Hanukkah Harried

Phew! Life just seemed to get overwhelming there for a while right after Thanksgiving. Team Timberline went out west to meet up with the 2 stragglers currently travelling with the Rockettes and all spent the holiday together in Salt Lake City. Brief recap: Beautiful city, picturesque snow, bitter cold (my Cleveland-raised bones were delighted!) and general good times getting briefly integrated into the road show circus that Radio City is putting on.

There are all sorts of intriguing aspects of the big touring experience that I could expound on but Holly’s doing that (very sporadically) on her blog so I won’t delve into it here. I will say that one of the best nights I spent there was playing Texas Hold ‘em with several members of the company, including both the actor that plays Santa Claus and the “back-up Santa” in the cast. If you think they could access any of that “Sees you when you’re sleeping” magic to help their poker game, well, not so much: Santa was the first one knocked out of the game.

Anyway since then, for me it’s been keeping up with the year-end crunch at work, grading papers and exams at school, and trying to put on some semblance of a Hanukkah celebration over the past week for my family. It’s been quite a whirlwind and therefore it’s been a long time since blogging has bubbled up to the top of my priority list.

But last week I had a few reviews in Style (links at the bottom of this post), specifically reviews of the two Christmas oriented musicals in town, and that seems worthy of some commentary. I’ve had several conversations about both of these shows since they opened and I’ve also read with great interest the Richmond.com review of “White Christmas” and Emily Cole’s spirited rebuttal (it's so nice to see that someone out there is still blogging...).

Now, I don’t want to get into rebutting a rebuttal or anything; everyone is entitled to their opinion and, as far as I'm concerned, encouraged to express it. But I guess I will say that I understand where the Richmond.com reviewer, Ms. Jewitt, was coming from in terms of her review. Both “White Christmas” and “Wondrettes” are great shows in their own way: fun and entertaining and each using the medium of live theater to bring something special to Richmond-area audiences. I wouldn’t want to lessen the importance of that. But still…

This may just be where I’m coming from but one of the things I like most about theater – about any art form, really – is its ability to capture something that’s real, possibly even universal, and convey that to an audience. That’s why, of all of the shows I’ve been to over the past month, the staged reading of “Phoenix” was my favorite. It was a two-hander, just two people talking, but it was also intelligent and funny and complicated and thought-provoking. And even though the production was just two actors obviously reading, my emotions got tweaked, I cared about the characters and I was thoroughly engrossed. These may not have been ‘real’ people, so to speak, but the tension and attraction and aggravation and everything that passed between them on stage felt real.

As much as I enjoyed “White Christmas,” the dye was cast as soon as the two leading men meet the two leading women. You know who is going to end up together and that takes most of the tension out of it. The central complication involving misunderstanding based on an overheard phone call feels really old and tired to me. Relationships don’t work that way. Or when they do, they aren’t real relationships. Even in a big-fun, razzle-dazzle musical one character can ask another character an actual question in order to clarify their relationship rather than throwing it away based on hearsay. And if the relationships don’t feel real, I simply don’t care as much about the story. And if I don’t care about the story, then I may still be entertained, but the show is not going to have an emotional impact. And it’s that emotional impact that keeps me remembering certain shows days, weeks, or months after the curtain has come down.

With “Wonderettes,” my review hints at a little bit of annoyance that a show set in 1968 has characters in it who mostly act like it’s still the 1950s. I watched a snippet of “Hairspray” the other day, a show set in 1962, that has that great song “Welcome to the 60s.” Even in middle America (or for Hairspray, Baltimore), there was change going on during those years. Significant, fundamental change. But “Wonderettes” is set in some world apart from that, a major reason that it didn’t feel real to me. And while there were some definite heart-tugging moments, I’m also a little tired of characters working out major life issues in front of an audience during a 90 minute performance. I know this has become a staple of many musicals – particularly the juke-box kind – and that it has been done pretty effectively at times. But usually it doesn’t feel even remotely real to me. So while I enjoyed the hell out of the songs during “Wonderettes” and I left the theater smiling, I really couldn’t have cared less about the characters. So it will not be a show that I remember next month or next year.

I guess some people might call me a Grinch for this kind of attitude. “Why can’t people just go to the theater and be entertained and have that be enough?” you might say. And I can understand that attitude, too. There are plenty of times that I’m not looking for much more than a fun two hours when I enter the theater (usually it’s a movie theater in that case but still…) And certainly, the holidays are a time when people are looking for a good time, something celebratory, spectacular and maybe even a little cheesy. But personally, I’m also looking for something that affirms something deeper, that reminds me of the connection between people – the real and powerful and personal connection between people. A show doesn’t have to go to the heart of darkness (or in search of Private Ryan) to evoke that. But there is a reason that “A Christmas Carol” is such a perennial holiday fave. Scrooge has to go to a dark place before he is reminded of and embraces his humanity. I don’t think looking for – hoping for and in some ways, expecting – that kind of depth and a modicum of that kind of transformation in a holiday show makes someone Grinch-like.

