Little Dog Laughed (Barksdale)
Irene Zeigler, Doubt: A Parable (Barksdale)

Best Actor in a Supporting Role - Play
David Bridgewater, Henry IV, Part 2 (Richmond Shakespeare)
Joseph Anthony Carlson, Henry IV, Part 2 (Richmond Shakespeare)
Toney Cobb, Charcoal Street (African American Rep. Theatre)
Dean Knight, The Seagull (Henley Street Theatre Company)
Stephen Ryan, Richard II (Richmond Shakespeare)

Best Actress in a Supporting Role - Play
Liz Blake, Measure for Measure (Richmond Shakespeare)
Katherine Louis, The Member of the Wedding (Barksdale)
Jennie Meharg, The Late Henry Moss (Firehouse Theatre Project)
Laine Satterfield, The Little Dog Laughed (Barksdale)

Notable Interactive Production
Murder at the Class Reunion, Mystery Dinner Theatre
Richmond Improv Festival, ComedySportz
Stories of Egypt, Carpenter Science Theatre

Outstanding Achievement, Lighting Design
Joe Doran, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)
Lynne Hartman, The Little Dog Laughed (Barksdale)
Lynne Hartman, The Member of the Wedding (Barksdale)
Matthew Landwehr, A Christmas Story (Theatre IV)

Outstanding Achievement, Costume Design
Rebecca Cairns, As You Like It (indoor) (Richmond Shakespeare)
Sue Griffin, Peter Pan (Theatre IV)
Liz Hopper, The Member of the Wedding (Barksdale)
Chris Mueller, The Seagull (Henley Street Theatre Company)
Maura Lynch Cravey, Urinetown (Swift Creek Mill)

Outstanding Achievement, Set Design
Brian Barker, The Member of the Wedding (Barksdale)
Brian Kalin, The Little Dog Laughed (Barksdale)
Ron Keller, Guys and Dolls (Barksdale)
Greig Leach, Peter Pan (Theatre IV)
Mercedes Schaum, A Christmas Story (Theatre IV)

Liz Marks Memorial Award for Ongoing Contribution to Richmond Area Theater
Award to: Liz Marks

Firehouse Flash

Another place to look for news or to spout off on local theater has arrived! Here's a link to the new Firehouse Flash blog, all bright fire engine red graphics and primed for some purple prose. Welcome to the blog-o-sphere, FTP!

Farce

While lying in bed last night, trying in vain to fall asleep (iced mocha at 10pm = bad idea), I started thinking about “There Goes the Bride.” All the T-line women and I took in the latest Ray Cooney farce staged by Swift Creek Mill on Friday and we all had a fine time. Richard Koch (as Timothy) is a brilliant comic actor and, paired with the constantly moving and Betty Boop-ishly entertaining Audra Honaker (as Polly), howls of laughter arose from an appreciative crowd. I always love watching Vicki McLeod on stage – she is one of the most assured, unflappable actresses around and she was perfect in her role as the relative calm in the middle of the storm. It was also great to watch Brandon Becker (as Bill Shorter) work his somewhat subsidiary role with great skill, starting the show as a responsibility-avoiding gadabout and ending as almost a hero of sorts.

But as 2am loomed, I was wondering why it is that I don’t generally like farce. One aspect of my reaction I delineated right away: a problem for me sometimes is that some people LOVE farce so much and their squeals and shouts of laughter contrast mightily with my appreciative chuckles so much that I end up feeling like there must be something I’m missing. But I think the bigger problem is that the nature of farce is to push circumstances beyond any realistic boundaries and when things get “out there,” I start losing interest. For instance, everyone trying to cope with Timothy’s hallucinations is one thing but when the excuses they make about it compound to an absurd level (the confusion about whether Polly is a bird or a kitten or a person, trying to pass Bill off as the father of the bride, etc.), it all starts to seem a bit silly.

I get it that this is the point of farce – it’s all silly good fun. But I think it ends up being a little thankless for actors. Christine Schneider is adorable in the play and does a good job in the play’s first scene. But in much of the rest of the play she is largely reduced to leaving the room in tears. John Hagadorn is in fine form and is extremely funny as the befuddled grandfather of the bride. But I found his slapsticky later scenes just OK. Also, it seems most farces have an upright or logical character who gets thrown into the midst of the mayhem; seeing them reduced from sensible to senseless becomes part of the fun. In “Bride” this is Joy Williams as Mrs. Babcock and while Joy always makes the most of her characters, here she is mostly reactive and as written I don’t think some of her character’s reactions make sense. Of course, this also is the point – if someone came in and just said, ‘come on people, snap out of it,’ well, what would the fun in that be?

Perhaps I live in my head too much and need to just loosen up a bit. Maybe I need to let my wife drive me to farces so I can have two or three drinks beforehand to get in the proper mood. Don’t get me wrong – I still had a great time. A badly done farce can be downright tortuous but luckily, Tom Width is among the best directors I know at making farce work. Seeing Richard and Audra work their parts was alone worth the price of admission. But I think I only had half the fun of many of the people around me, a curiosity that filled my caffeine-boosted brain well into the wee hours this morning.

Victory is theirs!

Scott Wichmann and Mark Persinger won the Sport Radio walk-on-week challenge and will be working the drive time slot on 910AM today from 3pm to 6:45pm! Big congrats to Scott and Mark! For more details, check out Scott's blog and then tune in this afternoon for more entertaining chatter from the Bleacher Creatures.

Two Moderate Disappointments

In addition to the current voting percentages not being shown on the Sports Radio Walk-on-Week site, I just noticed this bit of weasel-ese on the site: "The final results will factor in to picking the winner, who will be invited to fill in for Wes McElroy in August!" "WILL FACTOR IN"?!!? Hmmmm.... Sounds like 910AM has gone a little American Idol on us; our votes counted for something, but for how much, perhaps we'll never know...

Also, finally slipped out to see "The Dark Knight" last night. Perhaps my expectations were too high but...I wasn't over-the-top impressed. Didn't have as much fun as "Iron Man." The combat -- like in all of these movies these days -- is filmed so you can't tell what's going on. Thought the many plot implausibilities were annoying. Thought Batman's gravelly rasp was a bit ridiculous.

On the plus side, loved most of the supporting cast including Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine and of course the supreme effort of Heath Ledger -- truly awesome. Thought the ferry stand-off was generally well-done. My favorite scene was the Joker walking out of the hospital with his faulty detonator.

So -- great movie but not as transcendent as the huge box office would have you believe, in my humble opinion. Of course, I'm not a film critic...

Summer Valentine

I still haven’t managed to get out to Hanover Tavern to see “Shirley Valentine” (sorry, JB!) I also realized recently that while I often link to Susan H’s reviews in the T-D (and mine and Mary B’s in Style, of course), I don’t always note reviews in other media outlets. So, in an effort to address both of those deficiencies, here’s a link to the Richmond.com review of “Shirley,” a nicely glowing review from Joan Tupponce.

Luckily, there aren’t going to be any cast substitutions in “SV.” Not so the case in “There Goes the Bride,” so I’m going to hustle out to the Mill and see it tonight. As Greta Dollitz would say, “Won’t you join me?”

This Season's Stars on Stage

Ran across this article in USA Today at lunchtime. Pretty interesting, though honestly, the only star appearance that gets me more than vaguely excited is Kristin Scott Thomas in "The Seagull." I'm sure Daniel Ratcliffe and Jude Law have their fans (and I like them both fine) but I'm not running up to NYC or flying over to London to see them. But maybe all of these star appearances will draw the crowds away from the show I want to see and I'll be able to get better tickets!

Casting Around for News

I’m sure there’s plenty to talk about on the local theater scene that I’ve missed lately because of being mired in my own little world. I could, for instance, berate myself further for not getting out to see SPARC’s “West Side Story,” which everyone has been telling me was just awesome. I could also comment on the summertime shows that are going to have cast substitutions soon – Harry the Horse in “Guys and Dolls” and a couple of folks in “There Goes the Bride” – and ponder how those kinds of changes alter the chemistry and timing in a show (does it tend to throw other cast members off or is everyone actually a little sharper? Discuss.)

But instead I find myself wondering how it is that Fergie got cast in “Nine?” Fergie? Maybe I shouldn’t judge; I mean, she did pull off a couple of great one-armed cartwheels during the American Idol finale. And I didn’t realize she had acted before. Perhaps I’ll rent “Grindhouse” and then judge the wisdom of that casting decision…

The Fergie announcement also had me thinking about stage-to-screen adaptations in the past and how they seem to always lead to some controversy over casting. Ever since the big “My Fair Lady” dust up more than forty years ago, second-guessing directors who look at star power versus vocal ability has been a national pastime. Rob Marshall definitely heard about it when he went with Renee Zellweger in “Chicago” and there were those who doubted both the leads in “Sweeney Todd” and I still don’t get the inspiration for John Travaolta in “Hairspray.” But, judging by the relative success of all of these adaptations mentioned, maybe directors actually know what they’re doing? Who’d’a thunk it?

Amen and Pass the Microphone

There ain't nothing new about theater in this week's Style, which gives me the opportunity to point out the wonderful remembrance of Liz Marks written by Irene Ziegler that was in last week's issue. I only knew Liz tangentially, but everything I read or hear reinforces the vision of her as just an incredible human being. Her passing is a great loss.

Just as tragic is the loss of someone who had as much potential as Reid Ashe. Reid had worked for the Barksdale and his passing is memorialized on their blog. Please hold Reid's parents in your hearts and prayers.

Even as hot as it is, it seems like a good day to hug the people you love.

