For the record, I do believe that the people in community theatre by and far realize that the “awards” that are given out at the end of the season could be compared more accurately to those high school nominations that people are given in their senior year: “Most likely to succeed,” or “Best Smile,” or “Cutest Couple.” Nobody wants to be given the title “Most likely to end up as Jail Bait,” “Best Mullet on a Chick,” or “Best Party Host when the Parents are Away” – (okay, maybe that one would be kinda cool if you’re 17 or 18), but those titles come out anyway – unofficially.
And that’s if you’re a senior in high school, or in theatre, it seems.
By many standards, I’m a baby to the theatre experience in Lansing. I’ve been involved for almost ten years, however, and I think I have some observations of actors and “theatre types” in general that are relevant, real, and revealing. There have been a lot of shows that are done because of the parties that go along with them. There are shows that are more business-like and the actors go home after and treat the show more like a job…professionally, even. There is often a mix of these kinds of people in shows; party people can be professional sometimes, and sometimes professional people can party. Usually, though, the cliques tend to stick to themselves.
There’s a bit of incest in the theatre world as well – directors tend to have their favorite actors and techies, and actors have their favorite directors and actors to work with; aside from all of the sexual intrigues, of course. Theatre-folk tend to be high maintenance, needy, drama-loving, vulnerable, emotional and attention-craving creatures; this isn’t a put-down, it’s an observation of many of the people I’ve met over the years (and some insights into myself). They tend to stick closer to the people they know, but once they accept an outsider it is with one open arm and another with a knife in hand to plunge at an opportune moment. The backstabbing and gossip alone makes teenage girls look like amateurs. However, they accept everybody into their fold, unlike most other organizations. You don’t have to be super smart, like a MENSA dude, or be a doctor, or farm land, or do anything special in particular except show up, show interest, and you’re in. Theatre also tends to draw to it misfits of all shapes and sizes…I have to believe that everyone in theatre has a little bit of a twist to them that pulls them to the sawdust, paint, and lights…
And for all of their vain, cock-crowing flaws, thespians can also be some of the most compassionate, gentle, loyal and driven people you will ever meet. Many take their craft intensely seriously, and the payoff for their hard work is the thrill of performing in front of a live audience, or working backstage to make the show a success. It’s a high – an adrenaline rush. Even from a backstage perspective, when I’ve said “PLACES!” – my own heart will skip a bit faster and I look forward to not knowing exactly – EXACTLY – what lies ahead. Costumes rip, sound effects fail, wigs fall, furniture breaks, actors walk into walls or fall in blackouts, lines are sometimes simply lost – figuring out how to fix the problems as they happened was my personal “high.”
And I too have been involved in backbiting, being harsh on performances when a lot of my view was skewed by a dislike of a person, and wanting to be in on the latest gossip. I know of various awards ceremonies that were rigged by people who were obsessed to obtain one for themselves (doesn’t it defeat the point of recognition by your peers if you finagle an award to give to yourself?), and I know that the categories, over many years, have been tampered with by judges in many ways. Their intentions may have been good – maybe to spread the awards over a larger pool of shows, let’s say – but if you want a fair assessment then you have to take the sheets turned in by the judges and go strictly by the numbers. And you have to keep the shows in the categories in which they were submitted, along with the actors. There hasn’t been a year yet in which I haven’t seen something hinky with all of the awards shows that happen in Lansing, and it bothers me that so many people put so much stock into a piece of plastic with their name on it, or a mention in the paper. And putting all that aside, what about the personal prejudices of the judges themselves? Or their knowledge of theatre, or lack thereof?
What about the audiences? What about feeling that the award you’ve earned is a connection with the audience, a great show, and something to be proud of?
I’ve won awards. I was thankful that I was thought of, but my heart wasn’t broken when I was nominated and then lost. I directed a show nominated in just about every category – including best show – and won most of them, but not Best Director. Did I care? No. I’ve been nominated quite a few times and I have been told by other people that I was “robbed” or I deserved the award more than someone else – but it doesn’t matter. Have there been instances where I believed someone didn’t deserve an award he or she won? Yes – but that’s my opinion. I’ve voiced those opinions to close friends before, but never in a public forum like this.