People are bolstered and enlightened by all sorts of things and there are certainly hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people who got great big doses of cheer, warmth and inspiration from this year’s Christmas musicals. But for me I’m finding it kind of ironic that, in this season full of evocation of things snowy and sleigh-bound, the blazingly sunny streets of “Phoenix” – not even minimally crafted, just wholly imagined on a blank stage – will persist in my memory as the clearest example of the spirit of the holidays.

Here are some links to all sorts of reviews (I heard Mr. Porter’s take on “The Winter’s Tale” on the radio but he hasn’t posted it on his site. When he does, I’ll post a link).

Christmas Carol for 2 Actors in the T-D

The Winter’s Tale in the T-D

White Christmas in Style

Winter Wondrettes in Style

The Velveteen Rabbit in Style

Just have time for links

Lots of news and reviews out there.

In honor of the first night of Hanukkah: there was a story last week on the theater schedule at the JCC.

More recently there have been reviews of:

• Theatre IV's The Velveteen Rabbit in the Times-Dispatch,
• Barksdale's Nunsense in the T-D, and
• RTP's Comfort and Joy in Style.

Style also ran previews of:

• the Henley Street / RichShakes co-pro of The Winter's Tale and
• the staged reading of Phoenix at the Firehouse.

If you've been following -- or are vaguely interested -- in the tales and travails of the Broadway production of "Turn Off the Dark," there are stories on:

• the preview on "60 Minutes"
• the pre-opening sale of $1 million worth of tickets, and
• the first preview that's been called everything from "bumpy" to "a train wreck."

Wow, what a wild wonderful winterly white weekend

I was nearly knocked-out by the one-two punch of Christmas cheer this past weekend, thanks to openings of Barksdale’s “Irving Berlin’s White Christmas” and Swift Creek Mill’s “The Winter Wonderettes.” The links above will take you to the two T-D reviews, both productions fairly well received by Ms. Haubenstock.

As I’ve been summing up my thoughts about each, I really wish I could write a combo review since the two productions have such interesting similarities and contrasts. Both have scads of familiar songs but one has a cast of dozens (or so it seems) versus the other’s cast of 4. Both are set in the mid-20th century (“WW” is supposed to be set in 1968 but is full of sentiments from a decade earlier) but one production is full of glitz, glamour and technical dazzle while the other garner’s much of its appeal from its low-tech, homespun charm. Both productions make the most of the strengths in the shows’ scripts and both are also somewhat hampered by their books’ weaknesses.

It’ll probably be 2 weeks before my reviews show up in print so I’ll give a little preview by saying, while I thought each production had its issues (mostly script related), I ended up thoroughly entertained by them both. To sum up: If you want to be dazzled and enchanted and leave the theater with stars in your eyes, “White Christmas” fits the bill. If you want to be charmed and amused and leave the theater with warmth in your heart, check out “Winter Wonderettes.” But really, for the full range of holiday-oriented emotions and entertainment, I’d suggest seeing them both.

Comfort and Joy

Ms. Haubenstock's review of RTP's latest was in the T-D yesterday. What tickles me most about this production is the thought of Ford Flannagan -- who has done such an amazing job with the character of Peter Pan in the past -- playing a holiday fairy. It's kind of like Peter playing Tinkerbell, yes? You just know that's gonna be a hoot.

After "C & J" on Wednesday, the hits keep rolling this weekend with Barksdale's "White Christmas" and the Mill's "Winter Wonderettes." See them now before holiday madness really begins!

Counting Down

I’d feel bad about not blogging more but hardly anyone seems to be blogging anymore these days (well, except for Andrew Hamm, but that’s all football stuff and even he's slacked off the past couple of weeks...) I’m starting to wonder whether blogging will eventually go the way of MySpace – something that lingers in the background but that people don’t pay much attention to anymore. Perhaps it’s already there?

Anyway, it occurs to me that there is a lot of counting down going on these days. Thanks to the continual movement of holiday-related retail hype, the countdown to Christmas has already started. More immediately, the countdown to the latest Harry Potter movie is reaching a fever pitch. Personally, I’m counting down to Thanksgiving when I’ll get to see the 1/3 of my family that’s been roaming the country for the past almost-5 weeks.

In stage world, there’s anticipation building for the mini-flood of shows that will start opening this weekend in Richmond -- as per the story in the T-D this past weekend on "White Christmas." But on the national/New York scene, there is an increasing focus on the imminent opening of the Spiderman musical. There were stories about the not-in-any-way surprising delay in the opening a while back and lately the pictures of the costumes and sets that have been released has generated additional press.

I’m still highly ambivalent about this whole endeavor. I love the Spiderman mythology, enjoyed the first two movies (and even the third a little), and am a long-time fan of U2. But I’m just not that excited about seeing all of this adapted for the stage. Sure, it all looks extravagant and all. But will I end up caring about any of these characters? Will the songs be memorable or just pomp-rock in support of spectacle? I will read the first reviews with great curiosity.

Speaking of 'Home'...

...there's a review of AART's latest in the Times-Dispatch.

Home

The first play of AART's season, "Home," opened last night. I don't know if this is going to be the way AART's productions work in general but this one is only playing for the weekend. So you won't be able to dawdle if you want to catch it!

