Personal Theatrical Musings on Performances

Saturday, October 18, 2008

"Cabaret of Desire" by Blair Thomas and Co. on Oct. 11 in Chicago


"Cabaret of Desire" illustrates eight or ten pieces of writing, including letters, poems, and plays, by the celebrated Spanish writer Fredrico Garcia Lorca. It is an intimate collection of pieces that require concentration and a sensitive ear. For Lorca fans, the letters might prove particularly interesting because they are little known. Also, one of the anchor pieces, "Buster Keaton's Stroll," is an unproducable surrealist theater script that lends itself well to pupper theater.

As with all of Blair Thomas' pieces, the treatment of the literature is poetic. Thomas has an impressive ear for the poetry in language and translates it to the stage in a lovely way. The puppets are also wonderfully varied and expressive. One of the early pieces has puppets made out of shoes. The surprise of their creation is enough to command your attention. It's the somber mood of piece that sicks with you, however.

The final piece, "Buster Keaton's Stroll," is fantastic for its variety of puppets and technique. We see Buster Keaton as bunraku puppets of various sizes, as shadow puppets of various sizes, and as represented by a person. Each time a new version of Buster Keaton comes out, one is surprised and the result is wonder. At times the story is wacky and funny but mostly it makes little sense. At those times, it's the magic of Thomas puppetry that keeps you connected.

The pieces all seem to ruminate on existence in some way. I think I'd have to see it a second time to recall all of it, though. What sticks with me most are the moments of surprise, whether brought about by the language of Lorca or the puppetry. This show is a treat for serious fans of puppetry or Lorca's but it's not for the faint of heart or the uninitiated.

Friday, October 17, 2008

"War Horse" on September 27 at the National Theatre in London


"War Horse" is the most commercially successful show in the National Theatre's history. A hit with critics and lay audiences alike, the show is in a sold out extended run. It is an adaptation of the Michael Morpurgo children's book by the same name. A story about a teenager whose beloved horse is sent off to the battlefields of WWI. Desperate to be with his horse, the boy joins the army so that me might search for the horse.

The horses in the play are created and operated by Handspring Puppet Company from South Africa. They are each maniulated by three puppeteers, two who are inside the body of the horse and one who manipulates its head. My favorite thing about puppetry is how transparent it makes the artifice of theater but how it still pulls you in emotionally. One can somehow be in the moment and still be aware that you're watching something that isn't real. The horse puppets look angry, afraid, and loving at different times. That puppet makers and puppeteers can make these contraptions resemble something with emotions is remarkable.

For me, though, the puppets were the only remarkable thing about the show. The story is what you might expect from a children's book -- a bit implausable and too much heroism. The boy loves his horse too much and that he risks his life to go find him is more than we should have to take. Still, the beauty of the puppetry makes it all worthwhile.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

"Amadeus" on Sept. 17 at Chicago Shakespeare Theatre in Chicago


At the center of Peter Shaffer's "Amadeus" is a triangle of relationships, among the anti-hero Salieri, God, and Mozart. Salieri tells us that he begged God to allow him to be God's servant. He wanted to be made a composer and God, he tells the audience, made him one. Then Mozart, an upstart 20-something, comes along and Salieri realizes that his own music pales in comparison to Mozart's. He is both deeply moved by Mozart's music and uncontrolably envious of his talent and what he believes will be the immortality of his music. He pleads with God to allow him to be the instrument through which God creates one piece of music comparable to Mozart's but it never happens. Consequently, Salieri goes into battle with God but does so by ruining Mozart's career.

Salieri is constantly surprised that God never stops him. Instead, Salieri continues to collect accolades and his fortune grows as Mozart grows increasingly poorer and sicker as the result of his cunning. Mozart, he tells us, is the instrument through which he does battle with God. By ruining Mozart, the true instrument of God's beauty, he is getting back at God. The play raises the question of how one sustains such a relationship with God? Can it ever be done but through our relationship with others? If Salieri says he is fighting with God, we only see the wounds manifested on Mozart's body. That is the issue with maintining a relationship with a disembodied being; that relationship can only be manifested in human form. God's stand-in is Mozart. He is the cause and the target of Salieri's, no matter what he calims his real motivations are.

In the end, it turns out that what Salieri wants most, if he can't have divine talent, is immortality. Fame he's got and it's not enough. And since he can't have Mozart's talent, he decides to at least settle for fame as the man who kills Mozart. It is reputed that Mozart might have been poisoned by Salieri. In his old age, he cries out Mozart's name and begs his forgiveness but all of this is done just to start rumors. Knowing that his servants will spread the story and that the townspeople are gossips, he counts on the rumors to culminate in the belief that he murdered the genius Mozart. Then he tries to kill himself but fails. He is the high priest of mediocrity, he tells the audience, and we are his followers.

This is a serious accusation against the audience. Like the noblemen in the play who never acknowledge Mozart's genius but worship Salieri's mediocrity, the audience is implicaed as being unable to recognize real art and relying on what is fashionale, a particularly salient point at Chicago Shakespare Theatre. As I sat in my seat and listened to the wealthy patrons who surrounded me in the theater (this was opening night and geared at funders), I knew that Schaffer was speaking directly to the audience, accusing it. People around me audibly shared their agreement when Salieri, who addresses the audience directly, spews forth the most obvious and inane claims about our lack of understanding of art. At the end of the play, he says that as the priest of mediocrity he absolves the audience of its own mediocrity. One has to wonder, though, whether he is a priest with any power to absolve us. Having Salieri absovle us is perhaps the most brutal accusation from the playwright. Schaffer allows us to see Salieri for the pathetic being he is over time. For a while we think he's funny, then we think he's dangerous, then we realize that he's failed himself in every way. Schaffer has no sympathy for him and in aligning the audience with Salieri, he's making an unsympathetic accusation of the audience. During intermission, an audience member was praising the performance of the actor playing Salieri. He commented that this actor's portrayal was so funny when it's usually so dark in other productions of this play. Well, it's a funny role and I've only ever seen it played that way. I think he must have confused the play with Milos Forman's movie. This kind of pretension is perhaps indicative of the behavior Schaffer is ridiculing.

I last saw a production of this play at the Wilma Theatre in Philadelphia a little less than two years ago. It was a highly stylized version done all in black and white with lots of patent leather clothes and boots, somewhere between baroque and punk rock -- the kind of production we might call edgy. Sadly, it was dull, dull, dull. While the director had gone to great lenghts to make it look oppulent and "edgy," he had spent too little time explorng the humanity and the play's themes. Thankfully, Gary Griffin hasn't fallen into that trap. The acting is very, very good and the direction emphsizes the humanity of the characters. The thing I've largely admired Griffin for is his reliance on the humanity of characters and the meaning of plays rather than relying on large production values, something Chicago Shakespeare Theatre itself is too often guilty of doing. I'm not sure why Barbara Gaines, the artistic director, chose this play. It's good but it certainly isn't timeless. Still, Griffin's production has a lot of integrity. He's chosen to stage most of it on the thrust so that the action takes place in the audience rather than on the proscenium, which would have distanced the action from the audience. And, in a play that suggests that the audience members are followers of Salieri the Mediocre, it seems appropriate that he's choosen such a staging.

Monday, September 15, 2008

"Hair" by the Public Theatre in Central Park on August 16 in NY


I'm a huge fan of the movie "Hair" but I've never really taken the play seriously. I've credited my love of the movie to my love of the music, which I've always believed to be moving despite a fairly problematic script. I've also liked productions of the play but also found them problematic. They've always seemed like a hybrid between a concert and play. More of a conceit and less of a coherent play. And, again, it's mostly the music that I've found moving.

Turns out the the Public Theatre premiered "Hair" 40 years ago. Like "A Chorus Line," the play premiered at the Public and then went to Broadway. For its 40th anniversary, the theater included in its summer Shakespeare in the Park season with an electrifying production. It was very nearly flawless. This production was incredibly well-thought out. Meaning was wrung out of every lyric and every bit of dialogue and they were all organized into a coherent whole, something I've alays thought was impossible.

Leading the cast was Jonathan Groff, who played melancholy Melchor in "Spring Awakening." His performance as Claude had wonderful depth and integrity and he's an incredible singer. There are two other standouts. One is the woman who sang "Frank Mills" with wonderful vulnerability. Her voice is strong and sweet and by the time she gets to the end of the song, you know she's realized that Frank Mills is not coming back, not because he doesn't know where she is but because he doesn't care to. It's a sweetly sad moment. The other stand out is the guy who plays Woof, another fantastic actor and singer. The only disappointment, and it's not much of one, is Will Swenson who plays Berger. It's not that he's bad, it's just that he's not as strong as eveyone else.

I won't say much about the plot of "Hair" as we all already know the story. I will say that the second act is devasating. When the tribe goes to protest in front of the induction center, hoping to prevent Claude from showing up for the draft, they are frantic when they can't find him. Turns out that he's already inside and his fantasy about dodging the draft by becoming invisible has been transformed to mental illness from emotional strain and he comes to believe that he really is invisible. He goes off to war and, of course, is killed. At the end of the show, when the cast sings "let the sinshine in" it is a moving plead and a prayer to the audience to replace war with beauty and life. The woman who sanf "Frank Mills" weeps with pleading. As the cast leaves the stage, we're left with a dark and solitary image of Claude's corpse laying on an American flag.