I believe that people should be rewarded for the efforts they make, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be by an outside group of people who likely don’t understand all of the inner workings of what they do. How many judges have a well-rounded background and know what to look for in direction? Or how a set is painted or constructed? Or to pay attention to blocking, and if it’s clever, boring, complicated and witty or looks like the actors are making it up as they go? How many people understand lights, and sound, and what to look for in the scene changes and how they are done, if there are any?
I understand the concept of drawing in people who have no outside experience with theatre and letting them judge because they really don’t have preconceived notions. However they also don’t have the knowledge to properly judge – in my opinion – the full extent of a show. I understand having experience veterans judge, but they too can be too harsh or too forgiving if they are intimate with the personalities they are judging or have been in shows with the people they are assigning numbers to. I also think it’s also a conflict of interest if a judge is also directing a show at all during the season. Any judge should remove him or herself entirely from the process of judging for that season if he or she chooses to direct.
As for judges then – and no disrespect meant – I have little confidence in their abilities. I’ve seen some amazing shows get tanked, and some truly horrible ones get applauded (again, my opinion, with my lens, my tastes in style and genre of theatre). I understand you can’t recognize everyone and every show in the Lansing Theatre scene – however, I think it would be awesome to offer up some scenes, to replay some songs, and to make a night of remembrance for the past season instead of setting people up to compete against each other, and for mostly hurt feelings to walk out of the door at the end of the night.
I don’t think all people take these awards seriously – but there are a lot who do. I just want to emphasize that, like a review, they reflect the opinion of a very small group of people and don’t necessarily reflect the feelings of the audiences.
And to keep it real – we all know there are better shows than others. But isn’t the point that we try? And that we accomplish and pull them all off? The season goes on…the years go on…and the shows will keep coming.
Enjoy the moment, man. Don’t rush through the rehearsal process – that’s the most fun, in my opinion; to experiment, to connect with the other people around you, and to feel the rush of the weeks flying by to performance time. I know that there are cliques of people who tend to act in the same circles – but sometimes circles overlap and I love to see that. I enjoy seeing new blood in the theatre – people who are enthused and willing to work into the wee hours of the morning to make sure the final details are made to the set, alongside veteran actors and crew. The connections that are made, to me, are the most significant aspect of the theatre process, and then watching the connections reach an audience. To meet people and get to know them in so many ways, and sometimes so incredibly intimately. It takes courage for an actor, in my opinion, to go on stage and weep unabashedly, to scream, to express any range of the emotions of the characters they are cast in – and attempt to simple be.
This is sappy to admit, but I remember during “Flipaswitch” I would often weep softly at the very end of the show – and it’s the only show that I’ve seen every single performance of unless I was directly in the crew. This knot in my throat would catch me off guard and this overwhelming feeling of love I felt for the theatre, and the unity of the people on stage singing flummoxed me. There were so many people I knew and cared about singing together – it was beautiful. The show was personal to me – I couldn’t have judged it fairly. I only know that is one of the most intense times I’ve felt sawdust in my veins, and witnessed the amazing capacity theatre has to bring people together and showcase their talents to a rousing audience. I state this only to say that I'm not saying I'd be a better judge than anyone else; I know I'm too close.
I am an emotionally passionate person, and I love watching the actors work through the process of becoming …and even those who don’t quite make it – they try. The techies try. The crew tries. We do our best to work together to bring something on paper, something an author has thought up and written down, to be real.
And all the plays are real – some just look and feel real better than others. But all the people are real, and all their efforts are too. We don't get paid, we don't have the resources that Broadway has, and we accept anyone who wants to be a part of the process...it's a community effort by people who devote their free time and their talents to produce community theatre.
Let’s celebrate doing what we love, and not be divisive about who’s better at it.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
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.
Monday, January 18, 2010
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
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
Thursday, January 14, 2010
...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!
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!
Thursday, May 7, 2009
A Discourse with Dan Pappas
1. Tell us about yourself:
I have spent over 37 years in the field of education. I have been everything from a teacher to principal to superintendent of schools. For the past 4+ years I have been working as an association executive for two groups. My role is to provide professional development to administrators across Michigan. This includes planning conferences, workshops, and online experiences. My wife Lisa and I have a blended family which includes four adult boys. None are married at this time and we don’t have grandchildren yet. Each have a strong interest in the arts. All are musicians. Three are percussionist and one was a saxophone/piano player. In fact, when he went to MSU, he was a keyboard player in their jazz program. Even though none are ‘professional’ with the arts, they still stay involved.
