I’ve had many theater-related thoughts lately but haven’t really had time to post them. Until I get some time, I do have some links. First, to the Style reviews of “Odd Couple” and to “Henry IV, Part 1.” I am particularly proud of the headline for the Hal review. Headline writing is an art onto itself (so much so that the VA Press Association gives awards in headline writing) and capturing a whole article in just a few well-chosen words can be a challenge. ‘Hal-apalooza’ is probably the best one-word headline I’ve ever come up with. (OK, just sprained my arm patting myself on my back…)
Then a link to a quick story that announces the Cherry Jones will be playing a woman president in the TV show, ’24.’ I have been a ‘24’ fan since the first season and used to write online commentary about the show at one of the many fansites. But, as you can see in this post, I thought this last season stunk up the joint. I was all prepared to drop ‘24’ from my TV lineup but Ms. Jones, most famous recently for her great work in “Doubt,” coming to the show may just make me tune in again.
Finally, I read recently that Danny Hoch has a new show opening soon (here's a piece about it on broadway.com). This should peak the anticipation of anyone who saw Scott Wichmann set the stage ablaze with Hoch’s “Jails, Hospitals, and Hip-Hop.” A film version of that show is apparently out on DVD that, unfortunately, does not feature Scott…
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Friday, July 20, 2007
Happy Campy
According to Hilton Als in the New Yorker, the new production of “Xanadu” is a hoot. In additional campy theater news, “Hairspray” is currently getting an amazing 94% positive rating at Rotten Tomatoes, made even more amazing by the fact that the “Cream of the Crop” reviews (those that appear in national or major market publications) are 100% positive.
Critical love doesn’t always sway the masses so I still fear that this flick may underperform at the box office (plus, everyone is going to be shut-in this weekend reading Harry Potter, right?) But this outpouring of raves (even Daniel Neman liked it, I think!) has had an impact on my apathy. I may have to sneak out and see it sometime over the next week or two…
Critical love doesn’t always sway the masses so I still fear that this flick may underperform at the box office (plus, everyone is going to be shut-in this weekend reading Harry Potter, right?) But this outpouring of raves (even Daniel Neman liked it, I think!) has had an impact on my apathy. I may have to sneak out and see it sometime over the next week or two…
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Richmond theater rules
Andrew Hamm had a recent post on his blog noting specifically the coolness of Scott Wichmann but also generally the unique nature of the theater community in this town. Theater people in Richmond are to a large extent incredibly friendly, accessible, and down-to-earth. If you want further proof of this, you can check out a comment Bruce Miller posted on this here blog not too long ago. It refers to a production out at Hanover Tavern last year that he directed.
His honesty and openness about the challenges in putting up this production are refreshing, though I would say his self-recrimination about his direction of the piece is a bit harsh. But regardless, how cool is it that Mr. Miller – founder / writer / director / artistic director / possibly most prominent name in local theater – would put such comments out for public consumption? It’s certainly a testament to the impressiveness of Mr. Miller but also a further reflection (IMHO) of the unique nature of the stage scene here.
His honesty and openness about the challenges in putting up this production are refreshing, though I would say his self-recrimination about his direction of the piece is a bit harsh. But regardless, how cool is it that Mr. Miller – founder / writer / director / artistic director / possibly most prominent name in local theater – would put such comments out for public consumption? It’s certainly a testament to the impressiveness of Mr. Miller but also a further reflection (IMHO) of the unique nature of the stage scene here.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Consolidated H4P1 rave
As I mention below, the latest Richmond Shakespeare production is good enough for 2 reviews. So it’s a perfect situation to put this silly blog to good use. Be sure and pick up Style next Wednesday to read my outpouring of adjectives in praise of the show. But until then, read below for some more specifics on what I liked.
Let’s start with the beginning (a very fine place to start, no?). Jack Parrish as Henry IV is riveting. Physically, emotionally, vocally, he is the most truly regal king I believe I have ever seen in a Shakespearean production. In writing my review, I kept searching for comparisons: “he’s as good as…” but frankly could not come up with anything that sufficed. His stature – tall, strong, commanding – married to that voice – gravelly but still dynamic – is unique and singularly appropriate for this Henry. I could totally see a son wanting to distance himself from such a father’s shadow, yet Jack also delivers the “come back to the fold” speech so earnestly, how could Hal not be inspired to better himself? The best thing I think Richmond Shakespeare could do is bring back Jack for Part 2. Promise me that and I’ll start working on my rave review right now to save time…
I really didn’t think things could get any better than that but then we meet Phil Brown as Hal. Brown is a looker, there’s no doubt about that, and how refreshing to see a director exploit that with Hal’s initial shirtless appearance. But there is obviously more to Mr. Brown and it’s clear from the first scene. Though he projects a casual insouciance and off-hand joie de vivre, there is some grit beneath that chin stubble and it comes to the fore in the occasional steely glance or thoughtful comment. It takes an accomplished actor to convincingly portray a lay-about like Hal is at the play’s beginning but then transform into the noble Prince Henry at the play’s end. Brown lays the groundwork early on and then follows through expertly in the final scenes. His grand testament to Hotspur before the final battle is captivating. That scene may be one of the best in literature in demonstrating the selflessness of inspired leadership and Brown nails it.
Oh, and Mr. Ricks as Hotspur is more than a worthy counterpoint to Brown. One of the aspects of this show that I enjoyed most was the way Ricks played out his emotions in his body language. The way he sometimes seemed to both fold his body in and lift it up when angered or frustrated; or his dramatic toss of the head – like an adolescent’s eye-roll writ large. I liked the early scene between Hotspur and King Henry where they clash over prisoners, where Ricks seems to be barely holding in his boiling temper and then finally lets it loose. If I had to find a metaphor for Ricks in this show I’d say he was like the Shakespearean version of the Tasmanian Devil – all swirling and tempestuous emotion. It was delightful to watch.
As Falstaff, Mr. Phillips did a fine job though I was just a little less impressed by him than the others. A good part of this has to do with the specific performance I saw. It was a first preview and Darryl was obviously still finding his way around some of his lines. In other plays, I’ve liked Falstaff to have a stealthy brilliance lying beneath all of the lies and bluster. But, maybe in part because of his problems with the lines, Phillips mostly projected buffoonery. He did this admirably well, though, and there were a few other audience members near me who obviously delighted in every word out of his mouth. And in the most unique moment of the night, director James Alexander Bond had to stop the play to replace the seat Phillips was sitting on that seemed on the verge of collapse. Staying in character, Phillips tossed off a couple very funny extemporaneous quips that brought the house down. It was exceptional thinking on his feet…or, I guess, his seat…
It was great to see Grant Mudge onstage again. Grant has a singular ability to make every word he speaks, no matter how densely “Shakespearean” the verse may be, absolutely clear to the contemporary listener. This was a particularly noteworthy feat in “Henry” as a couple of his characters spoke with thick accents. He also was a worthy playmate for Hal as Poins, matching the prince verse for verse in charisma and wit.
There are many other things I could rave about – the great costumes get a mention in my Style review, Andrew Hamm’s incidental music bridging and augmenting many scenes was always excellent and appropriate, the lovely lilting Welsh ballad was beautifully delivered by the lovely Alex Buchanan (...but why no bio for her in the program???). I’ve always thought back wistfully to the early days of RSF, where their looser, zanier versions of shows like “Two Gentlemen of Verona” brought exciting new life to Shakespeare. But this production was easily among my favorite 2 or 3 ever done by the RSF folks. It was exceedingly witty, bracingly dramatic, and just a deeply satisfying theatrical experience.
Let’s start with the beginning (a very fine place to start, no?). Jack Parrish as Henry IV is riveting. Physically, emotionally, vocally, he is the most truly regal king I believe I have ever seen in a Shakespearean production. In writing my review, I kept searching for comparisons: “he’s as good as…” but frankly could not come up with anything that sufficed. His stature – tall, strong, commanding – married to that voice – gravelly but still dynamic – is unique and singularly appropriate for this Henry. I could totally see a son wanting to distance himself from such a father’s shadow, yet Jack also delivers the “come back to the fold” speech so earnestly, how could Hal not be inspired to better himself? The best thing I think Richmond Shakespeare could do is bring back Jack for Part 2. Promise me that and I’ll start working on my rave review right now to save time…
I really didn’t think things could get any better than that but then we meet Phil Brown as Hal. Brown is a looker, there’s no doubt about that, and how refreshing to see a director exploit that with Hal’s initial shirtless appearance. But there is obviously more to Mr. Brown and it’s clear from the first scene. Though he projects a casual insouciance and off-hand joie de vivre, there is some grit beneath that chin stubble and it comes to the fore in the occasional steely glance or thoughtful comment. It takes an accomplished actor to convincingly portray a lay-about like Hal is at the play’s beginning but then transform into the noble Prince Henry at the play’s end. Brown lays the groundwork early on and then follows through expertly in the final scenes. His grand testament to Hotspur before the final battle is captivating. That scene may be one of the best in literature in demonstrating the selflessness of inspired leadership and Brown nails it.
Oh, and Mr. Ricks as Hotspur is more than a worthy counterpoint to Brown. One of the aspects of this show that I enjoyed most was the way Ricks played out his emotions in his body language. The way he sometimes seemed to both fold his body in and lift it up when angered or frustrated; or his dramatic toss of the head – like an adolescent’s eye-roll writ large. I liked the early scene between Hotspur and King Henry where they clash over prisoners, where Ricks seems to be barely holding in his boiling temper and then finally lets it loose. If I had to find a metaphor for Ricks in this show I’d say he was like the Shakespearean version of the Tasmanian Devil – all swirling and tempestuous emotion. It was delightful to watch.
As Falstaff, Mr. Phillips did a fine job though I was just a little less impressed by him than the others. A good part of this has to do with the specific performance I saw. It was a first preview and Darryl was obviously still finding his way around some of his lines. In other plays, I’ve liked Falstaff to have a stealthy brilliance lying beneath all of the lies and bluster. But, maybe in part because of his problems with the lines, Phillips mostly projected buffoonery. He did this admirably well, though, and there were a few other audience members near me who obviously delighted in every word out of his mouth. And in the most unique moment of the night, director James Alexander Bond had to stop the play to replace the seat Phillips was sitting on that seemed on the verge of collapse. Staying in character, Phillips tossed off a couple very funny extemporaneous quips that brought the house down. It was exceptional thinking on his feet…or, I guess, his seat…
It was great to see Grant Mudge onstage again. Grant has a singular ability to make every word he speaks, no matter how densely “Shakespearean” the verse may be, absolutely clear to the contemporary listener. This was a particularly noteworthy feat in “Henry” as a couple of his characters spoke with thick accents. He also was a worthy playmate for Hal as Poins, matching the prince verse for verse in charisma and wit.
There are many other things I could rave about – the great costumes get a mention in my Style review, Andrew Hamm’s incidental music bridging and augmenting many scenes was always excellent and appropriate, the lovely lilting Welsh ballad was beautifully delivered by the lovely Alex Buchanan (...but why no bio for her in the program???). I’ve always thought back wistfully to the early days of RSF, where their looser, zanier versions of shows like “Two Gentlemen of Verona” brought exciting new life to Shakespeare. But this production was easily among my favorite 2 or 3 ever done by the RSF folks. It was exceedingly witty, bracingly dramatic, and just a deeply satisfying theatrical experience.
Monday, July 16, 2007
PS
It seems everywhere I look I'm seeing advertisements for "Hairspray." I have no major compulsion to see this flick but I'm an old fuddy-duddy. Are there folks out there chomping at the bit to see this? Even with all the hype, I have a sneaking suspicion this film is going to underperform at the box office. But I'd be happy to be proved wrong. What do you think?
Sicko
No, I didn't see the Michael Moore documentary. I AM the sicko today -- home from work with a summer cold. And in case there was any doubt, let me assure you that summer colds suck. As if the heat doesn't leave you feeling weary enough, add in a head full of snot and your brain might as well be drenched in tequila for all the clarity available to you.
The only benefit of this is that it affords me the opportunity to ramble on blog-wise about life in general and Henry IV in particular. Before I succumbed to this viral villain, my lovely wife and I were able to sneak out last Friday and see the movie “You Kill Me,” which is a wonderful black comedy. If you are tired of explosions, animation or millions of dollars of CGI effects, check out this modest, sharply-acted, very funny movie.
At the movie, we ran into an old friend who used to write reviews and we lapsed into a little side-conversation about the perils of reviewing (not life-threatening usually, but soul-threatening). For instance, we shared the sentiment that, when you review some 150-200 movies a year like Daniel Neman, your ability to say anything new or interesting might indeed become severely limited. We also touched on something like the opposite problem: whereas Mr. Neman is pretty tiresome in his dismissal of 90% of movies as trash, it is also incredibly hard to find new ways to say “excellent” or to get the point across that a production is particularly noteworthy.
I wrote a pretty peppy little 300-word rave about Henry (which won’t appear in Style until 07/25 – sorry!) but, as I told our friend in the lobby of the Westhampton, what I really wanted to say was, “You know all of those other plays that I said were awesome? Forget all that, this one is REALLY awesome!”
Let’s start with the beginning (a very fine place to start, no?). Jack Parrish as Henry IV is riveting. Physically, emotionally, vocally, he is the most truly regal king I believe I have ever seen in a Shakespearean production. In writing my review, I kept searching for comparisons: “he’s as good as…” but frankly could not come up with anything that sufficed. His stature – tall, strong, commanding – married to that voice – gravelly but still dynamic – is unique and singularly appropriate for this Henry. I could totally see a son wanting to distance himself from such a father’s shadow, yet Jack also delivers the “come back to the fold” speech so earnestly, how could Hal not be inspired to better himself? The best thing I think Richmond Shakespeare could do is bring back Jack for Part 2. Promise me that and I’ll start working on my rave review right now to save time…
I really didn’t think things could get any better than that but then we meet Phil Brown as Hal. But I think I’ll have to ramble on about what amounts to my man-crush on Mr. Brown at a later date. I’m feeling the need for my third nap of the day creeping up on me.
But one last thing for today, I'm glad Ms. Haubenstock also found much to enjoy in Henry. My only disappointment would be the placement of the review in a not-so-prominent spot with a pretty low-impact headline. I guess that’s the way it goes there these days.
The only benefit of this is that it affords me the opportunity to ramble on blog-wise about life in general and Henry IV in particular. Before I succumbed to this viral villain, my lovely wife and I were able to sneak out last Friday and see the movie “You Kill Me,” which is a wonderful black comedy. If you are tired of explosions, animation or millions of dollars of CGI effects, check out this modest, sharply-acted, very funny movie.
At the movie, we ran into an old friend who used to write reviews and we lapsed into a little side-conversation about the perils of reviewing (not life-threatening usually, but soul-threatening). For instance, we shared the sentiment that, when you review some 150-200 movies a year like Daniel Neman, your ability to say anything new or interesting might indeed become severely limited. We also touched on something like the opposite problem: whereas Mr. Neman is pretty tiresome in his dismissal of 90% of movies as trash, it is also incredibly hard to find new ways to say “excellent” or to get the point across that a production is particularly noteworthy.
I wrote a pretty peppy little 300-word rave about Henry (which won’t appear in Style until 07/25 – sorry!) but, as I told our friend in the lobby of the Westhampton, what I really wanted to say was, “You know all of those other plays that I said were awesome? Forget all that, this one is REALLY awesome!”
Let’s start with the beginning (a very fine place to start, no?). Jack Parrish as Henry IV is riveting. Physically, emotionally, vocally, he is the most truly regal king I believe I have ever seen in a Shakespearean production. In writing my review, I kept searching for comparisons: “he’s as good as…” but frankly could not come up with anything that sufficed. His stature – tall, strong, commanding – married to that voice – gravelly but still dynamic – is unique and singularly appropriate for this Henry. I could totally see a son wanting to distance himself from such a father’s shadow, yet Jack also delivers the “come back to the fold” speech so earnestly, how could Hal not be inspired to better himself? The best thing I think Richmond Shakespeare could do is bring back Jack for Part 2. Promise me that and I’ll start working on my rave review right now to save time…
I really didn’t think things could get any better than that but then we meet Phil Brown as Hal. But I think I’ll have to ramble on about what amounts to my man-crush on Mr. Brown at a later date. I’m feeling the need for my third nap of the day creeping up on me.