But wait, there's more. The cast comes back for the curtain call with a refrain of "Let the Sunshine" and invites the audience up to the stage. Its meaning is transformed from a plea to end such violence to a celebration of life. The entire stage is packed with adience members, who are singing, dancing, jumping about, and hugging the cast members. The plea for life results in a manifestation of it in the theater. No one sitting in the seats leaves the theater until the very end. Instead, they sing at their seats (after all, it turns out we all know these songs and can sing along) while the others sing on stage. The show is transformed from an elegy to a celebration of life. I've never seen anything like it.

"A Day In Dig Nation" by Flying Carpet Theatre at PS122 on August 14th in NY, NY


I find myself constantly attracted to and repelled by PS122. On the one hand, if you want to see something experimental, it's the first place one thinks to go. On the other hand, there's a damn good chance it's gonna suck. God knows, I've had my share of disappointment there. One puts up with all of the losses in hopes of seeing a great show every now and then. And that prince of a show makes up for all the frogs. Such is the name of the game.

"A Day In Dig Nation" is a one man show featuring Michael McQuilken. It opens with his parents arguing over what to name him. His mother insists on naming him Rex and his father insists that Rex is a dog's name. The father puts up a good and exasperatedly funny fight but is eventually beaten down by his mother. Each parent is just a voice coming from either end of the stage and poor baby Rex is just a pair of exaggerated and expressive eyes that moves from side to side, afraid and following the parent who is talking. It's a funny and entertaining start to the show.

Part of the joy of the show is McQuilken, who is good at comedy, drama, singing, and even tap dancing. Witnessing the opening, one fears he might be an actor with a schtick but I was pleasantly surprised by his range. Rex is a character who is emotionally cut off from the world. At one point he acts as someone's personal hero and when she tries to thank him, he shrinks from her attention, finding it impossible to believe that someone wants nothing else but to thank him. He's deathly afraid of her. Their conversation is the weightiest moment of the show and McQuiken handles it very well. He's more than a one trick pony.

The story itself chronicles Rex's exile from human emotion. He's surrounded by and in a way enveloped by technology. Instead of a set, the production has video projections that serve as the set. In one of the scenes, a man is trapped in a hiding place in a post apocalyptic world. He hears the calls of a woman who is desperately searching for another survivor of whatever catastrophe has caused the world's ruin. He can't bring himself to communicate with this woman and thus loses her, listening as she finds another male survivor and connects with him. This man might be a character from one of Rex's video games but it's also Rex. Thus, when the woman Rex has saved from drowning comes to thank him, one fears that Rex will not be able to talk with her.

This production was a mixture of hi tech sound and video, a solid, script, and good acting. It's a modest production, not slick at all. Yet, it's a winning combination and enough to get me to PS122 the next time I'm in New York.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

"Fela!" on August 13th at 37 Arts in New York, NY

This new musical is choreographed and directed by Bill T. Jones. The good news, which we pretty much could have guessed, is that the music and choreography are fantastic. After all, the music is Fela Kuti's and the choreography is by Bill T. Jones. The not-so-good news, which we also could have guessed, is that the direction isn't nearly as strong. The wild card is the book, which is written by Jim Lewis, who is presently working with The Civilians. Sadly, that's the weakest part of the show.

I could get into a discussion about the evolution of the jukebox musical and how it's led us to this place but I won't. I will say that the conceit of the play is that Fela is telling his life story at his final concert in Nigeria. His compound has been ransacked, his wives raped and beaten, and his mother murdered. The concert setting is a vehicle for Fela to sing his greatest hits and to put them in a political context. While this is an easy way to show off the music, it's a bit of a copout and doesn't make for very compelling drama. If there is a theme, and if there is it's not well developed, it's that in the face of political adversity we should keep our resolve and continue to fight the good fight. While the story is poor, I will say that I heard "Zombie" in a whole new way. The production wrung out the meaning of the song.

As someone writing a personal critique of the play, the weakness of the script matters. As a guy who just went to see it, it barely matters. The music is fantastic and it's a joy to hear it played and sung live. Bill T. Jones' choreogrpahy is impressive and lots of fun. In a way it reminds me of Ron Brown's choreography in its fusion of traditional and African and Western movement. While Ron Brown's accomplishment is that he combines African and African American movement seamlessly, Bill T. Jones' is that he adds geometry to it. If you're a fan of Afro-pop and dance, this show is a blast. I enjoyed it tremendously. From the reaction of the audience, I think the entire theater enjoyed it. And from the fact that it's been extended for a couple of months, I think people continue to enjoy it.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

"Funk It Up About Nothin" at Chicago Shakespeare Theatre on July 19th in Chicago


This is the second of Shakespeare's comedies that the Q Brothers have created, the other being "The Comedy of Errors." In the days of "updating" Shakespeare, the Q Brothers have done great service to these plays by adapting them as hip hop productions. First of all, this production was 90 minutes long instead of 3 1/2 hours. As far as I'm concerned, the only people who could possibly be interested in a full production of "Much Ado About Nothing" are Shakespeare scholars. For the rest of us, it's great to pare it down to just its basic plot because those are the entertaining parts of this play.

The medium of hip hop, at least as employed by the Q Brothers, works very well here. It's a bawdy story and their lyrics bring that out, the style of lyricism serves the battles of wit well, and it plays effectively with the rhyming couplets. The Q Brothers adaptation of the language is fantastic, often rewriting complete sections of dialogue but keeping Shakespeare's original text in pieces as well. It's a clever adaptation and the most fun anyone's had seeing this play in at least a century, I'm sure.

Some of the odd characteristics of this show are dealt with masterfully here. For example, the Q Brothers comment on the ridiculous series of disguises in the play by being over the top about them. It's as though they're purposely not even trying to be convincing. At the same time, the costumes take their basic form from hip hop fashion and make them more costumey. Talentwise, the woman who plays Lady B (Beatrice), is hysterical. She has that "three snaps in a Z formation" kind of attitude down.

One aside is the ever growing practice of adapting plays and musicals using hip hop. Oddly enough, but not surprising, is that the hip hop music itself is never very innovative or new. This music, while exuberant and tons of fun, felt like something the Fresh Prince of Bel Air would have made in the late 80's. It's nothing that a current hip hop musician would have written. This is the primary reason, I think, that the audience is packed but with people who don't really listen to hip hop. Be that as it may, there was a dj on stage. Whether she was spinning improvisationally, I don't know; I doubt it. nevertheless, this was a fantastic show. Highly entertaining, incredibly witty, and quite smart.

"The Lion in Winter" at Writer's Theatre on July 18th in Glencoe, IL


Writer's Theatre's directors always pay such careful attention to scripts that they inevitably wring more meaning out of them than just about any other theater company in town would. Plays that I've never liked, I've loved when seeing their version. Frankly, the directors just seem smarter to me. It also helps that they attract the best actors in Chicago.

Seeing "The Lion in Winter" was a surprising thing here. I've seen the play before a couple time and seen the movie many times. Not unsurprisingly, Rick Snyder decided to downplay the camp humor and emphasize the pathos. As usual, the direction was careful and the acting first rate. However, I ended up feeling rather unmoved. Without the camp humor, the rest of the play didn't quite hold up. So, while I can't say I was enthusiastic about this production, it was more than solid and I realized that this play is primarily a comedy and can't stand up without it.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

"The Last Days of Judas Iscariot" by Gift Theatre on July 5th in Chicago


"Judas Iscariot" opens with Judas' mother recounting his suicide and burial. Judas, unsurprisingly, had been abandoned by everyone. She alone dug his grave and covered him with earth. People insisted that he was in hell but at the close of her monologue she declares, with equal parts pathos and equal parts anger, that Judas is in heaven. If Judas were not in heaven, she says, then God is unjust. At the end of the monologue, we notice Judas, humped over and drooling, on a stump in the front corner of stage right. It's a wonderful moment, partly because it raises the question of Judas' culpability in God's plan for the death of Christ (and consequently our salvation) and because we see the physical manifestation of what must have been Judas' emotional state upon betraying Christ. Thus, in the first few minutes of the play, the scene is set for what I think is one of the most fascinating stories of all time.

Judas, it turns out, is in purgatory. His name is mud and he can't get a trial that might release him from purgatory to heaven, not because God forbids it but because the other inhabitants of the place refuse to hear his case. A feisty woman decides to act as his public defender and doesn't rest until she gets him a trail. As the trail proresses, we learn why each person present is in purgatory and we learn some historical and non-historical details about people surrounding the death of Christ. Chief among them are the high priest Ciaphas and Pontius Pilate. Her challenges offer us an opportunity to reconsider the story that we'd learned and accepted without giving it much thought. Ciaphas, she suggests, also betrayed Christ, who was a Jew after all, and thus one of Ciaphas' own people. She accuses him of being in bed with the Romans and profiting from the enslavement of the Jews. How is Ciaphas any better than Judas she wants to know. Ciahas' answer is that Judas took money. Not much of an answer. Ciaphas storms off and declares that what he feels for his part of the story is between him and God. Why then is what happened not between Judas and God? Pilate doesn't get off any easier. And neither does Mother Theresa who, the play suggests, said that abortion is the worst sin of al and is responsible for all wars. The point of these testimonies seems to be to point out that everyone, including our saints, are culpable but quite willing to throw the first stone. Why then has Judas gone down in history as the worst fiend?

