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.