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.

Into the Woods

“Into the Woods” at the Barksdale has already received all sorts of rave reviews – and I really like how they’ve integrated critical comments and pictures on their web site. Check it out if you haven’t seen it – it’s pretty cool.

But due to the often complicated scheduling of things at Style, my review won’t come out until next week. As you’ll see when you read it, I’ve added my own smatterings of high praise. I love the show and thought it was a fine production. In particular, I loved the nuance and depth I saw in Robyn O’Neill’s performance as the witch. And I could have watched Rita Markova all night; she is just lovely and extremely talented. I guess I have a thing about beautiful brunettes with knock-out voices (are you reading, Mrs. T?) And so you won’t think I am just a leering sexist, I found the princes’ both exceptional. Mr. Resnick and Mr. Rowland doing “Agony” and its reprise were about my favorite parts of the show.

But unlike Ms. Haubenstock and others, I didn’t feel this production deserved an unconditional rave. On opening night, I heard someone miss a note. Not unusual so I didn’t give a second thought. But then someone else missed another note. When it reached 3 or 4 instances, I couldn’t ignore it. I don’t have the best ear in the world but after all of those hours of “American Idol,” I know when something’s “pitchy.” This is also in contrast to “Austin’s Bridge” which I just saw last week – the songs may have been somewhat less complicated in that show but I didn’t hear a bad note all night at that opening. And that was with only piano accompaniment where I believe a vocal clunker would have stuck out more plainly.

There was also at least one song where the tempo seemed odd (OK, it’s Sondheim but even odder than you might expect) and another when the violin seemed to be playing off a different score entirely.

I also was unimpressed with the scenic design, though in fairness this is in comparison to the incredible work the Barksdale has put on before. And I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that giant’s arm before; perhaps in something Theatre IV has done in the past?

These are all minor indiscretions, particularly in the face of how good everything else is, and some of the musical mishaps may have been ironed out by this point in the run. Also, in fairness I should say that I still have tucked in my memory banks the Swift Creek Mill production from 15 years ago, which set the bar pretty high in terms of this show. I try to avoid straight comparisons between productions at all costs but I can’t deny that the fond recollection of that production influences how I have seen every production of “Woods” since.

My complete opinion will be available in Style next week but you don’t have to wait until then to weigh in. Am I off my gourd criticizing “Woods?” Let me have it!

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?

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.

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!