But one last thing for today, I'm glad Ms. Haubenstock also found much to enjoy in Henry. My only disappointment would be the placement of the review in a not-so-prominent spot with a pretty low-impact headline. I guess that’s the way it goes there these days.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Hal
I had a giddy good time at the first preview of “Henry IV” at Agecroft last night. There’s enough swell stuff in this production for two reviews so, after I finish writing up my Style one, I’ll post my leftover thoughts here. But, if you want my quick first impression, here’s the lead sentence I’m mulling over right now:
“From the moment it begins, Richmond Shakespeare’s production of “Henry IV, Part 1” positively crackles with energy, wit, and hearty bravado.”
Does that mean I liked it? Oh my yes!
“From the moment it begins, Richmond Shakespeare’s production of “Henry IV, Part 1” positively crackles with energy, wit, and hearty bravado.”
Does that mean I liked it? Oh my yes!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Screen to Stage
Man, I have been planning to write about Claire Danes being scheduled to appear in Pygmalion ever since it was announced on Monday but haven’t gotten around to it. Then today’s Weekend section in the T-D had an item on it so I’ve got to put in my two cents. There’s a certain type of B-list movie star that makes for an intriguing and exciting stage presence and I’ve been waiting for just the “must-see” opportunity to run up northward. One of the first Broadway shows I ever saw was Noel Coward’s “Design for Living” starring Frank Langella (who was hot at the time because of his sizzling portrayal in “Dracula”), Raul Julia, and Jill Clayburgh. It was an enchanting production, Langella and Julia in particular just lighting up the stage.
More recently, I was pretty disappointed with Natalie Portman in “Diary of Anne Frank.” It wasn’t a bad production but Natalie didn’t do anything particularly noteworthy and, frankly, my sweetheart Holly T. will always be the ultimate Anne in my eyes.
To really get my motor running, the level of star power – and acting prowess – has to be just right to make the trek worthwhile. Julia Roberts or Denzel Washington are too strong both onstage and at the box office. Why pay hundreds or thousands of dollars and battle unseemly crowds just to see Julia flash her pearly whites? Cynthia Nixon is about perfect and I’m not sure why I didn’t break the bank to run up and see her in “Rabbit Hole.” Someone like Anna Paquin, Ryan Gosling, Lili Taylor or Ed Norton would also get me pulling every last string to see them. I would have also said Christian Bale or Kirsten Dunst before they both hit it so big with their superhero franchises; if either of them were to chose to grace the Great White Way, I’d be afraid of being overrun by comics fan-boys and girls.
Claire Danes is definitely in the ballpark. She’s one of those sneaky actresses who are usually better than you think they are going to be (I’d put Paquin in that category as well). She was great in her small role in “The Hours” and I’ll always have a soft spot for her because of her work in “Romeo + Juliet” (now THAT’S filmmaking!) and the tragically overlooked big-screen, non-musical “Les Miserables” (yes, she was Cozette in a cast that included Liam Neeson, Gregory Rush and Uma Thurman!). The problem here is the vehicle. “Pygmalion"? Ho hum. How I wish she had picked something a little more scintillating for her Broadway debut.
So I don’t think I’ll be doing any calisthenics to make it up specifically to see Ms. Danes. In fact, if there’s any “name” star that I’d work up a sweat to go see now it’d be Kate Mulgrew in “Iphigenia 2.0” off-Broadway. Great actress (before, after, and during “Star Trek: Voyager”) and interesting vehicle. And luckily (?), "Voyager" never got popular enough to generate too many fan-boys...
More recently, I was pretty disappointed with Natalie Portman in “Diary of Anne Frank.” It wasn’t a bad production but Natalie didn’t do anything particularly noteworthy and, frankly, my sweetheart Holly T. will always be the ultimate Anne in my eyes.
To really get my motor running, the level of star power – and acting prowess – has to be just right to make the trek worthwhile. Julia Roberts or Denzel Washington are too strong both onstage and at the box office. Why pay hundreds or thousands of dollars and battle unseemly crowds just to see Julia flash her pearly whites? Cynthia Nixon is about perfect and I’m not sure why I didn’t break the bank to run up and see her in “Rabbit Hole.” Someone like Anna Paquin, Ryan Gosling, Lili Taylor or Ed Norton would also get me pulling every last string to see them. I would have also said Christian Bale or Kirsten Dunst before they both hit it so big with their superhero franchises; if either of them were to chose to grace the Great White Way, I’d be afraid of being overrun by comics fan-boys and girls.
Claire Danes is definitely in the ballpark. She’s one of those sneaky actresses who are usually better than you think they are going to be (I’d put Paquin in that category as well). She was great in her small role in “The Hours” and I’ll always have a soft spot for her because of her work in “Romeo + Juliet” (now THAT’S filmmaking!) and the tragically overlooked big-screen, non-musical “Les Miserables” (yes, she was Cozette in a cast that included Liam Neeson, Gregory Rush and Uma Thurman!). The problem here is the vehicle. “Pygmalion"? Ho hum. How I wish she had picked something a little more scintillating for her Broadway debut.
So I don’t think I’ll be doing any calisthenics to make it up specifically to see Ms. Danes. In fact, if there’s any “name” star that I’d work up a sweat to go see now it’d be Kate Mulgrew in “Iphigenia 2.0” off-Broadway. Great actress (before, after, and during “Star Trek: Voyager”) and interesting vehicle. And luckily (?), "Voyager" never got popular enough to generate too many fan-boys...
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Henley Street
A story about recent start up Henley Street Theatre Company is featured in this week's Style. It's always exciting when a new producer joins the fray. More options for theater lovers, more jobs for deserving actors, more intriguing productions for critics (i.e., me!) to analyze.
I must admit to a similar feeling as Mary Burruss when I first heard about this new company -- more fresh meat for the art-meets-business grinder. I hope Mr. Previtera has a clear head when it comes to the challenges he and his cohorts will face. "Edgy" theater sounds great to me, but I don't have to rely on it to pay my bills. I also feel a little trepidation when I hear someone talk about O'Neill and Miller as daring. "Daring" to me has been some of Yellow House's productions (e.g., set in two rooms in a Fan row house). Or how about some Ionesco or Beckett? When I went to the Humana Festival a few years ago and they had telephone booth theater -- that was cool. I've heard about taxi cab theater too. If that's not quite environmentally friendly anymore, how about rick-shaw theater? Maybe Henley should host a weekend of truly "out-there" experimental theater if they want to be daring.
Of course, some of the most daring -- and exciting -- productions I've ever seen have been one-person shows (Jails, Hospitals, and Hip-Hop; Syringa Tree; I Am My Own Wife, etc.). These also happen to be great for a new theater on a budget. There's no dearth of folks around here who can make a one-person show soar (Scotty & JB for starters...) Just a thought...
I must admit to a similar feeling as Mary Burruss when I first heard about this new company -- more fresh meat for the art-meets-business grinder. I hope Mr. Previtera has a clear head when it comes to the challenges he and his cohorts will face. "Edgy" theater sounds great to me, but I don't have to rely on it to pay my bills. I also feel a little trepidation when I hear someone talk about O'Neill and Miller as daring. "Daring" to me has been some of Yellow House's productions (e.g., set in two rooms in a Fan row house). Or how about some Ionesco or Beckett? When I went to the Humana Festival a few years ago and they had telephone booth theater -- that was cool. I've heard about taxi cab theater too. If that's not quite environmentally friendly anymore, how about rick-shaw theater? Maybe Henley should host a weekend of truly "out-there" experimental theater if they want to be daring.
Of course, some of the most daring -- and exciting -- productions I've ever seen have been one-person shows (Jails, Hospitals, and Hip-Hop; Syringa Tree; I Am My Own Wife, etc.). These also happen to be great for a new theater on a budget. There's no dearth of folks around here who can make a one-person show soar (Scotty & JB for starters...) Just a thought...
Armed and Erroneous
Finally got a chance last night to catch up on the other blogs out there, and found that I’ve been taken to task – very gently and respectfully, mind you – for mistakenly insinuating that the giant arm seen late in the second act of “Into the Woods” was NOT manufactured specifically for the production. I should have known better. I’ve never known Theatre IV to skimp on props, starting back in the day of the first “Quilters” (yes, I’m bringing that up AGAIN) which featured timbers borrowed from an authentic country fence, re-assembled into an striking series of on-stage risers…not to mention that huge and beautiful hand-stitched quilt.
So mea culpa, Mr. Miller et al. Maybe I’ll try some innovative investigative techniques – like posing a simple question to a TIV staffer – before making such accusations in the future…
So mea culpa, Mr. Miller et al. Maybe I’ll try some innovative investigative techniques – like posing a simple question to a TIV staffer – before making such accusations in the future…
Finally - a title!
So much to say and so little time...
You probably saw the item in the T-D about Living Word changing it's name. I'm a little disappointed about this since their old name is so evocative. But "living word" does have a Biblical ring to it. Too bad in a way because to me it's a great general designation for theater -- taking words and bringing them to life on stage.
I'm still getting used to this whole new design with the T-D -- and not really sure I like it. The Sunday "Flair -- Life -- Travel -- All the important stuff in life" section in particular seems like a place they just dump all the random bits into, only using fewer of them. But I guess it's indicative of the newspaper biz. Anyway, I was nicely surprised getting back to town on Sunday and seeing the piece on Janet Leong. Many of you may know her as the ex-wife of David Leong, the chair of VCU's Theatre Dept. But she's an amazing masseuse and a cool person besides.
I was also totally surprised to see that there's a musical version of "Xanadu" opening on Broadway. Have I been asleep at the switch or what? I guess I have a better understanding of where John Lahr from the New Yorker was coming from. I really hope this is so totally campy bad that it's good. Otherwise, what's the point?
Also, I found out yesterday that my review of "Odd Couple" probably won't run until July 25th. Though I've done it before, I'm coming to realize it's bad form to post my reviews here before they show up in Style. So here's a few key sentiments from my review:
-- The key line: "An entertaining reminder of both the humanity and the hilarity of “The Odd Couple” is now playing at the Barksdale Theatre at Hanover Tavern. "
-- Scott and David are of course amazing. But Jennifer Franks and Jen Meharg are also fantastic in their one big scene. The dynamics of the scene with the Pigeon sisters are just great, David in particular making the whole scenario a belly-laugher as he tries to juggle Felix's reticence and the girls' randiness.
-- I think Jeff Clevenger is one of the most natural actors on stage I've ever seen. In everything I can remember seeing him in, he just inhabits the role, never too showy, impeccable timing. He's got it all.
With the cast that he has, Joe Pabst could hardly go wrong. And he certainly hasn't. It's a great production. More complete thoughts on it will be available at newstands near you in...about two weeks...Oy.
You probably saw the item in the T-D about Living Word changing it's name. I'm a little disappointed about this since their old name is so evocative. But "living word" does have a Biblical ring to it. Too bad in a way because to me it's a great general designation for theater -- taking words and bringing them to life on stage.
I'm still getting used to this whole new design with the T-D -- and not really sure I like it. The Sunday "Flair -- Life -- Travel -- All the important stuff in life" section in particular seems like a place they just dump all the random bits into, only using fewer of them. But I guess it's indicative of the newspaper biz. Anyway, I was nicely surprised getting back to town on Sunday and seeing the piece on Janet Leong. Many of you may know her as the ex-wife of David Leong, the chair of VCU's Theatre Dept. But she's an amazing masseuse and a cool person besides.
I was also totally surprised to see that there's a musical version of "Xanadu" opening on Broadway. Have I been asleep at the switch or what? I guess I have a better understanding of where John Lahr from the New Yorker was coming from. I really hope this is so totally campy bad that it's good. Otherwise, what's the point?
Also, I found out yesterday that my review of "Odd Couple" probably won't run until July 25th. Though I've done it before, I'm coming to realize it's bad form to post my reviews here before they show up in Style. So here's a few key sentiments from my review:
-- The key line: "An entertaining reminder of both the humanity and the hilarity of “The Odd Couple” is now playing at the Barksdale Theatre at Hanover Tavern. "
-- Scott and David are of course amazing. But Jennifer Franks and Jen Meharg are also fantastic in their one big scene. The dynamics of the scene with the Pigeon sisters are just great, David in particular making the whole scenario a belly-laugher as he tries to juggle Felix's reticence and the girls' randiness.
-- I think Jeff Clevenger is one of the most natural actors on stage I've ever seen. In everything I can remember seeing him in, he just inhabits the role, never too showy, impeccable timing. He's got it all.
With the cast that he has, Joe Pabst could hardly go wrong. And he certainly hasn't. It's a great production. More complete thoughts on it will be available at newstands near you in...about two weeks...Oy.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Blogger weirdness?!?
For some reason, I can't give my posts a title these days. Not sure what that means. For now, in case you haven't seen it, here's a link to my full review of "Into the Woods." More to come -- as soon as blogger lets me...
For some reason, I can't give my posts a title these days. Not sure what that means. For now, in case you haven't seen it, here's a link to my full review of "Into the Woods." More to come -- as soon as blogger lets me...
Monday, July 02, 2007
Darkness Falls
A lot of unsettled weather last week caused several show cancellations. Outdoor event “The Tempest” faired the worst as might be expected but even “Austin’s Bridge” got hit. It’s mentioned in Ms. Haubenstock’s review at the T-D but you can also check out Robin Harris Jones’s blog for a more complete account of the night.
Ms. H’s thoughts on “Bridge” seem very similar to the ramblings of another local critic that I’ve read. Hmmm…a case of brilliant minds thinking alike?
I’ve updated my links to the left – though they are still obviously incomplete and have a couple broken spots. But it finally occurred to me to add “Company of Fools” to the expatriates. Duh! Denise Simone, John Glen and others are still going strong out there in Idaho – John was the first Richmond director I ever met and had the opportunity to work for, certainly lucky for me. And they still regularly borrow local fave Debra Wagonner for their summer shows.
The T-D also weighed in on “The Odd Couple.” It’ll be a couple of days before I can gather my thoughts about that one. Stay tuned!
Ms. H’s thoughts on “Bridge” seem very similar to the ramblings of another local critic that I’ve read. Hmmm…a case of brilliant minds thinking alike?
I’ve updated my links to the left – though they are still obviously incomplete and have a couple broken spots. But it finally occurred to me to add “Company of Fools” to the expatriates. Duh! Denise Simone, John Glen and others are still going strong out there in Idaho – John was the first Richmond director I ever met and had the opportunity to work for, certainly lucky for me. And they still regularly borrow local fave Debra Wagonner for their summer shows.
The T-D also weighed in on “The Odd Couple.” It’ll be a couple of days before I can gather my thoughts about that one. Stay tuned!
Friday, June 29, 2007
Petrified by the unknown?
I came home Wednesday night to the latest New Yorker and found a pretty provactive piece on theater. Oh, the reviews aren't particularly controversial (very positive marks for "Eurydice" and "Rabbit"). But critic John Lahr starts out the article with this sweeping statement:
"Producers, who live or die on the accuracy of their reading of the public mood, have registered the current climate of fear and exploited our need for succor. The glut of movies-into-musicals and refurbished revivals is a kind of “Pimp My Mind” of theatre. Audiences are happy to pay top dollar to see what they already know; it’s the unknown that petrifies them."
As both a patron and a critic, I'm a little taken aback by this statement. Maybe I'm not up on the very latest that's playing on Broadway, but I'd say there continues to be a steady stream of challenging shows -- like oh, Tony winning "The Coast of Utopia" and "Spring Awakening" for instance -- getting produced. I don't feel petrified by the unknown -- I relish every foray into new territory that I hear about.
What do you all think?
"Producers, who live or die on the accuracy of their reading of the public mood, have registered the current climate of fear and exploited our need for succor. The glut of movies-into-musicals and refurbished revivals is a kind of “Pimp My Mind” of theatre. Audiences are happy to pay top dollar to see what they already know; it’s the unknown that petrifies them."