Desire

U2’s “Rattle and Hum” album came out 20 freaking years ago and I still can’t read the word “desire” by itself without hearing it in my head as “De-si-I-I-I-I-ur.” But enough about my head…

You can’t talk about “A Streetcar Named Desire” at Sycamore Rouge without talking about Terry Menefee Gau. She does amazing things with a character seemingly tailor-made to showcase acting technique. It was my lovely wife who pointed out to me that even good actors think they have to “act drunk,” whereas an exceptional actress like Gau realizes that a real person who IS drunk generally is trying NOT to act drunk. This realization is clear in the many scenes where Blanche is getting drunk or is already there, and Gau shows both restraint and vigor in her performance. Gau does not condescend to Blanche, giving a finely attenuated portrayal of someone defensive but defiant, self-deluding but also self-aware, and all too thoroughly convinced in the forthrightness of her actions. The character of Blanche interacts with each other character entirely differently. Part of the power of Gau’s performance is that whether Blanche is with Stella, Stanley or Mitch, she is totally Blanche but also a different aspect of Blanche, unique in its mannerisms, tendencies and tone of voice.

Of course, if Gau didn’t have at least solid, and sometimes spectacular, support, her performance would get lost like a diamond on the beach. Equally as shiny as Gau was Angela Shipley as Stella. Stella spends a fair amount of time listening and reacting, but in some of the key scenes, Stella’s role is as vital as Blanche’s and Shipley nails these. A couple of my favorite Shipley moments were when Stella is first describing how she feels about Stanley and her desire is palpable and then later during the dinner scene when Stanley “clears the table.” In this scene, Shipley shows you Stella falling into the cadences and attitudes of Blanche, until she is abruptly brought back to reality.

I have to commend Bill Brock for taking on such a tough role, one so clearly identified with an acting icon. It would be almost impossible for an actor, any actor, not to suffer in comparison. Brock certainly does well and I was particularly impressed with the cleverness and the native intelligence he infuses Stanley with. The main thing I missed was the vulnerability that lies under Stanley’s gruff exterior, that soulful sensitive guy that really is lost without Stella. Capturing that in addition to everything else required of Stanley is a pretty tall order but its one of the things that kept Brock’s performance just a notch below that of the ladies, in my humble opinion.

I was sorry not to be able to mention Stafford Armstead as Mitch in my review. Casting an African-American in this role is an interesting choice and possibly distracting, particularly given Blanche’s apparent uneasiness around Dot and Eunice when she first comes onstage. Even so, Mr. Armstead does an excellent job, particularly given how much time he spends on stage just listening to Blanche. Armstead seemed just a wee bit awkward on stage, which either he was and it worked well for his character, or he wasn’t and it was an even better job of acting than I already gave him credit for.

It is always fun to see Shanea Taylor onstage and she and Dean Knight were entertaining as the upstairs neighbors. And it’s worth recognizing the thankless role of the Mexican woman played by Alison Haracznak. Actresses like her, who have to show up every night, say a couple of lines or fewer, and, in the case of Haracznak, spend their brief time on stage covered up and unrecognizable are among the real troupers of professional theater.

Finally, I couldn’t let this ramble go without mentioning the direction of Tommy Schoffler. Schoffler does a commendable job with an obviously challenging work. I look forward to seeing more from him in the future.

Full to Overflowing

As I watch the little gully that runs beside my house fill to a raging torrent thanks to this evening’s storm, I’m reflecting on how much entertainment I’ve stuffed myself with this weekend. Though I didn’t see him there, I joined Granville Scott (star of CAT’s “Harvey”) in watching the Lehigh Iron Pigs fall to “our” Richmond Braves on Saturday night. That was after an afternoon basketball game (my talented daughter was high scorer, though her team lost) and before sampling both a bad bad movie (“Domino”) and a good bad movie (“Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog”). Then today I followed Bruce Miller’s advice and brought all of the kids to see “Guys and Dolls,” which in some ways is a whole weekend’s worth of entertainment all by itself.

What’s fun about seeing a show like G&D a second time is to take in how its matured, how actors have gotten more comfortable with their characters (hopefully not to the point of boredom), and to catch things that went by too fast the first time. I laughed out loud during the final mission scene when Sky Masterson refers to the gamblers who have assembled, saying, “Sorry we didn’t have a chance to clean them up,” and amidst the hubbub that erupts Jason Marks as Nicely-Nicely Johnson said, “Hey, I flossed!” The great “Sue Me” duet between Adelaide and Nathan (Rachel Abrams and Scott Wichmann) seemed even funnier and more heart-felt the second time around. And the understated but affecting performance of Joel Grow as Arvide Abernathy – easy to overlook amidst everything else to take in on opening night – shone through more clearly.

A couple of other notes from the weekend:

- the almost criminally handsome and very personable Phillip Brown attended the same matinee of G&D as I did and set all of the T-line women’s hearts a-throbbing. If Richmond Shakespeare is selling advance tickets for next summer’s HV, I know at least three people interested.

- the Wichmann / Persinger pursuit of Sports Radio victory continues and no one seems to know when the voting is set to stop. As of Sunday at 7pm, they were 1% behind! Know any teenagers with extra time on their hands? Get them to vote!

- I ran into Terry Menefee Gau’s friendly and talented husband, David, for the second time in two weekends, which reminded me that I still haven’t weighed in with more in-depth-ish comments about “Streetcar” at Sycamore Rouge. That’ll have to wait until tomorrow. But until then, you can look over Susan Haubenstock’s review in today’s T-D that avoids the profusion of accolades that I showered upon the production and yet, is still very positive.

Mamma Mia!

I was a little taken aback at the beginning of the week when I read that “Mamma Mia!” had the highest grossing opening weekend ever for a movie musical. “Mamma Mia!”?!!? That didn’t quite seem plausible. Even more amazing is, when you look at its total international receipts, the movie has already made more than $110 million.

I poked around a little and pulled up this chart that showed the movie already #14 on the all-time movie musical chart and also that the #1 movie musical was “Grease.” Where was “West Side Story” or “My Fair Lady,” I wondered? Then I noticed that they hadn’t split musicals out into their own category until 1974 (on Box Office Mojo, at least.)

So I pulled up this adjusted for inflation chart and saw the old favorites I was expecting: “Sound of Music” with a total gross of nearly $1 billion, “Mary Poppins” with more than $500 million, even “Rocky Horror” within shooting distance of $400 million (“Lady” is at #52 and “West Side” is at #64, in case you’re wondering).

Phew! I can rest easy now knowing that, as popular as “Mamma Mia!” is, it’s got a long way to go before it eclipses any of the classics. Personally, I’m hoping to sneak out to see “The Dark Knight” this weekend… “Mamma Mia!” well, maybe it’ll come to the Byrd in a month or two…

PS: While we're talking movies, I came across this list of the greatest screen adaptations of Shakespeare the other day. It's a little tiresome to work through all 30 of them, but I skipped to the end and it gave me a couple of movies to think about next time I'm wandering around Blockbuster wondering what would be good to watch. You might want to check it out!

Last Day?

After regaining a brief lead last night, Scott and Mark currently stand at 5% behind in the Sports Radio walk-on-week voting. If you delete you Internet Browser's cookies you can vote multiple times. I'm just saying...

Zoinks!

Just to keep you up-to-date on the Wichmann/Persinger SportCenter situation: Joe Thomas & Kellen Owings must have mounted some massive voting campaign because they now have greater than a 6% lead! Time to get friends and relatives, churches and schools involved!

Enthusical about Seussical

Our friend Lisa has kept true to her word and has reported back with her impressions of the Idina Menzel show the other night (hers is the last comment on this post). Sounds like a wonderful performance.

While it isn’t shaping up to be the week packed with theater that was advocated for me, I did manage to trudge through the rain last night and see a performance of SPARC’s “Seussical Jr.” and was happy to have done it. Just a few comments:

Tanner Pippert, who had a small role as one of the Lost Boys in Theatre IV’s “Peter Pan,” stepped up to the lead to play Horton and was remarkably good. He has an excellent voice – strong, unwavering, always on key – and he projected the sensitive and valiant elephant with professional polish. This is a young actor to watch.

There were many other standouts in the cast – Taylor Williamson as Gertrude McFuzz, Annie Hulcher as the Sour Kangaroo, and several more. Eric Pastore, who played Jojo, was having some trouble with his voice but also showed great professionalism by hanging in there and pushing through the rough spots.

One thing I feel I must mention is the excellent performance of an ensemble member of the cast, Allison Gilman, who played one of five “Bird Girls.” This young girl could give some grown-ups lessons in being an engaged and enthusiastic member of an ensemble. Particularly in children’s theater where the talent and attention of the supporting players can vary wildly, Ms. Gilman stood out as being consistently focused, fully committed in her participation in the main action, and a talented and animated dancer. Great job, Ms. Director, Deb Clinton, but next time, can you find a lead role for Allison?

PS: The show's running tonight (7pm) at Temple Beth El and tomorrow (11am) on the Ha'Penny Stage in Byrd Park. FYI!

Oh Henry

I find myself in a weird position regarding “Henry IV, Part 2.” In a way, I found fault with it for being too good in parts, something that seems inconsistent. Let me explain:

As I said in my review, I really enjoyed the prelude to the show. The dancing / tumbling / chanting rhythmic work of some of the show’s hottest actors – I already mentioned all of dreamy boys previously so let me just add that Suzanne Ankrum is every bit as dark, dashing and beautiful as her male compatriots – was highly entertaining, energizing, amusing, and overall just a great way to warm the crowd up in anticipation of the opening curtain.