As the received story of Judas goes, Jesus is sent to earth to die for our sins. Due to his sacrifice, we can now be forgiven for our sins and gain entry to the kingdom of God. At the bequest of the Jews, the Romans decide to kill Jesus. Ciaphas, the Jewish high priest, resents Jesus for his power and claims it is blasphemy. Judas, we've been taught to believe, betrays Jesus' whereabouts and identity to the Romans for payment and they string Jesus up and crucify him. Thus, Judas is the scummiest of the scums of the earth. Some theologians have argued, however, that Judas' betrayal was a sacrifice itself. Jesus was sent to earth to die and Judas did an important thing by betraying him. In fact, they suggested, Jesus willed it. In either case, this is a moving story to me because Judas and Jesus seem to be incredibly close friends and Jesus' betrayal is necessary. That it comes at the hands of one so close to him, whether mandated by Christ or brought about by Judas, is a complicated story of friendship. My image is of Christ both knowing that he is responsible for Judas' betrayal and saddened by that betrayal.

The play's suggestion is that Judas is Jesus' puppet -- that Jesus puts these plans into action and that Judas' betrayal is necessary. Those pieces of silver cannot repay Judas for what he's had to do for Christ's plan and he resents the payment. Maybe he doesn't throw them away because of remorse but out of the recognition that it's paltry payment considering the magnitude of the sacrifice. When Jesus comes to Judas looking for emotional succor, Judas is still angry and sends him away. While Judas sits on trial in front of mankind (and mankind who have been less than perfect and ended up in purgatory) Judas is actually judging God.

The play is fascinating to me for its exploration of good and evil and that relationship between Jesus and Judas. The production itself I'm a bit more mixed on. The acting is frequently but not always strong, the costumes are odd, and the set is flat. The cast is racially diverse and each person of color plays a caricature of his/her ethnicity. Pilate is black and a bit ghetto. Actually, he's like a ghetto guy who has made a lot of money. One of the characters is St. Augustine's mother. She's a Latina hoochie mama. While her characterization drove people around me crazy, I found her kind of funny. About St Augustine (who wa an alcoholic and slept with more prostitutes than he drank glasses of wine), she says, he gave up hooch and whores and went down the straight and narrow. Her manner is over the top and none of the women in heaven like her. They know, though, that she can get shit done. When she approaches Judas for the first time, she slaps the drooling invalid about and makes jokes about his suicide ("How's it hangin'?"). But then she comes close to him and touches him. Against her will, she senses the centuries of pain and she bursts into tears. She hugs him, tears falling down her face, and Judas seems to warm just a bit. Like so much of the play, the conventions are weak but it delivers when it needs to. In that moment, we feel and experience Judas' isolation. For all the silly stereotypes, bad jokes, and odd costume choices, we experience a deeply human moment. Those moments make the play more than worth seeing.

Friday, June 27, 2008

"Pippin" by East West Players on June 21st in Los Angeles

I was interested to see this production for a number of reasons. First, East West Players is an Asian American theater company with a national reputation. Furthermore, they were doing a hip hop and anime version of "Pippin," the 70's rock (sort of) musical that the "L.A. Times" said had "street cred." Even the "Chicago Tribune" wrote about it.

Watching an Asian American theater company take on "Pippin" with both hip hop and anime sensibilities is pretty cool. Both are forms of art that were popular before they began to be considered legitimate by the arts establishment and both are very much identified by their urban and ethic roots but have had wide influence beyond those communitites. Many theater companies are adopting plays to give them hip hop sensibilities. It's especially trendy to do hip hop Shakespeare. That East West Players decided to weave both hip hop and anime into this production makes it much more interesting than the hip hop Shakespeare that's popping up everywhere. In this production, they go together very well, combining to give the production a stylistically sexy edge that's fun to watch.

"Pippin" is the story of a gifted child whose aspirations to do great things lead to a series of existential disappointments when he realizes that nothing makes him feel like life has meaning. At one point the narrator of the show, a sort of Satan/Dionysis figure, offers him a fiery and spectacular death as the penultimate event that will grant his life meaning. Although tempted, Pippin realizes that meaning comes through what feels like the ordinary things in life, such as loving someone and parenting. perhaps that's true but it doesn't ring true in this production. Instead, it feels a bit cheesy. I'm not sure if it's the fault of the script or the production.

The musical direction was excellent. While the original cast recording sounds hollow and tinny, this music sounds current. What makes this "Pippin" a hip hop musical is that there's a dj on stage who mixes a hip hop backbeat to many of the songs. When he does, the dancers' choreography is hip hop choreography. It is also an incredibly sexy show. The dancers are all hot as hell and we get to see lots of them.

The actor who plays the narrator is the highlight of the show. He has a sexy, Satanic, fu manchu look and he's a very good hip hop dancer. He's really the life of the show. The rest is less successful. The dancers are all excellent but they don't have the technique or precision of great hip hop dancers. While I'd be impressed watching any of them dancing in a club, they don't have the energy or technique of street dancers. It ends up looking like hip hop for older white people. The hip hop music is also very pedestrian. This, of course, is the case with pretty much all musicals. The music and choreography are always a watered down version of what more cutting edge musicians and choreographers are doing.

My guess is that theaters that are turning everything into hip hop productions imagine they'll draw teens and African Americans to their houses. Granted, I saw a weekend matinee, not the time slot that tons to draw young people. The audience was largely older white folks with a smattering of Asian Americans. I saw one African American couple who seemed to be in their late 30's. I don't think these shows draw teens or African Americans because they don't have the freshness or technique of street hip hop dancers or good hip hop dj's. Instead, they seem like hip hop for older people who think it's cool but who are a few generations behind current trends. My guess is that a black teen would think the dancing and music are pretty pedestrian. Street cred? Maybe if you live in Beverly Hills.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

"How Theater Failed America" by Mike Daisey in Denver, CO.

I'm at the Theatre Communications Group conference, where yesterday everyone was talking about this show. They were either excited to see it, resentful of it, or resentful of it but still interested in seeing it. Some thought the show might make them angry but I thought it sounded insular, and thus, wasn't terribly interested in seeing it. With all thet alk, though, I couldn't resist.

"How Theater Failed America" is a monologue, with Mike Daisey sitting at a desk on a bare stage, with very minimal lighting, talking into the full but dark auditorium. It's an incredibly funny critique of the current state of American theaters but a critique that comes out of an intense love of theater and its possibilites for transforming lives. He opens the piece by speaking directly to the audience and saying: I wonder why you've come. The implication is that he has nothing positive to say to this theater-going crowd about theater and so it's surprising that they'd show up to hear it. He list a few hysterical reasons why he's surprised folks would come to see the show and then gives a few hysterical reaons why they might have. Perhaps we want to hear him place blame, he says. Perhaps we want to hear him talk about how the young people have short attention spans, with iPods always in their ears; how funders have screwed things up; how critics, especially thet "NY Times" and Charles Isherwood, have ruined things for theater. It's a sly parody of the reasons arts administrators give for the state of the arts. The audience is good natured, though, and they laugh at themselves throughout this. Then Daisey changes his cadence and begins to speak very slowly and says "It's not the NEA, or corporate funders, or short attention spans, it's not evern Charles Isherwood that's ruined theater, it's you [long pause] and it's me." What had been 5 or 10 minutes of good fun turns very serious and just as the tenstion becomes too much to bear, he turns the page of his notes and cuts then tension.

This moment is indicative of the piece. It uses humor to challenge the audience, at times it's accusations are serious and direct, and it uses the conventions of the monologue (and to a lesser extent theater more broadly) to structure the piece but also to make the tone work. He wants to challenge the audience but he doesn't want to alienate them.

He walks the audience though a series of stories that are in turn funny and poignant. They speak to the power of theater and the ways it can provide hope for its participants and the ways in which theater companies, the artists and administrators, have sold out the theater. I'll tell one story quickly. He tells about a production of Genet's "The Balcony" in which he played the cardinal. The direction said he wanted to create a "super fucked up" production and does so. He put the actors in boots that are a foot-and-a-half off the ground, has them wear outrageous wigs and thick kabuki make-up, and has a dwarf and mud wrestling. What it didn't have, Daisey tells us, was sound dramaturgy.

When the director tells Daisey, who is a pretty fat guy, that after his speech four minutes into the play he should open his cardinal's robe and beat off, Daisey is torn. One side tells him that actors do what directors tell them to do but the other side knows this has gone too far. When he tells the director that his masturbating on stage is needless and doesn't contribute to the ideas in the play, the director replies that that is why it is "super fucked up." Daisey, being an actor, follows his director's instructions and comes up with the most fucked up way of masturbating he could imagine. After a late seating one night when a young girl enters the small theater right at the moment of his perverse masturbation scene, he wonders if he should do it. He hestitates for a while and then he does. As he readies himself in that moment to begin masturbating, he tells himself that he's an actor and he's doing what actors do. But then he can't sleep for nights. He loses sleep, not because he masturbated in front of a child, but because, as an actor, he couldn't think of what else to do.