As both a patron and a critic, I'm a little taken aback by this statement. Maybe I'm not up on the very latest that's playing on Broadway, but I'd say there continues to be a steady stream of challenging shows -- like oh, Tony winning "The Coast of Utopia" and "Spring Awakening" for instance -- getting produced. I don't feel petrified by the unknown -- I relish every foray into new territory that I hear about.
What do you all think?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
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!
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!
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Damn, it's hot
I sympathize for those folks who will be putting on "The Tempest" tommorrow night. That's going to be a hot, sweaty performance. Oh, and by the way, my review of "The Tempest" is in this week's Style. It's pretty much exactly the same as what I posted below but still, there's a picture on the Style site, so that's something.
I had lunch today at The Camel on Broad Street, which is on the same block as the Firehouse Theater and just a few block down from Fielden's. I heartily endorse it for any theater person, and anyone else besides. It's a funky space, right below the WRIR studios, the food is good and they make great smoothies. Yum!
I had lunch today at The Camel on Broad Street, which is on the same block as the Firehouse Theater and just a few block down from Fielden's. I heartily endorse it for any theater person, and anyone else besides. It's a funky space, right below the WRIR studios, the food is good and they make great smoothies. Yum!
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Austin's Bridge
I saw Austin's Bridge last Thursday, my third show in two weeks. Reminiscent of when I used to see a show a week; those were the days...
I'll link to my full review as soon as it's posted but as you will find out when you read it, I wasn't totally enthralled with this show (it's posted -- you can read it here). My biggest problem was that I didn't ever care about the main character, Austin, as much as I did about several of the other characters, particularly Ronald, Ruth, and Diane. I didn't find the transition Austin went through in the first act very believable -- his dramatic transition from shallow opportunist to caring guardian just didn't work for me.
I was disappointed because the cast members all had excellent voices and, starting with Robin Harris Jones's first number, I was thinking the songs would carry the show nicely. (Small point, but the program didn't list the name of any of the songs which was a little annoying...) (Other quick aside: I've loved Robin Harris in just about everything I can remember seeing her in. I hope she lands another high profile lead sometime soon.) But somewhere around the end of the first act, they all started running together in my memory. Especially after seeing "Into the Woods" which has so many distinctive songs, I felt more variety in song structure was needed. But that's a hard one to judge after just one listen -- I wish I had a CD of the score to take home to give it another listen.
Just like with "The Tempest," I heard more opinions about this show than I usually do. A couple people absolutely loved it, but I was told second-hand that one person (a retired "critical" person who most local theater vets know...) thought it a bit of a mess. I tried considering the show for a while as a writer's problem: how would I change the structure so that it worked better for me? I guess I would change the focus more to Ronald and Ruth and make Austin a subsidiary character. But that would be hard given that the show is..um...kind of about him. So then I went back to writing my review...
Anyway, feel free to weigh in with your opinion of the show if you saw it. Or even if you didn't. Maybe you like the poster? All opinions accepted.
I'll link to my full review as soon as it's posted but as you will find out when you read it, I wasn't totally enthralled with this show (it's posted -- you can read it here). My biggest problem was that I didn't ever care about the main character, Austin, as much as I did about several of the other characters, particularly Ronald, Ruth, and Diane. I didn't find the transition Austin went through in the first act very believable -- his dramatic transition from shallow opportunist to caring guardian just didn't work for me.
I was disappointed because the cast members all had excellent voices and, starting with Robin Harris Jones's first number, I was thinking the songs would carry the show nicely. (Small point, but the program didn't list the name of any of the songs which was a little annoying...) (Other quick aside: I've loved Robin Harris in just about everything I can remember seeing her in. I hope she lands another high profile lead sometime soon.) But somewhere around the end of the first act, they all started running together in my memory. Especially after seeing "Into the Woods" which has so many distinctive songs, I felt more variety in song structure was needed. But that's a hard one to judge after just one listen -- I wish I had a CD of the score to take home to give it another listen.
Just like with "The Tempest," I heard more opinions about this show than I usually do. A couple people absolutely loved it, but I was told second-hand that one person (a retired "critical" person who most local theater vets know...) thought it a bit of a mess. I tried considering the show for a while as a writer's problem: how would I change the structure so that it worked better for me? I guess I would change the focus more to Ronald and Ruth and make Austin a subsidiary character. But that would be hard given that the show is..um...kind of about him. So then I went back to writing my review...
Anyway, feel free to weigh in with your opinion of the show if you saw it. Or even if you didn't. Maybe you like the poster? All opinions accepted.
Monday, June 25, 2007
More and more!
Man, just as soon as I start mentioning blogs, I find out about more!
In addition to the Barksdale Buzz mentioned below, there is also a Theatre IV specific blog. Not as buzzy at this point, but it may grow!
Also, I got a communique from one of Richmond's great expatriates, Rick St. Peter, who tells me that things are hopping out at the Actors Guild of Lexington (Ky). He blogs at length here -- and also regularly borrows Richmond great Scott Wichmann for his productions. I'm looking forward to seeing Scotty work his magic with Felix Unger this weekend out at Hanover Tavern.
Finally, one of Richmond's most talented actresses (yes, I'm spreading the compliments thickly today!) has recently started up a blog as well, that she mentioned in one of the comments below. But I'm waiting on confirmation from her to list it here on the main page. You can go searching or wait until I get the word...
It's clearly getting to the point where I could just do blogstuff 24/7 -- reading, surfing, commenting, etc.. With all this, who has time to see shows?
In addition to the Barksdale Buzz mentioned below, there is also a Theatre IV specific blog. Not as buzzy at this point, but it may grow!
Also, I got a communique from one of Richmond's great expatriates, Rick St. Peter, who tells me that things are hopping out at the Actors Guild of Lexington (Ky). He blogs at length here -- and also regularly borrows Richmond great Scott Wichmann for his productions. I'm looking forward to seeing Scotty work his magic with Felix Unger this weekend out at Hanover Tavern.
Finally, one of Richmond's most talented actresses (yes, I'm spreading the compliments thickly today!) has recently started up a blog as well, that she mentioned in one of the comments below. But I'm waiting on confirmation from her to list it here on the main page. You can go searching or wait until I get the word...
It's clearly getting to the point where I could just do blogstuff 24/7 -- reading, surfing, commenting, etc.. With all this, who has time to see shows?
Link maintenance
Well, I've finally got some of the "Now Showing" links up, but I know this isn't a comprehensive list. I also haven't weighed in on everything that's playing so some links just go to the show's website.
I've also started the process of reviewing some of the other left-side links I've got. Oy, maintenance is a bitch. But I have found some interesting things as part of the web surfing. One is stumbling upon the Barksdale Blog, which also got a shout out in the T-D this past weekend. I wonder if the person monitoring the comments for them (Judi?) is going to be swamped as a result.
I also noticed that Eric Dobbs has a blog, as does ‘Rick Gray. Neither of these guys seems to update their posts that often, though (now I don't feel so bad...) ‘Rick describes himself as moving from conservative Democrat to moderate Republican to liberal Dem. Perhaps we can rope him into the white-hot political debates that rage over on Andrew Hamm’s blog???
I've also started the process of reviewing some of the other left-side links I've got. Oy, maintenance is a bitch. But I have found some interesting things as part of the web surfing. One is stumbling upon the Barksdale Blog, which also got a shout out in the T-D this past weekend. I wonder if the person monitoring the comments for them (Judi?) is going to be swamped as a result.
I also noticed that Eric Dobbs has a blog, as does ‘Rick Gray. Neither of these guys seems to update their posts that often, though (now I don't feel so bad...) ‘Rick describes himself as moving from conservative Democrat to moderate Republican to liberal Dem. Perhaps we can rope him into the white-hot political debates that rage over on Andrew Hamm’s blog???
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Mr. Davis
I've been wanting to mention just as an FYI that Bill C. Davis is a great interview and a very nice guy. I've been doing interviews for years now and, just like Forrest's box of chocolates, you never really know what you're going to get when you actually make contact. One of my worst interviews ever was with the comedian Stephen Wright whose deadpan, affectless delivery works great in his comedy but is just deadly in an interview. I've interviewed a fair amount of writers and some directors who were a bit full of themselves -- leading to very one-sided conversations. Given that Mr. Davis is both a writer and director, I was pleasantly surprised. He was polite and earnest and good-natured and forthcoming and had many wonderful things to say about Richmond.
Somewhat defying the popular stereotype, most of the actors I've interviewed have been delightful -- only one true prima donna that I can think of off-hand (and no, I'm not going to say who that was). And among the most delightful interviews I've ever had have been with hyphenates -- writer/directors, actor/directors, actor/producers, etc. Again, this seems to run against what the preconception would be -- someone good at multiple things must think they're a hotshot, right? Instead, the ones I've talked to seem to be somewhat humbled by the process of moving from one specialty to the other. Where's all that ego that's supposed to fuel you theater types?
Somewhat defying the popular stereotype, most of the actors I've interviewed have been delightful -- only one true prima donna that I can think of off-hand (and no, I'm not going to say who that was). And among the most delightful interviews I've ever had have been with hyphenates -- writer/directors, actor/directors, actor/producers, etc. Again, this seems to run against what the preconception would be -- someone good at multiple things must think they're a hotshot, right? Instead, the ones I've talked to seem to be somewhat humbled by the process of moving from one specialty to the other. Where's all that ego that's supposed to fuel you theater types?
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Articles
Here's a link to my interview of Bill C. Davis, the playwright and director of "Austin's Bridge" set to open at the Firehouse tomorrow.
And the production of "Witches of Eastwick" in DC -- starring former Richmonder Emily Skinner -- has been getting a fair amount of press in the Washington Post. Here's one article and here's another. Logging into the Post's site is now required, in case you haven't registered there.
That should give you enough reading material for a while!
And the production of "Witches of Eastwick" in DC -- starring former Richmonder Emily Skinner -- has been getting a fair amount of press in the Washington Post. Here's one article and here's another. Logging into the Post's site is now required, in case you haven't registered there.
That should give you enough reading material for a while!
Apologies
The review of "The Tempest" didn't make it into this week's Style. Not sure why -- e-mail fired off to Arts editor to try to ascertain the situation.
But until it does, here's what I wrote. Not sure how it will appear in print. Enjoy.
Shelters in the Storm
Music, blithe spirit buoy Richmond Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”
By David Timberline (357 words)
As befits its title, “The Tempest” is a whirlwind of emotion. Like none other of Shakespeare’s plays, this brilliant mash-up of comedy and tragedy churns with errant themes of love, betrayal, music and magic. It is comparatively thin plotwise, however, as if the immortal Bard decided to give himself over to the passions of the heart without undo concern for the intellect.
In Richmond Shakespeare Theatre’s merry and sometimes manic production of “The Tempest,” currently playing at Agecroft Hall, the calm at the center of this storm is provided by Stephen Lorne Williams as Prospero. Williams has an impressive history with “The Tempest:” thirty years ago, he played Prospero’s trusty fairy assistant, Ariel, in a Royal National Theatre production opposite John Gielgud. But while Williams has the pedigree for the role, I found his Prospero a bit staid. Ironically, it is this production’s Ariel, played by the remarkable Graham Birce, who infuses significant charm and vigor into the proceedings.
It is Ariel who Prospero sends off to implement the many components of his plan. Having been stranded on a lonely island for twelve years, Prospero has become an adept magician and raises a storm that shipwrecks his enemies. Years before, they had stripped him of his title as Duke of Milan, then set him adrift with his infant daughter, Miranda (played with delightful fervor by Liz Blake), who has since has grown into a comely maid. The storm will also bring her a suitor, Prince Ferdinand (Matt Polson). Using his sprightly magic, Ariel brings Miranda and Ferdinand together; undermines Prospero’s treacherous brother, Antonio (Andy Nagraj); and befuddles a trio of would-be assassins, led by the evil witch-spawn, Caliban (David White).
Amidst all of this, Birce moves about spryly in black Converse sneakers, plays violin beautifully, sings enchanting songs, and even walks on stilts. He is assisted by Andrew Hamm and his Foolhardy Band; their playful array of songs and incidental melodies serve as a perfect compliment to the action. There are other exceptional performances in this production: White’s Caliban, for instance, is memorably earthy and bitter. But ultimately it’s Graham Birce that stands out in the storm.
“The Tempest” plays Thursday – Sunday at Agecroft Hall until July 8th. Tickets are $13-$24. Call 232-4000 for details.
But until it does, here's what I wrote. Not sure how it will appear in print. Enjoy.
Shelters in the Storm
Music, blithe spirit buoy Richmond Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”
By David Timberline (357 words)
As befits its title, “The Tempest” is a whirlwind of emotion. Like none other of Shakespeare’s plays, this brilliant mash-up of comedy and tragedy churns with errant themes of love, betrayal, music and magic. It is comparatively thin plotwise, however, as if the immortal Bard decided to give himself over to the passions of the heart without undo concern for the intellect.
In Richmond Shakespeare Theatre’s merry and sometimes manic production of “The Tempest,” currently playing at Agecroft Hall, the calm at the center of this storm is provided by Stephen Lorne Williams as Prospero. Williams has an impressive history with “The Tempest:” thirty years ago, he played Prospero’s trusty fairy assistant, Ariel, in a Royal National Theatre production opposite John Gielgud. But while Williams has the pedigree for the role, I found his Prospero a bit staid. Ironically, it is this production’s Ariel, played by the remarkable Graham Birce, who infuses significant charm and vigor into the proceedings.
It is Ariel who Prospero sends off to implement the many components of his plan. Having been stranded on a lonely island for twelve years, Prospero has become an adept magician and raises a storm that shipwrecks his enemies. Years before, they had stripped him of his title as Duke of Milan, then set him adrift with his infant daughter, Miranda (played with delightful fervor by Liz Blake), who has since has grown into a comely maid. The storm will also bring her a suitor, Prince Ferdinand (Matt Polson). Using his sprightly magic, Ariel brings Miranda and Ferdinand together; undermines Prospero’s treacherous brother, Antonio (Andy Nagraj); and befuddles a trio of would-be assassins, led by the evil witch-spawn, Caliban (David White).
Amidst all of this, Birce moves about spryly in black Converse sneakers, plays violin beautifully, sings enchanting songs, and even walks on stilts. He is assisted by Andrew Hamm and his Foolhardy Band; their playful array of songs and incidental melodies serve as a perfect compliment to the action. There are other exceptional performances in this production: White’s Caliban, for instance, is memorably earthy and bitter. But ultimately it’s Graham Birce that stands out in the storm.
“The Tempest” plays Thursday – Sunday at Agecroft Hall until July 8th. Tickets are $13-$24. Call 232-4000 for details.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A Stormy Conversation
I brought a friend, his wife and their daughter to the first preview of “The Tempest” last Thursday. The audience was made up mostly of senior citizens, whose unfiltered comments throughout the play sometimes amounted to a performance in themselves. My favorite was the guy who grew tired of the “Not too late” chorus of Andrew’s opening song and began intoning it sarcastically halfway through each verse. The most annoying was the guy who loudly explained Prospero’s final speech to his wife as it was going on (“He’s saying that he won’t leave until we clap…”)
Though you will see that my review was positive, I heard a fair amount of negative feedback about that first preview. An old friend I met at “Into the Woods” the next night said she left at intermission because she couldn’t hear what anyone was saying. And below is a back-and-forth between me and my friend about the merits of the production. So, in case you are thinking that the criticisms that get published are the toughest, you can see that there are audience-members who are much tougher than I’ll ever be.
PS: I'll update the "Now Showing" section to the left someday soon....
From my friend:
Thoughts:
· I wasn't as impressed with Ariel as you were. He had his moments, but I thought him not quite otherwordly enough
· I thought the production was somewhat marred by the sound considerations. The band drowned out the actors not infrequently but this may have been a hazard of our seating only. I should have beeen surprised if anyone heard the content of either the first scene or Ariel's storm.
· The camp wears a little thin in this production at times. The "wedding" scene is a good example of this.
My response:
While the volume was often a bit intense, I did appreciate the quality of the band -- many productions of "The Tempest" try to get by with a few fairies playing triangles and tambourines. My appreciation of Ariel was largely because he was so earthbound -- big-ticket productions usually have him (or generally her) flying and harboring a secret love for Prospero. I thought the way they played him made him more of a counterpart to Caliban.