In contrast to that bracing beginning, what comes after seems largely like rehash of the superior “Part 1.” There are some countrymen unhappy with Henry Bollingbrook but unlike the rebels of Part 1, the scattered opposition in Part 2 never coalesces into a true threat and eventually disbands, allowing the leaders to be easily captured by the king’s lieutenants. Part of the shame of this is that Brandon Crowder makes a dynamic Archbishop of York. If Shakespeare was still writing today, I’d petition him for a prequel about York just so Crowder could star in it.

Christopher Dunn is fine as Northumberland but I didn’t sense any great sorrow from him at hearing of the death of his son, and ultimately, his character is convinced to flee to Scotland. I can’t find fault with the pleadings of his wife and daughter-in-law but still, dramatically, the ultimate result makes the whole subplot kind of unnecessary, in my opinion. (Any Bard scholars who want to argue for its absolute necessity, have at it; I’m all ears.)

As far as Prince Hal and Falstaff go, neither seems to have been affected greatly by the events of “Part 1.” Hal is still a partier and womanizer and Falstaff is still an oaf and a scamp. Reading the text closely would reveal some small changes in degree for both characters but, as far as what comes across on stage, not much seemed different to me. As should be clear by now, most of my complaints are about the play itself. According to the small bit of research I did on the play, it is not nearly as frequently produced as “Part 1” or “Henry V” and my assumption would be that is because of these structural deficiencies. (Thanks, Andrew, for your bit of history on the play. I hadn’t read your comment until after I wrote this post.)

Another weird aspect of the play is that the misadventures of Falstaff and his gallery of commoners takes up so much time and energy in the play but not only is this action much more tangential to the main plotline than “Part 1” but, in the end, Falstaff and crew are brushed aside by Hal as he moves on to bigger and better things. I understand that the new King putting his boyish ways behind him is part of the point, but was it really necessary to spend so much time with these vagabonds if that’s where we were going to end up?

This all might be forgivable if the scenes with Falstaff were laugh-out-loud hilarious but, in my opinion, they were not. Part of the reason is the material. I have to give Director (Master of Play) James Bond credit for trying to goose up these scenes with directorial bits of fun. Crowder playing Shallow as a leering homosexual has its charms. But Bond making Joseph Anthony Carlson play with himself for 10 minutes on stage while alternately sticking his toes up his nose – certainly downright ground-breaking in rude humor -- in this context just highlighted how little substance there was in these scenes, if you ask me. (For the record: while not exactly a Ferrelly Bros fan or anything, I certainly enjoy the rude humor; “The Aristocrats” is one of my favorite movies, for instance. Just saying.)

The other part of why these scenes didn’t work for me was the performance of Daryl Clark Phillips. I don’t want to pick on Mr. Phillips as he does a fine job in many ways – he can certainly play the scamp and truly seems like he could talk himself out of any situation. His pointed speech praising the benefits of “sack” was well-delivered and a strong aspect of the production.

But I’ve always thought Falstaff should be a bit of a rogue – a fading womanizer, someone who Prince Hal could have become if he didn’t have the money and the connections. It is the devilish rogue that Mistress Quickly and Doll Highstreet still love even when Falstaff cheats them and insults them. I didn’t get a sense of the rogue in Phillip’s performance. Also, there was a cadence-of-speech thing in Phillips’s performance that distracted me, times when he hesitated over lines or interrupted the internal rhythms. I don’t know if he was directed to deliver them that way or if it was an acting choice or if he was still having trouble remembering all of his lines at the first preview performance I saw. But the effect on me was that I lost patience with Falstaff fairly quickly.

I should say that there were several folks who seemed to enjoy the highjinks in these scenes. But, as Randy on “American Idol” would say, they were just a’ight for me. However, when Henry IV shows up back on stage midway through the second act, I was very quickly wrapped up in the action again. To be honest, I was disappointed when I heard that Jack Parrish was not going to play Henry IV, having given such a ferocious performance last summer. But my disappointment was dispelled immediately when Bridgewater started digging into the role. And when Henry starts to falter late in the second act, Bridgewater’s acting is truly exquisite. I really could have watched a whole night of Phillip James Brown’s Prince Hal and Bridgewater’s Henry going at it. Add in the whole court of Henry’s sons – played by Crowder, Carson, and Jeff Cole – and you’ve got a killer play with just those five actors.

So the hard thing was that these last scenes, particularly the tete-a-tete between King and Prince, outshone everything that came before it so completely that the moderately entertaining scenes in the middle seemed downright mediocre in retrospect. One thing the production did for certain though, was whet my appetite for Henry V. With the focus so solidly on Brown as the new king – and perhaps with Bond directing again? – I expect spectacular things next summer.

Two for Henry P2 plus Streetcar

This week's Style has a nice little profile of the handsome Phillip James Brown (by Mary B) as well as my capsule review of "Henry IV, Part 2," included with my raving outflow of adjectives used to describe "Streetcar" at Sycamore Rouge.

I'll have supplementary thoughts about HIVP2 tomorrow (by which I mean later today). Feel free to bombard me with questions or comments in the meantime.\

(910 AM Update: As of 8AM this morning, Wichmann / Persinger have a healthy 4% lead. But don't get complacent! Get out the vote!)

Rockin at the Rouge

I really meant to get out to Sycamore Rouge earlier. After all, it's just a couple of exits further down I-95 than Swift Creek Mill. Some of the shows they've been doing there have sounded interesting (Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, Nickel and Dimed, etc.). People had told me that the theater was really nice. Still, the months passed, shows opened and closed, and still I didn't make the trip.

Well, now I realize just how dumb that was. The theater is not just nice -- the couch and cafe table setup with an open bar and waitresses make it like no other theater around (you'd either have to merge the Firehouse and ComedySportz for something similar, or build a bigger stage in the cafe area of Barksdale's Willow Lawn location). The courtyard outside seems like a great place to hang out (when it's not 100 degrees) and the people there were quite warm and hospitable. The city street location gives it the ambiance of an urban enclave but the behind-the-venue parking makes it more accessible. And the production I saw, well, it was quite fantastic.

My outing to Sycamore Rouge last Friday taught me a valuable lesson: don't let new venues go unexplored. When the next new venue opens up in town (hmmm...maybe Stage 1 in a few months?), I'll be sure to get there, if not on opening night, at least shortly thereafter.

Guys (no Dolls)

I think the very first time I met Scott Wichmann, he talked about sports. He blogs about sports. He plays sports. He probably dreams about sports. He clearly has an abiding interest in sports.

Scott has found someone who shares his interests in castmate Mark Persinger (aka "Big Julie" in "Guys and Dolls") and the two of them make a great pair as guest talkers on Sports Radio 910. Besides both being great actors, they both have great radio voices, Scottie having more of that play-by-play polish and Mark having a hint of an accent that makes for a great color commentator. Check out a sample of them here and then vote the two of them as best walk-on guests. If they win, they'll do a full week stint next month. When I voted, they were 1% behind Chuck and Jimmy. You all can put them over the top!

(Update: as of 8:30am this morning, Scott and Mark had a .3% lead! That's pretty slim!)

Stressing out

OK, so I'm having a hard enough time handling the fact that there are 5 professional mainstage productions running right now -- at the end of July when sane people are supposed to be off at the beach somewhere. I'm lucky in that I've seen three of them but I'm going to be scrambling to catch the other two.

Then today, I was reminded that the "Parade" benefit concert has its last performance tonight. Love the idea of the show, love the list of performers (Rita...sigh...), would love to see the show, but I just can't make it. Also, both of SPARC's summer productions, "Suessical, Jr." and "West Side Story," start performances this week and I really want to see them as well. What am I supposed to do? There are only so many nights in a week, people!

Hank, Stanley and the Steingolds

Ms. Haubenstock ladled the accolades on “Henry IV, Part 2” in today’s T-D. I like the rollercoaster opening line, in particular, though my impressions of the goings-on were a little different than Susan's. More on that in a couple of days or so…

My wife and my best friend joined me at Sycamore Rouge's "Streetcar Named Desire" on Friday. It was pretty much the best company I could have asked for when taking in a play and so I was extra happy that the show didn't suck. I'll expound more on just how incredibly much it didn't suck in my opinion, also in a couple of days.

In the meantime, you may enjoy taking in this new blog by the Steingold sisters, two locals with some pretty impressive theater experience who have decided to share their often hilariously biting senses of humor via their perspectives on the theater scene. My favorite line of theirs that I’ve read so far is their impression of the Barksdale show, “The Clean House,” based on the audition announcement: “It's pretty much "Menopause: The Musical" but with Portuguese people. And without music. And with a man.”

I think I (and you too!) can look forward to many more laughs from these stage-oriented sisters in the months to come.

Boys

Last weekend, a friend of mine gave me some gentle ribbing about the public profession of my crushes in this space (by the way, Happy Birthday, Liz Blake!) As I think I’ve said before and will say again, one of the many reasons I enjoy theater is that I love great actresses, respect them, am in awe of them, find them fascinating, intriguing, uncommonly intelligent and incredibly attractive. And I write that with the hopefully understood follow-on statement that more than 16 years ago I was extremely lucky to convince the most beautiful actress I know to marry me, and so I’m not trolling around looking for a replacement (though I often tell the children I am…)

Anyway, while I love me some actresses, last night was all about the boys. If you are a fan of dark, dangerous and dashing young men, then “Henry IV, Part 2” should be a top-of-the-page addition to your must-see list. Normally, the fiery Tony Santiago (who was so good in last year’s “Spinning into Butter”) would satisfy the hunk quotient for any show but here he is just one of nearly a half dozen pieces of male eye-candy. There’s also Brandon Crowder who has something of a young Brad Pitt (remember him burning up “Thelma and Louise”?) about him and then the wild-eyed Joseph Anthony Carlson, who shows enough naked torso during the evening to set many a heart to racing.