Something I never do

After the opening night performance of “Love Kills” at the Firehouse a couple of weeks ago, I was heading out to my car in the Lowe’s parking lot. When I got to my car, I noticed a little clutch of three middle-aged women standing a couple of cars down from me. They were engaged in earnest conversation. Not intense conversation exactly, they just seemed like they were trying to figure something out.

I eavesdropped just a little, enough to realize that they were talking about “Love Kills.” I also heard enough to know that they were trying to parse some very specific issues. I was intrigued to hear such consideration given to theatrical issues so I hesitantly wandered over toward them and insinuated myself into their conversation.

Normally, I don’t like to discuss a show after it’s over with anyone but good friends or family. The whole “critic” thing tends to make casual acquaintances or strangers focus a little too intently on what I’m saying. It also tends to reduce the range of their commentary to extremes, most often “wasn’t that great!” but also sometimes “oh my, wasn’t that awful! Didn’t you hate it?” My friends and family don’t really seem to give a rip whether I’m a critic or not so they expound at will without undo concern about what I might say or hear.

So it was with some reluctance that I started to chat with these nice women in the middle of the Lowe’s parking lot. But I was glad I did because it turned into the kind of conversation that reminds me that audiences should be respected. Sure, some patrons doze off or show bad theater manners or react more to the pageantry of a show instead of its substance. But there are still plenty of theatergoers who care about theater, think about theater with some depth, and expect/demand a certain level of competence from the companies whose shows they frequent. In other words, they aren’t going to believe anyone who says the plate of hamburger they are being presented with is actually prime rib.

As the three women talked, I realized that between them they had seen several shows that had opened over the past several months (“Shipwrecked!,” “Smoke on the Mountain Homecoming,” “Rent,” “Virginia Woolf”), they were familiar with each different theater company and even with several specific actors (in particular, Mr. Aliff who they thought was excellent in “Rent”). And they were struggling with “Love Kills” in many of the same ways that I was. In general, they did not like the songs. They had trouble with a couple of the performances (they found fault with Ms. Orelove in ways that I did not). And they were both intrigued and annoyed with the plotline, finding themselves alternately fascinated and bored. Though I listened much more than I spoke, I offered that it might have something to do with the subplot involving the sheriff and his wife.

Now don’t get me wrong: I understand the line of thought that some kind of supplement to the basic story of Charlie and Caril Ann is needed to turn their story into a complete musical. But in my opinion, the Merle and Gertrude subplot is too slight a story and it is given way too much focus. Charlie and Caril Ann are killers, cold-blooded killers that even murdered a child. The modest tribulations of two married folks do not in any way match or ‘balance’ the story of the homicidal teenagers. In fact, given that it is almost impossible to provide an appropriate counterpoint to the killers’ story, I would have suggested that whatever story was used to provide ballast to the main plotline be as minimal as possible (if you’ve seen the movie, consider the role that Robert Downey, Jr. plays in “Natural Born Killers.”)

Of course, I’m not the playwright and Mr. Jarrow made the choices he made. Still, for me, the Merle and Gertrude subplot trivializes the main plotline rather than enhances it.

Beyond “Love Will Never Die,” I didn’t find many of the songs particularly enchanting or compelling. Some of them were plagued with simplistic and reductive “even though we’re locked away / we’ll be OK” rhymes. Perhaps more of a problem, many of them seemed to lack a strong melody because there were times even Aliff and Orelove, who are both clearly accomplished singers, seemed to have trouble finding it.

I thought “The Funny Thing” was clever and Mr. Aliff’s delivery was fantastic. Aliff and Orelove singing together on songs like “Two Movies” was great to listen to – I really enjoyed both of their voices separately and the way they blended – but honestly, I would have rather watched them act more. Each of the scenes between the two of them – in the movie theater, in the motel room, after Charlie’s first murder, even in the jail – crackled with energy. By the end of the show, my annoyance with the songs grew because of the way they distracted from such gripping scenes between these two talented actors.

I won’t go too deeply into the problems I had with the production but I will expand on one of the concerns I mentioned in my review. My comment on the production’s lighting is also a reflection of some frustration. In general, I thought David McLain’s lighting design was fantastic – a real stand-out. But the jail cell walls were a functional problem, at least in the performance I saw. At least three times a cell “door” did not open when someone walked through it. The sound effect that signaled the door closing was also sporadic. In fact, it’s hard for me to remember exactly but I believe once I heard the sound effect even though the door never actually opened and closed making me wonder if it actually was supposed to be tied to the lighting cue. This is a small detail, I know, but it’s an essential one. When I am doing my best to suspend my disbelief and then a character essentially walks through a wall, it substantially undercuts the effort.

But I’ll also say again, as I did in my review, that all of this did not diminish for me the incredible job Aliff did in his role and, to a slightly lesser extent, Ms. Orelove. There was an edge of adolescent petulance in Orelove’s Caril Ann that I thought was good (and understandable since the real Caril Ann was 13) but at times pushed just a tiny bit too far. Having said that, I truly loved the scene when Caril Ann becomes the strong one and comforts Charlie in their motel room. I think nudity on stage can be a distraction but in this case, I thought it was neither gratuitous nor distracting, and entirely appropriate given the nature of the scene. In fact, it might have ruined the scene for me if they got in the bath in their underwear or somehow had bathing suits or something under their clothes.