I have spent over 37 years in the field of education. I have been everything from a teacher to principal to superintendent of schools. For the past 4+ years I have been working as an association executive for two groups. My role is to provide professional development to administrators across Michigan. This includes planning conferences, workshops, and online experiences. My wife Lisa and I have a blended family which includes four adult boys. None are married at this time and we don’t have grandchildren yet. Each have a strong interest in the arts. All are musicians. Three are percussionist and one was a saxophone/piano player. In fact, when he went to MSU, he was a keyboard player in their jazz program. Even though none are ‘professional’ with the arts, they still stay involved.
I discovered theater as an adult and was in my first show when I was 30, God’s Favorite. I did the same show two years ago, but played the father part this time. Since that first show I have been involved on or off stage in over 40 productions. It is a part of me that keeps me energized and youthful in thought.
2. Why did you pick "Fiddler" to direct?
Fiddler is one of my all time favorite shows. I was also in a production in Hartland, Michigan long ago playing Motel. LCP, as part of their 80th season asked me if I would direct this show. I believe this will be the third time it has been done by this group.
3. What is the biggest challenge and the biggest joy for you about directing.
The biggest challenge is making sure that people who commit to doing both on and off stage work on a show really understand, can and do what they have said they are going to do. The biggest joy is working together to create not only a quality theater experience, but also a positive sense of community.
4. You've been on stage as well - has your acting experienced influenced your directing methods at all?
It truly has. I have worked with many fine directors. Doing that has helped me both with my acting as well as my directing. I’m a student of both theater and movies and am always looking for tips, ideas, and ways to be as good as possible with this passion hobby of mine.
5. What do you look for when you cast a show in people? How do you know someone is "right" for a particular part?
I look for not only an individual fit for a part but also a fit with the direction and vision I have for a show and with the rest of the cast.
You take as good a guess with the selection and then work with each person to take on the role and enhance what they bring to the project. I look for a person who has stage presence, who is willing to work, doesn’t bring too big an ego to the audition and rehearsals. I do review what experience they have either from what they share on the audition sheet and from what I know about ones work in the past.
6. Tell us what people have to look forward to with "Fiddler on the Roof."
People are in for a real treat! Even as this show is so familiar, there is a freshness that we will deliver. The set is unique in that it will be storybook in look. The actors understand who they are and are working very well together. The music is rich in sound from both the pit and actors. I am sure that people will not only walk away with the tunes in their heads, but a real like for the people and the show itself.
Quick Questions:
1. What is your favorite scene from "Fiddler"?
There are many, but the one I relate to the most is the Little Bird scene where Tevye reflects on the decision of Cheva to marry outside her faith.
There are many, but the one I relate to the most is the Little Bird scene where Tevye reflects on the decision of Cheva to marry outside her faith.
The fun scene is the Dream sequence.
2. What was the first show you ever directed?
My first show directing was with LCP. It was Cheaper By The Dozen.
3. Favorite line from any show?
From Camelot, "I do enjoy being King!"
4. Dream show to act in or direct?
Les Miz
5. Why is theatre meaningful to you, and what role do you think it plays in the community?
Theatre is essential to the healthy life of a community. It is a way for all of us to either pitch in on or off stage, even as audience, to share a slice of life in a creative way. It is a great way to teach and learn. I love shows that have many people of all ages. We share back and forth. We understand each other and the world better. We see that sometimes, even when things don’t go right, we learn more about who we are and more about those around us. It gives me energy to do the things in life that are not always very pleasant. It connects me with an amazing group of people, of whom many are my best friends. Most of all, I can work hard on a project of love as I play and have fun!
Monday, April 6, 2009
Manic with Macbeth
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
--Macbeth, Act V, scene v
Perhaps one of the most oft’ spoken soliloquy’s of Shakespeare, this short bit of prose provides profound insight into the inner workings of Macbeth. Though outwardly he maintains a fervor for power and plentitude, he ultimately understands the irony of the pointlessness of possessing it – for it was never truly his in the first place.
In Riverwalk’s “Macbeth” there were, unfortunately, many production values that signified nothing; or, worse, foretold of a tale told in less regality than Shakespeare wrote, without the intensity and emotion that makes this “ghost story” of intrigue, murder and chaos compelling. I was able to catch glimpse of director Eric Dawe’s vision – ‘twas a pity he couldn’t carry it out.