And of course, there is the reprise of Phillip James Brown as Prince Henry, a bit shaggier than last summer but with every ounce of sex-appeal still intact. I’ll have more to say about the show itself in a few days, but Shakespeare notwithstanding, there are a lot of hot, talented men steaming up the Agecroft stage these days. If that floats your boat, I’d rush out and see the show before they catch fire and disappear.

Conversation Rejoined

Mr. Miller at the Barksdale Blog, once again showing his fabulous mensch-ness (?), has weighed in on some of the conversation that was going on here a few days back. For those who are late to the show, here's a link to some of the comments that were going back and forth.

The Non-Interview

It’s an ever-vexing journalistic conundrum: what do you do when the interview falls through? You’ve promised your editor a certain amount of words or a bunch of column inches and what you’ve got is bubkas, a bunch of research and old news and nothing straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.

An intern at Style apparently had to deal with that in her recent attempts to sync schedules with Idina Menzel, the Broadway chanteuse most recently celebrated for her run in “Wicked.” I quite enjoy Katy Johnstone’s “what she could be doing instead of talking to me” take on the situation, just as I enjoyed her “online only” review of Richmond Shakespeare’s “As You Like It” last week.

I will always have a small chip on my shoulder when it comes to Chris Rock who proved to be a bit of a tool when it came to committing to an interview with me some 9 years back. I used a fair amount of borrowed material and duct tape to put an article about him together just the same, but still resent that he couldn’t spare 10 minutes to give me an original quote or two.

But Brent Baldwin did an epic job in recounting his challenges in trying to score a chat with rocker Lou Reed, who, if you’ll pardon the language, seems to be something of a shit. On the other extreme, I just talked yesterday with Michael Clem of “Eddie from Ohio” for a piece I’m doing for Playlist magazine and he was about the nicest guy I talked to all week. He even emailed me a picture of his bandmate Robbie Schaefer and his pals Barenaked Ladies (one of my favorite bands). It’s great experiences like this one that clears the slate after a bad interview, making you realize that “celebrities” are just like other folks -- some are jerks and some are the salt of the earth -- only more so.

There Goes the Valentine

In the latest Style two-fer, both "There Goes the Bride" and "Shirley Valentine" are covered in a piece by Mary B in the latest issue. I'm gearing up for my own two-fer this weekend but am planning to get out to see both "Bride" and "Valentine" before the season slips away. Whatever happened to summer being a dead time for theater?

Stars on stage

I had some pretty exciting local news that I was asked very nicely to remove from this here site yesterday (I'll be sure and break it when I'm allowed...) so I’m turning to the national scene to fill the space. Yesterday, it was announced that Whoopi Goldberg is going to fill in for a stint at “Xanadu” later this month. Whoopi’s becoming a real Broadway advocate these days.

Also, in Hollywood casting news, Kate Hudson was added to the slate of top-notch actors working on the screen adaptation of “Nine.” Ms. Hudson doesn’t exactly thrill me but I do think it’s interesting that the role was created especially for her and that composer Maury Yeston wrote a new song just for her. Stage purists might get their backs up but given director Rob Marshall’s success with “Chicago,” I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that this will be a “value-add” kind of change. I guess we’ll see when the movie opens (presumably) next year…

Surely Shirley

Ms. Haubenstock has weighed in on "Shirley Valentine," which doesn't seem to have suffered quality-wise due to its delayed opening, at least in Ms. H's opinion. Given that it's anchored by Jill Bari Steinberg, I'm not really surprised. The last time I saw JB on stage was when she was moderating a panel of theater critics back in February and even in such a little, potentialy off-hand role, it was impressive the care she brought to the task and how she simply lights up on stage. If there's anyone I know who seems born to be an actress, it's Ms. Steinberg.

Life is Good

I’m wrapping up one of those rare weekends where I really feel in touch with all there is to appreciate about life (maybe it has something to do with finally getting my economic stimulus check…) In honor of that, this post is going to be all about good things.

First, my budding thespian son said tonight, “instead of commercials, I think the radio should just have tips about life.” “Like what?” I asked. “Like telling you to reuse your plastic water bottles and stuff.” Budding thespian, budding environmentalist, I could hardly be prouder.

I listened to a podcast interview with Laura Linney (sigh…) today in which she had this well-balanced thing to say about critics: “I'm one of those people who think theatrical criticism is very important. It's important for the historical record, it's important for the business, it's important. However, it's completely unfair to look to a critic to tell you how to feel about your own work. That's not their job. It's psychologically foolish. [But] we're all susceptible to it because we're all human.” Another reason for me to love Laura Linney.

I skipped right over this item in Style this past week about Rene Marie and the National Anthem. But then I heard about it from two different other media outlets and went back to read it again. How does this fit into the “good thing” paradigm? Because I think it’s a good thing to debate, particularly among performers. On one hand, when you are hired to do a job, it’s unprofessional really to do something that is not that job and because of that, I side with Obama on this one in the final analysis. However, I also love this kind of thing that shakes people up. So many aspects of our heritage, history and culture are just blandly or blindly accepted and only when someone does something unexpected do people really examine that aspect. For instance, isn’t it ironic that the line “land of the free” was written when slavery was very much in place and thriving in America?

One last good thing: I interviewed Rene Marie many years ago when she was about to appear in “Ella and Her Fella Frank” at the Barksdale and she’s really a sweet and amazing person.

Correction

As has been pointed out to me, the concert performance of "Parade" is next weekend (July 20-21), not this weekend. Duh. I'm fixin to get a handle on this whole calendar thing someday real soon.

Whether the Weather

Apparently because of weather-related power problems out at the Tavern, construction of the “Shirley Valentine” set has been interrupted over the past couple of weeks, leading to a postponement of opening night to Sunday afternoon. It’s the kind of schedule change that I imagine only gets made under extreme duress so I expect the folks at Barksdale are awash in reservation rescheduling madness. I’m still looking forward to the show, though it’ll probably be early-August before I can get out there.

If you were planning on going to “SV” tonight and now you’re looking for something to fill the space, there’s a very interesting sounding special event going on. Tonight down at Sycamore Rouge, bring your best Marlon Brando imitation to the “Stella!” Calling contest and fundraiser, held in anticipation of “Streetcar Named Desire” opening next week. Angie Shipley will be ensconced on the theater roof, waiting for the ultimate Stanley to call her down. Winner gets two tickets to opening night of the show. KB Saine says, “people are planning to rip off their shirts for Stella.” Doesn’t that sound like fun? If you want to warm up, there’s a link to the Brando original here (I think).

Another special event this weekend will be the concert version of “Parade,” produced by Hannah Zold and playing at the Barksdale at Willow Lawn on Sunday and Monday. More deets are here. You won’t see the impressive cast list on Barksdale’s site, which includes a large swath of the “Guys and Dolls” cast as well as many other Richmond faves. It should be an exciting event, and it’d be great if it whets people’s appetites for a full-blown production of what sounds like an amazing show.

Star struck

I'm a little hesitant to post anything because sometimes it seems like the longer I leave a topic alone, the more conversation it percolates. But I have to break away from the whole audition discussion to say that I had the occasion today to talk briefly with former Richmond resident Emily Skinner. Emily, who forevermore will have the moniker "Tony Award-nominated actress" attached to her name (at least until it changes into "Tony Award-winning" or "Grammy Award-winning" or some other such upgrade), is teaching a Master Class at SPARC today and tomorrow for the lucky cast of "West Side Story." Between Emily's visit and Caridad Svich working with New Voices I'd have to say that SPARC is really delivering the goods this summer. And that's not even mentioning their new building which is pretty awesome with scads of potential.

(Full disclosure: I didn't know who Svich was until I looked her up on her website. Then I remembered "Any Place But Here" and "Prodigal Kiss" and a couple other of her works.)

Anyway, I don't think I'd seen Emily since I was handing her props backstage during the original production of "Quilters" when she was about 16. And even though that was more than 20 years ago and there's been scads of water under the bridge since then, I was still a little star struck. I mean, I was a little star struck back when she was 16 and that was before the Tony nomination and the success in all sorts of productions since. I can report that Emily is still gorgeous and was very sweet and personable in our short chat. I think there are some very lucky SPARC kids who were probably a little star struck today as well.

And one final word on SPARC: as many of you have undoubtedly heard, one of SPARC's most valued employees, Ms. Erin Thomas-Foley, had her sweet little baby back on July 5th (for a cute picture, check out the muffinface blog). Congrats to Erin and Tony, Sophia looks like a little angel (and like a potential Tony Award nominee -- she's certainly got the genes!).

Playbill

I’ve become more impressed with Playbill’s nose for news these days. You’ve probably heard about the “Ragtime” controversy in Chicago. Playbill was the first to report on it and it was picked up by several other media outlets, including the New York Times.

In the past week or so, Playbill is also where I saw the first report of an exciting piece of news: Spike Lee (one of my favorite directors) will be filming “Passing Strange” for broadcast on cable TV. This is particularly exciting given that I’m afraid that, for all its critical love, the show does not seem like it’ll be playing for an extended run, at least based on its box office numbers.

One additional, minor Playbill item that peaked my interest: Hunter Parrish from “Weeds” will be taking over one of the leads in “Spring Awakening.” Though I am a “Weeds” fan, Parrish has never been one of my favorite aspects of the show. But I have a little more respect for him knowing that he must have at least a half-way decent stage presence (and singing voice) to have landed that role.