As for Mrs. Jones-Clark (I didn’t think Kim hyphenated but that’s how it was listed in the program) and Mr. Gard, I don’t know what they could have done to redeem a subplot that I already had problems with. Whatever that was, they didn’t do it. It may not be fair to them but I really just wanted their scenes to end so we could get back to Charlie and Caril Ann.

Which brings me back to my three new friends in the Lowe’s parking lot. They talked some about the morbid fascination of the story and concluded that, despite their negative reactions to some parts of the show, it was still compelling enough to keep them interested all the way to the end. One of them wondered whether they would have liked the show more if there had been a scene depicting an actual killing. They were almost embarrassed, I think, to conclude that they might have. I don’t know if I agree but I do think that the killing of Caril Ann’s parents in particular is given short shrift here. There are inklings of some psychological break in Caril Ann due to their killing – her line where she asks if they’ll be at her trial. This is fertile dramatic ground and I don’t think “Love Kills” plows into it nearly deep enough.

After I had finished writing my review, I read some of the background material that the Firehouse links to from their website. I was surprised and disconcerted to read that, in real life, Caril Ann ran to the police when they were first arrested crying out that Charlie had forced her all along. So the musical takes one specific detail of the real story, contradicts it and makes it one of the main thrusts of its fictionalized plotline. I’m sure this isn’t unusual with adaptations but in this case, I think it’s unfortunate. Knowing the truth just deflates my opinion of this show a little bit more.

Love Kills

There is lots I want to say about this review in this week's Style but I have no time to get into it. Perhaps by Friday I can get a chance to put some more thoughts down. In the meantime, feel free to chime in with alternate or supporting views.

Feast and Famine

Well, yesterday was election day. I hope you voted. It’s the most basic act in a free society so everyone should take advantage of it. Just like everyone should take advantage of great theater…(how’s that for an awkward segue?)

First, the reviews: Links have been all over Facebook but, in case you still haven’t seen them, reviews of Cadence’s “Oleanna” and Firehouse’s “Love Kills” were in the T-D over the weekend.

Last week, I attended opening night of “Love Kills” at the Firehouse and next-to-closing night of Richmond Shakespeare’s “Arcadia.” My review of the former was possibly going to be in this week’s Style but as it turned out, it wasn’t (there is a nice feature by Rich Griset on the Shafer Alliance Laboratory Theatre company though). I won’t preempt my own review but I can offer some brief comments: I had a hard time with the script, the score, and some aspects of the production.

The true story of Charlie Starkweather and Caril Ann Fugate has been the inspiration for compelling and disturbing films like Natural Born Killers and Wild At Heart (two of my favorite movies). Unfortunately, Kyle Jarrow’s adaptation pits Charlie and Caril Ann’s story against a subplot (an entirely fictional one) involving the arresting sheriff and his wife. I found this subplot distracting and sometimes downright annoying.

Having said that, Nick Aliff delivers an amazing performance as Charlie and Emma Orelove is also excellent as Caril Ann. Their scenes together were golden. I think I would have enjoyed a play that focused exclusively on them much better. I’ll explain some more of my issues with the show after my review comes out, as well as lavish more praise on Mr. Aliff and Ms. Orelove.

In the meantime, let me gush a little about “Arcadia,” because, even though I didn’t expect to, I really enjoyed this show. In my humble opinion, the key to this show is getting wrapped up in the central mysteries and I, for one, was totally taken in by them. I wanted to know who the hermit was, I wanted to know if Byron actually killed Chater, I wanted to know what ultimately happened to Thomasina and Septimus. I empathized with Hannah and even with the obnoxious Bernard because they were so passionate in their own ways about discovering the answers to those mysteries and they pulled me anxiously through the more densely packed clumps of scientific falderal.

Sure, this is a play filled with big ideas and complicated concepts but to me it was like an overly lavish feast. Sometimes it’s too much but, boy, it’s nice to have something so sumptuous to wade through rather than the anemic ideas behind much so much of modern theater (exhibit a: jukebox musicals). There were times I was overwhelmed, but still, those times passed quickly and were balanced nicely. And the action always managed to circle back to the central mysteries.

A couple of things predispose me to liking a show like this. I’ve spent much of the past five years doing graduate school research so the excitement of historical clue-finding and conjecture that Hannah and Bernard go through was something I could totally relate to. Also, just like Shakespeare gives the illusion that people in Elizabethan England all spoke in iambic pentameter, Stoppard makes Englishmen and women in the early 19th and late 20th century seem much more erudite and clever than they ever were. I like this illusion. It’s a kind of hyper-intellectualism that I find entertaining.

So that’s the script, what about the performances? Well, I really think you need to talk in twosomes because some of the best parts of the production were the sparkling chemical reactions between Jen Meharg’s Hannah and Andrian Rieder’s Bernard, for instance; and Jonathan Conyers’ Septimus and Alex Wiles’ Thomasina. I was particularly enchanted by Wiles’ performance, showing an astounding amount of maturity in someone so young. Again, I’ve got some predisposition here, having two teenage daughters of my own. The last scene between Septimus and Thomasina may have been arguably more heartbreaking for me than other patrons, feeling the full weight of what a loss of someone so smart, enchanting, and vital would be like.