I agree about the camp -- a sentiment I tried to capture in the word "manic" in my description -- a lot to encapsulate in one word but that is my frustration with having to write so short. I'm often in this mid-ground of wanting to express something but then realizing to really express it would take up half the review.
Though you will see that my review was positive, I heard a fair amount of negative feedback about that first preview. An old friend I met at “Into the Woods” the next night said she left at intermission because she couldn’t hear what anyone was saying. And below is a back-and-forth between me and my friend about the merits of the production. So, in case you are thinking that the criticisms that get published are the toughest, you can see that there are audience-members who are much tougher than I’ll ever be.
PS: I'll update the "Now Showing" section to the left someday soon....
From my friend:
Thoughts:
· I wasn't as impressed with Ariel as you were. He had his moments, but I thought him not quite otherwordly enough
· I thought the production was somewhat marred by the sound considerations. The band drowned out the actors not infrequently but this may have been a hazard of our seating only. I should have beeen surprised if anyone heard the content of either the first scene or Ariel's storm.
· The camp wears a little thin in this production at times. The "wedding" scene is a good example of this.
My response:
While the volume was often a bit intense, I did appreciate the quality of the band -- many productions of "The Tempest" try to get by with a few fairies playing triangles and tambourines. My appreciation of Ariel was largely because he was so earthbound -- big-ticket productions usually have him (or generally her) flying and harboring a secret love for Prospero. I thought the way they played him made him more of a counterpart to Caliban.
I agree about the camp -- a sentiment I tried to capture in the word "manic" in my description -- a lot to encapsulate in one word but that is my frustration with having to write so short. I'm often in this mid-ground of wanting to express something but then realizing to really express it would take up half the review.
Monday, June 18, 2007
No excuses
So I’ve been gone for a while. I expected I might let a week or two slip but I’m shocked that it’s been 5 months. I can’t really come up with a coherent excuse. Life has been busy but it’s always that way, isn’t it? I’ve been on a bit of an emotional roller coaster – my daughter has been applying to high schools and my best friend is leaving town for Atlanta in two weeks, both thing in process since the beginning of the year.
But maybe the most relevant thing to say is that I took a class in Film at U of R this past semester and I have just been more in tune with film for these past several months. As a result, I haven’t seen that many shows, written many pieces for Style, and, worst of all, not kept in touch that well with anyone in the theater world. I’m sorry, folks. Life is like that sometimes; I appreciate your indulgence.
On the flip side, the past couple of weeks have been all about theater for me. I interviewed Bill C. Davis, the playwright of “Austin’s Bridge,” and the director of the production opening at the Firehouse this week. I saw “The Tempest” and “Into the Woods” last week and will be catching “Bridge” this week. I’ll be commenting on all of these separately since I have much to blather on about them all.
But before that, did you happen to catch the Tony Awards recap on the Entertainment Weekly site? I enjoyed it and thought you might too. I really wish I had seen “Spring Awakening” last December though…
But maybe the most relevant thing to say is that I took a class in Film at U of R this past semester and I have just been more in tune with film for these past several months. As a result, I haven’t seen that many shows, written many pieces for Style, and, worst of all, not kept in touch that well with anyone in the theater world. I’m sorry, folks. Life is like that sometimes; I appreciate your indulgence.
On the flip side, the past couple of weeks have been all about theater for me. I interviewed Bill C. Davis, the playwright of “Austin’s Bridge,” and the director of the production opening at the Firehouse this week. I saw “The Tempest” and “Into the Woods” last week and will be catching “Bridge” this week. I’ll be commenting on all of these separately since I have much to blather on about them all.
But before that, did you happen to catch the Tony Awards recap on the Entertainment Weekly site? I enjoyed it and thought you might too. I really wish I had seen “Spring Awakening” last December though…
Friday, January 19, 2007
Southern Intrigue
There had been talk of a new kid on the block (if you charitably extend the Richmond block to include Hopewell). The historic Beacon Theatre was set to debut “Wit” next week in what was billed as a theater “fully restored to its original beauty.” But then this week I was forward this info:
Due to uncontrollable circumstances, and in the best interest and protection of our cast, the Board of Directors and staff of Hopewell Preservation, Inc and the Beacon Theatre regretfully have to reschedule the performances of 'Wit'. Original dates were previously scheduled for January 26 through February 4.
Hmmmm. I’m sure there’s a story here, but I certainly have no clue what it is. The show, originally scheduled to run two weekends, has since been rescheduled to one weekend in March. I guess I could call someone and try to get the inside scoop on this but I prefer to fill in the mystery with all sorts of wild speculation. I’ve got to do something to entertain myself.
Due to uncontrollable circumstances, and in the best interest and protection of our cast, the Board of Directors and staff of Hopewell Preservation, Inc and the Beacon Theatre regretfully have to reschedule the performances of 'Wit'. Original dates were previously scheduled for January 26 through February 4.
Hmmmm. I’m sure there’s a story here, but I certainly have no clue what it is. The show, originally scheduled to run two weekends, has since been rescheduled to one weekend in March. I guess I could call someone and try to get the inside scoop on this but I prefer to fill in the mystery with all sorts of wild speculation. I’ve got to do something to entertain myself.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Thoughts both Idol and envious
I was watching the “American Idol” auditions last night (not on purpose or anything mind you…was folding laundry in the family room and the kids were watching it…what was I supposed to do???) and I swear that I saw Scott Wichmann in a street shot of Seattle. There was a guy shaking out an umbrella and he said something to the camera (can’t remember exactly what…didn’t have the DVR primed…) and between the voice and the look, it was unmistakably him. If it wasn’t, Scottie’s got a twin who lives out in the NorthWest.
If you want to catch up with Scott and his adventures out west (where he caught up with Richmond expats Foster Solomon and Susan Sanford), be sure to check out his blog.
Did anyone see the second edition of “Grease: You’re the one that I want” auditions? I’m afraid that one is probably going to drop right off my radar screen as time goes on. I did see that the ratings for the show dropped from about 23rd on the first night to something in the mid-40s for the second edition. May not bode well…
I’ve enjoyed hearing about people who went to shows in NYC around the holidays. For oneeyedog who came face-to-face with Cynthia Nixon – you lucky dog! I loved her on “Sex and the City” and my esteem for her has only grown as she has continued to do cool shows on Broadway since SATC closed up shop. It was a possibility that I would see “Chorus Line” when I was up there but it turned out to be a girls-only show for our family: my daughters, wife and mom-in-law went and filled me in later. Their opinion (not informed by the critical distain that comes with my job) was that the show was great. My lovely wife was surprised at how much she had forgotten about the show since she first saw it years and years ago.
I really wanted to see “Spring Awakening” but because we were planning on bringing two adolescents with us, I balked on that one. A show about adolescence and sex might have been a little too real both for the kids and us parental types. Now the wife and I are mulling over a possible spring NYC trip that I think will include “Drowsy Chaperone” and “Awakening.”
I saw Kristin Chenowith on David Lettermen last week and she was quite a hoot. It’s remarkable how tiny she is! Next to Dave, she seemed a bit like a dwarf. I appreciate a talk show that recognizes Broadway stars; Dave will always be the post-baby boom generation’s answer to Johnny Carson, if you ask me. Jay who?
“Wicked” was truly amazing. I went in with pretty low expectations for a number of reasons too involved to go into here. But man, I was just blown away. Ana Gasteyer is truly up to the task of Elphaba; she blew the doors off of “Defying Gravity.” The story is genius, fitting together with “The Wizard of Oz” so that the old movie seems like just a small piece of a much more intricate and interesting puzzle. And I don’t know if I can string together an adequate number of adjectives to describe the cleverness and well-craftedness of Stephen Schwartz’s songs. Particularly listening to the cast recording afterwards, it’s clear that he put everything he had into this one. I’m looking forward to showing our little ones “The Wizard of Oz” soon so we’ll have an excuse to go see “Wicked” again! I know that watching the movie will never be the same again!
Did you know that the name Elphaba comes from the initials of "TWofOZ's" author? L. Frank Baum = LFB = El-fa-ba. How's that for a fun fact!
I’ll have to write more about “The Grinch” sometime – not just the production, but some not-so-positive things I think the production says about the unique niche of “opportunistic” theater.
If you want to catch up with Scott and his adventures out west (where he caught up with Richmond expats Foster Solomon and Susan Sanford), be sure to check out his blog.
Did anyone see the second edition of “Grease: You’re the one that I want” auditions? I’m afraid that one is probably going to drop right off my radar screen as time goes on. I did see that the ratings for the show dropped from about 23rd on the first night to something in the mid-40s for the second edition. May not bode well…
I’ve enjoyed hearing about people who went to shows in NYC around the holidays. For oneeyedog who came face-to-face with Cynthia Nixon – you lucky dog! I loved her on “Sex and the City” and my esteem for her has only grown as she has continued to do cool shows on Broadway since SATC closed up shop. It was a possibility that I would see “Chorus Line” when I was up there but it turned out to be a girls-only show for our family: my daughters, wife and mom-in-law went and filled me in later. Their opinion (not informed by the critical distain that comes with my job) was that the show was great. My lovely wife was surprised at how much she had forgotten about the show since she first saw it years and years ago.
I really wanted to see “Spring Awakening” but because we were planning on bringing two adolescents with us, I balked on that one. A show about adolescence and sex might have been a little too real both for the kids and us parental types. Now the wife and I are mulling over a possible spring NYC trip that I think will include “Drowsy Chaperone” and “Awakening.”
I saw Kristin Chenowith on David Lettermen last week and she was quite a hoot. It’s remarkable how tiny she is! Next to Dave, she seemed a bit like a dwarf. I appreciate a talk show that recognizes Broadway stars; Dave will always be the post-baby boom generation’s answer to Johnny Carson, if you ask me. Jay who?
“Wicked” was truly amazing. I went in with pretty low expectations for a number of reasons too involved to go into here. But man, I was just blown away. Ana Gasteyer is truly up to the task of Elphaba; she blew the doors off of “Defying Gravity.” The story is genius, fitting together with “The Wizard of Oz” so that the old movie seems like just a small piece of a much more intricate and interesting puzzle. And I don’t know if I can string together an adequate number of adjectives to describe the cleverness and well-craftedness of Stephen Schwartz’s songs. Particularly listening to the cast recording afterwards, it’s clear that he put everything he had into this one. I’m looking forward to showing our little ones “The Wizard of Oz” soon so we’ll have an excuse to go see “Wicked” again! I know that watching the movie will never be the same again!
Did you know that the name Elphaba comes from the initials of "TWofOZ's" author? L. Frank Baum = LFB = El-fa-ba. How's that for a fun fact!
I’ll have to write more about “The Grinch” sometime – not just the production, but some not-so-positive things I think the production says about the unique niche of “opportunistic” theater.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Johnny, Sprites, and the feedback loop
If you are just sitting down to your morning cuppa Joe on Saturday morning and leafing through the blogoshere, you might want to pop on the Disney channel. At 10am this morning, a new children’s show premieres on the Disney channel that stars John Tartaglia from “Avenue Q” and, as described in this New York Times piece, has been enhanced by the involvement of a lot of Broadway vets up to and including no less than Mr. Stephen Schwartz.
I wanted to thank everyone who has commented on the ole blog lately, particularly the responses to my post about impressions and RTP. It was particularly nice to hear from Mr. Knapp who prompted the post. Let me try to respond in kind.
Jacquie, you are way too kind and also a good friend and someone I still owe a Christmas card to (yes, sad to say, we are still sending them out…) Please don’t hesitate to call me ignorant; god knows I am about many many things (as my children will be only TOO glad to point out for you!) What I hope I have done is try to approach theater criticism as a fan. I also went into this gig with no illusions that it was a great way to meet new pals in the theater world so, while I wouldn’t ask for your envy, you also shouldn’t feel too sorry for me either.
Amy, I love when you post a comment and really respect your perspective. I think you hit a nail on the head. As a writer for (and therefore a representative of) Style, I expect the magazine’s treatment of theater gets confused with my opinion of theater. This is completely understandable; I know I consider the T-D’s lack of a full-time staff writer covering the performing/fine arts a comment on their lack of respect for those communities. The situation with Style has some complications and maybe when I get a second I can expound a little on the inner workings of Style as I understand them. They may or may not reflect the reality of the situation. And yes, I do remember your letter, Amy! Too bad it was back in the days before blogs or else I might have had a chance to respond. Responses were discouraged back in those non-interactive days…
John, I thought there was a hint of jest in your comment but I couldn’t be sure. I guess it tweaked the guilt I feel for not seeing any RTP shows in almost two years. Yes, I have GOT to get out more.
Did I review Pageant? I don’t remember doing so but I’ll have to comb through the archives and make sure. Let me assure you that I know very well that those who work in theater do it because they love it not to make scads of cash (well, I did it to meet chicks but that was years ago…) I try to bring that perspective to my reviews as well. But I also try to bring another perspective, which is that of a patron who has paid their good money and is devoting an evening to a show and has a right to expect certain things in response (though I get most of my tickets for free, some schedule juggling or hiring of a babysitter is required even for me. And my mother-in-law doesn’t work cheap…) Just one anecdote to put out there as an example: a couple I know recently walked out of the TheatreVCU production of “Medea” and went out to see a movie because it was their night out, dammit, and they were determined to be entertained even if they had to pay for both a play and a movie to make that happen.
I guess my point is that I certainly respect and admire that people do theater because they love it. But, if they want pats on the back from a critic or adoration from an audience, they have to do more than show up and put in the hours. They also have to be creative, talented and maybe even a bit lucky. It's not an easy job, I know, but love is never easy.
As for the inner workings of Style and why certain things are covered or not, per my response to Amy I’ll do my best to talk about some of that in a future post. Fer sure.
I wanted to thank everyone who has commented on the ole blog lately, particularly the responses to my post about impressions and RTP. It was particularly nice to hear from Mr. Knapp who prompted the post. Let me try to respond in kind.
Jacquie, you are way too kind and also a good friend and someone I still owe a Christmas card to (yes, sad to say, we are still sending them out…) Please don’t hesitate to call me ignorant; god knows I am about many many things (as my children will be only TOO glad to point out for you!) What I hope I have done is try to approach theater criticism as a fan. I also went into this gig with no illusions that it was a great way to meet new pals in the theater world so, while I wouldn’t ask for your envy, you also shouldn’t feel too sorry for me either.
Amy, I love when you post a comment and really respect your perspective. I think you hit a nail on the head. As a writer for (and therefore a representative of) Style, I expect the magazine’s treatment of theater gets confused with my opinion of theater. This is completely understandable; I know I consider the T-D’s lack of a full-time staff writer covering the performing/fine arts a comment on their lack of respect for those communities. The situation with Style has some complications and maybe when I get a second I can expound a little on the inner workings of Style as I understand them. They may or may not reflect the reality of the situation. And yes, I do remember your letter, Amy! Too bad it was back in the days before blogs or else I might have had a chance to respond. Responses were discouraged back in those non-interactive days…
John, I thought there was a hint of jest in your comment but I couldn’t be sure. I guess it tweaked the guilt I feel for not seeing any RTP shows in almost two years. Yes, I have GOT to get out more.
Did I review Pageant? I don’t remember doing so but I’ll have to comb through the archives and make sure. Let me assure you that I know very well that those who work in theater do it because they love it not to make scads of cash (well, I did it to meet chicks but that was years ago…) I try to bring that perspective to my reviews as well. But I also try to bring another perspective, which is that of a patron who has paid their good money and is devoting an evening to a show and has a right to expect certain things in response (though I get most of my tickets for free, some schedule juggling or hiring of a babysitter is required even for me. And my mother-in-law doesn’t work cheap…) Just one anecdote to put out there as an example: a couple I know recently walked out of the TheatreVCU production of “Medea” and went out to see a movie because it was their night out, dammit, and they were determined to be entertained even if they had to pay for both a play and a movie to make that happen.