Subjectivity

It has been pointed out to me that a recent anonymous comment in response to my “Semi-relevance” post is such a thinly disguised reference to a specific audition that it essentially ‘disses a specific director and calls into question the casting of a specific actor under the guise of anonymity. As such, I have two responses to the comment.

--> If you are going to go after someone specifically, I think you should have the guts to say who you are. I don’t know which director you are accusing of being disingenuous, Anon, but I’m sure someone does. To throw a potshot like this without standing behind it is cowardly. I continue to allow anonymous posting on this blog but it’s comments like these that make me reconsider that policy.

--> In your comment you say, “There was a woman from out of town who got up to read for one of the leads. She was without a doubt the person that captured the role.” “Without a doubt?” As I’m sure you are aware, Anon, a role is not like a high score in a video game or a prisoner of war. It cannot be “captured” in any objective sense. What a director is looking for is completely subjective and based on dozens of factors. What look is he/she going for? How does one actor interact with another? How well do they take direction? Etc. etc. etc.

For a director to make the kind of speech you refer to, Anon, seems like a fairly forthright and proactive thing to do. Just because the resulting choice did not meet with your approval, I don’t think you have any basis for criticizing the sincerity of the director who made the speech. You can certainly question the wisdom of the choice that was made – but that will be borne out with the success or failure of the resulting production, not in the announcement of the cast list.

Goodbye Liz. We'll miss you.

As many of you have heard, Liz Marks passed away this morning. Liz was a mainstay in the Richmond community for many years and she helped dozens and dozens of actors in their careers through her casting agency. Beyond being successful, respected and liked, she was also recognized for her excellent work with a Emmy nomination in 2004. She will be missed.

No funeral arrangements have been announced yet, but I would suggest keeping an eye on the Caring Bridge site set up in her name for further information.

Shakespeare Riots

I heard a great story on NPR this morning about frontier productions of Shakespeare in 19th century America and a New York riot that resulted from a production of "Hamlet." I highly recommend giving it a listen for a small window into the theater world of more than a hundred years ago. It also is the first of three shows that Morning Edition will be doing on Shakespeare. Tomorrow: the infamous authorship question!

This serves as a great lead-in to talking about the production of “The Taming of the Shrew” that I saw in South Carolina. I went to this show with very low expectations; my experiences with out-of-town not-major-market Shakespeare have not been good, with a particularly hideous Colorado Springs production of “Titus Andronicus” still assaulting my memory. Luckily for me, there ended up being many exceptional things about this production.

The venue was charming. The Warehouse Theatre is a very nice, unassuming black box theater just a block away from the main downtown park area of Greenville. It’s kind of stuck on the end of a bunch of other shops and such but it has a great glass façade and the performance space is more than roomy enough.

This was at least the fourth, possibly the fifth, different production of “Shrew” that I’ve seen and yet it was the first I’ve seen that I remember including the Induction scenes with Christopher Sly. I expect these are usually cut to trim the show’s length. Including these scenes – and paying significant attention to them – is one of many interesting-though-not-entirely-successful choices made by the production’s director, Jayce Tromsness with the Distracted Globe Theatre Company. He also includes many bits of entr’act business involving the ensemble in clown garb. While the first couple of these are amusing, they diminish in impact in the second act and become nearly annoying by the end.

The main highlights of the production were an excellent Kate (Jennifer Goff) and an over-the-top hilarious Petruchio (Jason Shipman). Tromsness found many unexpected places in the script to cultivate for humor and Shipman maximized their impact fabulously. Shipman will be added to my list of itinerant folks to keep an eye out for. He is a gifted comic actor.

But to return to the Induction scenes: Tromsness uses the story of Sly to frame the Kate-Petruchio story in a way that sheds a different light on aspects of the plot that seem inherently sexist to the modern audience. It was hard for me to figure out if this different light was supposed to be ironic or just ridiculous. It’s a valiant effort to diffuse the problematic elements of the play but it causes problems of its own. The main one is that, if the framing device is supposed to be ironic, it undermines the sense of true affection that develops between Kate and Petruchio during the course of the play.

As thorny as the sexism is in “Shrew,” most productions I have seen deal with it by trying to communicate a sense of an authentic bond between the lead couple (in stark contrast to the more ephemeral or utilitarian couplings of the other characters). Tromsness tries a different and intriguing course of action. It’s great to be challenged by a different strategy and the result ended up being exceptionally entertaining.

Shooting for semi-relevance

I was going to talk about my South Carolina experience today but realized that there were much more relevant things to talk about. Specifically, Joe Pabst has been kind enough to share some of the ample contents of his mind in this space, in response to a post a couple of weeks ago and then again this past week.

Like Joe, I had some reactions to the anonymous poster who I think brings up many good points. So also like Joe, I’ll kick in my two cents in response to a couple of Anon’s assertions.

Anon said: “The same people work over and over at the same theaters, and there's a dearth of fresh blood to keep the heart of Richmond's theater vital.”

Believe me, Anon, there have been times that I have shared this exact sentiment, particularly at a time that I’m seeing a bunch of shows and I’m seeing a lot of the same people in all of them. I understand why it happens and Joe is right to point out that “People like working with people they like.” In any risky venture – and theater can certainly be risky – there’s a very good reason to go with what you know. There are enough variables to juggle already; wondering whether this new actor you’ve brought in has a hidden heroin addiction or will never be less than 30 minutes late for rehearsal are not things a director wants to worry about.

But here are two other elements to bring to that discussion. One is that some of the best surprises I’ve had at the theater involved an actor who I’d seen a dozen times before tackle something that was a true departure and totally nail it. The first distinct time I can remember experiencing this was when I saw Paul Deiss in “Greetings” years ago. More recently, I found Derek Phipps in the current “Guys and Dolls” a bit surprising. In fact, Mr. Phipps has been delightfully adept at avoiding typecasting. All I’m saying is that the same people working over and over again does not have to be boring or redundant if those people are given interesting material that might challenge them and surprise the audience.

Secondly, I have seen a fair amount of fresh young talent in the local scene in the past year or so. And younger and smaller companies like Henley Street, Sycamore Rouge, AART and CAT are pretty regularly giving actors new to the scene a chance to cut their teeth. You also have a young director like Jase Smith who has been able to bring new blood to RTP and the Firehouse. The bigger problem than a dearth of fresh blood in my opinion is the ability to keep the young and ambitious around long enough to fully exploit their talents. For a while there this spring I seemed to receive weekly reports of actors I had enjoyed watching leaving town. I guess it’s inevitable and I guess we’re lucky that U of R and VCU continue to bring new talent into the area. I just hope that enough students decide to hang on here so we continue to have a good supply of seasoned talent around.

Another comment from Anon that caught my attention was: “The average working New York actor will be stronger than the average Richmond actor, simply because of natural selection.” Hmmm… I can kind of see the logic of this statement if you are really talking about across-the-board averages but, in my opinion, I think the average working NYC actor will mostly be better at working the system (i.e., marketing themselves) and not necessarily a stronger performer. There’s really no way to come up with empirical definitive evidence to support either side of the argument on this one, though. It’s a mix of statistical ideas (averages) and completely subjective criteria (“stronger”).

I will offer this one anecdote that is contrary to Anon’s statement. I saw “Diary of Anne Frank” in Richmond with a cast of “average” Richmond actors and then just a couple years later, a Broadway production with a number of “average” NYC actors (including Natalie Portman as Anne). I can say that, in my opinion, across the board the Richmond cast was stronger than the Broadway cast.

OK, enough semi-relevant ramblings. Tomorrow: SC!

Bad Blogger

I've been a bad, negligent blogger this past week or so. Sorry. Too much travel in too short of time has taken its toll. I have much to say about my little sojourn to the Warehouse Theatre in Greenville to see "Taming of the Shrew." But that will have to wait until tomorrow. First I wanted to mention the review of "There Goes the Bride" at the Mill that showed up in the Times-Dispatch today. It was not exactly easy to find in print and even harder to find online but it was worth the search because it mentions favorably several of the nicest folks in local theater, specifically, Vicki McLeod and Richard Koch. 

They have been mainstays in the Richmond stage scene for many years and yet they both have the cheerful energy and vibrant good looks of teenagers. To the extent that it's possible to have a crush on a couple, I've had one on them for a long time, and I'm looking forward to heading out to the Mill to see "Bride" even though I, like Susan H. at the T-D, am not a big farce fan and I'm not even reviewing it.

Given that "Bride" also has Christine Schneider, John Hagadorn, Jolene Carroll, Brandon Becker, Joy Williams and of course Andra Honaker, it may qualify as one of the nicest casts ever! Regardless of their talent, I'm thinking Mr. Width may have assembled these folks just because he wanted the most pleasant directorial experience ever. Nice plan!

Gotta run

Got back into town yesterday, blowing out of town today. Don't like life as a whirlwind particularly when it means I have to miss Angie, Slash, and their burlesque crew at Studio X tonight. Oh well, maybe next time. But everyone else should go see them because really, when was the last time you saw burlesque?

The Allegory of the Elephant

So I must make a karmic apology to Greenville, SC, for any connotation I may have given that it was some kind of industrial wasteland. I was in the industrial area yesterday but this evening went downtown where they have a lovely riverside park with a beautiful pavilion where live music was playing (below is a picture that doesn't really do the area justice). The downtown center had a dozen or so nice restaurants and cool looking shops and three -- three! -- live performance venues within walking distance. Turns out that tomorrow night I could catch "Taming of the Shrew" or "Fiddler on the Roof" or a Kenny G concert. And the central city has about 60,000 people and the total population for the metropolitan area is about 400,000. It's something Richmond city planners might want to check out and take note of...