There were also many other great portrayals delivered by this talented cast, among them Julie Phillips as Lady Croom, Liz Blake White as Chloe Coverly, and the young Nathan Johnson as Augustus “Gus” Croom. And ultimately, the show was a great triumph for director Foster Solomon, a successful (again, in my opinion) and entertaining staging of a very challenging work.

But as much as I gush, I do not think the script or the production are/were quite flawless. The one scene where Valentine Coverly explains his mathematical ideas to Hannah is deathly boring, to the point that I doubt even Olivier could have made it sing (nice try by Andrew Ballard, though). I was confused about Hannah’s apparent aversion to emotional entanglement. Is she just too intellectual or is there more back story there? Of course, Ms. Meharg is entrancing even when she’s being emotionally remote so that didn’t ultimately detract from my enjoyment. However, I found David White’s Chater frustrating and distracting. That character really seemed to belong in a different play.

And finally, as much as I enjoyed it, I can see where some people would truly despise “Arcadia.” Not to speak for her, but I expect my wife would not enjoy it in the least. And, given that she’s demonstrably smarter than me, it’s not because she couldn’t parse the concepts. She would just need a more compelling reason to care about any of it. Maybe the teenage girl involved would hook her in, but maybe not for 3 hours.

According to the Wikipedia entry on “Arcadia,” one review called it “…too clever by about two-and-three quarters. One comes away instructed with more than one can usefully wish to know.” That may be along the lines of the perspective of people like the G.B. Pshaw that commented on the Style review. However, for me, as I’ve said, “Arcadia” was like a lavish banquet, most of which I found completely delicious. My only regret is that I didn’t see the show earlier in the run so that I could have come back and supped from that feast one more time before it closed down.

Swimming, Driving, Evening, Reuniting, Playing

You step away from the blog for a couple of days and all sorts of things start popping. First off, Mr. Porter weighed in on CAT’s “Dixie Swim Club” with a rather unfavorable assessment.

Also, Mr. Mudge of Richmond Shakespeare put forth an endorsement of “Arcadia” that is worth considering (and fast, since the show closes this weekend).

Further afield, “Driving Miss Daisy” opened on Broadway with one of the more intriguing mixes of conditionally positive reviews to downright pans.

For Stephen Sondheim fanatics (and lovers of musical theater of all stripes), a DVD version of an old TV presentation scored by Sondheim, “Evening Primrose” recently came out and has garnered a fair amount of coverage.

And, as an unlikely tie-in, “Primrose” features Charmian Carr, Leisl in the cast of the movie “The Sound of Music,” a cast that Oprah Winfrey recently brought together on her TV show – and that I somehow forgot to program on the DVR. Anyway, if you missed the reunion as well (or even if you watched it), you may be interested in reading about the reunion or finding out what the cast is doing now. Personally, I’ll be trying to hit up friends who were more adept with their DVRs...

Big weekend in town with Henley Street’s Bootleg production of “Titus Andronicus,” certain to be a hoot playing at the Barksdale, and Cadence opening “Oleanna” at the Richmond Triangle Players space. Clearly Richmond-area theater companies know how to play well with each other!

Well now I HAVE to get out to see it

I pulled up Mr. Griset’s review of “Arcadia” in this week’s Style, just expecting to grab the URL to link to. Little did I know there was a maelstrom of comments brewing. Nothing like a pan to get people’s dander up.

As I’ve mentioned at least a half-dozen times here before, I’m a big fan of Rick St. Peter’s work; productions he directed here before running off to Kentucky were among the best I’ve seen in Richmond. In the past he has been quick to call out sloppy or wrong-headed criticism (particularly when posted anonymously). And while I can understand his defense of Stoppard’s play, I take issue with some of his comments. First off, the quote of Stoppard’s he cites may be clever in its own way but I find it sorely lacking in truth, and in my experience, exactly wrong. I am regularly chastised for doing my job well -- that is, presenting valid concerns and criticisms about a play -- and very often no one seems to notice when I do my job badly -- that is, when I give a lackluster or subpar production a pass.

As for hating to be criticized, I don’t love it but I regularly solicit input simply by having this blog. The papers that print reviews – both Style and the T-D – allow people to comment online or write letters to the editor (that are often printed), thereby openly inviting criticism. I can’t speak for any other critic but, personally, I appreciate constructive criticism. But whether any critic loves or hates counter-criticism, they get it. And, if they want to continue to do the job, they have to learn to deal with it.

What I have a hard time with is people whose criticism is of the very act of criticism. Critics are paid to offer their insight – however flawed you may think that is – on a work of art. Criticizing a critic for doing his or her job is like yelling at a mail carrier for delivering the mail.

Having said that, I understand that people get annoyed and upset at the way a critic does his or her job – you don’t want your mailman scattering your letters all over the yard, for instance. That’s the kind of counter-criticism I welcome. Was I vague in what I wrote? Was I confusing? Did I miss something about the production that was obvious to you?