Mr. Dawe had some superb ideas; I loved the Weird Sisters without faces…however, I bored of their jellyfish antics after the first two scenes. For some reason it is common among directors to believe that flowing or spider-like movements make for a scarier character or presence on stage. These Weird Sisters are not out to scare Macbeth – they simply are what they are. They are supernatural – and being thus did not need affectation to create fear mixed with curiosity in Macbeth and Banquo; sometimes no movement at all is a more powerful means to invoke terror and awe. Their canned voices were impossible to understand; perhaps voice recorder boxes to obscure the tenor of their words would have worked if Mr. Dawe wanted a mysterious effect, however Shakespeare is difficult enough to understand without the distortion. The witches whispering their incantations and laughing quietly I believe would have been a great deal more powerful – their seeming insight into the future being much more believable by Macbeth and the audience, as if they know of a cosmic joke but won’t reveal the punchline. They are mere spectators in the form of specters, ghoulish in their predictions.
The costumes for the cast seemed to range from 18th century dresses to medieval wear; I wasn’t quite sure what the costumer was going for. It was a mish-mash of styles and trends and really didn’t work. Danny Bethea in pumpkin pants for example, and being a bit bigger than the woman who played his mother, suffered through one of the more unfortunate scenes of the show. Lady Macbeth’s crimson gown was beautiful but inappropriate – her head ornament was also anachronistic. I was hoping to see glitz and glamour on the stage for this man and woman who lusted after the royal robes – but the robes Macbeth ended up wearing were bland and practically pajama like. Not a good look for a king. I really had no place in time to put myself, and it was disorienting.
Brad Rutledge tried to play the role of Macbeth with zeal and energy, however it’s just not believable that he would ever respect Duncan the King, portrayed by Randy Matthews, or that he would heartfeltly regret killing him. Mr. Matthews demeanor was not particularly kingly nor did he develop a relationship with Macbeth that would evoke the guilt Macbeth suffers from later on. Mr. Rutledge exerted a great deal of pathos – but it was so method that it distracted from being real in any sense of the word. It was clear he was “acting,” and I don’t know if Mr. Rutledge is a method actor, but that’s what I appeared to be watching on stage. He had no chemistry with Kelly Gmazel, who played Lady Macbeth. I wanted to believe that he would kill for this woman, and to see a smoldering passion between them – instead of flames I saw forced readings and over-acted sentiments that glossed over the depths of the lines they were speaking. Ms. Gmazel also seemed to have a “method” feel about her and though there is nothing wrong with that style of acting, if it seems apparent on stage then it becomes transparent and does affect the performance.
Ms. Gmazel was bland at best. She did not have the natural knack for speaking the language, and so her emotions didn’t make sense and neither did her motive for wanting her husband to kill the king. She doesn’t come across as greedy and seductive – I’m not sure how I would describe her performance other than disappointing. I wanted to see a scheming enchantress, a woman who knew what she wanted and for the audience to see if she had been a man, she would have killed the king herself. As it was she had to take over for Macbeth as he falters and finish what he starts, and she should do so with venom instead of exaggerated irritation that Ms. Gmazel emoted instead. This is supposed to be a woman who has no heart – and she steals away what is left of her husband’s. There was a great deal more depth that Ms. Gmazel could have plunged into with this character.
Mr. Dawe had a unique supporting cast; of them, Adam Carlson as MacDuff and Erik Grill as a host of characters, are the strongest actors of the entire show. Erik Grill in particular played his parts with the understanding and full commitment to the language and intent of the language. He understood where to stress the words and how to make them clear. He assigned the right emotion and facial gestures with his speeches, and I was thoroughly impressed with his performance. Great job, Mr. Grill. I would love to see you do more Shakespeare – Iago, perhaps?
Mr. Carlson as MacDuff was also quite good; I would have liked to have seen more angst in his “Horror, horror!” line – after all, the king’s just been killed – but I also know that is a pretty difficult line to deliver. I think he portrayed the character of MacDuff with an amiability to begin with and so when we see him betrayed by Macbeth, Mr. Carlson opens himself up to rage and for the audience to feel his sorrow. He could have been a bit louder, even – his family has just been killed after all – but overall he emotes grief and the urge for revenge very well. He never went over the top with his character, and his lines were very well delivered.
I wish I could say the same for the characters of Malcolm, Banquo, and other members of the cast. Many were difficult to understand, and many characters were directed to face upstage as they spoke so their lines just couldn’t be heard, though Scott Larson was another stand-out who played multiple characters (including one of the Weird Sisters) and made his presence known on stage.