Also, many thanks to Joe Pabst for his thoughtful comments in response to my "Directions" post below. And Ms. Angie, I'm sorry we must part ways on Entertainment Weekly. I admit it's a guilty pleasure but I also don't know of a better place to go for a decent broad spectrum look at what's happening in all genres. For depth, I'll go to places like the New Yorker, but for breadth, gimme EW. They're also unrepentant fans of quality television like "Arrested Development" (alas, in vain) and "Lost" (thankfully, not in vain). I like that in a magazine.

PS

Please hold Liz Marks in your heart and send out your best wishes and prayers for her. She has been admitted to the hospital and is reportedly struggling to survive. Thank you.

Carolina Dreamin'

I'm outa town in the lovely industrial mecca of Greenville, SC., and so my posts this week may be a little sporadic. There's a theater down here called the Warehouse Theatre that's doing "Taming of the Shrew" that I may try to sneak out to this week. Should make for some interesting perspective.

I wanted to pass on that it's been pointed out to me that the lead actors in "Guys and Dolls" who currently reside elsewhere all have local ties to the Richmond area, including Ms. Markova who graduated from Godwin High School and Mr. Ashworth who grew up in Hopewell.

And as I was passing through Petersburg on my way south earlier today, I thought about the one-night only workshop performance of "Like Mother" that will happen at Sycamore Rouge this Friday. It's a one-woman show by "New York based performer" Shannon Polly. Before I get uppity and label her "another New York interloper" or some such thing, does somebody want to tell me what her local ties are?

50

So this past week's Entertainment Weekly (my entertainment Bible) did one of those things that publications do to generate backtalk. Their "New Classics" issue lists their picks for the best movies / TV shows / music, etc. of the last 25 years. People are guaranteed to disagree, some folks will get huffy, and the buzz generated about it will make the magazine seem relevant and possibly boost its circulation.

It's a pretty transparent strategy but, of course, it worked on me. First of all, while movies, TV, music and books all got a "Top 100," theater only got a top 50. Phooey on that. And the list (online you only see the list -- in the magazine there are little blurbs for the top 25) had plenty of room for argument. First of all, their view of the best seems to have a relatively short memory: six of the top 11 were produced in the past seven years. By that accounting, we must be in a new golden age of theater. And then some of the specifics are a little baffling. I love "Avenue Q" but putting that above "Into the Woods" and "Les Mis" -- huh? "The Producers" above "The Lion King" and "Wicked"? What?

I realized there were a bunch of shows that I thought were more relevant than the ones listed but that wouldn't make the list because they never made it to Broadway. "How I Learned To Drive" for instance, or "Anton in Show Business." Omissions like that -- and the fact that they wouldn't even qualify -- made me realize the essential irrelevance of this kind of list. West of the Hudson, the theater that matters is deeper, broader, and more interesting than any Broadway-only list.

But before I totally write it off, there were a few nice surprises on the list. I was happy "subUrbia" and "Burn This" showed up. And even at #49, "Topdog / Underdog" being there was a least a teensy recognition of some of the new frontiers in theater. What do you think of this list?

Also, I came across this "Top Moments from the Tony Awards" article on the EW site, too. It's a pretty good recap with some interesting supplementary info. FYI!

The Glow on "Charcoal Street"

I didn't think I was going to make it but I finally got down to AART's "Charcoal Street" Friday night at Dogwood Dell. And I was glad I did. In my opinion, the show has many problematic elements but it has a rock-solid backbone and you'd have to have a heart of stone not to get choked up at one or all of the many heartstring-pulling moments in the second act.

In a post that I wrote a couple of months ago (that some may remember only too well), I had responded to a challenge from Derome Scott Smith, AART's artistic director and the playwright responsible for "Charcoal Street," and said, "if you deliver a production in which no actor drops or muffs a line, no cue is missed, and no technical problem is obvious (all within the reasonable margin of error that I extend EVERY production) , I’ll be more than happy to write glowing remarks about it." I am very happy to report that Mr. Smith largely succeeded in delivering the goods with "Charcoal Street" (of course, there were a couple of sound problems, but that goes with the territory at the Dell). The T-D review mentioned some stumbling in line readings on opening night -- and there were still a couple of rough spots on Friday -- but overall, it was a very good, tight production. And several aspects of it were downright transcendent.

The story is incredibly compelling and the scope of it is perfect for the stage. Mr. Smith sets up the situation (two brothers living on the street, subsisting on the sales of the younger brother's artwork) well and adds in some nicely complimentary characters with Brick (Toney Q. Cobb) and Madam (Sharalyn Bailey). The inherent drama in the situation is balanced well with some great comic moments, many of them thanks to Mr. Cobb's spot-on performance. Bailey infuses her character with warmth and intelligence; you can't help but love Madam. And a real delight for me was watching Iman Shabazz as the preacher Mr. Gilliam. His character is almost too good to be true, but Shabazz has that inner light -- and a sweet, mellifluous voice -- to make you believe in his saintly champion of the homeless.

The bulk of the show, though, rests on the shoulders of the two brothers, Justin Delaney as the artist Nelson and Laurent St. Giles as the caretaker and businessman Quincy (or, as Brick says it, "Quin-say"). Delaney has a wonderful vulnerability and sensitivity that leaves no doubt that he could be the artist he portrays. St. Giles is a vibrant performer and does his best work when he is trying to reconcile his fierce love for his brother with his determination to get off the streets. He also has a great set of abs that I heard a couple girls swooning over as I left the show.

I truly enjoyed the show but I also thought it could stand a little work. There was quite a bit of telling-vs-showing, particularly in the more "talky" second act. But even in the first act, there was talk about "the streets," almost as if they were a character in the show, but only a sporadic sense of the challenges of being on the streets coming through. The nightmare scene with the brothers shivering in their sleeping bags was one of them. The backstory for most of the characters came out in big expositionary chunks; I would have liked it more if some of the character revelation came out in more organic ways. Quincy's success in the second act seemed too pat; is transition from years on the street to organizational success that easy? Finally, while I loved the literary references, a couple of them seemed a little shoe-horned in (e.g., the Medea reference in the second act). When Mr. Gilliam turned over the keys to Quincy at the top of the second act I thought of the bishop in "Les Mis." Whether an intended reference or not, it's a great moment.

But the trump card in the whole production was really the big finish. As Quincy says, "there are no words for this moment." Bruce Miller likened it to the end of "Quilters." If I might be so bold, I'd suggest the finale engineered by director L. Roi Boyd III has an even bigger impact. You get some sense of what the final quilt is going to look like throughout "Quilters;" when you see those "Charcoal Street" drawings all at once for the first time, you almost can't take it all in.

So, as I said above, I am very happy to report on the strength of this last production of AART's season. I will look forward to their 08-09 season eagerly and try my darndest to see more of their shows. If "Charcoal Street" is part of an upward ascendancy, there should be some very good work to talk about.

Directions

As I think I’ve mentioned in this space (and I know I said it at the Barksdale “Coffee and Conversations” roundtable on critics), it can be easy to overlook directors in the recognition of a show. Actors’ performances are in the forefront and the work of the designers is conspicuous. A director’s influence is everywhere and therefore in some ways nowhere. I think directors are sometimes not mentioned in reviews because it is hard for the critic to see or to know what the director had to do – beyond the obvious – to make the show work. Did he/she have to prod performers to get certain things out of them? Or did he/she have to rein them in and get them to focus? Was there one guiding principal that informed their direction or did they work it out scene by scene? What was their biggest challenge and how did they overcome it?

With a show like “Compleat Wrks” – where success seems so dependent on the interplay and the skills of the actors – the work of the director is particularly easy to miss. But coaxing that interplay into existence doesn’t just happen by itself. So Mr. Hamm is correct is saying that Matthew Ellis deserves recognition for guiding that play to success. And in my post yesterday, I mentioned the choreography without giving props to Patti D’Beck who was both director and choreographer. I’m trying to get better about this stuff, people, really I am!

So back to G&D and its visiting lead actors and the connection to Daisey’s indictment of regional theater… I haven’t seen “How Theatre Failed America” but I can at least respond to Rick’s comments.

I find his anecdote about the failure of TheatreVirginia while the downtown performance project was kicking off pretty troubling. The amount of money that can be raised to support a building – in contrast to a group of actual living people – is somewhat sad. Having said that, there has been discussion on this blog about the draw of nice venues. People respond to spectacle and there are few spaces, at least in Richmond, that are capable of supporting true spectacle. And venue debate transcends the arts world: what is the big contention for so many sports franchises these days? Upgraded venues. The reason Richmond is losing the Braves has nothing to do with how good the performers (aka players) are or what they’re paid; it’s all about a new stadium.

There are aspects of the situation facing actors that are analogous to other challenges in our current business environment. What’s one of the first things that turn-around specialists do in the corporate world? Cut the labor force. The use of out-of-town actors – isn’t this just a variation on out-sourcing? Instead of Hewlett-Packard looking to India for customer service people, you have regional theaters looking to New York for actors.

I work in the computer world 9 to 5 and I see how it favors flexibility these days; you can be an expert in one hot technology but then another technology becomes hotter and you have to adapt. Is the theater world much different? For working actors, the multi-talents seem to have the most success – if there's no work in straight plays, their ability to sing or dance (or run a light board or build sets) enhances their ability to stay employed.