What I find bitterly ironic (to reuse a phrase I had reason to employ recently) is people whose criticism turns personal. “That critic is a fool!” “This critic must be angry at somebody.” “Joe Critic is just a frustrated actor who can’t get cast in town.” That is the level on which many people respond to critics. For all most people know, Mr. Griset could be a Nobel Prize winner with a Ph.D. in theater pedagogy, and yet they would question his credentials versus responding to his words. As I’ve also said before, if my criticism was on that level – for instance, “Joe Smith’s direction of this play shows that he obviously has delusions of grandeur and his narcissism gets in the way of any valid artistic statement he’s trying to make here” – I would be fired. Or I should be fired because that's criticizing the artist, not the art, and that's not my job.

I have not seen “Arcadia” so I can’t speak to the substance of Mr. Griset’s review. If I was just criticizing the writing, I might say that it’s a little laundry-listy for me. Still, he makes some refreshingly blunt observations that should be refuted on their merits. Mr. Griset does seem to be reflecting the attitudes of at least one patron, as noted by a commenter, and I know Ms. Haubenstock’s review of the play also indicated some issues.

Finally, I appreciate the endorsement of one of the commenters – it’s nice to have a fan, even if only one! However, as many folks associated with theater know, both my wife and son have been active in local theater making my personal connections in the scene pretty direct. I’ve tried my best to remain objective but certainly the argument exists that I am compromised just as much as or more than the unnamed female reviewer.

I may or may not be able to actually make it out to see “Arcadia” before it closes. But one positive side effect of this negative review – and the comments it elicited – is that I’m more motivated than ever to try and fit it in. That way, I can judge the work for myself, which I encourage everyone else to do as well.

The Js Have It

I’ve fallen into a bit of a bad habit, one that I expect plagues many theater fans but that is a bit inexcusable in a part-time critic. A production will open, I’ll tuck away the thought in my mind that I really should see that show, and then, by the time I untuck that thought it’s too late.

Or, in the case of “The Foreigner,” almost too late. I was able to finagle my schedule to catch the second-to-last show of the Swift Creek Mill show this past weekend and I was glad that I did. I was struck first by the warmth of Tom Width’s set – the sturdiness of all that wood hardly made the set look like a set at all. In a theatrical era often dominated by minimalist sets that force a lot of mind-construction, it was nice to see a set where the construction was all there on the stage.

I can’t really provide a full-fledged review but my quick take was that I was particularly impressed by the work of the “J”s in the cast. Jay Welch, whose great work in “Take Me Out” last season was often overlooked because of how many other phenomenal talents were on stage, was pitch-perfect as Ellard. With a role that would be easy to make too big, he put in a “Goldilocks” kind of performance: not too big, not too small, but just right. James Rees was also excellent as Froggy and Jonathan Hardison balanced the various aspects of his wily, smarmy, and dastardly Reverend David with much skill.

I don’t want to short-change the rest of the cast. Seeing Richard Koch and Bill Brock face off at various times in the show – both chewing the scenery in their own ways – was a real treat. My appreciation of Mr. Koch’s portrayal – an incredibly entertaining as it was – may have suffered a little because I absolutely adored him in the last two shows I saw him in: Henley Street’s “A Servant of Two Masters” and the Mill’s “Greetings.” The women in the cast were solid but I think the play gives them a little less to work with. Having said that, I did appreciate the subtle dawning of awareness that Sarah Legere communicates as Catherine in the last scene. Very fine work there.

It seemed that several theater folks were also sneaking out to catch “The Foreigner” before it’s close because a number of actors were attendance on Friday, as well as recent Top 40 Under 40 recipient, artistic director James Ricks. I hope they all enjoyed the show as much as I did.

Speaking of bad habits, I’ve also been bad lately about getting links to reviews up in a timely manner. I can’t promise that I’ll get any better soon but here, only a couple of days late, is the Times-Dispatch review of “Dixie Swim Club.” I’ll be looking for something from Mr. Porter later in the week.

Jay's photos

I realized right after posting the below that the link to Jay's great pictures is totally buried in all of my ramblings. Here is a link to two online photo albums of the RTCC awards, assembled by the extraordinary photographer, Jay Paul.

Onward and upward

What a night, huh? As I write this, it’s less than 96 hours since the 2010 RTCC awards wrapped up. The excitement and energy of the night was so penetrating that, in some ways, it feels like it just happened last night. But so much has been said and done since that night, in other ways it seems like it could have happened 96 days ago. If I had to sum it up in a sentence, for me nothing matches seeing so many people I love, like and admire all dressed up and celebrating together. These award nights are becoming among my favorite nights of the whole year.

I feel compelled to deal with some latent negativity so I can then move on to more positive stuff. I understand many people were upset and/or disappointed about some of the award selections this year. This has been the case every year but the difference this year was the ubiquity of social media allowed vociferous reactions to circulate almost immediately. I can only repeat what I’ve said every year: the process we critics go through to select nominees and final choices is not a perfect process. We take it seriously and we do the best that a group of considerate professionals can do but some of our choices surprised and frustrated some of you. Personally, I don’t think one person taking home the little hockey puck diminishes the achievement of anyone else. I can’t remember if I’ve used this analogy before but “Avenue Q” winning the Tony over “Wicked” did not make “Wicked” any less awesome.

