Thumbing through the Book of Days

*Warning – spoilers in the review!

Director Philip Himebaugh certainly did choose a complex play to perform at the Riverwalk Theatre – I commend his use of the stage for minimalistic dressing, though the actors repeatedly had trouble finding their light. The rest of the tech went very well, however it was distracting to have actors enter in the dark and then exit, sometimes just with one word entrances. They were coming in from different directions and it was disorienting at times, and the effect was that lines were missed, seemed muffled or were actually talked over.

I found it interesting however, that the only color in the show on stage happened to be the stained glass pieces, three total, hanging above the set – almost like they stood for the glory of light and honor that the characters should strive for, and yet fail miserably at. While their costumes give away much of the essential character of each person, the set itself has this pall of religion settling above it, something that some of the characters use to justify their behavior and yet none of them stop to think about their own actions and how they might be affecting the bigger picture.

The rest of the stage was painted in circles of gray and white, resembling funnels almost; it was foreboding in an appropriate sense. It also held three round platforms that utilized boxes which could be transformed into seats, tables, or other set needs. The gray coloring of all this made for a grim environment, and I think reflected the self-indulgent ruts that the people in the show found themselves in. These people all act as though they are cogs in a wheel so to speak, without any real freedom of choice, like parts of a factory expected to do their work and seem unable to rise – like Joan of Arc – to anything more than their place in this snapshot of this particular picture of life. Even the most liberal of characters – Martha Hoch – remains caught in her past and in the present isn’t the rebel she claims she used to be. She may talk a good game – as the audience gets to hear – however those days of action and revelry for her in reality are long over…

Before I give accolades to the performers, I want to point out issues with the script that I just didn’t understand. I do believe that authors can be flawed, and it is the duty of the director to walk the fine line between being true to the author’s intent, but also making his or her intent understandable to the audience. After all, theatre at its fundamental core is about communication.

For example, and probably the most obvious flaw of the script, lies in the motivation for James, played by Joe Dickson, to commit to kill his father, and why he used Earl, as portrayed by Adam Carlson, to do it. I saw Earl’s regret through baptism – and with compliments to Mr. Carlson it came off as a childish kind of hope that his heinous act would wash away the guilt he was displaying after the tragic event. Adam Carlson did a great job being “eager” to become baptized and servile after the crime. And even James, through his silence, felt somewhat regretful of his father’s murder by his will. But my point is that James was going to get the factory and the money at some point anyway, he was employed and doing well – I don’t understand why he decided to have his father killed. I asked Guy Sanville, even, and he didn’t have an answer. The script simply doesn’t provide one, and so I accept it as part of a story of these people’s lives, and that the show is less about motivation and intent, than it is about character and morality.

Although character and morality didn’t come into play in the scene between Reverend Groves, played by Joe Baumann, and the director from New York, Boyd Middleton, played by Kevin Knights. It seemed superfluous in that nothing of any meaning came out of it – there was no discussion about faith or art or fundamentalism or liberalism. I was expecting something profound, and was left wondering why it wasn’t cut out of the production. It was nonproductive, and it is a good example of what Mr. Himebaugh could, in the future, use his judgment to excise from a long play. Running at about 2 hours and 40 minutes, the show could have been pared down to help it run more smoothly. A few other scenes stood out – between Len (Eric Abent) and his mother, for example, of also being redundant. I think chopping down a bit on the superfluous material would add importance to scenes that did show character development.

For example, the scenes with James flirting violently with Ginger (Amanda Himebaugh), James talking with his mother (LeAnn Dethlefsen), Len talking with his mother and wife (Emily Aslakson) were all quite engrossing. Though I think Ruth was given a bit too much “busy dialogue” that just wasn’t needed, particularly in the beginning of the play. However, she becomes the central character of the show – much like Joan of Arc in the show she is starring in – and she takes the seriousness of Walt’s murder too far, much like Joan of Arc took her crusade. The difference is, she takes up a cause for her own purposes, whereas Joan takes her inspiration from God and checks herself against His will. Ruth causes further destruction by her unwillingness to listen to anyone and to further her own cause, and ultimately “burns” herself by causing the death, in a round-about way, of Earl. Why doesn't she go to anybody else if she is so concerned? The State Police - anyone?