I guess my point is that I certainly respect and admire that people do theater because they love it. But, if they want pats on the back from a critic or adoration from an audience, they have to do more than show up and put in the hours. They also have to be creative, talented and maybe even a bit lucky. It's not an easy job, I know, but love is never easy.
As for the inner workings of Style and why certain things are covered or not, per my response to Amy I’ll do my best to talk about some of that in a future post. Fer sure.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Good thoughts and reality shows
Speaking of Richmond Triangle Players, please send prayers and positive energy to Michael Gooding who is recovering from surgery. He has worked tirelessly to build and sustain RTP over the years, but he’ll be needing to take it easy for the next month. Heal well, Michael.
Apparently, the “Grease” reality show did pretty well in the ratings last weekend (look here for a detailed breakdown), even though some other critics expressed some of the same concerns I had. If the show can make it through the rehearsals OK, I expect it’ll do pretty well during the “live shows.” As glib as Billy Bush is, I think he thinks pretty well on his feet.
And in further intersections between theater and reality shows, that Constantine guy from American Idol will be joining the cast of “Jacques Brel.” I think it’s a bit odd, and maybe a little disturbing, that Broadway has become the landing strip for so many reality show also-rans (e.g., Diana DiGarmo, Frenchy whats-her-name, etc.) I preferred instead that trend we were seeing where Hollywood A-listers were showing up in New York (Julianne Moore, Denzel Washington, etc.)
And one last random aside: the lovely wife and I just saw “Little Children” at the movies last week and I’ll tell you now, if Kate Winslett ever appears on Broadway or on the West End – not unlikely given her husband’s profession – I’d sell a kidney in order to see her. She’s just amazing. I’d also go to extreme measures to see Anna Paquin (whose limited engagements on Broadway have escaped me in the past), though I’d try to keep body parts out of the equation.
Apparently, the “Grease” reality show did pretty well in the ratings last weekend (look here for a detailed breakdown), even though some other critics expressed some of the same concerns I had. If the show can make it through the rehearsals OK, I expect it’ll do pretty well during the “live shows.” As glib as Billy Bush is, I think he thinks pretty well on his feet.
And in further intersections between theater and reality shows, that Constantine guy from American Idol will be joining the cast of “Jacques Brel.” I think it’s a bit odd, and maybe a little disturbing, that Broadway has become the landing strip for so many reality show also-rans (e.g., Diana DiGarmo, Frenchy whats-her-name, etc.) I preferred instead that trend we were seeing where Hollywood A-listers were showing up in New York (Julianne Moore, Denzel Washington, etc.)
And one last random aside: the lovely wife and I just saw “Little Children” at the movies last week and I’ll tell you now, if Kate Winslett ever appears on Broadway or on the West End – not unlikely given her husband’s profession – I’d sell a kidney in order to see her. She’s just amazing. I’d also go to extreme measures to see Anna Paquin (whose limited engagements on Broadway have escaped me in the past), though I’d try to keep body parts out of the equation.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Preparing for a thrill
I’m always interested in how impressions get formed. I had the occasion today to speak to John Knapp, the Artistic Director for Richmond Triangle Players. Mr. Knapp has directed many fabulous productions for RTP and is currently preparing “Thrill Me,” which he asserts will be an intriguing and creepy departure for RTP. He mentioned in passing (and to be fair, possibly half in jest; it’s hard to gauge these things over the phone) that he realized that I didn’t have any great love for the stuff RTP did. This took me aback a bit. I tried to assure him that to a great degree I am ignorant of much of what RTP is doing because I haven’t had the chance to see one of their shows in so long.
This prompted me to look back into my archives and the last time I had written a review about an RTP production was an only mildly qualified rave review of “Breathe” in 2005 (which I made a point to mention again in my 2005 wrap-up column) and before that, an unqualified rave of “Santaland Diaries” in 2004. So where-for comes the idea that I’m down on RTP?
I know my former Style partner-in-criticism, Mr. Nickerson, was no RTP fan, judging from his reviews last year. And on the cyperpages of this blog I voiced some reservations in advance of the VCU-student led Christmas show last year and maybe some unkind second-hand comments about some recent RTP productions. Perhaps I’ve done so without enough qualifications (e.g., “the opinions expressed by those whose opinions I pass on are theirs and do not necessarily reflect the opinions – or lack thereof – of this author…”) But rest assured, I look forward to each RTP show I go to with as much fresh-faced eagerness as I approach any other show in town. Truth be told, my attitude about ANY show that I actually attend is usually pretty euphoric given that a night at the theater means a night I’m not overseeing bedtime for 2 cranky tweens and 2 obstinate pre-schoolers.
This reminds me of times in the past when folks at Chamberlayne Actors Theatre thought I was down on them (beware of what you say in line on opening night – you never know who might be listening) and leadership at Swift Creek Mill wouldn’t even talk to me. Those were giddy times indeed! I’m looking forward to 2007 and the sowing of additional mis-impressions…
This prompted me to look back into my archives and the last time I had written a review about an RTP production was an only mildly qualified rave review of “Breathe” in 2005 (which I made a point to mention again in my 2005 wrap-up column) and before that, an unqualified rave of “Santaland Diaries” in 2004. So where-for comes the idea that I’m down on RTP?
I know my former Style partner-in-criticism, Mr. Nickerson, was no RTP fan, judging from his reviews last year. And on the cyperpages of this blog I voiced some reservations in advance of the VCU-student led Christmas show last year and maybe some unkind second-hand comments about some recent RTP productions. Perhaps I’ve done so without enough qualifications (e.g., “the opinions expressed by those whose opinions I pass on are theirs and do not necessarily reflect the opinions – or lack thereof – of this author…”) But rest assured, I look forward to each RTP show I go to with as much fresh-faced eagerness as I approach any other show in town. Truth be told, my attitude about ANY show that I actually attend is usually pretty euphoric given that a night at the theater means a night I’m not overseeing bedtime for 2 cranky tweens and 2 obstinate pre-schoolers.
This reminds me of times in the past when folks at Chamberlayne Actors Theatre thought I was down on them (beware of what you say in line on opening night – you never know who might be listening) and leadership at Swift Creek Mill wouldn’t even talk to me. Those were giddy times indeed! I’m looking forward to 2007 and the sowing of additional mis-impressions…
Monday, January 08, 2007
You’re…NOT the show I’ll be watching Sunday nights
The new reality TV show, “Grease: You’re the One that I Want,” has done something that I never would have thought possible: made me appreciate Paula Abdul. I’m not a huge “American Idol” fan – though I must admit to having caught a mild case of the McPheever last season. Generally, I have found “Idol” judges Paula and Randy to be insipid and repetitious when not downright moronic. Simon is the “bad guy” but most often, he’s just the most honest, occasionally with a brutality that adds entertainment value to the show.
However, as flawed as Simon’s cohorts are, at least they have personalities. “Grease” director Kathleen Marshall may be a great choreographer but she showed the vitality of a stone when judging during the show last night. And “Grease” author, Jim somebody or other, could barely get a coherent word out, let alone say something amusing or even mildly insightful. The tour of the haunts that inspired “Grease” basically insisted of him getting out of cars and pointing. Scintillating television.
Producer David Ian is a solid enough screen presence and he isn’t as brittle as Simon. But he’s also not nearly as entertaining. He also dominates the show in a way that Simon doesn’t dominate “Idol” so I fear he will grow tiresome soon. His “You’re…NOT Sandy” tagline grew tiresome after only one episode.
I have to respect “Grease” for using the real people whose careers and whose money are wrapped up in the Broadway production. If (when) Katharine McPhee’s first album tanks, it’ll barely distract the “Idol” judges. But putting their livelihoods on the line here has perhaps paralyzed the “Grease” team in a ‘deer-in-the-headlights’ kind of way that doesn’t play that well on the small screen.
The strongest aspect of the show so far is the potential Dannys and Sandys. Of course, the judges then didn’t do the show any favors by booting a few of the most interesting prospects (the plus-size dancing cupcake, the pharmaceutical rep who walked in from a convention, and the Danny who was doing it for his dead brother). I’ll probably give the show one more chance (overheating the DVR next weekend thanks to ‘24’s premiere) but, unless I see anything compelling next week, interest in theater alone won’t keep me squandering an hour a week of my life on this show.
What did you all think?
However, as flawed as Simon’s cohorts are, at least they have personalities. “Grease” director Kathleen Marshall may be a great choreographer but she showed the vitality of a stone when judging during the show last night. And “Grease” author, Jim somebody or other, could barely get a coherent word out, let alone say something amusing or even mildly insightful. The tour of the haunts that inspired “Grease” basically insisted of him getting out of cars and pointing. Scintillating television.
Producer David Ian is a solid enough screen presence and he isn’t as brittle as Simon. But he’s also not nearly as entertaining. He also dominates the show in a way that Simon doesn’t dominate “Idol” so I fear he will grow tiresome soon. His “You’re…NOT Sandy” tagline grew tiresome after only one episode.
I have to respect “Grease” for using the real people whose careers and whose money are wrapped up in the Broadway production. If (when) Katharine McPhee’s first album tanks, it’ll barely distract the “Idol” judges. But putting their livelihoods on the line here has perhaps paralyzed the “Grease” team in a ‘deer-in-the-headlights’ kind of way that doesn’t play that well on the small screen.
The strongest aspect of the show so far is the potential Dannys and Sandys. Of course, the judges then didn’t do the show any favors by booting a few of the most interesting prospects (the plus-size dancing cupcake, the pharmaceutical rep who walked in from a convention, and the Danny who was doing it for his dead brother). I’ll probably give the show one more chance (overheating the DVR next weekend thanks to ‘24’s premiere) but, unless I see anything compelling next week, interest in theater alone won’t keep me squandering an hour a week of my life on this show.
What did you all think?
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton were on a plane with only one parachute...
Sorry about the title but I figure it's the only way to get some traffic back on this site...
But more to the point, sorry about the extended absence from the blog-o-sphere. For some reason, the holidays -- all phases of them -- just wallopped me harder than usual this year. The early weeks of December were crazy with work in particular, the Tline clan was on the road for 10 of the 12 days of Christmas, and I feel I've been playing catch-up since the New Year. So the blogging has fallen by the wayside.
I also realized that last year I was feeling like I had to post 5 times a week to keep people's interest. And maybe somewhere in my murky subconscious I was thinking that if I wasn't posting that often, I might as well not post at all. There is at least 5-7 interesting things to say about theater every week so by golly, says my subconscious, I should be posting that regularly (my subconscious doesn't actually speak in such outdated idioms but its real vernacular would be unprintable on a family blog).
In the long run, 5 times a week is probably not going to be workable. So I'm setting a new goal of posting at least 3 times a week. The saying in the consultant biz is: Under-promise, over-perform. We'll see if that pans out.
But enough of this navel-gazing. This is a theater blog after all so let's talk about theater. Did anyone see any good shows over the past month? Did anyone (besides me) wander on up to NYC by any chance and catch something wonderful? I saw two shows on Broadway over Christmas: "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and "Wicked." It didn't occur to me until more than a week later that the main character in each is green. How's that for an odd coincidence?
Unfortunately, I didn't see anything in Richmond, what with all the shopping, wrapping and packing to do at night. I'm especially disappointed that I missed the Barksdale Holiday Cabaret. I guess I need to carve out a spot in my calendar NOW to see the spring cabaret.
I'm TIVOing "Grease: The One That I Want" right now. In theory, I am both intrigued and horrified by it. When I get the chance, I'll chime in with my opinion of the reality of it. In the meantime, please post your own thoughts.
And please come back and read me again! I won't abandon ship again (until maybe next December...)
But more to the point, sorry about the extended absence from the blog-o-sphere. For some reason, the holidays -- all phases of them -- just wallopped me harder than usual this year. The early weeks of December were crazy with work in particular, the Tline clan was on the road for 10 of the 12 days of Christmas, and I feel I've been playing catch-up since the New Year. So the blogging has fallen by the wayside.
I also realized that last year I was feeling like I had to post 5 times a week to keep people's interest. And maybe somewhere in my murky subconscious I was thinking that if I wasn't posting that often, I might as well not post at all. There is at least 5-7 interesting things to say about theater every week so by golly, says my subconscious, I should be posting that regularly (my subconscious doesn't actually speak in such outdated idioms but its real vernacular would be unprintable on a family blog).
In the long run, 5 times a week is probably not going to be workable. So I'm setting a new goal of posting at least 3 times a week. The saying in the consultant biz is: Under-promise, over-perform. We'll see if that pans out.
But enough of this navel-gazing. This is a theater blog after all so let's talk about theater. Did anyone see any good shows over the past month? Did anyone (besides me) wander on up to NYC by any chance and catch something wonderful? I saw two shows on Broadway over Christmas: "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and "Wicked." It didn't occur to me until more than a week later that the main character in each is green. How's that for an odd coincidence?
Unfortunately, I didn't see anything in Richmond, what with all the shopping, wrapping and packing to do at night. I'm especially disappointed that I missed the Barksdale Holiday Cabaret. I guess I need to carve out a spot in my calendar NOW to see the spring cabaret.
I'm TIVOing "Grease: The One That I Want" right now. In theory, I am both intrigued and horrified by it. When I get the chance, I'll chime in with my opinion of the reality of it. In the meantime, please post your own thoughts.
And please come back and read me again! I won't abandon ship again (until maybe next December...)
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Adventures in Attribution
I have to extend my congratulations to Frank Creasy (and I'll try not to sprain my arm patting myself on the back in the process). If you perused the T-D's Weekend magazine, you'll see that our pals at the Barksdale pulled a quote from Mr. Creasy's comment on this here blog for use in their ad for "Over the River and Through the Woods." It's kind of funny since in his comment he specifically mentions that it's a good thing he's an actor not a critic. And then suddenly, he's being attributed as if he is one!
It's kind of fascinating, this pulling of quotes from reviews for ads. Maybe Judi C. will post something someday about what goes into it. Are specific adjectives important (in the "OTRATTW" ad, "remarkable" is pulled from my review)? Are there marketing angles that are being highlighted (e.g., Mr. Creasy's mention of the play being "in the spirit of the season")? It usually doesn't occur to me until long after I've written my review that it might be excerpted for an ad. And the few times I've written something and thought, "hey, that'd be a perfect quote for an ad," that particularly clever turn of phrase has gone completely unnoticed every single time. So it goes.
The best anecdote along these lines that I have is one year when the Firehouse put out a season schedule flyer that had two quotes from me on it. However, at the time, I was writing for Style as D.L. Hintz and for 64 Magazine under my real name so they could use me twice without appearing to pull from the same source. Pretty tricky!
It's kind of fascinating, this pulling of quotes from reviews for ads. Maybe Judi C. will post something someday about what goes into it. Are specific adjectives important (in the "OTRATTW" ad, "remarkable" is pulled from my review)? Are there marketing angles that are being highlighted (e.g., Mr. Creasy's mention of the play being "in the spirit of the season")? It usually doesn't occur to me until long after I've written my review that it might be excerpted for an ad. And the few times I've written something and thought, "hey, that'd be a perfect quote for an ad," that particularly clever turn of phrase has gone completely unnoticed every single time. So it goes.
The best anecdote along these lines that I have is one year when the Firehouse put out a season schedule flyer that had two quotes from me on it. However, at the time, I was writing for Style as D.L. Hintz and for 64 Magazine under my real name so they could use me twice without appearing to pull from the same source. Pretty tricky!
A Christmas Carol for Two Actors
And what a great coupla actors! I was kind of jazzed about this production because I figured Grant Mudge would be in it. I can't remember that last time I saw Mr. Mudge onstage and I've always enjoyed his performances. But when you add Jen Meharg in as the second actor, well, that just makes for a real power duo. It's easy to grow cynical about 'A Christmas Carol' after you've seen it a dozen times or so but between this production and the Jacob Marley show at Sycamore Rouge, I'm actually looking forward to two doses of Scrooge this year.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Theater Reading
Since I’m a bit too swamped work-wise to write anything interesting (I have no excuses for the uninteresting writing I’ve done in the past…), I’ll send you to some places where people are writing interesting things. First off, there’s a review of RTP’s “Christmas with the Crawfords” in the latest Style. While you’re at it, you might want to read up on the new dance troupe Amaranth that made such a good impression at the Commonwealth Coalition Benefit at the Barksdale a month or so ago.