There were many production choices that were poor – the recording of the Weird Sisters, the prolific and pointless scene changes without music to mask the stomping on the set, and even the random use of the set itself. The design by Craig Smith was interesting – though it wasn’t really used to its full potential. There were three steps downstage for use – I think it would have been wise to use that for a sitting area instead of bringing the lights up and down to move a bench, and then a stump, and a bench – over and again. Or else perhaps a bench could have been made into the set to be used? The stairs in the middle of the set which led to an upper level – which my inclination is to think was a construction issue rather than a design issue – were built with the steps too far apart. More than once an actor teetered on them, and without railings they were downright dangerous. Ms. Gmazel did stumble at the top as she tripped the night I saw the show – I’m glad she made it safe through the end of the run.
I know I sound very critical of the show, but that is because my expectations were set very high. Mr. Dawe has a tremendous reputation in theatre and I’m surprised at the production choices he made; little or no music for scene changes, allowing costumes that were of different time periods, some corny prop items (the twigs for the forest, for example), unsatisfying choreography for the fighting – a desperate death cry of rage and rebellion from Macbeth, even at the point of defeat off stage, would have been appropriate and yet was missing. The end of the show lacked luster and was unsatisfying. I never believed Macbeth was all that strong or determined or even afraid for his soul – mostly he was pathetic. There is no nobility in pathos.
Shakespeare, if not cast with the right actors who know how to deliver the lines, understand the language and can use their facial expressions and body movements to help translate the story for the audience, falls flat and is a sad sight to see. The minimalist set – while not great – did give Mr. Dawe all the components he needed in and of itself. Lady Macbeth did not require water to wash her hands – the magical effect of the blood appearing out of thin air would have been much more potent without actual water present, for example.
I know Mr. Dawe carries a great deal of passion for Shakespeare – it’s unfortunate that his passion didn’t translate to the stage and into the roles of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, specifically. These are characters are akin to Othello – whose blood runs hot and are made of the stuff action springs from – and once they take the fiery plunge into red depths, they sink deeper and deeper until they know they’ve damned themselves into a place from whence there is no return.
I’m sorry Mr. Dawe; I was looking for regality, rebellion, lust and revenge – I wish I’d seen it.
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
--Macbeth, Act V, scene v
Perhaps one of the most oft’ spoken soliloquy’s of Shakespeare, this short bit of prose provides profound insight into the inner workings of Macbeth. Though outwardly he maintains a fervor for power and plentitude, he ultimately understands the irony of the pointlessness of possessing it – for it was never truly his in the first place.
In Riverwalk’s “Macbeth” there were, unfortunately, many production values that signified nothing; or, worse, foretold of a tale told in less regality than Shakespeare wrote, without the intensity and emotion that makes this “ghost story” of intrigue, murder and chaos compelling. I was able to catch glimpse of director Eric Dawe’s vision – ‘twas a pity he couldn’t carry it out.
Mr. Dawe had some superb ideas; I loved the Weird Sisters without faces…however, I bored of their jellyfish antics after the first two scenes. For some reason it is common among directors to believe that flowing or spider-like movements make for a scarier character or presence on stage. These Weird Sisters are not out to scare Macbeth – they simply are what they are. They are supernatural – and being thus did not need affectation to create fear mixed with curiosity in Macbeth and Banquo; sometimes no movement at all is a more powerful means to invoke terror and awe. Their canned voices were impossible to understand; perhaps voice recorder boxes to obscure the tenor of their words would have worked if Mr. Dawe wanted a mysterious effect, however Shakespeare is difficult enough to understand without the distortion. The witches whispering their incantations and laughing quietly I believe would have been a great deal more powerful – their seeming insight into the future being much more believable by Macbeth and the audience, as if they know of a cosmic joke but won’t reveal the punchline. They are mere spectators in the form of specters, ghoulish in their predictions.
The costumes for the cast seemed to range from 18th century dresses to medieval wear; I wasn’t quite sure what the costumer was going for. It was a mish-mash of styles and trends and really didn’t work. Danny Bethea in pumpkin pants for example, and being a bit bigger than the woman who played his mother, suffered through one of the more unfortunate scenes of the show. Lady Macbeth’s crimson gown was beautiful but inappropriate – her head ornament was also anachronistic. I was hoping to see glitz and glamour on the stage for this man and woman who lusted after the royal robes – but the robes Macbeth ended up wearing were bland and practically pajama like. Not a good look for a king. I really had no place in time to put myself, and it was disorienting.