Daisey presents a number of such stories, each bringing a different point to light. That one makes plain the danger that artists, despite their reservations, sometimes give over too much control to their collaborators. Another story illustrates the point that in our mad rush to build new buildings for our theaters, generating enough revenue to fill these large houses takes us away from our original impulses for creating theater and fiorces us to put on safe productions that do not feed our artists passion. We become a business, a corporation, and not a place where artists work together as a community. Corporations, he reminds us, can't love the theater, only individuals can love the theater. An artistic director friend told him that the name of the play shouldn't be "How Theater Failed America" but "How Theater Became America."

This is the performance's punchline and it's representative. It not only makes clear this dangerous trend in theaters, God knows we've seen plenty of that in Chicago, but it also tells us something about America. By carefully sketching out how many of us have poured cold water over the soul of theater, robbing ourselves of our creative individual impulses, he points out the similar process that has taken place in America and that so many of us particiate in.

Saturday, June 7, 2008

"Operation: Orfeo" by Hotel Pro Forma at the Istanbul Theatre Festival on May 30 in Istanbul, Turkey


Every year, the Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts host a month-long theater festival that showcases the work of Turkish performing arts companies as well as that of other companies from around the globe. I went to see a Danish theater company performing an opera adapted from the story of Orpheus and Eurydice. In the past few years, I've seen Mary Zimmerman tell this story in "Metamorphosis" and Sarah Ruhl in "Eurydice." In both versions, the emotional center of the work is really with Eurydice. In Zimmerman's piece, the tearful moment is not when Orpheus looks back thus losing his love forever but as he's disappearing and we witness her confusion. She can't remember exactly who he is and is confused by his sadness. The chasm between his experience and hers, due to her lack of memory, is the tragedy. Sarah Ruhl's plays are never perfect but are marked by such deep humanity and amazing dialogue that I find them remarkable. Her version explores the relationship among love, loss, and memory. Eurydice's father is in Hades when she arrives. Having manged to resist losing his memory when he crosses into Hades, he acts as her guide upon her arrival and helps her to reconstruct her memories. Without those memories, her love for Orpheus couldn't exist.

I honestly have no idea what languages this opera was in. I know two of the songs were in English but I couldn't understand those and the supertitles were in Turkish. Thus, I had the music (sans the libretto) and the staging to engage me. Even so, I enjoyed it about as much as I did the others. The company was made of of 14 singers, 12 of them in the chorus and the two title characters. I can't comment at all on the story since I understood none of it. And I can't really dissect the music's technique since I know so little about operatic music. I will say however, that I see a fair amount of opera, both old and contemporary, and this was way up there for me. My two favorite late 20th century operas are John Adams' "Nixon in China" and Phillip Glass' "Satyagraha." In fact, it's the Phillip Glass opera that got me interested in new music. Unlike even my favorites of Glass and Adams, the music in this opera, which clocked in at fewer than 90 minutes, was beautiful to me the entire time. It was haunting, sparse, and shockingly varied at times.

The program booklet refers to the show as a visual opera done in three acts. Visually, it was as astounding as anything I've ever seen. Like the music, it was incredibly restrained while also being wildly exuberant within that restraint. The set is a series of about 15 large white steps that are enclosed by a white border, visible in the picture I've attached. The first 10 or 15 minutes of the performance is done in the dark, with the chorus of 12 singers sitting pretty much in a vertical line in stage right, Eurydice lying on one of the stairs on stage left, and Orpheus standing a few steps below her. All 14 performers wear dark gowns with black crowns and wee see only their silhouettes. We listen intently to the music. Then the lights come up slightly and the chorus members begin to move their arms just slightly and in unison. While the movement is minimal, and maybe because it is, it is very beautiful. Afterwards, the staging picks up its pace but largely in terms of lighting. There are moments when Eurydice slowly rolls from one stair to the next but there is very little movement besides that. The blocking acts as tableaux and we experience each scene primarily as still moments, even if there is movement within them. And usually we experience each scene in comparison to a preceeding one. In addition to the movement, the lighting is a star of the show. At one point, the chorus members stand in a diagonal line covering the set from top to bottom. Eurydice is laying on a step and Orpheus stand a few steps below her but looms above her. With just white light and shadow, the stage is black to the left of the chorus members and completely white to the right. As a still image, it's beautiful. There are many, many ways in which the light plays with the white steps and the variety seems like a small miracle. This is something that I'm unable to describe really, so I'm hoping that the image will give you a sense. Near the end of the piece, two intensely green laser lights begin to shoot out of the set. The length of the light glows longer and a layer of green light acting as a wave lay out between the two lasers. That entire system of lights grows longer and longer, eventually extending over the audience, until it covers the entire audience.

Opera lovers, of which I'm not one, say that opera is the greatest art form because it combines music, theater, dance, and visual art (thought the set). I find that this is rarely the case. As theater, it tends to be disappointing. The stories are usually silly and the acting ineffective. The dance is usually boring and often silly. And the sets are usually very impressive but rarely interesting. This production does seem to forgo acting but it sure was high on the other three. While there was no dancing as we often think of it, there certainly was choreographed movement. The set was like something Dan Flavin would have done if he had continued to work. And the music was exceptional.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

"Opening Night by Les SlovaKs at fabric Potsdam in Berlin on May 24


In the end, my gamble paid off. Turning down the concierge's suggestion that I go to the Berlin opera house to see the ballet "Sleeping Beauty," I took the train 45 minutes to the neighboring (and picturesque) town of Potsdam instead. There, I saw lots of Germans in the 20's and 30's with a few in their 40's watching a company from belgium called Les SlovaKs. Born in Slovakia but having emigrated to Belgium, the dancers, all well-trained and wonderful movers, found each other over time and created this company. I had never heard of them but was thrilled to see them. They had a combination of beautiful dancers' bodies, wonderful technique, surprising choreography, and charm enough to go around and still have some left over.

The company of five male dancers has created this piece with the help of a violinist who composed the music for the piece. The choreography was created by the collective of five male dancers. Perhaps the moments that most succinctly represents the piece is a violin solo where the violinist plays a series of quirky and short notes followed by a single note that he holds for a while. In that moment, the quirky is transformed into something beautiful. It's not that the quirky short notes are not beautiful and the long note is, but that the longer note, in its beauty, provides a context to experiencing the succession of shorter notes.
The piece looks like something the cowboy from "Midnight Cowboy" might choreograph, which is to say something choreograhed by amateurs making up something that they think looks like dance but with a certain energy and charm. Taking that kind of playfullness for its language, the piece plays those movements out to something that shows the beauty and skill involved in such movements and in playing them out to a certain end. The piece's movement, in fact, is comprised of quirky choreography (meant to look amateurish), folks dancing moves (ostensibly from Slovakia), and technique that comes from modern dance. The amateurish and folk movement are eventually because we see in them skill and beauty that are not evident at first.

The dancers and the violinist also appear to have a certain relationship that makes the piece even more charming. We get to watch them play together and it's a joy. At one point, one of the dancers begins to introduce one of his comrades. He tells us his name and explains that he's got a goodlooking Slavic face, which the dancer adorns with a mustache because he's young and wants to appear to be older. It's a kind of silliness that would be annoying if it weren't coupled with talent but that is endearing and funny because it is and because we like them. (When one enters the space, the six performers are all standing about 10 feet from the front row and just smile as we file in.) There are also moments of violence in the piece, as when one of the dancers begins to beat up on one that earlier had wanted his attention. The beating also turns into beautiful movement but is repeated and so we experience both pain and beauty at the same time. In one of these moments, one dance pounds the other's stomach as if hurting him and the dancer lands against the wall to the back of the stage. He lands on his back, feet up in the air and against the wall, and he begins to roll slowly, his body extended, towards the audience. In doing so, he transforms the movement of being beaten into something unexpected, in which we get to sympathize and then witness with awe.

The feeling of the entire piece might be describe as off balance but controlled. That's exemplified by a certain moment in which a dancer has has left arm extended straight. He brings his right arm over to the left but never extends it quite straight. He almost gets to that position that is common in dance but he never quite finshes it. He doesn't get to the point of balance. As a result, he seems in danger of losing his balance but he never does. And in not delivering for our expectation of balance and centeredness but also never losing his footing, he transforms our expectation and creates something new.

"Fram" at the national Theatre in London on May 24


Londoners have the benefit of the National Theatre, with many stagees in the same complex and seemingly unending access to wonderful playwrights, directors, actors, and state-provided big budgets. While big budgets in the United States often seem to go with an over reliance on expensive scenery and sloppy directing, I'd seen a few things at the National Theatre in the past and all were excellent. This included a production of Tennessee Williams' "The Rose Tatto" that was incredibly well-acted and directed with impressive intergrity. This was a few years after seeing a silly production at the Goodman Theatre in Chicago in which all of its eggs were put in a visual basket, taking the motif of the rose tattoo too far and attention to the direction not far enough.




"Fram" is about a real life explorer who once held the record for having travelled the farthest north and eventually turned in his adventuring ways for humanitarian, paying particular attention to raising money to battle a famine in Russia in the early 1920's. Written by Tony Harrison, a highly-respected British poet and playwright, the poem opens in the cemetary at Westminster Abby with an embittered dead poet/translator bitching about his bad reviews from T.S. Elliot, who happens to be lain fairly close to him in the cemetary. He decided to write a play about the explorer and he conjurs up a famous actress, the Fram (the explorer's boat), and a production. In the production, the poet and the actress interact with the explorer throughout the production.