In perusing the weeklies we get at the T house, I saw this article on Tom Stoppard’s “The Coast of Utopia” and there’s a neat little piece on the design of Mary Poppins’ house for the Broadway production. This last one isn’t the same without the picture – grab the magazine next time you’re at Barnes and Nobles and check it out.
In perusing the weeklies we get at the T house, I saw this article on Tom Stoppard’s “The Coast of Utopia” and there’s a neat little piece on the design of Mary Poppins’ house for the Broadway production. This last one isn’t the same without the picture – grab the magazine next time you’re at Barnes and Nobles and check it out.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Business and Art
It was refreshing and somehow appropriate to see Mystery Dinner Theater spotlighted in yesterday’s Business magazine in the T-D. Laura and Jim Daab are a couple of really nice people who I’ve known at least since my lovely wife appeared in one of their productions. Jim is also a great performer, which you might not know unless you caught him in one of the shows he did at the Mill years ago.
I say “appropriate” because Mystery Dinner Theater more than anything else seems like a great business model. It’s been interesting to see the company succeed and continue to expand. It also brings out a bit of a conflict in me and perhaps in other people, as well. There’s a bit of a snob in me that thinks that the MDT shows should not even be considered in the same ballpark as “artistic” shows like the ones the Barksdale, the Firehouse, etc. put on. When I think of MDT, I think in business terms: they have a fairly generic “product” that they repackage regularly to keep people interested. And clearly people like the product and continue to buy it.
That might sound a little cynical or condescending. But then I reflect on it a little and realize that it’s really what every theater does. You can look at the Barksdale’s move back into Hanover Tavern, for instance, and see that the product they’ve decided to sell out there is family-friendly classics. And clearly, that product is selling. Theatre IV sells kids shows, plain and simple. And they do a great job and the crowds come in and have a good time. So why, I wonder, am I just a touch disdainful about MDT? Am I holding on to this vague and highbrow notion that “art” shouldn’t be about commerce? Does a production have to big words or complicated themes or pretty sets to count as ‘theater’ in my narrow version of what theater is? Do I need to come down off my high horse of critical distance and mingle with the people a little? Regardless of how ‘important’ a show is, if nobody sees it, does it still make a sound?
I've added Mystery Dinner Theater to my "Producers" list to the left there in an effort to get over myself.
I say “appropriate” because Mystery Dinner Theater more than anything else seems like a great business model. It’s been interesting to see the company succeed and continue to expand. It also brings out a bit of a conflict in me and perhaps in other people, as well. There’s a bit of a snob in me that thinks that the MDT shows should not even be considered in the same ballpark as “artistic” shows like the ones the Barksdale, the Firehouse, etc. put on. When I think of MDT, I think in business terms: they have a fairly generic “product” that they repackage regularly to keep people interested. And clearly people like the product and continue to buy it.
That might sound a little cynical or condescending. But then I reflect on it a little and realize that it’s really what every theater does. You can look at the Barksdale’s move back into Hanover Tavern, for instance, and see that the product they’ve decided to sell out there is family-friendly classics. And clearly, that product is selling. Theatre IV sells kids shows, plain and simple. And they do a great job and the crowds come in and have a good time. So why, I wonder, am I just a touch disdainful about MDT? Am I holding on to this vague and highbrow notion that “art” shouldn’t be about commerce? Does a production have to big words or complicated themes or pretty sets to count as ‘theater’ in my narrow version of what theater is? Do I need to come down off my high horse of critical distance and mingle with the people a little? Regardless of how ‘important’ a show is, if nobody sees it, does it still make a sound?
I've added Mystery Dinner Theater to my "Producers" list to the left there in an effort to get over myself.
Friday, November 24, 2006
In the face of convention
OK, I know that what I should do today is talk about everything I'm thankful for and help to spread sweetness and light in the world. I sat down fully expecting to do such a thing. But now I'm annoyed so that particular post is going to have to wait for another day.
I don't mean to make this blog a continuing rant on any specific subject but Mr. Neman at the T-D just continues to get my goat. In the past few days, there have been sterling examples of what annoys me about him. First, there's the lazy use of 'we' that I've mentioned before. In his review of 'Bobby,' there's this:
"There is simply nothing intrinsically compelling about any of them, so we find ourselves bored and checking our watches with increasing frequency."
No, Dan, YOU checked your watch. We, who are reading, most likely haven't even seen the movie and so our watches weren't even close to the theater.
Then, there's the pseudo-cleverness that ends up just being kind of dumb, like in his appreciation of Robert Altman which ends like this:
"But no one quite made movies like Altman. To honor him best, we should stand around at a party talking about him, and let his microphone pick out the conversations he thinks are best."
OK, I get the idea -- sort of -- but it's expressed so badly that it ends up not really making sense.
Why does this annoy me so much? Because this is what Richmond readers are being trained to think is real criticism. But what they are getting, in fact, is lazy, bad writing. It also drives thinking people away from the T-D to read real film critics at The New Yorker or the Washington Post or really anywhere else.
Of course, there are people who would say, well, he's annoying you but you are still reading him. In fact, maybe by annoying you, he's actually making you a more fervent reader of the T-D. Actually, the exact opposite is true. I used to read the T-D Arts or Style sections cover to cover (as it were). Now, half of the time I skip over the movie reviews and -- though I like Ms. Ruggieri's writing style -- I only read the music articles if they are about an artist I have heard of (a diminishing pool, unfortunately). And theater reviews -- well, sometimes I can't find them to read them so I miss them oftentimes now too.
So, I guess in keeping with the spirit of the holiday, maybe what I should say is that I'm thankful for the website RottenTomatoes which gives me easy access to a whole host of movie reviewers who give me more insightful and clearly stated opinions on movies than what I can find in my daily paper.
I don't mean to make this blog a continuing rant on any specific subject but Mr. Neman at the T-D just continues to get my goat. In the past few days, there have been sterling examples of what annoys me about him. First, there's the lazy use of 'we' that I've mentioned before. In his review of 'Bobby,' there's this:
"There is simply nothing intrinsically compelling about any of them, so we find ourselves bored and checking our watches with increasing frequency."
No, Dan, YOU checked your watch. We, who are reading, most likely haven't even seen the movie and so our watches weren't even close to the theater.
Then, there's the pseudo-cleverness that ends up just being kind of dumb, like in his appreciation of Robert Altman which ends like this:
"But no one quite made movies like Altman. To honor him best, we should stand around at a party talking about him, and let his microphone pick out the conversations he thinks are best."
OK, I get the idea -- sort of -- but it's expressed so badly that it ends up not really making sense.
Why does this annoy me so much? Because this is what Richmond readers are being trained to think is real criticism. But what they are getting, in fact, is lazy, bad writing. It also drives thinking people away from the T-D to read real film critics at The New Yorker or the Washington Post or really anywhere else.
Of course, there are people who would say, well, he's annoying you but you are still reading him. In fact, maybe by annoying you, he's actually making you a more fervent reader of the T-D. Actually, the exact opposite is true. I used to read the T-D Arts or Style sections cover to cover (as it were). Now, half of the time I skip over the movie reviews and -- though I like Ms. Ruggieri's writing style -- I only read the music articles if they are about an artist I have heard of (a diminishing pool, unfortunately). And theater reviews -- well, sometimes I can't find them to read them so I miss them oftentimes now too.
So, I guess in keeping with the spirit of the holiday, maybe what I should say is that I'm thankful for the website RottenTomatoes which gives me easy access to a whole host of movie reviewers who give me more insightful and clearly stated opinions on movies than what I can find in my daily paper.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Holiday Stylings
Here’s the theater-related story in Style that I mentioned, a pretty cool idea to talk about the holiday experience through several different characters. I wish I could say it was my idea…
And here’s the my review of “Over the River…” for your consideration.
And here’s the my review of “Over the River…” for your consideration.
New York, New York
There’s an interesting piece on “Mary Poppins” in the latest Newsweek. I’m glad to hear that the latest production makes MP a little darker, more of a Nanny McPhee-type character. This is enough to make me consider seeing this show now, maybe next year if it’s still around.
But for our December trip, it’s going to be “A Chorus Line” and “Wicked.” All of “the girls” wanted to see “ACL” and, through some tremendous good fortune and some most welcome generosity, we got killer seats for “Wicked,” so can’t argue with that. I’m still intrigued by “Spring Awakening” and would like a chance to see either “History Boys” or “A Drowsy Chaperone” before they disappear.
And finally, here’s a bit of cool news: Kevin Spacey will be playing on Broadway next spring in “A Moon for the Misbegotten.” I’d love to see that.
But for our December trip, it’s going to be “A Chorus Line” and “Wicked.” All of “the girls” wanted to see “ACL” and, through some tremendous good fortune and some most welcome generosity, we got killer seats for “Wicked,” so can’t argue with that. I’m still intrigued by “Spring Awakening” and would like a chance to see either “History Boys” or “A Drowsy Chaperone” before they disappear.
And finally, here’s a bit of cool news: Kevin Spacey will be playing on Broadway next spring in “A Moon for the Misbegotten.” I’d love to see that.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Stories of Winter Magic
The Science Museum has a winter-time show of storytelling. Looking for a respite as the days turn colder and vacation days from school loom large? The Science Museum is a great place to kill several hours and they serve Starbucks coffee there! Oh, and there's theater!
I'm done
I had the somewhat confounding realization yesterday that I'm done for the year. With Theatre IV's "Snowflake" cancellation and the shrunk run of its replacement show, "Twas the Night Before Christmas," I won't be seeing another show to review for the rest of the year. And yet, there will be all sorts of theater around, including a cabaret at Barksdale, a Broadway Under the Stars show and Richmond Shakespeare's "A Christmas Carol" just to name a few that I'm interested in seeing. It's both a little liberating and a little disappointing to think of no more reviews for the year. Even after doing hundreds of reviews, it's still kind of fun to see my work in print. And even after all of these years, I sometimes still don't believe someone publishes my words. I wonder if Stephen King ever still feels that.
Having said that, this is the season that being able to see shows because you want to is much preferable to seeing them because you have to. And with all of the productions around, there will still be plenty to talk about in this little corner of cyber-space.
Having said that, this is the season that being able to see shows because you want to is much preferable to seeing them because you have to. And with all of the productions around, there will still be plenty to talk about in this little corner of cyber-space.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Respecting a differing opinion
It was a full weekend of relevant and somewhat irreverent theater-related incidents for me. I went to see "Over the River and Through the Woods" on Thursday, though because of the rain earlier in the day a better name would have been "Through the Floodwater and Into the Woods" as we were almost swept away by the impromptu rivers running across Rte. 301 on the way. I had a very enjoyable time, finding myself laughing much more than I expected, particularly during the first act. Given that, I was very interested to read Ms. Haubenstock's review in the T-D on Saturday. As you'll read in a couple of days, in contrast to her opinion, I actually thought the humor was largely un-like what you find in the typical sitcom.
What I respect about Ms. Haubenstock in this review, however, is the line "...they say marginally funny things that repeatedly amused the opening-night audience, but left me cold." For one thing, it acknowledges that the audience was having a good time which I think is important, particularly if you weren't. And for another, it describes pretty succinctly an experience I've had before where I'm sitting amongst people laughing riotously and I'm wondering what it was they smoked or drank before curtain to make them so impossibly giddy. On one level, I think there is a sort of fundamental difference between a regular theater-goer and a critic in that, since the average person has paid money, they really want to have a good time (particularly if the ticket price is exceedingly high). On another, humor works in different ways for different people on different nights. My sister can sit through a Monty Python movie without cracking a smile while I dissolve into a giggling, sputtering puddle on the floor.
Anyway, this is one of those times when I disagree with -- yet respect -- the critic in question. There are plenty of times (like when reading a Daniel Neman review, for instance), when neither agreement nor respect is part of the equation.
I also spoke to several people on Sunday who are either in or involved with "Mame" and they said opening night went off well, though the last week before opening was a bit hectic (like 98% of productions, I expect). I also got the news that "Snowflake's" star wrenched his back and so Theatre IV is going to be hastily putting together a replacement production. Man, T4/Barksdale just seems to be getting hit with these kinds of curveballs lately (last minute cast changes, leaky roofs, etc.) While these are the times that try men's (and women's) souls, I expect the highly functional crew at T4 will come out of this just fine (knock wood). "Snowflake" was a bit of a tough sell anyway -- a silent clown for the holidays? I'm sure he's as magical as they say, but still, I was hemming and hawing on going and there were probably lotsa other folks in the same boat.
Finally, I had this totally surreal interlude at Lowe's on Saturday where a complete stranger walked up to me saying very emphatically "You should really..." just as I was answering a call on my cell phone from my lovely wife. So, I had to very upruptly shush this stranger while I completed a 5 minute phone call involving the very intricate and confusing details of which light switch plates I should buy. I expected this strange man to simply walk away since clearly I did not work at Lowe's (or was their most clueless employee) and was not going to be available to talk with him anytime soon. He stuck it out, however, and when I hung up he completed his sentence: "You should really take your boys..." -- I had my two youngest with me -- "...to see 'Amahl and the Night Visitors.' It's a great show and your boys would love it and I don't know why they don't do more to advertise it but I'm telling everyone because it is simply a great show and the boy who's in it this year -- sometimes it's a black boy but this year it's a white boy -- he is just fantastic..." at which point I had to stop him to tell him that I knew perfectly well that it was a great show, that I had seen it before, but please do go on and spread the word to as many other people as possible because gosh darn it, word of mouth is the best advertizing there is, even if it is some strange man who walks up to you at Lowe's.
When he walked away I couldn't help but wonder, do I just look like someone who wants to hear about theater?
What I respect about Ms. Haubenstock in this review, however, is the line "...they say marginally funny things that repeatedly amused the opening-night audience, but left me cold." For one thing, it acknowledges that the audience was having a good time which I think is important, particularly if you weren't. And for another, it describes pretty succinctly an experience I've had before where I'm sitting amongst people laughing riotously and I'm wondering what it was they smoked or drank before curtain to make them so impossibly giddy. On one level, I think there is a sort of fundamental difference between a regular theater-goer and a critic in that, since the average person has paid money, they really want to have a good time (particularly if the ticket price is exceedingly high). On another, humor works in different ways for different people on different nights. My sister can sit through a Monty Python movie without cracking a smile while I dissolve into a giggling, sputtering puddle on the floor.
Anyway, this is one of those times when I disagree with -- yet respect -- the critic in question. There are plenty of times (like when reading a Daniel Neman review, for instance), when neither agreement nor respect is part of the equation.
I also spoke to several people on Sunday who are either in or involved with "Mame" and they said opening night went off well, though the last week before opening was a bit hectic (like 98% of productions, I expect). I also got the news that "Snowflake's" star wrenched his back and so Theatre IV is going to be hastily putting together a replacement production. Man, T4/Barksdale just seems to be getting hit with these kinds of curveballs lately (last minute cast changes, leaky roofs, etc.) While these are the times that try men's (and women's) souls, I expect the highly functional crew at T4 will come out of this just fine (knock wood). "Snowflake" was a bit of a tough sell anyway -- a silent clown for the holidays? I'm sure he's as magical as they say, but still, I was hemming and hawing on going and there were probably lotsa other folks in the same boat.
Finally, I had this totally surreal interlude at Lowe's on Saturday where a complete stranger walked up to me saying very emphatically "You should really..." just as I was answering a call on my cell phone from my lovely wife. So, I had to very upruptly shush this stranger while I completed a 5 minute phone call involving the very intricate and confusing details of which light switch plates I should buy. I expected this strange man to simply walk away since clearly I did not work at Lowe's (or was their most clueless employee) and was not going to be available to talk with him anytime soon. He stuck it out, however, and when I hung up he completed his sentence: "You should really take your boys..." -- I had my two youngest with me -- "...to see 'Amahl and the Night Visitors.' It's a great show and your boys would love it and I don't know why they don't do more to advertise it but I'm telling everyone because it is simply a great show and the boy who's in it this year -- sometimes it's a black boy but this year it's a white boy -- he is just fantastic..." at which point I had to stop him to tell him that I knew perfectly well that it was a great show, that I had seen it before, but please do go on and spread the word to as many other people as possible because gosh darn it, word of mouth is the best advertizing there is, even if it is some strange man who walks up to you at Lowe's.