One more thing I will say about the negative comments: I find some dark irony in them. Critics are often derided by theater professionals because of their perceived insensitivity. I have personally been lambasted by actors because of my lack of understanding of what goes into a production or what it takes to create a role on stage. But if I ever wrote something in a review that included the kind of non-specific criticism and name-calling directed at inappropriate targets that I read online or heard repeated secondhand in the wake of the awards Sunday night, I would lose my job. Period, end of statement. Journalists live and die by certain standards – as one of the presenters Sunday night, Chris Dovi, found out only too bitterly. The fact that some theater professionals feel free to wield criticism without any regard to the propriety of their comments demeans them personally and professionally. We are very lucky to live in a free country and to be free to say/write what we want. But as I have found during my many years writing professional criticism, words have power and careless statements have repercussions.

Moving on, I also received numerous positive comments about the evening, people who felt it was a continuation in the ongoing improvement in the awards presentation. The projections used during the evening were a fantastic addition – thank you Chase Kniffen for your hard work in putting them together. All of the performances were astounding, if you ask me, from Lauren’s curmudgeonly “Bah! Humbug” to the stage-filling cheerfulness of the Von Trapp children. I could hear Joy Newsome and Jaci Camden sing their duet from “Rent” over and over on repeat on my iPod and never get tired of it. Debra was a hoot and it was so much fun to watch her work the crowd. And what a testament to her versatility that she could then help deliver the wonderfully affecting “I Love You Song” from Putnam, featuring last-minute stand-in Matt Shofner and the always-amazing Aly Wepplo. All of the performances made me want to see the entire productions again. Big thanks to Brian Harris and his fantastic band for filling the night with beautiful music.

The increased accessibility of the bars seemed to be appreciated and in some ways helped the flow of the evening as people weren’t stuck in lines for so long. I think many people enjoyed the “green room” innovation, spearheaded by Event Chair Mary Burruss, where winners and performers were photographed before and after their appearances on stage. The result is a more complete photographic record of the evening than we’ve ever had before. Big thanks to Thomas Nowlin for manning the camera – he did a spectacular job.

On that note, people may be pleased to know that photographer extraordinaire Jay Paul documented the evening and his work is available online in a pair of photo albums (I'm a little confused by Snapfish, but I think you can get to them but clicking here). Check them out and enjoy looking at all of the beautiful people!

As in the past, most every presenter gamely played along with the shenanigans of the evening. Ms. Carreras and Madame were particularly impressive. Oh, if only you could read some of the jokes John Porter had originally scripted for Madame – some truly golden stuff!

Every person who came up to accept an award was entertaining or heart-warming in their own way. But perhaps my favorite was Willie Hinton who, besides looking particularly dapper, was so excited and thankful and gracious. And if you didn’t see “Black Nativity” you missed some truly incredible work from him.

All in all, there was much to be excited about and celebrate. Perhaps most important of all, once again all of you helped raised several thousand dollars for the Theatre Artists Fund, a truly worthy cause. That everyone had such a good time as part of supporting something so worthwhile is a true win-win situation.

Big plans are already percolating for next year so stay tuned. With your help and understanding and support, things can only get better. If you came to the awards, thanks a bunch and I hope you had fun. If you didn’t, believe me, you won’t want to miss it next year.

It's Just a Stage

As kind of a follow-up to yesterday's post, my lovely wife has initiated a blog to chronicle her life on the Radio City tour. I fully expect her readership to grow to many times mine in a matter of days.

In completely unrelated news, the lovely and talented Andrew Boothby has set up a profile on the Reality TV casting site, RealityWanted.com. It looks like he's shooting for a history channel hosting gig. Vote early and often (good practice for Nov. 2!)

Off they go

Well, it’s two days since the RTCC awards and, in some ways, I’m still in recovery. I haven’t processed it all yet because my focus has been diverted. Today, I put my lovely wife and eldest son on a plane to Myrtle Beach where Cooper will start rehearsing for his role in the national arena tour of Radio City Music Hall’s “Christmas Spectacular.” It’s been a day of many different emotions but chief among them is excitement about this new little adventure for our whole family.

I’ll write more about all of that soon as well as some kind of recap about the awards evening from my perspective. Many have chimed in with their perspectives via various forms of social media already but I’m letting my thoughts coalesce a little longer. In short, for those who had a great time (like I did), I’m very glad. For those who didn’t for one reason or another, I’m sorry. I will say this: plans are already afoot to build on the success of this year and make next year’s event something special.

There is a recap in today’s Style so you can check that out if you like. Also, the weekend sped by without me getting to acknowledge the opening of Richmond Shakespeare’s “Arcadia” – reviewed by Susan Haubenstock yesterday – and Sycamore Rouge’s “Concord, Virginia” – also reviewed by Ms. Haubenstock.

And because there is no respite as far as Richmond theater goes, don’t forget that "Dixie Swim Club" opens at CAT this weekend. Never a dull moment!

And the winners are...