The play deals with the issue of how one goes about doing good in a turbulent world. As the play-within-a-play opens, the explorer and his companion are stuck in the ice near the north pole. Tired of dealing with each others' scents and bad habits, they decide to divide their blanket and sleep separately. They realize that sleeping together under the same blanket they produce more heat and thus sleep more comfortably. Thus, depsite the farting and other disgusting habits, they snuggle together to survive.




The difficulties of life get more dire as the play goes on, including the famine in Russia, torture in the Middle East, and violence in parts of Africa. There is an argument in the play about the role art can play in producing empathy and thus a solution. The Americans, who claim to be playing the biggest part in alleviating starvation in Russia, fight with the actress and the explorer about how to raise support. When they suggest that poetry and theater are ineffective in representing the pain of the hungry, the acress gives a very compelling performance to the contrary. At the end of the performance, however, she walks away, more concerned with proving her skill than actually making a difference. The explorer's method is a slide show that show the bodies of children who have starved to death and the Americans have made films that one of the characters points out are fabricated.


Unfortunately, in the end the argument isn't expolored in a very compelling way, I don't think. The strength of the piece comes with the visuals (with the Fram coming up out of the bottom of the stage) and when the argument is made personal, as it was with the characters on the Fram. There's also a nice moment when a Middle Eastern poet arrives on the scene, his eyes and mouth sewn shut. The poet and actress believe he's purposely sewn them shut and see it as an intentional opposition to the mask of Tragedy, with it's eyes and mouth constantly open (but perhaps ineffective). As the Middle Eastern poet tries to speak and sing, however, we hear nothing but garbled sounds. The truth, of course, is that his eyes and mouth have been forced shut and he's lost his voice. He's not capable of representing himself. The explorer warns throughout the play that the entire world will eventually freeze over. Right before the end of the play, after seeing a series of more contemporary atrocities, we are reminded of the explorers' sharing a blanket. And then we see an image of London freezing over, perhaps a reminder that when the world does freeze over, as it certainly will in some way or another, than it's the individual's relationship to another that keeps us warm.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

"Our Town" by the Hypocrites on May 10th in Chicago

Apparently "Our Town" is the most performed show in the United States. I'd assumed that was because it calls for no set or costumes and because high school drama departments perform it so often. Having last seen and loving it in high school, I had no interest in every seeing it again -- the way those of us who have since discovered "The Sound and the Fury" and " Mrs. Dalloway" can't be bothered with "A Separate Peace." When the Hypocrites announced they were going to produce"Our Town" I was excited and scared. Excited to see what they would do with a play that I thought was such a dud and afraid that the play would out wrestle them with its over the top emotionality. What happened instead is that this production made clear what the Hypocrites do: bring the feeling of discovery to timeworn texts that audiences must have felt when they were still new. It's a rediscovery of texts that endless unimaginative productions have robbed of their vitality and originality. It's an incredible production with exuberance and restraint at the same time.

As you probably know, "Our Town" is a play in three acts. The first act gives a sense of what general life in the town is like, the second act is about love and marriage (including that of the protagonists), and the third acts deals with the death of some of the townspeople. Mostly, though, the play seems to be about the way that we live our lives blind to beauty and the things people "up there" live in little boxes, suggesting that we live in darkness and solitude, in a state akin to death. The third act, when Emily goes back to relive the day of her 13th birthday, makes that very clear. Her mother has gone to the trouble of getting her a gift she knows Emily will love but spends the whole morning cooking and never speaking directly to her daughter. There are other examples of this throughout the play, though. For example, the choir conductor who is likely gay but lives in a loveless marriage for the sake of societal convention. The loneliness of such a life has led him to alcoholism and despair.

Two things give this production its strength: the depth of the director's insight into the text and the production's restraint. Rather than playing the emotions large, the performances are controlled, almost quiet. In the scene where Emily goes back to her 13th birthday she doesn't scream and sob. Once she realizes that her time spent with her family won't be emotionally satisfying, she seems to want to get the hell out. She conveys this with a certain quality in her voice and an energy in her body but it's very controlled. The director, David Cromer, has cut about half the stage manager's lines, suggesting that audiences today are in a different place than they were in 1930's and didn't need to be told as much.

The action of the play alone is wonderful. This is a play, though, that calls for no sets or costumes. And the device of having a stage manager who speaks directly to the audience must have been quite a shocker when the play was first produced in 1938. What I found most interesting, though, is the way time works in the play. The third act is in some ways the future. In it, we see the past (Emily's return to her 13th birthday) and the future (the death of many of the townspeople). While times passes between each act and so the third act is rally just what happens after the second act, it feels as if the second act is the present. In Act III, when Emily decides to go back, the stage manager tells her that it won't be the same because she knows the future. We see the impact of the future on the past.

Perhaps one of the greatest strengths of the production is Cromer's stage manager. he not only sets up the scenes but by the second act he sort of comes out of the play. Rather than remaining detached, he seems emotionally involved with what's happening. Not so much in what he's seeing on stage but rather with what he's showing the audience. In Cromer's production, the action takes place in every square inch of the theater, which is to say very much among the audience. The play is a cautionary tale he is telling the audience and he tells it with an undercurrent of emotion. You see his frustration at our blindness and his warning to us. That might very well be the most jarring thing in the production. The play sets itself up as a play, constantly reminding us of its artifice. In this production, it goes one step further. It points out that this is indeed a play but one that exists to warn us about how little of life we experience and how much we throw away. The play exists not to entertain but to warn.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Northwest New Works Festival at On the Boards on May 9th in Seattle

Annually, On the Boards presents a series of new works from the Northwest region. I was really happy to be in town during the festival as it was an opportunity to see some of the region's most vibrant artists. I was curious to see what their interests were and who was influencing them. I guessed half the work would be atrocious and half surprising and wonderful.

On the Boards is like a regional and much smaller version of BAM. The staff brings incredible international artists to Seattle (this year, including Elevator Repair Service and Societas Raffaello Sanzio) and showcase the work of local/regional artists. It's the kind of resource anyone who likes contemporary art hopes to have in his/her city and that artists are grateful for. Seattle is lucky to have it.

At the Northwest New Works Festival I saw four performances. The first was by a woman from Portland. It was very Laurie Andersonesque in that she had a control box (doubling as a make up case) from which she controlled the sound and lighthing cues, including a device that recorded her voice and repeated it in order to layer sound. The piece was about Ondine, a woman who came mysteriously from the water, had a difficult life (which was somewhat romanticized in the piece -- the way heroines of fairy tales are romanticized), and was thrown back into the water by her sister. The performer played different roles through songs, with each songs describing an episode in Ondine's tragic life. The best parts were the her visual work, which came largely through costume. The story itself, while dark and dramatic, never quite provoked an emotional response. As with dark fairy takes, it seemed that fear and pity should at least have been present.

The second performance was by two young women who seemed to have been trained as dancers. It was a playful piece, bordering on wacky, about the tasks involved in getting to the earth's core. My favorite parts included dance/movement. Every now and then the two performers would move in unison, which was always surprising and lovely, perhaps precisely because it came against a backdrop of wackiness. At one point they performed in the style of poetry slam artists, mimicking their eponymous cadence and voicework. You know, that way of speaking poetry that makes it all sound like the same poem written by a Beat poet.

I enjoyed both performances and was very interested to see the way technology, spectacle, and storytelling came together in both pieces. The second two were less successful for me. The third piece was a dance performance about birds that, according to the notes, was inspired by an Edward Hopper painting. While we saw just an excerpt I can't imagine Hopper ever painting a bird. I could be wrong. In either case, the choreography was a bit rudimentary and the dancers lacked energy. The music was a combination of music, bird sounds, and city living sounds that was more interesting. The fourth piece was an alternative country trio of banjo, ukulele, and guitar players singing about small town Western Washington life. Parts of it were fun, especially the parts about Dairy Queen and Tasty Freeze (which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong), but overall it didn't go anywhere. It lacked the musical inventiveness of the first piece and its attempt of storytelling was underdeveloped.

While I didn't love everything, there was something to admire in each piece. More than anything, though, I thought it was fantastic that these artists got a chance to perform their pieces in front of an audience, something crucial as they continue to develop their ideas and aesthetics.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

"9 Parts of Desire" on May 5th at Next Theatre (at the MCA) in Chicago.


One of the nine characters Heather Raffo channels in her one-woman show is herself (I didn't count but I assume the title suggests there are nine characters). In that section, Raffo talks about her obsession with watching Iraq fall to pieces as the American and British invasion swings into action. As she obsessively watches the coverage on television, everyone else around her in New York says they're obsessed but they say so while getting their nails done. Raffo, of course, is also getting her nails done at the time. This is a reminder that American wars are never fought on American soil and thus we're spared from feeling the human impact of our imperialism. The Iraqi people we want to save from Saddam aren't really people to us. We might see them on television but we know nothing about them. Raffo's engaging play is not an argument for or against the war but an opportunity to get to know some Iraqis, the people deeply affected by our decision to wage war on Saddam.