When he walked away I couldn't help but wonder, do I just look like someone who wants to hear about theater?
Friday, November 17, 2006
Mame
Four things I bet you didn’t know about Patrick Dennis, who wrote the original novel “Auntie Mame,” upon which the musical is based.
1. “Patrick Dennis” was one of several pseudonyms for the man born Edward Everett Tanner III.
2. Dennis published his first four novels under the name "Virginia Rowans".
3. In 1956, with Auntie Mame, The Loving Couple: His (and Her) Story, and Guestward, Ho!, Dennis became the only writer ever to have three books on the New York Times bestseller list at the same time.
4. In Dennis's later years he left writing to become a butler, a job that his friends report that he enjoyed. At one time, he worked for Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's. Although he was at long last using his real name, he was in essence working yet again under a pseudonym; his employers had no inkling that their butler, Tanner, was the world-famous author Patrick Dennis.
Also, my little ole blog got a little slice of love from the "South of the James" blog as part of a piece on the Richmond Marquee magazine. I guess I've been a little sheltered in my little corner of the blogosphere. I'll have to branch out and see what other Richmond area blogs are out there, when I get some of that elusive treasure: free time! Thinking I'll ask for some for Christmas...2012.
1. “Patrick Dennis” was one of several pseudonyms for the man born Edward Everett Tanner III.
2. Dennis published his first four novels under the name "Virginia Rowans".
3. In 1956, with Auntie Mame, The Loving Couple: His (and Her) Story, and Guestward, Ho!, Dennis became the only writer ever to have three books on the New York Times bestseller list at the same time.
4. In Dennis's later years he left writing to become a butler, a job that his friends report that he enjoyed. At one time, he worked for Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald's. Although he was at long last using his real name, he was in essence working yet again under a pseudonym; his employers had no inkling that their butler, Tanner, was the world-famous author Patrick Dennis.
Also, my little ole blog got a little slice of love from the "South of the James" blog as part of a piece on the Richmond Marquee magazine. I guess I've been a little sheltered in my little corner of the blogosphere. I'll have to branch out and see what other Richmond area blogs are out there, when I get some of that elusive treasure: free time! Thinking I'll ask for some for Christmas...2012.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Over the River and Through the Woods
Though two shows in a few months does not a stampede make, Joe Dipietro has been a prominent name in Richmond this year. “I Love You, Your’re Perfect, Now Change” ran for a healthy long time down at the Mill and now “OTR&TTW” opens up at Hanover Tavern. There’s an interesting interview with the playwright at TheaterMania if you are interested. A few things that I’m using to set my expectations appropriately about this show: it was written before “I Love You…” (back in 1994); with it’s older characters (two sets of grandparents), it’s clearly targeted at an older crowd; and the families are specifically Italian meaning that some thick accents and broad comedy can be expected. The cast looks good though, so I still have high hopes.
I’m curious what ever happened to Dipietro’s “Memphis” that was getting some try-outs a couple of years ago. Did he kick that to the curb so he could focus on “All Shook Up,” a high-concept musical (all Elvis songs) that just seemed like a bad idea to me. Though the New York Times said that, compared to other so-called ‘juke box’ musicals, ASU “actually rates as slicker and more skillful than most,” the show was generally damned by similarly faint praise. For instance, the NYT review went on to say “Were it staged in a pint-size theater with cardboard scenery and a campy young cast, "All Shook Up" might be a moderate hoot. But inflated to the proportions demanded by a glamour barn like the Palace, it becomes a mind-numbing holler.”
“All Shook Up” is currently touring nationwide, though nowhere really close to Richmond. A show that might be worth a trip out of town though is the regional tour of “Doubt,” which will feature Cherry Jones in the cast. That tour is coming to DC, Baltimore, and Charlotte, NC. I’m thinking I’ll be heading north to check it out come springtime.
I’m curious what ever happened to Dipietro’s “Memphis” that was getting some try-outs a couple of years ago. Did he kick that to the curb so he could focus on “All Shook Up,” a high-concept musical (all Elvis songs) that just seemed like a bad idea to me. Though the New York Times said that, compared to other so-called ‘juke box’ musicals, ASU “actually rates as slicker and more skillful than most,” the show was generally damned by similarly faint praise. For instance, the NYT review went on to say “Were it staged in a pint-size theater with cardboard scenery and a campy young cast, "All Shook Up" might be a moderate hoot. But inflated to the proportions demanded by a glamour barn like the Palace, it becomes a mind-numbing holler.”
“All Shook Up” is currently touring nationwide, though nowhere really close to Richmond. A show that might be worth a trip out of town though is the regional tour of “Doubt,” which will feature Cherry Jones in the cast. That tour is coming to DC, Baltimore, and Charlotte, NC. I’m thinking I’ll be heading north to check it out come springtime.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Double Up
With this week’s edition, Style throws a third theater reviewer into the mix, the lovely and talented Shannon O’Neill. Her review of “Mme. Bonnard’s Bath” and my review of “Forever Plaid” can be found in the issue on newsstands now.
Also, be sure to pick up next week’s Style that will feature a theater-related cover story. Is your curiosity peaked?
Also, be sure to pick up next week’s Style that will feature a theater-related cover story. Is your curiosity peaked?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Christmas with the Crawfords
If you take a look at the program for this production (the program download feature on the RTP website is pretty neat), you'll see it is positively swarming with TheatreVCU students. This could be pretty cool -- new blood, fresh perspectives, young energy -- or it could be a recipe for something not-so-cool. I'll hold off on any judgement until I see for myself.
And I must add that I have trouble thinking of Joan Crawford and Triangle Players together without a vision of Robert Throckmorton sneaking in. Where for art thou, Robert?
And I must add that I have trouble thinking of Joan Crawford and Triangle Players together without a vision of Robert Throckmorton sneaking in. Where for art thou, Robert?
You Read It Here First?
I just got the schedule for Barksdale’s Hanover Tavern Shows for next year. Here’s the lineup:
Smoke on the Mountain: Feb. 23 – Apr. 29
The Odd Couple: May 18 – Aug. 5
Deathtrap: Sept. 7 – Oct. 21
Dames at Sea: Nov. 16 – Jan 20, 2008
My initial impressions: a) excited about "Smoke." I haven’t seen a production of it since the Mill’s triumphant production years ago (yes, I’m biased!), 2) wary of "The Odd Couple." My recollection is that this is not a play that has aged so well. The recent Broadway production with Broderick and Lane did not get very favorable reviews, if I remember correctly. III) Think both "Deathtrap" and "Dames" could be great, totally depending on the casts. I don’t have a particular affection for either of the scripts but the right people involved – like with most shows – can make for some excellent fun.
Smoke on the Mountain: Feb. 23 – Apr. 29
The Odd Couple: May 18 – Aug. 5
Deathtrap: Sept. 7 – Oct. 21
Dames at Sea: Nov. 16 – Jan 20, 2008
My initial impressions: a) excited about "Smoke." I haven’t seen a production of it since the Mill’s triumphant production years ago (yes, I’m biased!), 2) wary of "The Odd Couple." My recollection is that this is not a play that has aged so well. The recent Broadway production with Broderick and Lane did not get very favorable reviews, if I remember correctly. III) Think both "Deathtrap" and "Dames" could be great, totally depending on the casts. I don’t have a particular affection for either of the scripts but the right people involved – like with most shows – can make for some excellent fun.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Forever Plaid
My biggest fear with this revival of “Forever Plaid” was that I wouldn’t be able to get the performances of the previous cast out of my head. And so, in my mind, the biggest success of this latest production is the ability of each of the lead actors to overcome those memories. Sure, there were a couple of times that I thought back fondly to Larry Cook’s singular Smudge, particularly in the “stage patter” scene with the 45s. And Brian Vaughn has a cuddly vibe about him that was always very endearing. But that is to take nothing away from Andy Nagraj and Brett Ambler who are both excellent. Particularly where it counts – vocally – this cast is just as robust as any “Plaid” you may have seen in the past (the woman sitting two seats away from me had seen it 6 times previously!) Even the occasional nostalgic pang for the “Plaids” of the past could keep me from appreciating the considerable talents of the current crew. Good work, gentlemen!
Clearly, Ms. Haubenstock at the T-D was fond of your performances as well. Here’s hoping for full houses for you all through the holidays!
Clearly, Ms. Haubenstock at the T-D was fond of your performances as well. Here’s hoping for full houses for you all through the holidays!
Friday, November 10, 2006
More "Medea"
I was happy that the T-D did a story on “Medea” as well as Style because they were able to go into a little bit more depth about the production and Mary Vreeland, the star. Of course, I would have preferred being able to highlight the things that Ms. Vreeland and Ms. Davies told me but still, some interesting tidbits got in. One funny detail – I interviewed Ms. Davies and Ms. Vreeland in the same office where the picture for the T-D was taken and the director, interpreter, star and interviewer (based on where Ms. Davies is looking) were in the exact same configuration. OK, maybe just funny to me…
I won't get a chance to see the production but I did run into a friend who left the show at intermission. Not exactly an endorsement. But please go see it yourself and let me know what you think.
I’m adding a link to Andrew Hamm’s blog below in the “No People Like Show People” section. Based on what I’ve read, Mr. Hamm writes at length about many interesting topics, not just theater. I’ve enjoyed reading his take on the political scene over these past weeks; not necessarily agreed with his take, but enjoyed reading it just the same. He also gets a lot more comments than I do so is a more enjoyable and provocative writer, has more friends than I do, or most likely, both. My impression is that a debate between Mr. Hamm and Mr. Wichmann would prove verrrrry interesting...
I won't get a chance to see the production but I did run into a friend who left the show at intermission. Not exactly an endorsement. But please go see it yourself and let me know what you think.
I’m adding a link to Andrew Hamm’s blog below in the “No People Like Show People” section. Based on what I’ve read, Mr. Hamm writes at length about many interesting topics, not just theater. I’ve enjoyed reading his take on the political scene over these past weeks; not necessarily agreed with his take, but enjoyed reading it just the same. He also gets a lot more comments than I do so is a more enjoyable and provocative writer, has more friends than I do, or most likely, both. My impression is that a debate between Mr. Hamm and Mr. Wichmann would prove verrrrry interesting...
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Gifts
I was doing a search on Google having to do with Othello and found this posting on the “Get Out There, Richmond” blog. This post is like one of those Christmas presents that somehow gets lost underneath the tree and you don’t find it until you’re taking the tree down. While I’m sorry Ms. Jones found my review “choppy and hard to follow,” I’m glad that it inspired her to think and write more about both the review and the play. I welcome spirited debate of all kinds and I pretty much assume as many people will disagree with me as agree with me.
In his comment, the director Andrew Hamm, largely captured my sentiments (and was way too nicely complimentary to me). I’d only add two things:
1) There’s a bit of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation when it comes to mentioning race in some contexts. For instance, Richmond Shakespeare had Foster Solomon, a black man, playing Hamlet several years back. In my review, I didn’t mention his race at all, calling him “tall, bald and impassioned” but never calling him African-American. Why? Because I didn’t think it mattered in terms of either the production or his performance. A couple of weeks ago, Amy Beigelsen wrote a review of “Steel Magnolias” where she mentions race explicitly. Why? Because race matters in that production; for instance, it prompted some changes to the script to make the cultural references more appropriate. In both of these cases, I think the reviewers did the right thing.
2) In my review, I said the director did not call undue attention to the play’s racial overtones. Something NOT done is hard to describe, so let me do the reverse to illustrate what I mean. In Rick St. Peter’s production of “Taming of the Shrew” at the Barksdale several years ago, Rick blocked one of the fights between Kate and Petruchio as a boxing match, complete with a ring and gloves. That was calling heaps of attention to the play’s “battle of the sexes” overtones.
Finally, one last point (or maybe more exactly, plea for leniency), when you read any review, mine or anybody else’s, remember the writer usually has a relatively tiny amount of space (300 to 500 words) to capture plot, overall impression of the production, specifics on individual performances, and technical merits. For some perspective on how little that is, this post up to right here is about 400 words. Not much space.
If you happen to be planning to go to Las Vegas or Los Angeles in the next couple of days, you could consider trying out for the new reality TV show looking for the leads for “Grease.” Who knows? You could be the next Carrie Underwood! Meaning that, at the next Tony Awards, maybe you’ll get dissed by someone like Patti LuPone when you win best actress the way Faith Hill dissed Carrie.
In his comment, the director Andrew Hamm, largely captured my sentiments (and was way too nicely complimentary to me). I’d only add two things:
1) There’s a bit of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation when it comes to mentioning race in some contexts. For instance, Richmond Shakespeare had Foster Solomon, a black man, playing Hamlet several years back. In my review, I didn’t mention his race at all, calling him “tall, bald and impassioned” but never calling him African-American. Why? Because I didn’t think it mattered in terms of either the production or his performance. A couple of weeks ago, Amy Beigelsen wrote a review of “Steel Magnolias” where she mentions race explicitly. Why? Because race matters in that production; for instance, it prompted some changes to the script to make the cultural references more appropriate. In both of these cases, I think the reviewers did the right thing.
2) In my review, I said the director did not call undue attention to the play’s racial overtones. Something NOT done is hard to describe, so let me do the reverse to illustrate what I mean. In Rick St. Peter’s production of “Taming of the Shrew” at the Barksdale several years ago, Rick blocked one of the fights between Kate and Petruchio as a boxing match, complete with a ring and gloves. That was calling heaps of attention to the play’s “battle of the sexes” overtones.
Finally, one last point (or maybe more exactly, plea for leniency), when you read any review, mine or anybody else’s, remember the writer usually has a relatively tiny amount of space (300 to 500 words) to capture plot, overall impression of the production, specifics on individual performances, and technical merits. For some perspective on how little that is, this post up to right here is about 400 words. Not much space.
If you happen to be planning to go to Las Vegas or Los Angeles in the next couple of days, you could consider trying out for the new reality TV show looking for the leads for “Grease.” Who knows? You could be the next Carrie Underwood! Meaning that, at the next Tony Awards, maybe you’ll get dissed by someone like Patti LuPone when you win best actress the way Faith Hill dissed Carrie.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
In case you ever wonder
I expect that actors and directors – like the majority of other adult humans – occasionally get despondent, wondering whether they are doing the right thing with their lives or whether what they’re doing makes any difference in the world or whether anyone really appreciates the hard work and long hours they devote to their craft. Well, let me tell you a little story.
My boss asked me for a recommendation; he was looking to take his 7th grade daughter to a play. She is taking her first drama class and was encouraged to go see a professional production since she had never seen one before. (This last bit is of course a little astonishing to me given that my kids were generally IN shows before their first birthday, let alone attending them…) One of the recommendations I gave was CAT’s “The Importance of Being Earnest.” I was a little hesitant because, as I remember it, the play has some pretty sophisticated humor in it amongst the silliness, and also over the years I have seen the occasional marginal production at CAT.
Well, apparently, his daughter was enchanted by the play and sat rapt in attention throughout, laughing frequently. Now she is totally psyched about theater and, just today, my boss came and asked for yet another recommendation (watch out, Plaids!) Anyway, I guess my point is that, even when you are toiling away in a show and you are deep into the run and the house isn’t very big and you frankly would rather be at home sipping hot chocolate, you might consider that your audience might include an impressionable youngster experiencing her first show. And your performance may make the difference between that youngster becoming a new and excited theater lover or just another teenage videogame slacker.
And thanks, by the way, all you good folks at CAT for helping me gain points with the boss. I appreciate it.
My preview piece on “Medea” is up on the Style website. For your enjoyment…
My boss asked me for a recommendation; he was looking to take his 7th grade daughter to a play. She is taking her first drama class and was encouraged to go see a professional production since she had never seen one before. (This last bit is of course a little astonishing to me given that my kids were generally IN shows before their first birthday, let alone attending them…) One of the recommendations I gave was CAT’s “The Importance of Being Earnest.” I was a little hesitant because, as I remember it, the play has some pretty sophisticated humor in it amongst the silliness, and also over the years I have seen the occasional marginal production at CAT.