But while thoughts like this may be great for making rhetorical points, they don’t address the grim-ness of the situation for actors. As Rick says, “actors…are a dime a dozen, flown in from New York to live in a dorm for 7-8 weeks with no connection to the community they are working, spending their one day a week off back in New York auditioning for their next gig somewhere else... Our society loves stars and celebrities...working actors are an entirely different breed.”

I think about all of the actors whose work I love and who have already left, or will soon be leaving, Richmond because they can’t make a living here. I also think about an actress like Rita Markova (this blog will not be “all Rita, all the time,” really, I promise). I don’t know Ms. Markova but you can tell from her recent credits that she moves around a bit. She seems like one of the itinerant actors to whom Rick is referring. She is lovely and she has amazing skills. As I mention in my review, she breathes life into a potential two-dimensional role in “Guys and Dolls.” In the Havana scene, it isn’t all about Sky for her. Her increasing abandon isn’t just a loss of inhibitions, it’s a rediscovery of vitality, a sense of relief as she sheds the burden of her mission-related anxieties. She comes to life in that scene and she brightens up the stage when she does.

Someone like Ms. Markova could land a role on Broadway or on a soap or even in movies. But those are often “lightning-strike” type events, rare and hard to predict. Isn’t the American dream about how anyone working hard, with a certain amount of skill and a modicum of luck, should be able to succeed? Should someone have to wait for lightning to strike before they can settle down in one place, maybe raise a family, and make a decent living?

Sad to say, I don’t have any solutions or even many suggestions. But I do know I’ve rambled on here (just as I feared) long enough. So I’ll go ruminate some more and see if I can think of anything helpful to say. In the meantime, please feel free to put forth your ideas.

Opening the spigot

The reportage and musings of expatriate friend Mr. St. Peter about the goings-on at the TCG conference in Denver, particularly his thoughts on Mike Daisey’s “How Theater Failed America,” have been rattling around my brain for a week now. I’m almost afraid to start writing in response because I could see myself getting into subjects that I could ramble on about for pages and pages. Once I open that spigot, I’m not sure how I would plug it back up again.

So I thought I would start with “Guys and Dolls,” knowing that talking about this particular production will eventually lead me into the territory I’m afraid of but maybe, with a little more of a focus, I won’t become reckless or just plain boring.

Among the things that have to be said about G&D is how great the choreography is. When I used the term “Broadway-caliber” in my review, one of the principal things I was thinking of was the ensemble dancing. Not infrequently, even in a really awesome local show, there are ensemble players that are pretty obviously not as skilled as the rest of the crew. It’s a reminder of the challenge local producers and directors have in finding uniformly excellent talent for a show. (I should also mention that there have certainly been shows I’ve been to on Broadway where a chorus member seemed out of their league. It’s just less common in my experience.) But the G&D ensemble does not, as far as I could tell, have a minor leaguer mixed in with the pros. And some of the featured dancers, particularly Mary Page Nance who makes such a splash in the “Havana” number, were true knock-outs.

The male voices were also exceptionally strong. The trio of Jason Marks, Landon Nagel and David Malachai Becker that Susan highlighted in her review for their performance of “Fugue for Tinhorns” provide a great introduction to how great the guys sound throughout the show. Jason may get more of the attention for his Nicely-Nicely -- and its certainly deserved -- but Mr. Nagel (as Benny Southstreet) deserves a shout-out as well. He does great work in fleshing out the vibrant background of this production. As I noted in my review of the Swift Creek Mill production six years ago, if the talent stops with the lead players in G&D, the show just doesn’t have the same zing.

On those lead players: it was great to see Scottie reprise Nathan Detroit. The boy owns the character. And I loved the chemistry between him and Rachel Abrams (not Adams!) as Adelaide. Ms. Abrams does a great job infusing her character with a genuine humanity, making her love for Nathan unmistakable and her weariness at her extended engagement palpable. As far as Ms. Markova is concerned, well, I can’t do much more than sigh at her exquisite beauty and admire the iridescence of her lovely voice. But more on that in a minute.

I’m sorry to say that I was not particularly impressed with Mr. Ashworth as Sky, but my reaction made me realize that in many ways his role is the hardest of the four leads. Sky has to have enough of that elusive magnetism to make goody-goody Sarah fall for him, while maintaining the toughness of a career gambler. As someone said to me on opening night (it might have been my wife), he has to be dreamy (some previous Skys to ruminate on: Marlon Brando, Peter Gallagher, Ewan McGregor, Larry Cook). In contrast I found Ashworth’s performance, well, a bit boring. He does a good job of projecting some vulnerability as his character starts to fall in love with Sarah but, by the “Luck be a Lady Tonight” number, I think that vulnerability has to galvanize into resolve and passion. I didn’t get any of that in the performance I saw.

An aspect of the show that kind of begs to be pointed out is the nearly inexplicable transition from “Marry the Man Today” to the finale. After everything that comes before it, it seems rushed and doesn’t really make sense. It’s a lame-ish ending tacked on to a pretty awesome show, IMHO.

Three of the leading actors in the Barksdale production are from out of town and I’d like to use that fact to transition into a discussion of “How Theater Failed America.” However, I see I’ve already rambled on pretty considerably so that will have to wait for another day. Stay tuned!

Fix

Link to Style reviews for "Guys and Dolls" and "Compleat Wrks, etc." has been fixed. FYI.

Also, if you need another "Reefer Madness" fix, it has been extended an additional weekend. There will be a different kind of fireworks at the Firehouse this Fourth of July.

More complete thoughts on "Compleat"

So I've got to think that the folks at Richmond Shakespeare are happy that we seem to be enjoying a respite from 100 degree days for a while. I know the night I was at Agecroft for "TCWofWS(A)," the weather was lovely. And a lovely night at Agecroft is lovely indeed.

There is a way in which the well-constructed silliness of this show defies criticism; it really comes down to execution. And the three guys in this cast do a great job. They all seemed quite comfortable with the loose, improvisational nature of the show. I expected as much from Jeff Clevenger with his many years of Improv experience. But such poise in the younger fellas -- particularly recent VCU grad LaSean Green -- was a delightful surprise. I hope to see more of David Janosik because he was hilarious and some of my favorite moments of this show involved him -- his enthusiastic fake vomiting, the water-in-the-face for Ophelia, etc.

It is often the small, tossed-off things that turn out to be the best aspects of a show like "TCWofWS(A)." The "house lights" -- very nice. Another favorite off-hand moment was the bit about LaSean having to point out that he was black and could play "Othello." It was so random and then just quickly moved past -- also nice.

On the night I attended, I thought it showed some hutzpah for the guys to bring Mr. Haubenstock's husband on stage to play an aspect of Ophelia's psyche -- her id I believe. He seemed game though, and I guess that's what you get for sitting on the aisle!

I had forgotten that there are a couple racy parts in the show; when you lay out those Shakespearean plots without the camoflage of Elizabethan language, there's quite a bit of sex and raunch. Just another of the many reasons Shakespeare is so beloved! I'm hoping to entice one or both of my daughters to go see this show because I think it shows how much fun Shakespeare can be.

Speaking of Shakespeare, I had one of those moments when I wished I lived in New York recently when I was reminded that Lauren Ambrose was going to be Ophelia in the Shakespeare in the Park production of "Hamlet." I've loved her since "Six Feet Under" and, according to at least one fan, she was the best part. Sigh. Oh well, I'll have to be satisfied with Rita Markova in "Guys and Dolls" -- also pretty fantastic.

Quick question on Charcoal Street

Does anyone know whether Charcoal Street would be appropriate for kids -- like in the 7-8 year old range? There's no content advisory on the AART website; in fact, there's no info about whether the show is actually still happening at Dogwood Dell this weekend. Could anybody out there fill me in? I appreciate it!

Sir Links-a-Lot

I had been planning to write some supplemental stuff to complement my reviews in today's Style. But work -- work! -- of all things got in the way. So until I can get a sec to wax more elequently on the grandness of "Guys" or the kookiness of "Compleat," here's a couple of other links that you might find interesting.

First, Katie Holmes opens on Broadway in a couple of months. We knew that was happening but check out the little round up of ticket prices at the bottom of this article. Yikes! And here I was thinking $9 movie tickets were getting outrageous.

Also, I was saddened to read about Cyd Charisse's death. She wasn't really a Broadway star -- not appearing on the Great White Way until she was 70 -- but I think that her work in many movie musicals inspired many other dancers who did end up on Broadway.

The Plunge

Ahhhhh...I'm falling....

I've avoided the whole MySpace / Facebook universe for months and months, knowing the scent of a timesuck when I smell it. Well, this past weekend I took a teeny-tiny step in and OMG, I could not have even imagined what a humungous monstrous gargantuan potential timesuck it is. As my family can verify, at one point this weekend I actually had to turn and run away from the computer to save myself. It's so addictive!

I write this because, in my wanderings around the Facebook world, I have probably sent out all sorts of friend messages not totally understanding what I was doing and what the ramifications would be. I can be clueless that way sometimes. So I apologize to any of you theater folks out there who get something Facebook related from me and wonder what the heck I'm up to. I'm just fumbling around trying to figure it out. Thanks for your patience...

Ironies

There was a little piece of personal irony around the Tonys for me this year. Attending my first ever Tony Awards party (which was a great time -- thanks a bunch, Gray and family) kind of distracted from hearing who actually won. But that's what DVRs and the newpapers are for. Variety had a great recap this morning that filled in all the gaps for me. There's a telling line near the end of the piece though where the phrase "least surprising win" is used. It did seem to me that many of the big awards were pretty easy to predict. I must admit to being floored, though, that Mark Rylance won over the high-powered Hollywood duo of Stewart and Fishburne.