One-person shows are always entertaining if for no other reason than the skill it requires to play a number of different characters convincingly is often dazzling to watch. One of Raffo's accomplishments is that her acting skills, which are impressive, become secondary and it's her characters who are compelling. And the characters all tell us something about what life is like in Iraq, both under Saddam's regime and under American occupation.

One character is an artist who sees freedom in her sexuality. She is unfaithful to her husband and takes other lovers. She argues that Western women aren't necessarily free and finds evidence of that in their sexual repression. Over time we come to realize that her sexual freedom is rather more complicated than it seems at first. Another character is a precocious young girl whose self-assuredness lands her father in Saddam's jail. Another character tells us that she throws the shoes of the dead into the river -- that the river is a collector of souls (soles). There are no martyrs under the water, she says, only the soles of dead people.

As with the Anna Devere Smith plays of the 90's, Raffo allows us to recognize the wisdom of her characters. Like Smith, Raffo interviews subjects and weaves their interviews into a performance. The performance allows us to witness the humanity of her subjects in a way that seems possible only with theater. Her representations of her subjects are never sentimental. Instead, she discovers the natural poetry of their voices and the wisdom of their thoughts. The character I loved listening to the most is a fat woman who says she sees with her heart. When Raffo allows her to tell her story, the woman finds so much joy in that connection, in being able to put her feelings into words for Raffo.

Near the end of the play, Raffo tells a story about her Iraqi relatives' attempts to reach her in New York after 9/11. Due to the overloading of the phone system in New York, they weren't able to get trough. They called her mother in Michigan for news of her well-being. Having gotten assurance that she wasn't killed in the explosions, they still keep calling until they finally hear her voice. They tell her how sorry they are that this has happened to her city. They empathize with the pain of 9/11 and worry about her. And they end their conversations by telling her "I love you." As Raffo echoes the voices of the Iraqi relatives who called, we get a succession of I love you's in similar and sometimes slightly different accents. Raffo's point is well made. There is great irony in the empathy of the Iraqis for Americans after 9/11 when 9/11 becomes the occasion for the war against their country. Her string of I love you's points out that irony but it's also a message to her Iraqi relatives, or maybe the women she portrays in the play.

It would have been a good ending for the piece, I think. After that, we learn more about characters we've seen before, much of it sad. I do think that it was largely unnecessary, though, and the performance started to feel a little long. I will say, however, that while I wanted the string of I love you's to end the play, the final image of an Iraqi woman whose life has been momentarily illuminated for us through Raffo's performance now fading into black is an apt closing image. We've come to see these women for a moment and then they fade back into obscurity. Maybe it's really a caution more than description of what is inevitable, though. A few nights later, the women are all still clear to me.

"Around the World in 80 Days" on April 26th at Lookingglass Theatre in Chicago, IL.


Having never read Jules Vern's "Around the World in 80 Days," I can't say for certain whether this was a good translation to the stage or not. I'm almost willing to argue, though, that it isn't. My sense is that the book must have been a whimsical story that relied on the exotic locations for much of its magic. The story is about a wealthy Brit who bets that he can go around the world in 80 days and has a singular focus to do so. Along the way, he encounters many fascinating scenes and falls in love. Over time he comes to realize that his focus has led him around the world but robbed him of actually seeing the world.

This is a typical Lookingglass production in that it's an adaptation of a much loved piece of literature. The fact that it's a children's story isn't uncommon. Mary Zimmerman's "The Secret in the Wings" was based on fairy tales and "Lookingglass Alice" was based on "Alice in Wonderland" (or is it "Through the Lookingglass?"). "Lookingglass Alice" translated the Lewis Carroll story partly through playful spectacle. The shenanigans of the story were translated into visual jokes that worked well. In this production, the magic of exotic lands was never well translated visually. While the performances were largely very good (I especially enjoyed watching Phil Smith), the production never felt delightful. It lacked the visual poetry of Mary Zimmerman's Lookingglass productions and what I could hear of the text wasn't enough to make the show terribly interesting. When Phineas Fogg (what a great name) reports that he's going around the world again because he never saw it the first time, the audience should feel something but I didn't. It wasn't the final point in an argument or exploration as it should have been. I left the production thinking it was kind of fun but slight.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

"As You Like It" at Writers Theatre on April 11 in Glencoe, IL


In a way, there's a very typical experience I have at almost all productions of Shakespeare and they were evident at this production. The woman behind me kept examining silly things trying to sound learned and impressive. She commented endlessly on the fact that the actors were wearing contemporary rather than period costume. She explained to her date that despite the attempt at updating the play, it still felt old to her. When the "all the world's a stage" speech began, the very nice and jovial man next me nodded with furious recognition when the character says "all the world's a stage and all the men and women merely players." He seemed to have such recognition, as if he'd heard and learned something so new. But the meaning of that speech unfolds in the ensuing lines. In my opinion, when most lay people (including me) see Shakespeare, they have a very difficult time with the language and thus lose much of the play. They expect to be bored and claim to love the production if they're entertained for twenty percent of the show. No one wants to admit that they didn't like a play that everyone knows is brilliant and that you'd have to be an idiot to say you didn't like. However, the language is so difficult and the plays so tough that it's hard to understand the plays in a meaningful way upon first seeing them. But, people don't want to feel dumb so they pretend to get a lot out of it. Plus, with so many snippets of Shakespeare's dialogue so familiar, we pretend to be moved by their meaning when we hear them. Thus, this woman going on about the silliness of the choice of costume and the man who nods in furious recognition at hearing the opening of that speech. I, for one, am usually bored off my ass in most productions of Shakespeare and get much more meaning out of reading them than watching them.

This production, however, was completely different. There were still audience members trying to convince themselves that it was deep and that they really understood it. What was different is that this production was neither distancing nor dull. In fact, I found myself incredibly moved a number of times. I often get the sense that directors of Shakespeare rarely understand each line of dialogue and, thus, can't get their actors to do more than speak them as sentences that sound right even if they don't convey meaning. Most actors seem so clearly to be acting when they speak their dialogue. Consequently, the lines are rarely convincing and the themes rarely coherent. In this production, Larry Yando delivers the famous lines "all the world's a stage" speech. What comes after those lines is so clear in its delivery that Yando has you enraptured as you listen to him talk about the inevitability for aging. At the end of the first act (as the play is staged), the lovers and other gentle folk who are in hiding in the Forest of Arden scatter as spotlights search the forest from a threatening helicopter. Once they've all scurried away, Yando remains alone, sitting in the open and apparently not caring if he is harmed. He's angry about aging and being closer to death and seems to want to combat death by daring it. While everyone else around him is silly in love, he alone experiences this melancholy and thus is even more isolated. This final image in the first act serves as a continuation of the earlier speech. When Orlando comes upon the gang of nice people in the Forest of Arden, he has left his elderly servant to find food and bring it back. Having left his job with the evil brother to look after Orlando, the servant has difficulty in the forest and is nearly dead from starvation. Orlando comes upon the band of merry men in the woods and savagely robs them at gunpoint. When they ask why he is robbing them, he explains. The good uncle in the play, who has been banished, tells him he has no need to steal the food. If he needs it, he can have it. I wish I could recall the lines because they were delivered with such compassion. Orlando is completely disarmed by this and collapses. It's the first time in a long, long time that he's received such generosity and when he does it's as if he feels the pain of the past the moment he's relieved of it. The lines are well delivered and the acting true.

What was so wonderful about this production was the care of thought was evident in every decision, from the bar used in the first few scenes to the delivery of dialogue. Most productions of Shakespeare done on this scale tend to be over the top with costumes and sets and most people find entertainment with those things rather than in the action. This production used simple costumes and a not-so-flashy set and instead focused on wringing emotion and meaning out of the play. It was a treat to see.

Having said the production wrung meaning out of the play, I will say that I think this is a damn silly play. I've never read "As You Like It" and this was my first time seeing a production of it. Maybe there's more to it than met my eye but if there's any philosophy in it, I missed it. The love connections aren't terribly interesting and the reversals are stunningly ridiculous, especially the evil uncle who finds God and gives his kingdom over to his foes. Still, it's a joy, and a rare one, to see what this director and these actors have done with it.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

"Monument" by The Seldoms on April 11 in Chicago, IL


I don't usually include dance in this blog because, although I love it, I can't analyze it and have no vocabulary for discussing it. The Seldoms' pieces, though, can verge toward dance theater.

Carrie Hanson and Doug Stapleton are the choreographer and dramaturg of The Seldoms. Hanson is a beautiful dancer, an ambitious choreographer, and a consummate collaborator (with wonderful taste). As artistic director of The Seldoms, Hanson's pieces typically involve collaborations with visual artists, costume artists, and musicians. In fact, her relationship with Stapleton is a testament to her collaborative nature. It's also a testament to her ambition. As a choreographer and artistic director, she wants to create innovative movement but she also wants to create and convey meaning beyond the physical. Their collaborations, however, don't always work and I've seen some spectacular failures. The Seldoms is also a small and poor dance company that can't afford to hire great dancers. They try to make do.

"Monument" is one of Hansen's most ambitious pieces to date. It looks at the amount of waste Americans consume and waste. Monument refers to a a trash heap in NY that is so large that it is visible from space. Apparently, it's larger than the Statue of Liberty. This trash heap is a monument to our consumerism and tendency to waste. The show's set includes beautiful video and its music adds effectively to its mood. The composer has rearranged "I Can't Get No Satisfaction" and made it slower -- sad and reflective. It lends the piece a beautiful tension.