Congrats to all of the winners and thanks to everyone who stepped up at the last minute to fill in the missing pieces (Melissa Chase, Matt Shofner, Durron Tyre, Dan Sherrier, Jessie Jennison, Bruce Rennie, and many more...). My appreciation also goes out to those who look at the big picture. Here's the list:

Best Musical
The Sound of Music (Barksdale / Theatre IV)

Best Direction (Musical)
Chase Kniffen, The Sound of Music (Barksdale / Theatre IV)

Best Actor (Musical)
Durron Tyre, Rent (Firehouse Theatre Project)

Best Actress (Musical)
Joy Newsome, Rent (Firehouse Theatre Project)

Best Supporting Actor (Musical)
Antonio Tillman, Rent (Firehouse Theatre Project)

Best Supporting Actress (Musical)
Susan Sanford, The Sound of Music (Barksdale / Theatre IV)

Best Musical Direction
Leilani Mork, Rent (Firehouse Theatre Project)

Best Choreography
Willie Hinton, Black Nativity (African American Repertory Theatre)

Best Play
Take Me Out (Richmond Triangle Players)

Best Direction – Play
Bo Wilson, Shining City (Henley Street Theatre)

Best Actor – Play
Joe Inscoe, Shining City (Henley Street Theatre)

Best Actress – Play
Kelly Kennedy, On Golden Pond (Barksdale)

Best Actor in a Supporting Role – Play
Jimmy Glidden, Take Me Out (Richmond Triangle Players)

Best Actress in a Supporting Role – Play
Carmen Zilles, Boleros for the Disenchanted (Barksdale)

Best Ensemble Acting
The Mystery of Irma Vep, Swift Creek Mill Theatre

Best Locally-Developed Work
Full Plate Collection (Independent)

Outstanding Achievement in Costume Design
Rebecca Cairns, Servant of Two Masters (Henley Street)

Outstanding Achievement in Lighting Design
Lynne Hartman, The Sound of Music (Barksdale / Theatre IV)

Outstanding Achievement in Set Design
Betsy Muller, Is He Dead? (Barksdale)

Outstanding Achievement in Sound Design
Derek Dumais, The Sound of Music (Barksdale / Theatre IV)

Advice for RTCC attendees!

Here is a reprint of a Facebook note from Tony Foley:

I thought I would try to give attendees of the 3rd Annual Richmond Theatre Critics Circle Awards a heads up on how the cash bar will work at the Empire Theatre so you can plan accordingly. This is a very popular event where we all get to mix and mingle with our fellow Theatre artists and patrons. No one really wants to spend a lot of time waiting in line so I hope these few tips can help everyone maximize their enjoyment of the evening.

The Bar will be open at 6pm for service. Prices are as follows : Sodas, snacks, and waters $1, Beer $4, Wine $5, Cocktails $5 or $7 for premium brands (Makers Mark Bourbon, Kettle One Vodka, Bacardi Rum, Bombay Gin). Basic mixers will be available, tonic, soda, cranberry, ginger ale, etc. However if you come up asking for a Sweet Old Fashioned or a Rusty Nail you will be disappointed, we're trying to keep it simple. I HIGHLY suggest that everyone bring SOME cash (preferably small bills) because that will get you served much quicker. If someone does need to use a credit card, I would suggest giving your card to the bartender and run a tab. The bartenders will be there after the event to close out all tabs. That will save you the time it takes to swipe your card 3 times for $4 each, etc.

The main lobby bar will offer fountain sodas, snacks, small bottled waters, beer, wine, and cocktails. They will be able to accept cash and credit cards. At the main bar there will be a place to order your drinks and a place to pay in hopes of streamlining service. In addition there will be two remote bars set up that can offer beer, wine, bottled waters & snacks. These stations will accept cash or you can start a tab to be closed out afterwards at the main lobby bar. However, there will not be a Credit Card machine at the remote stations for a one time sale. Guests WILL be able to take their drinks & snacks into the theatre with them, but PLEASE be careful not to spill. No one enjoys a Theatre with sticky floors.

I hope these RTCC Awards bar tips make your night more enjoyable. And speaking of tips, hook up your bartenders, they are part of your theatre community as well! Please drink responsibly.

Back

I've spent much of the last 5 days or so battling a very pesky cold and have been concentrating on sleeping and cough medicine. Tonight was the first time I turned on my computer and tried in vain to catch up on email, Facebook, and the assorted current event (the Redskins won? In overtime?) It's been overwhelming enough to send me back under the covers.

A few things worth mentioning though: Style has kept up their sneaky habit of putting stories up online on days other than their usual publication date. So since last Wednesday, both a nice preview piece on the RTCC awards and a positive review of the Mill's "The Foreigner" appeared online. Be sure and check them out if you haven't seen them yet.

Also, the lovely Ms. Tupponce has posted a few reviews on her blog lately, her take on "Shipwrecked!" and a review of "The Foreigner" as well. Even more positivity in the air!

Look for more media buzz about the RTCC awards this week. I'll have to doublecheck the date but I believe Chase Kniffen and Mary Burruss will be on Virginia This Morning on Thursday and Tom Bowring will interview Mary on his "Zero Hour" radio show on Friday. Media sponsor WCVE will also start mentioning the event on air, or they may have already starting doing so, not really sure.

The RTCC awards will be a capper to a week of recognition. The Pollak awards are tomorrow and Style's Top 40 Under 40 comes out on Wednesday. 'Tis the season for back-patting, so it seems. May those recognized enjoy basking in the praise of their peers!