Well, apparently, his daughter was enchanted by the play and sat rapt in attention throughout, laughing frequently. Now she is totally psyched about theater and, just today, my boss came and asked for yet another recommendation (watch out, Plaids!) Anyway, I guess my point is that, even when you are toiling away in a show and you are deep into the run and the house isn’t very big and you frankly would rather be at home sipping hot chocolate, you might consider that your audience might include an impressionable youngster experiencing her first show. And your performance may make the difference between that youngster becoming a new and excited theater lover or just another teenage videogame slacker.
And thanks, by the way, all you good folks at CAT for helping me gain points with the boss. I appreciate it.
My preview piece on “Medea” is up on the Style website. For your enjoyment…
K-Fed voted out of office
Well, the marriage amendment passed, thereby officially writing prejudice into our state constitution. I’m wondering how long it will take before people realize what a mistake this was. Maybe not for decades. Who knows, maybe never.
As a Webb supporter, I’m psyched to see that it is looking like he will pull out a victory, though there probably won’t be any certainty to it for weeks or months even.
But in a piece of election news that I found both sublime and ridiculous, I was amused to read that Britney has filed for divorce from K-Fed. Looks like the Brit-ster was voting for a change on election day just like the rest of America.
As a Webb supporter, I’m psyched to see that it is looking like he will pull out a victory, though there probably won’t be any certainty to it for weeks or months even.
But in a piece of election news that I found both sublime and ridiculous, I was amused to read that Britney has filed for divorce from K-Fed. Looks like the Brit-ster was voting for a change on election day just like the rest of America.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Vote...please
It does make a difference. If you need any more inspiration than the issues the candidates are talking about, ask yourself this question: who do you want holding the purse strings when it comes to public funding for the arts? Now off to the touch screens with you!
...and again
Darn! I knew I was forgetting something. The "Avow" reading was last night at the Firehouse. I was in line at Starbucks this morning, leafing through last week's Brick and it smacked me right in the forehead. The nice invitations from Jacquie O. to come see it had put it on my radar screen, from which it quickly fell off in the face of press deadline yesterday, trying to get to bed early so I could get up early and vote, and a new episode of "Heroes" (I'm sorry, I'm a geek. What can I say...)
Bravo to 'Brick' by the way for pretty consistently including theater in its coverage. And when I was out trying to find Brick's website, I came across this site for another Brick magazine that is pretty fascinating as well. Just what we all need, another fascinating way to lose a couple of hours of sleep!
Bravo to 'Brick' by the way for pretty consistently including theater in its coverage. And when I was out trying to find Brick's website, I came across this site for another Brick magazine that is pretty fascinating as well. Just what we all need, another fascinating way to lose a couple of hours of sleep!
Monday, November 06, 2006
Falling down on the job again
Once again, a show has slipped through my fingers. HATTheatre is putting on “100 Years of Broadway” out there on the west end, featuring Tony Williams and Julie Fulcher fresh from their successful stint backing Debra Wagoner in her Barksdale Cabaret act. According to Vickie, the show’s selling out so that’s a good thing. If you want to catch it, it’s running this upcoming weekend as well.
I also screwed up by insinuating that Scott Wichman would be playing just one character in “Mme. Bonnard’s Bath.” As pointed out in Ms. Haubenstock’s not-too-enthusiastic review, Scott plays five characters, relative child’s play compared to the 14 thousand or so he did in “I Am My Own Wife.”
Last week, I was able to squeeze in an interview with Heather Davies and Mary Vreeland, director and star respectively, of “Medea” which starts at TheatreVCU this Thursday. It was one of those interviews that makes this theater writing gig worthwhile as both women were extremely intelligent and engaging and knowledgeable and just plain nice, too. We talked for more than an hour, even though the finished article will only be 300 words long. I easily could have written an 800-word lead story on them, they had so many good things to say. It was also one of those interviews that makes me glad that I married such a lovely and talented woman years ago. Otherwise, I would currently be struggling with a school-boy crush on Ms. Davies which would be bad for at least two reasons: 1) school-boy crushes are much less dignified when you are over 40 and 2) she is undoubtedly flying back to England within a week or two. Ms. Davies reminded me both in resemblance and general demeanor very much of Kate Winslet, who would be my supreme school-boy crush, if of course I wasn’t over 40 and above all that. So instead of staring into space and writing “Heather” with hearts instead of the “e”s all over my English composition notebook, perhaps I’ll buy my lovely wife some flowers on the way home from work today…
I also screwed up by insinuating that Scott Wichman would be playing just one character in “Mme. Bonnard’s Bath.” As pointed out in Ms. Haubenstock’s not-too-enthusiastic review, Scott plays five characters, relative child’s play compared to the 14 thousand or so he did in “I Am My Own Wife.”
Last week, I was able to squeeze in an interview with Heather Davies and Mary Vreeland, director and star respectively, of “Medea” which starts at TheatreVCU this Thursday. It was one of those interviews that makes this theater writing gig worthwhile as both women were extremely intelligent and engaging and knowledgeable and just plain nice, too. We talked for more than an hour, even though the finished article will only be 300 words long. I easily could have written an 800-word lead story on them, they had so many good things to say. It was also one of those interviews that makes me glad that I married such a lovely and talented woman years ago. Otherwise, I would currently be struggling with a school-boy crush on Ms. Davies which would be bad for at least two reasons: 1) school-boy crushes are much less dignified when you are over 40 and 2) she is undoubtedly flying back to England within a week or two. Ms. Davies reminded me both in resemblance and general demeanor very much of Kate Winslet, who would be my supreme school-boy crush, if of course I wasn’t over 40 and above all that. So instead of staring into space and writing “Heather” with hearts instead of the “e”s all over my English composition notebook, perhaps I’ll buy my lovely wife some flowers on the way home from work today…
Friday, November 03, 2006
Congrats
...and a quick shout out to Lisa Kotula for the successful launch of "Richmond Marquee." I got my issue in the mail yesterday and it's a delightful read. Congratulations, Lisa! They've also got a website, check it out!
Lee's Miserables
There’s something surreal to me that instead of seeing “Lee’s Miserables” tonight at Sycamore Rouge – a show that I expect is a bit dark and tragic and gritty – I’ll be seeing a preview of “Forever Plaid,” a show with a decidedly peppier take on death. That’s the way the schedule bounces, I guess. I’m trying hard not to make it into a bigger existential statement about my life and decisions I’ve made (as the song “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” from “Life of Brian” streams through my head…)
What I would hope with “Miserables” is that Clay MacLeod Chapman, who is an amazing writer, shows growth as a dramatist. As I said in this review of his “Volume of Smoke” at the Firehouse a while back, Clay does individual scenes very well. But connecting them together in a trajectory of some sort and establishing characters whose relationships grow and change is still something I haven’t seen a lot of in his work. Some of his most intriguing characters in his “Pumpkin Pie Show” stories have been outsiders, misfits or otherwise estranged. For someone so good at capturing estrangement, developing connections dramatically seems to have proven a challenge. I say this with the caviat that I haven’t read most of his stories or his novel and with a reiteration that I have found some of his individual scenes, vignettes and images absolutely stunning.
What I would hope with “Miserables” is that Clay MacLeod Chapman, who is an amazing writer, shows growth as a dramatist. As I said in this review of his “Volume of Smoke” at the Firehouse a while back, Clay does individual scenes very well. But connecting them together in a trajectory of some sort and establishing characters whose relationships grow and change is still something I haven’t seen a lot of in his work. Some of his most intriguing characters in his “Pumpkin Pie Show” stories have been outsiders, misfits or otherwise estranged. For someone so good at capturing estrangement, developing connections dramatically seems to have proven a challenge. I say this with the caviat that I haven’t read most of his stories or his novel and with a reiteration that I have found some of his individual scenes, vignettes and images absolutely stunning.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
The Secret of Mme. Bonnard's Bath
While I haven't seen this play yet, it makes me think of another topic that might prove interesting for discussion. And that's the point of "the Internets" anyway, isn't it, to prompt discussion?
Nudity. Obviously, this play's going to have some of that. Plays that I've seen that had nudity in them always stick out in my memory. Sometimes because the use of it has been organic and particularly effective (like the Barksdale's "Misfits" about 5 years ago), sometimes because it was jarring and out of place (a play called "Big Love" I saw at the Humana Festival many years ago started out with a woman emerging from a bath tub for no apparent reason). And in one unusual case, it's been because of both.
Maybe about 6 years ago, Triangle Players did a production of "The Judas Kiss," that starts out with a passionate interlude between a couple of servants. The RTP production had Stephanie Kelley playing one of the servants and the scene was blocked so that she stood up in the bed so her bedmate could "pleasure her orally" as one might say. Well, it was an effective way to get an audience's attention, that's for sure, and that scene has stuck in my mind ever since. The only problem was that the rest of the play was a moderately boring talk-fest and never matched the visceral intensity of those first few minutes.
I guess I think that in the best situations, nudity is just a natural aspect of a play, just like it is a natural aspect of life (I've got 4 kids; not many days go by when one of them isn't running around naked at some point...) From what I remember, "Frankie and Johnny in the Clare de Lune" has a couple of scenes like that, where people are naked because it's a situation where they would be naked in real life, you know? I guess Americans are so repressed about the whole nudity thing it's hard to just take it at face value. For instance, remember the big hullabaloo when Nicole Kidman appeared naked in a scene in "The Blue Room" on Broadway?
I don't have a specific point here, just some ramblings. Hope "The Secret" turns out well. I'm looking forward to seeing Scott as just one character for a change, instead of 6 dozen...
Nudity. Obviously, this play's going to have some of that. Plays that I've seen that had nudity in them always stick out in my memory. Sometimes because the use of it has been organic and particularly effective (like the Barksdale's "Misfits" about 5 years ago), sometimes because it was jarring and out of place (a play called "Big Love" I saw at the Humana Festival many years ago started out with a woman emerging from a bath tub for no apparent reason). And in one unusual case, it's been because of both.
Maybe about 6 years ago, Triangle Players did a production of "The Judas Kiss," that starts out with a passionate interlude between a couple of servants. The RTP production had Stephanie Kelley playing one of the servants and the scene was blocked so that she stood up in the bed so her bedmate could "pleasure her orally" as one might say. Well, it was an effective way to get an audience's attention, that's for sure, and that scene has stuck in my mind ever since. The only problem was that the rest of the play was a moderately boring talk-fest and never matched the visceral intensity of those first few minutes.
I guess I think that in the best situations, nudity is just a natural aspect of a play, just like it is a natural aspect of life (I've got 4 kids; not many days go by when one of them isn't running around naked at some point...) From what I remember, "Frankie and Johnny in the Clare de Lune" has a couple of scenes like that, where people are naked because it's a situation where they would be naked in real life, you know? I guess Americans are so repressed about the whole nudity thing it's hard to just take it at face value. For instance, remember the big hullabaloo when Nicole Kidman appeared naked in a scene in "The Blue Room" on Broadway?
I don't have a specific point here, just some ramblings. Hope "The Secret" turns out well. I'm looking forward to seeing Scott as just one character for a change, instead of 6 dozen...
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
And another thing
I was happy to get a "no hard feelings" kind of response from Mr. Schmidt, one of the subjects of my "People Hate Critics" rant (scroll to bottom). I do certainly hope we have a chance to share a laugh (and maybe a beer) someday and talk about "Caesar" and onstage flubs and politics and pals who get your back. I'll buy. Do you know where I can find a good babysitter?
Stirring the pot
Well, it's been great to hear from my fans (or at least my fan – thanks, Lisa!) during this relatively fallow period in my posting. Work (the 9-to-5 thing, not the Style gig that I do solely for all the money, perks and chicks it gets me…) is sucking up all of my time these days. It’s sucking just in general, too, but that’s a longer story.
I hope you caught Ms. Biegelsen’s review of “Steel Magnolias” in today’s Style. There’s a possibility that yet another Style reviewer will be covering “Mme. Bonnard’s Bath.” If all goes well, this town will be positively infected with theater critics!
And while I’m on the subject of the Firehouse, I’d like to throw something out there that might stir the soup a little. The Firehouse has had an on-going relationship with Israel Horovitz for many years now. If I remember right, it was initiated back when Director Bill Patton was doing shows more regularly at there. I’m sure there are many interesting and exciting things that come out of this collaboration. But I also wonder how much it ultimately benefits the Firehouse. Here’s why I wonder that:
--- There are not many people outside of the already somewhat insular world of theater that know who Israel Horovitz is. Even within the theater world, people may not be familiar with “Line” or “The Indian Wants the Bronx” or the other big shows that launched the playwright’s career. So I guess I wonder whether his name is bringing more or different people to the Firehouse. More stuff by younger, hipper writers might be more effective (like Clay MacLoed Chapman’s “Volume of Smoke” which they did a while back).
--- This may just be my impression, but some of the plays by Mr. Horovitz that have been produced by the Firehouse have seemed not quite polished. The last they did, for instance, “Compromise,” had many intriguing elements that might have ultimately gelled into something truly compelling. But, in my mind, it still seemed a work in progress. (I should say that at least two of my friends whose opinions I respect a great deal really enjoyed “Compromise.” So maybe it’s just me…)
--- Lastly, not since “Lebensraum” has one of his shows really grabbed me. And much of the impact of that one was that it was such an interesting idea. The novelty of the premise carried it through some of the rough spots. Nothing since has struck me as particularly good.
I guess my ultimate question is: In a world full of exciting plays and only a limited number of spots on a season schedule, is the Firehouse hampering itself by so closely aligning itself with Mr. Horovitz?
And to be fair, part of this rant may spring from my frustration that there aren’t more places that new and challenging and even bizarre works can be seen in Richmond. I appreciate what Yellow House and RTP have done occasionally, and what Sycamore Rogue looks like it’s trying to do, but I have to say, I still really miss Theatre Gym.
I hope you caught Ms. Biegelsen’s review of “Steel Magnolias” in today’s Style. There’s a possibility that yet another Style reviewer will be covering “Mme. Bonnard’s Bath.” If all goes well, this town will be positively infected with theater critics!
And while I’m on the subject of the Firehouse, I’d like to throw something out there that might stir the soup a little. The Firehouse has had an on-going relationship with Israel Horovitz for many years now. If I remember right, it was initiated back when Director Bill Patton was doing shows more regularly at there. I’m sure there are many interesting and exciting things that come out of this collaboration. But I also wonder how much it ultimately benefits the Firehouse. Here’s why I wonder that:
--- There are not many people outside of the already somewhat insular world of theater that know who Israel Horovitz is. Even within the theater world, people may not be familiar with “Line” or “The Indian Wants the Bronx” or the other big shows that launched the playwright’s career. So I guess I wonder whether his name is bringing more or different people to the Firehouse. More stuff by younger, hipper writers might be more effective (like Clay MacLoed Chapman’s “Volume of Smoke” which they did a while back).
--- This may just be my impression, but some of the plays by Mr. Horovitz that have been produced by the Firehouse have seemed not quite polished. The last they did, for instance, “Compromise,” had many intriguing elements that might have ultimately gelled into something truly compelling. But, in my mind, it still seemed a work in progress. (I should say that at least two of my friends whose opinions I respect a great deal really enjoyed “Compromise.” So maybe it’s just me…)
--- Lastly, not since “Lebensraum” has one of his shows really grabbed me. And much of the impact of that one was that it was such an interesting idea. The novelty of the premise carried it through some of the rough spots. Nothing since has struck me as particularly good.
I guess my ultimate question is: In a world full of exciting plays and only a limited number of spots on a season schedule, is the Firehouse hampering itself by so closely aligning itself with Mr. Horovitz?
And to be fair, part of this rant may spring from my frustration that there aren’t more places that new and challenging and even bizarre works can be seen in Richmond. I appreciate what Yellow House and RTP have done occasionally, and what Sycamore Rogue looks like it’s trying to do, but I have to say, I still really miss Theatre Gym.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)