In fact, the script was almost a tease – it had so many short bits with characters that it was up to the actors to really round out who these characters were. Was the Reverend actually protecting James and knew of his infidelities prior to finding out his girlfriend was pregnant? Why was he so cruel to James’ wife LouAnn? We see Walt as a shrewd businessman who almost seems to be more proud of Len than he does of his own son. Is this a motivation for James to kill his father? Walt had an old-fashioned kind of way about him, and actually those values are reflected more in the behavior of his wife, Sharon. Obedient, attending to his needs, knowing his habits, and also having been sheltered from the ‘real’ world in so many ways by her husband, she has a complete breakdown upon his death – how is she possibly able to go on?

From my perspective, the most powerful scene of the play was watching Amanda Himebaugh “reenact” the breakdown of Mrs. Bates. Mrs. Dethlefsen reacted perfectly to the unadulterated expression of grief, anger, denial and betrayal that Ms. Himebaugh rained down upon the back of Adam Carlson. I was quite shaken, tears brought to my eyes, and unable to breathe – I looked over to watch Mrs. Dethlefsen’s horror at what she was witnessing – she says in the play that she doesn’t use language like that, how could that have been her? The repression of the women in the play is part of what is enticing to watch, and how they break past the barriers. Mrs. Bates doesn’t remain a free woman – she rages but then goes back to being sheltered, oblivious to the amount of money her husband accumulated and doesn’t want to live in reality.

Bravo ladies, and Adam, for creating such a potent scene. I saw other members of the audience were also moved, and it takes a great deal of courage to simply unleash that kind of energy. Thank you.

Mrs. Hoch plays a foil to Mrs. Bates, admirably portrayed by Barb Stauffer. She doesn’t flinch to curse like a truck driver and she shares her days of rebellion with her daughter-in-law and son without apology. She relishes in poking at her more conservative son with words that evoked a great deal of anger from patrons the night I happened to see the show. Her liberal sentiments flow through-out the show with ease and she impresses the fairly naïve Ruth with her stories of excess and freedom. And it seems then that Ruth becomes more obsessed with her own notion of freedom and truth as the show develops. Kevin Knights as the director of “Joan of Arc” by Shaw helps her to find her confidence, and he is a lone light in this town where he knows what he’s doing, why he’s doing it, and he remains true to his word. His assistant, Ginger, plays the girl who essentially escapes the small town mentality that LouAnn (played by Erin Hoffman) and Sharon Bates and even Ruth to a degree, can’t. We’re led to believe, I think, that she escapes and she helps LouAnn to see that her husband James is a no-good two-timer, and that she should stand up for herself.

This is particularly played well when James appears at Ginger’s doorstep.

Joe Dickson is a talented man, and as the son of Walt and husband to LouAnn, and essentially a genuine prick on all accounts, he seems to play this role with sleazy ease. I’m not sure what it is about Mr. Dickson that makes him such a great bad guy to watch on stage, but he has a presence, an insistence, that I enjoy watching.

He sprawls himself over Ginger’s doorstep and as she tries to get past him to get inside her home, he stands and at first gently pulls her to him. We can see that there is some kind of kinetic energy there, but she’s resisting. He pushes, and she has to fight just a little bit harder to get away from his grip. He reaches out again and his hands wrap around her waist as if they already have known the contours of her body – his confidence exudes itself while she struggles to do what she knows is the right thing. And ultimately she does – she doesn’t want to hurt her friend, and she doesn’t want to give in to what would be a huge mistake. It was fun to see the raw charisma that Ginger was pulled to, and at the same time repelled by…

One of the other key scenes involves James arguing with his father, Walt. I commend Joe Dickson and Gary Mitchell for not flinching away from escalating this argument into something that might possibly be the only hint in the play we see where James has a big issue with his father. They scream at each other, with Mr. Mitchell poking his son in the chest – which I’d think as a man, would be difficult to take without grabbing that hand and wanting to break it in that state of mind. Clearly they have grown apart and James has his own ambitions that his father doesn’t support. We seen an entirely different relationship with James’ mother, however, and he is much closer to her than his father. Although James argues with his mother and she slaps him, he has a softer spot for her and he is more forgiving. It is yet another potent scene between people – it’s so voyeuristic, this little window into the lives of these very lost people.