One thought occurred to me when considering the wins for "In the Heights," which is that it's pretty cool that a Latino-centric musical is the toast of Broadway. This is at a time when television in particular is wringing its collective hands about the lack of diversity on network shows. Most egregiously under-represented: Latin-Americans. Isn't it ironic that theater -- frequently looked down on as the realm of elites and an older, moneyed audience -- seems to be taking the lead in terms of artistic diversity?

And to wrap up my personal Tony coverage, this list of "Wow!" moment from previous years' shows is pretty interesting to look through even though the awards themselves are over for this year. Anyone else have any Tony Award thoughts they'd like to share?

Dolls

I dragged my poor exhausted wife out to opening night of "Guys and Dolls" last night. She enjoyed the show -- being a lover of the show's music since playing Adelaide in high school -- but I think she would have enjoyed a nice long nap even better.

A night out with my sweetie (even when she's under the weather) enhances any show for me but I had even an additional treat last night. Seated to my left was the lovely and talented Jennifer Meharg, wife of "G&D"'s Nathan Detroit, the lucky and talented Scott Wichmann. Besides being extremely friendly, Jenn is stunningly pretty so while sitting by her and making pleasant conversation, I was kind of feeling like an awkward teenager. Perhaps I'm always a little additionally intimidated by her because the first role I remember seeing her in was "The Secretaries" at RTP where she pretty convincingly played a psycho killer. It looks like she was pretty angry in "Richard II" last year, as well.
If you need a personal trainer, though, don't be intimidated. She's really nice in person.

We availed ourselves of the valet parking at the Empire, which seemed to be quite a hit with the older patrons (um...like us). The show was everything you'd expect from one of TIV / Barksdale's mainstage productions at the Empire, that is, pretty darn dazzling. Once I've had a chance to get some more specific thoughts down in a review, I'll elaborate. I also had a great time at Richmond Shakespeare's "Compleat Wrks" on Thursday, where I had a chance to chat with critical companions Susan H. and Mary B. It seems as though Susan had a great time as well; check out her review in today's paper.

Shows in Shorts

I am thanking the weather gods that the temperature has fallen off a good 10 degrees since last week. It’s projected to be a nearly tolerable 82 degrees at curtain time tonight for “The Compleat Works of Wilm Shkspr (abridged)” tonight at Agecroft. I remember seeing this show at the Barksdale many moons ago with David Bridgewater, Richard Koch and someone else who I can’t recall (Update: as many have pointed out to me, the third actor was Michael Todero) (Update #2: Todaro). I have no idea who Richmond Shakespeare has cast so I truly don’t know what to expect tonight. Except for much zaniness and no small amount of sweat, both onstage and in the house.

I really like eraserhead’s idea, posed as part of the “Critics are not the enemy” discussion, for some kind of ongoing thread of reader-generated conversation at this site. I’ll be exploring options for that over the next week or so and see if I can come up with anything. From collaboration comes progress, right?

Fantasia

This week's Style "high"lights two types of fantasia, the drug-induced kind featured in "Reefer Madness," reviewed by Ms. Mary B, and a musical fantasia about Richmond appearing in NYC of all places. How I wish it was playing nearby so we could all hear and see the kinds of music our city inspires.

Critics are not the enemy

At one point this past weekend, I worked myself into a good little snit. I think it started percolating a couple of weeks ago when I re-listened to a podcast of Bill Davis (playwright of "Austin's Bridge" from last summer) in which he was asking insinuating questions about the motives and the vetting of theater critics. Then last week I heard an interview where Edward Albee talked about how he’d prefer that his productions not be reviewed because he would rather that people come to the theater without any preconceptions. Then just a couple of days ago, someone who I think is a very talented comedienne called a rave review about her show "terrible" because it included one lame line about our world “where women are not smart or funny” – a line that I at least took to be ironic.

There are plenty of things wrong with the world of theater and live performance but I don’t see critics as being a significant part of the problem. Call me defensive but I don’t understand why some people want to make critics the bad guys (or bad gals). In response to Mr. Davis: I don’t know any critics with an agenda other than wanting to see good stuff that they can write about. In response to Mr. Albee: theatergoers may be art lovers but they are also consumers who are being asked anywhere from $20 to $150 for admittance into a show. Without theater critics you may get fewer people with preconceptions coming to the theater …or you may just get fewer people coming to the theater.

And to my comedienne friend: critics are people, too, and sometimes they write lame stuff. But performers shouldn’t expect a flawlessly written review any more than a critic should expect a flawlessly performed show. Nobody and nothing is perfect; I think judgments should be made with that in mind.

These comments come at a time when critics in general are disappearing. NPR did a story recently about the couple dozen or so movie critics that have been fired or retired recently in major markets. Here in Richmond, there was a time when there were two daily papers, each of which had a full-time staffer doing theater reviews. Now, the T-D has a couple of freelancers.

Movie box office doesn't seem to be suffering because there are fewer critics. But movies have massive marketing machines and movie trailers are ubiquitous on the Internet. For theater, critics are still an important part of getting the word out about a show. Until theater companies can develop their own massive marketing machines, critics will continue to play a key role. There are plenty of theater reviews that I’ve disagreed with or thought were lame in one way or another. But I’ve never read a review that was as vociferous in its sentiments as some of the average audience members I’ve talked to who were disenchanted with a show. A critic (who has usually attended for free) may be disappointed; the average consumer (who has ponied up significant funds for admission) may feel downright cheated.

In my experience, the great majority of theater professionals appreciate critics – if sometimes begrudgingly – for their role in the art / commerce system. But for those few who look at us as the bad guys, I have a question: if theater critics suddenly ceased to exist, do you really think the theater world would be better off?

No Joy in Mudville

There was much sadness in the T-line house as Big Brown seemed to barely make it to the finish line at the Belmont on Saturday. That, plus the death of Jim McKay made for a generally down day sports-wise this past weekend.

I was also a little sad and puzzled that the review for AART’s “Charcoal Street” got pushed over into the Metro section on Sunday. I imagine it’s just a publishing / timing thing but it seemed to me that more theater reviews were actually ending up in the Flair / Arts / Entertainment area – where I kinda think they belong – in recent weeks. Oh well.

Ms. Lewis’s review suggests a strong show and I’m interested and excited about a “raised…bar of expectations for next season.” The “stuttering and stumbling” comment makes me a little wary but I’ll go and be hopeful and see what there is to see.

The best news I’ve received recently is that Jill Bari Steinberg will be “Shirley Valentine” out at Hanover Tavern next month. I’m not sure where that puts her in the local one-person show sweepstakes with Scott Wichmann but, if you count both productions of “Syringa Tree,” I think that might bring her even with Scott at three (“JHH,” “Fully Committed,” “I Am My Own Wife”). Could someone correct me if I’m wrong?

PS: An interesting aside: Here’s a story from a few years ago of an actor who right before doing “Fully Committed” did “Richard III” – the show that Scott’s doing in the fall. Weird coincidence!

Thyme for Rosemary

Having not seen either the cannibalism or the gratuitous sex, my favorite part of "Reefer Madness" may be this picture that Style ran in the calendar section this week. It just about captures how I feel at the end of a long week sometimes.

Anyway, it's been really hard to figure out what else I should say about "A Dash of Rosemary" (still playing at the Mill) because I think my review captured most of my thoughts on the show. I think the expositional structure of the show is a bit annoying. I know these musical revues are just that, revues. I don't expect them to be big on plot or character development. But "Rosemary" is pretty much: "and then this happened...and then this happened...and then this happened." That's all fine but it ends up being fairly boring and surprisingly uninformative because you only have time for so many facts in between all the songs. I learned more about Clooney in the Wikipedia article about her than I did in this show. I've always heard theater is about showing and not telling, and there's quite a bit of telling in this show. This drawback is accentuated by the repeated mentions of Clooney's devotion to her fans or her music. She was obviously not a saint -- nobody is -- but the show seems to be trying to make her out as one.

Having said all of that, I left the show pretty darn happy, mostly -- perhaps solely -- because of the performances. I cannot heap enough praise on Ms. Motley-Fitch; my adjectives just don't do her justice. There's something awe-inspiring about someone who can start a song singing softly and slowly but without wavering and then build up to a full belt without hardly a hiccup, off-note, or pause in between. It's like being in a car that goes from zero to 60 in 10 seconds and the engine never even strains.

I have to agree to some extent with Ms. H in the T-D that it doesn't do Mr. Becker -- who has a perfectly fine voice -- any favors to partner him up with Motley-Fitch and Katrinah Lewis. It does set him up to pale in comparison. But I applaud him for holding his own in the same ring with these two vocal heavyweights. And one thing I like about Brandon is that he seems happy on stage, a trait he shares with Lewis. Because of their on-stage demeanor, the show is never less than pleasant, and often quite delightful.

I used the word "angelic" to describe Ms. Lewis because there's almost an ethereal light around her. Her voice is pitched surprisingly high -- I always expect earthier alto-ish tones from her -- and is sweet and clear. Like Cathy, she also makes the work she does seem effortless. But even with her great singing and bright demeanor, what I'll remember about her in this show were the times she looked more sad or thoughtful. Already a very pretty woman, she looks especially beautiful with a pensive expression, in my opinion.

Well, I guess I did have a couple of things to say about "Rosemary!" Gotta run but just wanted to add, I'll hope everybody will tune in and join me in rooting for Big Brown tonight -- see sports history in the making!