With all the wonderful artistic collaboration, the treat in seeing this piece is still the choreography and dancing. Hansen has found a team of strong dancers who make her choreography seem light and effortless, a luxury she's always lacked in the past. The partnering is complex, unexpected, and sometimes breathtaking. The choreography's vocabulary is tight. We see certain movements repeated and with each repetition they seem more poetic. The movement also frequently approaches literal meaning, or recognizable gestures.

I hope we see move of this from The Seldoms. This is the most exciting piece of dance I've seen by a small, local company in years. It gives me hope that something meaningful might develop in Chicago.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

"White White Black Stork" by The Ilkholm Theatre on April 5th in Seattle, WA

The Ilkholm Theatre was founded in the mid 1970's in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. It was a non-state sponsored theater (and a political one) ten or a dozen years before Gorbachev. In his notes, the founder explains that in Uzbekistan's history the arts, especially theater, were highly prized as a tool for examining political situations. Under Soviet rule, this freedom disappeared. With this history and under these conditions he founded The Ilkholm Theatre.

"White White Black Crane" is set in the late 1900's. A boy in his late teen falls for a poor boy who is in school. The poor boy seems largely to spend time with the protagonist out of economic self interest. Forgetting his economic reason for his participation for a moment, he gets caught up by the exuberance of the other boy's attraction and they frolic and are caught by the father. The father and townspeople interpret the frolicking as sexual play. The poor boy is kicked out of school and the protagonist is forced to marry. The girl he marries has fallen in love with her own pauper, a boy who seels cloth for a living and wanders into her family's garden. With her headdress off, she tries to flirt with the boy but he's afraid and dashes off. he returns for meals but never tells her his name. Her father marries her off to the other boy for and insists on a larger than normal dowry.

The boy is heartbroken and can't bring himself to have sex with his new wife. She knows that he's reputed to be gay and shuns him. Over time, however, they come to understand each other's pain and they forge an emotional bond. Knowing that they still haven't consecrated the marriage, her father sues the boy's family and wins. The play culminates in murder and everyone's miserable.

The themes are clear. The boy and girl do not follow social conventions and are cast out as result. The only relationship allowed any power is the economic relationship between the fathers. Their children are things they trade with no consideration of their uniqueness. While arranged marriages might be typical, the impetus for the marriage were homophobia and greed. One father forces his son to be with a woman and the other didn't care that he was marrying his daughter off to a gay man -- he just wanted the money. The treatment of the theme is more nuanced than my statement of it, however. We're not really certain if the boy is gay or if, as he insists, he's just deeply connected to the other boy in neither a sexual or romantic way. There's also a play on "Romeo and Juliet," with some homoeroticism brought to the surface, an investigation of how families harm their children, and, most interestingly, how young people come to love each other in ways that adults can't seem to recognize.

The play is lyrical, with much of it reading like poetry (well, it's in Russian and I read supertitles but the supertitles were lyrical so I think the original script must also be). Even the set and the blocking were sparse and lovely.

I very much enjoyed the play, partly because it was a pleasure to watch but mostly because I was interested to be seeing a play by an Uzbeki theater company. The supertitles weren't always synched up correctly with the dialogue on stage, which pulled one out of the play.

Friday, April 4, 2008

"Throwing Bones" by Sojourn Theatre on April 3rd in Portland, OR

"Throwing Bones" is a remarkably humane story about three ill women and the personal and medical care they recieve. One is a black South African whose cheating partner passes on the HIV virus to her, another is a white South African whose illness is undiagnosable by Western doctors, and the third is a young woman in Portland with cystic fibrosis whose mother who is devastated upon learning of it. Each story illuminates another in a symbiotic way that I've rarely seen in theater. From the moment of learning about her daughter's cystic fibrosis, the mother thinks constantly about it. In a way, she begins to experience her daughter's death at that moment of learning about the diagnosis. (There is a wonderfully moving scene -- maybe to say it is a vignette is more accurate --when she finds out about this illness at the dinner table. The news is whispered to her and not a word is spoken. We witness her devastation through the way she handles the dishes. Ther's another stand out scene where, in the daughter's hospital bed, the two play a game of re-enacting a movie deathbed scene. We see them try to control what is inevitable by playing it out with humor. The mother, of course, becomes the grieved person she's mimicking and breaks down sobbing while the daughter laughs uncotrollably.) She never lives another day, when her daughter is both alive and after her death, that she doesn't miss her daughter. Death comes early, even before the daughter dies. In contrast, the black South African has decided not to tell her mother of her illness. She explains that once she does die, her mother will suffer unmentionable pain. She knows that, like the other mother, her mother will begin to experience her death upon learning the news. The play is filled with unspoken comparisons like this. Another I'll mention just briefly is between the two doctors - one an ivy league educated physician and the other a South African faith healer. We get glimpses into why both do the work they do and their relationship to each other as healers (or rather, as someone who tries to stave off the inevitable).

The structure of the play, in the way that it tells these stories, is impressive enough. However, there are dance sequences and moments in which the characters speak directly to the audience. The movement is choreographed by a member of Urban Bush Women. Rather than being silly or cheesy, it is moving, conveying sadness, joy, pain, and even ideas. At one stand out moment in the piece, the American doctor instructs the audience on how to feel for the pulse of the person to the left. He carefully walked us through that and after a few seconds I slowly began to feel the pulse of the person to my left, feeling it get stronger and stronger. We continued to feel the pulse for a while and, with our finger on that wrist, he tells us that that pulse will enevitably stop beat and that person will surely die. Then, he continues, there are people across the world (causing us to envision South Africa) whose pulses are ceasing to beat. In doing this, he creates an immediate and intimate moment with our neighbor (many of whom were strangers to the person next to us) and extends that intimacy to someone we've never laid eyes on but summon as a result of this very bodily experience. Interestingly, we pay more attention to the pulse we're feeling and imagine that person's death. However, the person to our right is feeling our pulse and our death is also being alluded to. In keeping with the concentration of the play, though, it is the otehr person's death we consider.

Two things strike me about this company: their ambition and their care. This is one of those plays where so many decisions could have gone bad and seemed cheesy but none do because every artistic decision has been carefully considered and shaped. The ambition is to humanely examine our experience of illness and death and the way we create meaning out of them. Creating a play about death and dying is, of course, huge. Yet they do so in an extremely intimate scale. The play is performed in what I think is the examining room of a nurse's college. In a way, doing it on such a small scale makes the largeness of the impact possbile.

Tuesday, April 1, 2008

"Boneyard Prayers" by Redmoon Theater on April 1st in Chicago, IL


Puppet theater by nature has certain limits. The best puppet theater turns those limits into strengths. I'm always amazed by scenes in which you see three puppeteers manipulating a puppet in a sad or tender moment. The fact that a puppet is standing in for a human and that three people are visibly manipulating it would likely prevent the viewer from being drawn into the scene emotionally. Yet, sometimes this display of artifice actually heightens the emotional punch of the scene. Puppet theater also cannot move at the pace of a conventional show and, as a result, not as much can happen. Thus, puppeteers tend to condense stories to a series of emotionally heightened scenes, operating almost with the economy of poetry.

Redmoon Theater has mastered the spectacle, large scale performances that tend to eschew narrative for the joy of endlessly unfolding visual (and often musical) surprises. They've also done excellent plays more on the scale of traditional theater. These tend to be adaptations of literature. One of the reasons these adaptations have been successful is because the artists have managed to surprise us with an unexpected series of delightful images, whether puppets of various sizes and forms or drawings.

"Boneyard Stories" is not a literary adaptation but an original story with original songs. It's about an alcoholic who decides to go home after having fled 23 years prior. The set is largely piles of dirt and everything and everyone is always covered in dirt. This are constantly being unearthed, or dug up. Having fled home because he couldn't face something he's done, the protagonist has tried to bury his guilt and, consequently, has become an alcoholic. Thus, the point of the story: we harm ourselves by sublimating painful events and can recover our health only by facing, or digging up, the past.

The problem with this production is that the narrative is severely underdeveloped. Characterization doesn't work and we care little for the characters. As always, much of the puppetry is wonderful. In one of my favorite scenes, the protagonist and his former wife have a bitter argument. The puppeteers/actors manipulating them drop the puppets and retreat. The puppets they drop fall crumpled unto the dirt in positions that express their pain. The duality of puppet and actor conveying the same emotion is fun to watch and the placement of the puppets manage to reflect the pain even more than the actors and their doubles. In the way that a story can seem especially ridiculous when it tries to be moving but doesn't achieve its goal, this story gets there. And once it does, the wonderful set, music, and puppetry can't save it. In fact, it's the other way around. The weak plot infects lessens our appreciation of the puppetry.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

"The Brig" at the Odyssey Theatre Ensemble on March 19th in Los Angeles, CA


"The Brig" is unlike anything I can remember ever having seen on stage. Set in a Marines jail, there is little plot, character development, or dialogue in this fascinating play. There is, however, intense theatrical poetry.