Mike Stewart is a natural as the sheriff, and all his lines flow from his mouth with such ease, and such seeming honesty, and yet he also is as blind as everyone else in this community. It’s always a treat to see Mr. Stewart on stage, and he was a character that I wanted to see more developed, to be more involved and on the trail of Walt’s demise.

I have yet to comment on Joe Baumann as Reverend Groves – smug, sexist, he seems to be many of the things that James only wishes he could be. He has an entire congregation hanging on his every word, and members seeking counsel. His scene with Erin Hoffman, and the coldness with which he was able to conjure by telling her that she was wrong to doubt her husband and needed to attend to her husband, was met with groans in my general seating direction. I do remember him telling Ms. Hoffman not to be so “hysterical” and yet she wasn’t acting anything or anyway close to hysterical. I would have liked to have seen more of an emotional release and frustration with the Reverend, even though she’s scared, because she is at the end of her ropes and she is supposed to be hysterical about her husband. That would have made the impact of what the Reverend doing have an even greater meaning in the scope of things and for the audience to see he helps whom he wants to help, not all those who need his help.

Also, his haughtiness with Mr. Knights in the gym scene also gave a great deal of detail into his character. Though I found this scene to be long and meaningless to the overall story, the parley between Mr. Knights and Mr. Baumann was like watching a chess game. It was interesting to me that the topic of religion never actually arose in obvious terms, and at the end of the scene Mr. Baumann is dressed while Mr. Knights is left to leave the scene in his skivvies, muttering “Christ” – as in what the fuck was that about? There is some symbolism to this, in the Reverend himself hides behind his robes and the director’s job is to strip down a character and be as real as possible. The scene I think did accomplish creating a distance between the audience and Reverend Groves, leaving them wondering exactly what the hell just happened like Mr. Middleton. It could have been even more powerful however had there been some kind of open conflict between the two; what I saw I interpreted and was subtle. Dialogue to openly show more of Mr. Middleton's perspective on what was happening around him would have enriched the scene.

By far the most adjusted person in the show is Len Hoch – husband to Ruth. He’s helped to make Walt’s business a success, and genuinely wants the best for his wife and loves (and sometimes tolerates) his mother. But – this isn’t Len’s show, even though he’s the most stable character; this is Ruth’s show. Emily Aslakson did a superb job at portraying Ruth, a naïve women searching for justice and trying to figure out her place in the world. Ruth becomes obsessed with playing Joan of Arc, and she propels her belief, much like Joan did in unabashed certainty. Her belief, unfortunately, is the undoing of a man, and potentially of her own faith, and the lives of so many around her because she persists without the use of reason. She rails against Earl for killing Walt, whom she works for. And although this is true, she doesn’t realize that Earl was put up to it by James. She misjudges the situation, and because she is unable to see in shades of gray, she thrusts herself into every angle of the community she can to condemn Earl. To Adam Carlson’s credit, it’s a difficult thing to portray a fairly unintelligent person well, and he never went too far with the character of Earl. He was earnest in church and to be baptized after the murder of Walt but for what reason? It’s only later we find out that out of his devotion to James he commits this crime, and he never suspects that James has to kill him in order to preserve himself. He isn’t a bad guy – but he’s been misled. He plays the shades of gray.

Potentially the only thing I would change about the play is the way in which James kills Earl. Or rather, the blocking of it was well done, and Adam’s performance was subtle and wonderful. However James is not enthusiastic about doing this. He’s not eager to get his own hands dirty, and he’s not happy about having to kill his friend. Mr. Dickson seems a bit too “haha! I’ve got you!” – but Earl is no genius. James doesn’t have to try all that hard to commit this crime. I think that even James has these shades of gray feelings for Earl, and I would have liked to have seen James actually mourn the death of his friend – which we get the tiniest inkling of at the very end of the show, as Mr. Dickson holds Mr. Carlson. He finally does change his tenor to that of loss, and I think – I hope – with that comes a light of realization of just how much loss he’s reaped upon himself, and the town. Killing Earl is not something James wants to do - but he does out of self-preservation.

This is not a play that I would call genius – it has severe plot issues, and the story itself isn’t even all that compelling. It’s a bit long, and the motivations for some of these characters – why James would kill his father, why Ruth would be so adamant about pursuing justice for Walt and condemning Earl, why Mrs. Hoch torments her son with her stories of liberal sex, drugs and freedom – are a bit stretched. What saves this show are the powerhouse performances by the actors, and the amazing soul they have put into these people.

I’m thoroughly impressed with how the cast drew breath into each of these people, and I see this show as more of a window that the audience gets to glimpse into the lives of this town, of the specific people in the town, and the aching torment that they go through. It’s beautiful, haunting, visceral and sorrowful…flawed as the script was, it was fascinating to watch.

For Mr. Himebaugh's directorial debut, I believe he picked quite a difficult show, but he made the characters work - I believed them.

I applaud the actors for taking such a difficult script, and giving it such life – Bravo.

Figuring out Philip Himebaugh

First of all, tell us a little about yourself:
My name is Philip Himebaugh. I am 24 years old. I have been married to my incredible wife Emily for about a year and a half. I grew up in Mason, MI. graduated from Alma College with a BA in theatre in April 2007. I currently work as a bank teller and do theatre in my spare time.

Why did you specifically pick "The Book of Days" to submit to the Riverwalk?
I was first exposed to “Book of Days” in 2005 while completing my undergraduate work. I played the role of Len in a Spring term production that we put up in about three weeks. I love the script. I find it chilling, almost haunting and I quite honestly just love the play. I knew I wanted to take a crack at directing, so I submitted my favorite script.

What character do you enjoy the most? Why?
Having played the role of Len, I definitely have a soft spot in my heart for this character. I think Len loses as much as almost anyone else throughout the play, but by the end no one ever really seems to remember. He’s a good guy, he works hard and loves his family, which I love about him.

What were you looking for in the auditions?
Obviously, going into an audition situation there are certain things to watch for. I really wanted to make sure the cast I chose fit the vision in my head for what these people look like. Also, it is VERY important to me that actors know how to make bold, relevant choices that they can defend. Also, I need to know that an actor will be able to take any direction I may give and do his/her best to work with it even if they disagree.

You've been seen on stage, and have had many accolades for your work - what made you decide to direct?
Directing always has been appealing to me. I’m very glad to have gotten the opportunity to direct one of my favorite plays. I did some one-act play directing work in college and always felt as though I could tackle something larger. I am confident in the training I have received and have a very clear artistic vision for where I would like to see “Book of Days” go.

Who were artistic influences to you and how did they affect your perspective on the art of communication in theatre?
My major influences are Joe Jezewski and Sanford Meisner. Mr. Jezewski is a professor of theatre at Alma College. He influenced me directly perhaps more than any other person about myself and my abilities as an actor, director and theatre artist, Sanford Meisner, on the other hand, was part of the Group Theatre founded in 1931 with member s like Harold Clurman and Lee Strasberg. Meisner’s approach to the theatre speaks volumes to me. This also will probably help me answer the communication question. Meisner’s approach to acting is fairly simple, yet it also is steeped in complexity. His cardinal rule on stage is that “I don’t do anything unless something happens to make me do it.” His work is completely based on REALLY TALKING and REALLY LISTENING; concepts derived from Russian master Constantin Stanislavsky. Many people may be familiar with Strasberg’s “method acting” which is based off of these same principals. I find Meisner’s teaching to ring more true for me. Communication on stage is much more effective, truthful and powerful if an actor is living truthfully under a set of imaginary circumstances. Theatre is arguably the most potent form of communication there is. In my mind Meisner is the definitive master on acting, no one else even comes close.

What do you believe the purpose of theatre is, and do you believe it is still relevant to the community? How?
I wholeheartedly believe that the theatre is an absolute necessity. I remember seeing a PBS documentary featuring Ronald Harwood, the playwright responsible for “The Dresser”. He posits, and frankly I agree that the theatre is a societal need. That people will find a way to imitate and to act out the events they deem important and significant.

Favorite quote of any show?
The whole muffin exchange between Jack and Algernon in “The Importance of Being Earnest”. Absolutely the funniest thing in the English language.

Is there another show you would consider submitting to direct? (and if so, what?)
There are many, many, many plays that I would like to direct. However, for the time being, I have submitted a French Farce entitled “A Flea in Her Ear” for Riverwalk’s 2010-2011 season. I am hoping it is selected.