The first act, which is probably nearly an hour long, is a carefully choreographed acting out of the prisoner's day. We see them change their clothes, make their beds, march off to the bathroom, and read their marines manuals. The prisoners are sometimes barked at by the wardens but the soundtrack of this play is provided by the heavy panting of the actors as they march/stomp and run across the stage and as they scream their request for permission to cross the various white lines laid out across the brig. Once the ten prisoners are awakened by the wardens, the play is a flurry of activity, all highly coordinated, all intensely physical, and all terribly impersonal. It's like a fucked up version of watching a marching band up close. The sense of the lives of the men in the marines is conveyed through a highly intense bodily experience and the drama of the play is the acting out of the demands and difficulty of these lives.

I was fascinated to watch a play without dialogue communicate a deep sense of the experience of being a soldier. Still, at the end of act one, I was praying for some dialogue and a plot in the second act. I didn't get any such thing but what I got was masterful. Having set the scene of the ordinary day for these soldiers in act one, act two provides scenes that act as relief against the first act. For example, there's a scene in which the men clean the brig. If they clean it well enough, they are told, they will get a half hour to write letters. As an audience member, you pray that they receive this half hour because you sense they desperately need the break from this awful physical routine to survive with their sanity intact and because you need a break from the choreography of loud sound and repetitive action. This is where the drama lies in the show. A very different kind than we typically experience in theater. Its story is boiled down to emotion and conveyed in a unique way. As the men frantically wash the brig, things become frantic, almost slapstick, and one gets the sense of the chaos that lives just beneath the surface of this military routine. At any moment, it seems, these men could fall out of marching step and pandemonium could ensue. Or, perhaps more accurately, just beneath of the surface of the gloss and physical order of military life each soldier experiences a personal chaos and is part of a larger one.

Set against the order witnessed in the first act, the second act is remarkable. Among the things we witness is a prisoner leaving and a prisoner arriving. The prisoner leaving, we learn, is getting out five days early for good behavior. This is a serious disruption of the audience's assumptions. It means that in a world where one has no choice about how to behave, one can actually be deemed to have behaved well. Furthermore, and more to the point, it means that the wardens recognize the difficulty of these mens' lives and feel sympathy for them. This is jarring because it seriously disrupts our understanding of them as cold, mean, machines. Finally, we witness a prisoner's arrival, seeing how he learns all of these seemingly arbitrary rules (one can't ever have one's bare feet touch the ground, for example). After about five minutes of the soldier learning by making mistakes and being punished, a warden tells the new prisoner that another prisoner will explain the rules to him. This is the only time he will ever be engaged in a conversation, he is told. Once the explanation of the rules is complete, he will never speak to another human being, he will only receive and ask for orders. Having just witnessed two hours of this kind of life, this short bit of relief, or counterpoint, leaves us devastated. We feel what they have missed largely being seeing it happen for 30 seconds.

I have given away a lot about this play but there's so much more. And it's something to see. After the show, an actor friend of mine said he can't imagine why any actor would want to be in that show. He pointed out how hard they work in the production, both physically and emotionally, and guessed that they were all backstage feeling isolated and angry with each other. I replied that this was Los Angeles and that maybe they're willing to be in any play to get noticed. He pointed out that it's impossible to get noticed in that play -- everyone does everything the same way at the same time and emotion isn't conveyed in such a way that one recognizes the work of an individual actor. As in the world of the marines that this play reflects, there is no individuality and the bits of humanity present are rarely witnessed.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

"Carousel" at the Court Theatre on March 16th in Chicago, IL.


"Carousel," by Rogers and Hammerstein, has among its songs one called "A Real Nice Clambake" and another called "What's the Use of Wond'rin?" The first is about what a nice clambake the characters have just had, how many dozens of clams they've just eaten, and how full and jovial they are. The other asks what's the use of wondering if your man is good or bad when he's bound to hurt you in either case and you're bound to stay with him even then. The first is a frivolous and silly song and the second a dark and painful song. This production could have chosen the path of either song for its tone but chose to go with the clambake.

About a dozen years or so ago, Gary Griffin began to direct musicals on a small scale at Pegasus Theater. By necessity, they didn't have large orchestras or fancy sets. As a director, Griffin focused on wringing the meaning out of the songs and coached his singers into fine emotional performances. I guess Chicago Shakespeare Theatre and the Court Theatre caught wind of this and invited Griffin to direct musicals at both theaters. About six years ago, Griffin directed "My Fair Lady" at the Court, a musical I'd had no interest in at first. Griffin produced it with two pianos as the only instruments and great direction. The extremely talented Kate Fry played the lead with deep emotional intelligence and the show was a sensation. Ever since, the Court has been "exploring the American musical."

If one is going to conduct such an exploration, then doing Rogers and Hammerstein seems essential. As one sits through this production and wonders why the hell they did this show, one might remember that Rogers and Hammerstein were important pioneers of the American musical and instead ask yourself why the hell did they decided to do this show this way. The story, about a couple who loved each other but would never say "I love you," seems stunted and flat and much of the action seem to make no sense.

This show tries to have more integrity than a typical splashy musical but in the end doesn't. The young actors are all very fine singers but none of them are good actors -- of the caliber of Kate Fry. They act and move like actors in splashy musicals act and move. Whereas Griffin seemed to carefully consider each and every decision about what happened on stage, mining the script for meaning, this production seemed to take all of its cues from one's memories of musicals. There's a scene in which a wife finds her husband of just a few months dead -- he's killed himself rather than land himself in jail. In that moment, she says "I love you" to him for the first time. This scene could have been nicely done, especially since this thread of not saying "I love you" but wanting desperately to hear it is sewn throughout the play. Instead of dealing with the meaning of that scene, the director stages it so that all the actors turn their heads away from the mourning wife -- gestures that are hackneyed. Had "What's the Use of Wond'rin?" been treated intelligently, we would have felt the bitterness of the divorced woman who opens the number. One gets the sense, however, that the director never studied the scene with his actors.

The Court Theatre is one of the most consistently good theaters in town. Charlie Newell, the artistic director, always puts together an intelligent and unexpected season. I can see why he would choose this show but I'm sorry about this production.

As an aside, I will mention the race blind casting. This is something that the Court has done for some time. The theater has also consistently chosen plays that call for a majority of black actors. A few years ago it did a mixed cast production of "Desire Under the Elms" that was fantastic and made the story even more complicated. The mixed cast in this show is more straightforward. A number of actors of color, and not just black, have work on this production and that is a good thing. One choice seems unfortunate to me, though, and that is of Nettie, the matriarch among the young women. She is a surrogate mother to what appear to be motherless young women. Played by an African American woman, Nettie seems like a mammey character in this production, the selfless black woman who historically has cared for the white children of her owners/employers. In American history, mammies mothered the children of white women, even breast feeding them, until they grew into adolescence and were then torn away from the children. The southerner Lillian Smith has written about what a painful separation this is for the black woman and for the child. In popular culture, the mammey is usually depicted as jovial and selfless when the truth of the matter was that she had no choice. On the one hand, the fact that a talented African American has a well-paying role at one of Chicago's best theaters is great. On the other hand, they might have tried to play her differently to avoid this stereotype.

"The Trip to Bountiful" at the Goodman Theatre on March 10th. Chicago, IL.

I was interested in seeing this show largely because it was written by a Southerner and because Lois Smith is in it. As a student of southern literature, I couldn't pass up the chance to see a Horton Foote play and the only scene in "Minority Report" worth seeing was the scene with Lois Smith in the greenhouse. At the same time, I was prepared to be somewhat bored. This was to be a straightforward production of a play written in 1953, about three or four years after Ionesco's far more experimental "The Bald Soprano."

This terrific production totally won me over. The direction focused on the script and the acting. In Goodman productions, the art direction, especially the sets, can be a bit much. In this case, the set took back seat and for that I'm grateful. Lois Smith's performance was as wonderful as I'd expected. Meghan Andrews, who plays Thelma, a young woman whose husband has left to fight in WWII and who shows great kindness to Carrie, is also especially great to watch.

The story is about an old woman who has left her family farm in the dying town, Bountiful, and lives with her son and daughter-in-law in Houston. She longs to go home but she is old and her son insists she stay in Houston with him. As time goes on, Carrie recalls her memories of Bountiful while her son blocks them out. We are never told what happened in their past but one assumes that something painful did because the son has suffered a nervous breakdown. His wife is afraid for him and refuses to consider entertaining the notion of the mother going back to Bountiful. One day, Carrie sneaks out and takes a bus back to Bountiful with no food, a few coins, and pension check no one will cash. On the way, she encounters a series of people who could easily be indifferent to her but her humanness and will win them over. There's an especially wonderful scene set on the bus in which Carrie and Thelma talk about their situations and we witness their care and kindness for each other. Things in Bountiful don't turn out quite the way Carrie had hoped but they turn out ok. She gets to see the homestead one more time and decides that has to be good enough. The son, in chasing after his mother, comes to the farm and invites the memories of his boyhood for the first time, something that seems to offer a kind of freedom to him.

"The Trip to Bountiful" is concerned with two things, the lost of the agrarian past to the isolation of modernity and the importance of reckoning with the past. This production brings nothing new fangled to the play and is all the better for it. What it does bring is deep emotion to a lovely story and some of the best acting I've seen recently on a Chicago stage.