What was it like working with members of your family in the show? More or less difficult to direct?
Having family as auditioners can be tricky business. My auditions were exactly that. Auditions based on my perception of the roles available and each individual actor’s interpretation of that role and as it related to my own. Working with members of my own family for “Book of Days” was really not that much different than working with any of the other actors. They received notes, sometimes good, sometimes bad. They disagreed and questioned and fought – just like any other actor would. While I am rehearsing, I do my best to remove myself from outside relationships. In the theatre, I am the director, the actors are the actors. When I am home, I am Philip, my wife is my wife, my mother is my mother, etc.

Favorite line of THIS show?
Ruth’s line in Act II: “My God, the horror that’s been done in the name of the greater good!” I also touch on this in my director’s notes.

What have you learned while directing?
I’ve learned that I need to be patient with myself and trust my own vision. It’s easy to let ourselves be swayed by nay-sayers or well-meaning friends who know a “better way to do it”. I’ve learned that I really enjoy directing, and I’ve learned the importance of letting other people take control in areas where I do not excel, such as set dressing, construction, lights, etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg. “Book of Days” was definitely a learning experience.

If you had it to do all over again, is there anything you would do differently?
I hope this doesn’t come across as a cop out answer, but I would not do anything differently. The experience I’ve had directing this show has been what it has been for a reason. I have treasured the good, along with the bad.

The F-Bomb

***EDIT 1/18/10: I was made aware by someone attached to "Book of Days" that the people who left during Saturday's performance were erroneously informed by Riverwalk that the show was a "family" show. Again - I do not profess to know all the details. If more pertinent information arises, I'll update. To be clear, this particular piece was sparked by the rudeness I perceived by the reaction of the patrons who left the show and the relevancy and use of profanity in theatre. It is entirely my own opinion, and I thank you for reading it.


Author’s note: The following article contains mature language and if you are easily offended by naughty words, feel free to stop reading now and save yourself the hassle of having to walk away from your computer halfway through. Thank you.

I attended the Saturday night performance of “Book of Days” and before the show even started the people sitting around me were getting on my nerves. This happens at times – people who cackle a bit too loud, talk during the curtain speech, and continue to comment as the show begins. It’s grating but usually people settle in and begin to focus their attention to the action on stage. This particular group of people however, mumbled every time an F-bomb was dropped and soon I saw several CHILDREN get up and walk out. Why anyone would think a child would be interested in attending a show like “Book of Days” is beyond me.

Not long after that, one of the actors said “clit” in a humorous aside, and that was it. A much older lady a few seats down from me stood up and declared she wasn’t “going to take all this cursing and profanity! This is just, disgusting! What is wrong with these people?” And on her cue, almost half of two rows got up and followed her out – not taking the less obvious path of the back steps of the Riverwalk Theatre, mind you, but the Stage Right Vom entrance where a light was placed on the scene being played. They trudged grudgingly out, rudely passing several actors who were making entrances and were clearly lit as they exited – apparently these patrons wanted to make a point with their stampede.

I do not know if they said anything to Mike Siracuse, House Manager of the Riverwalk – I can only attest to what I saw for myself. It was almost laughable, actually. Except, the actors on stage noticed these people exiting and it was distracting for them. On a night where there was already pressure to perform (because Guy Sanville, the original director of this play, was visiting from the Purple Rose), they didn’t need this extra distraction.

To be honest, until the people beside me decided to leave, I hadn’t really noticed the cursing in the show – it was impressive to me that the actors made it sound very natural. In everyday circumstances I hear a decent amount of coarse language, and have been known to use it as well. On stage however, I realize a theatre has to be careful about what show they select because their choices are a reflection of their values and integrity. This isn’t meant to be a defensive letter on behalf of the Riverwalk – it’s really an impetus to delve into what profanity or shock topics might be meant merely for shock and what are devices used to tell a story.

An expletive traditionally is meant to “punch” the emotion of a sentence. “Fuck yes!” denotes extreme excitement, whereas, “Fuck no!” the exact opposite – it acts as an intensifier. Sometimes expletives are used for shock value by people who are inexperienced and think it’s “cool”…some people naturally keep expletives as part of their everyday vocabulary and it wouldn’t occur to them to bat an eye to hear it in conversation.

For example – and I will write more on this in my review – the scene in which the character of Ginger steps in and channels the expletive laden tirade of the older, more repressed Mrs. Bates nearly moved me to tears. I identified and emotionally connected with the energy of that scene – a scene that would not have worked without the adult language.

Another example was the character of Martha Hoach, one of the leading “offenders” of cursing in the play. As an older, educated, liberal hippie however the use of adult language fit and helped define her character. In her character the language was used as a means to poke fun at her more conservative son and daughter-in-law, and wasn’t bound by the so-called “rules” of propriety in language. She was a rebel, told stories of being a rebel, and her language reflected that. She realized that all words have value, and didn’t flinch from using any word she wanted to make a point.

For those who were offended by the word “fuck,” you could make the argument that they also resonated to that word – but were focusing just on that word, and missing the context of the scene. Words only have as much power as you give them. “Fuck” is no better or worse a word than flower. But – consider this:

“I’m going to fuck you!”

versus:

“I’m going to de-flower you!”

Which version makes more sense in a very aggressive moment?

Theatre holds up a mirror to society – depending on the show, you’ll get a different perspective out of that mirror. In “Book of Days” the mirror showed us the hypocrisy of religion, jealousy, insecurity, obsession, rage, lies, denial, repression, the search for truth, stubbornness, family, liberal dogma and fundamental dogma – and so much more of the traits every day people possess. Watching is a voyeuristic process and our reaction to what we see often triggers emotion within us. That is intentional – that is theatre.

For whatever reason, these people were unable to get beyond the everyday conversational sort of use of expletives used in the script. Their shock was a reflection of their repression, which is part of what the show itself was attempting to expose. I don’t deny people the right to leave the theatre if they want to. That’s not what pissed me off. What pissed me off was their disrespect to the rest of the audience, to the actors, and to the theatre. Their loud and blatant repulsion to a live piece of art was the most offensive part of the night. Adult shows often contain adult language – adults should know this. Adults should also know how to remove themselves from an uncomfortable situation politely.

Riverwalk could have given the play a rating for language perhaps, to warn parents away so children wouldn’t be exposed to the language and images the language presented. However, the ultimate responsibility for whether or not someone becomes offended lies on his or her own head. Offended by language in an adult show? Don’t go, or if you get there and want to leave, leave graciously. One can have an opinion that disagrees with the content of the author’s intent and not be nasty about it. In my mind these people are similar to some of the members of the church in the play that Reverend Groves ministers to – short-sighted, ignorant, and intolerant.

Their minds were likely closed before coming into the show, so the show itself wouldn’t have impacted them even had they stayed – what a shame. A fucking shame, some might say. The chance for experience, to connect with a live audience and emotions pouring forth is a gift. While I don’t think the play itself always connected completely, there were fine moments where the actors themselves became charged with emotion and drew the audience into the story with them, offering a gem or two of insight for the patrons.

Language is a tool, and you shouldn’t have to take any words out of your toolbox as a writer. Cursing has a place – it can be used to show insights into a character, it can denote aggression or violence, fear and remorse, time and place. Language is more than simple vocabulary; it possesses tone and tenor – channeling emotion and intent.

Some people might argue that the director could have cut some of the cursing from “Book of Days.” However, I would argue that if you submit a show for the season, and the show is then selected, it is the job of the director to be faithful to the author’s intent. And how do you know what the intent is? You read the words, and you work with them. Simple. Yes, a director can cut various things, but there are copyright laws that have to be adhered to. And as a writer, I can tell you I’d be pissed if I found out someone cut language out of a play I wrote out of fear for offending an audience.

I’ll have a review of the actual play soon – but I felt compelled to address this issue of profanity and the deliberate rudeness towards the audience, actors and theatre I saw Saturday night.

Thanks –

Erin

...A Short Respite

I've taken some time to get situated in Jackson and have yet to see any productions here, though when I do I will be earnest to review them - always with my perspective only, and given the things I know about theatre and my own experiences.

I am greatly looking forward to seeing "Book of Days" this weekend - and apparently there is a special treat: Guy Sanville will stay afterwards for a talk-back.

I'm going to attempt to contact Philip Himebaugh, the director of "Book of Days," to get an interview up soon.

My apologies for the time away, but I'm ready to jump back into the saddle and write away...

Cheers to all, and may we all have a prosperous 2010!