Brad Rutledge tried to play the role of Macbeth with zeal and energy, however it’s just not believable that he would ever respect Duncan the King, portrayed by Randy Matthews, or that he would heartfeltly regret killing him. Mr. Matthews demeanor was not particularly kingly nor did he develop a relationship with Macbeth that would evoke the guilt Macbeth suffers from later on. Mr. Rutledge exerted a great deal of pathos – but it was so method that it distracted from being real in any sense of the word. It was clear he was “acting,” and I don’t know if Mr. Rutledge is a method actor, but that’s what I appeared to be watching on stage. He had no chemistry with Kelly Gmazel, who played Lady Macbeth. I wanted to believe that he would kill for this woman, and to see a smoldering passion between them – instead of flames I saw forced readings and over-acted sentiments that glossed over the depths of the lines they were speaking. Ms. Gmazel also seemed to have a “method” feel about her and though there is nothing wrong with that style of acting, if it seems apparent on stage then it becomes transparent and does affect the performance.
Ms. Gmazel was bland at best. She did not have the natural knack for speaking the language, and so her emotions didn’t make sense and neither did her motive for wanting her husband to kill the king. She doesn’t come across as greedy and seductive – I’m not sure how I would describe her performance other than disappointing. I wanted to see a scheming enchantress, a woman who knew what she wanted and for the audience to see if she had been a man, she would have killed the king herself. As it was she had to take over for Macbeth as he falters and finish what he starts, and she should do so with venom instead of exaggerated irritation that Ms. Gmazel emoted instead. This is supposed to be a woman who has no heart – and she steals away what is left of her husband’s. There was a great deal more depth that Ms. Gmazel could have plunged into with this character.
Mr. Dawe had a unique supporting cast; of them, Adam Carlson as MacDuff and Erik Grill as a host of characters, are the strongest actors of the entire show. Erik Grill in particular played his parts with the understanding and full commitment to the language and intent of the language. He understood where to stress the words and how to make them clear. He assigned the right emotion and facial gestures with his speeches, and I was thoroughly impressed with his performance. Great job, Mr. Grill. I would love to see you do more Shakespeare – Iago, perhaps?
Mr. Carlson as MacDuff was also quite good; I would have liked to have seen more angst in his “Horror, horror!” line – after all, the king’s just been killed – but I also know that is a pretty difficult line to deliver. I think he portrayed the character of MacDuff with an amiability to begin with and so when we see him betrayed by Macbeth, Mr. Carlson opens himself up to rage and for the audience to feel his sorrow. He could have been a bit louder, even – his family has just been killed after all – but overall he emotes grief and the urge for revenge very well. He never went over the top with his character, and his lines were very well delivered.
I wish I could say the same for the characters of Malcolm, Banquo, and other members of the cast. Many were difficult to understand, and many characters were directed to face upstage as they spoke so their lines just couldn’t be heard, though Scott Larson was another stand-out who played multiple characters (including one of the Weird Sisters) and made his presence known on stage.
There were many production choices that were poor – the recording of the Weird Sisters, the prolific and pointless scene changes without music to mask the stomping on the set, and even the random use of the set itself. The design by Craig Smith was interesting – though it wasn’t really used to its full potential. There were three steps downstage for use – I think it would have been wise to use that for a sitting area instead of bringing the lights up and down to move a bench, and then a stump, and a bench – over and again. Or else perhaps a bench could have been made into the set to be used? The stairs in the middle of the set which led to an upper level – which my inclination is to think was a construction issue rather than a design issue – were built with the steps too far apart. More than once an actor teetered on them, and without railings they were downright dangerous. Ms. Gmazel did stumble at the top as she tripped the night I saw the show – I’m glad she made it safe through the end of the run.
I know I sound very critical of the show, but that is because my expectations were set very high. Mr. Dawe has a tremendous reputation in theatre and I’m surprised at the production choices he made; little or no music for scene changes, allowing costumes that were of different time periods, some corny prop items (the twigs for the forest, for example), unsatisfying choreography for the fighting – a desperate death cry of rage and rebellion from Macbeth, even at the point of defeat off stage, would have been appropriate and yet was missing. The end of the show lacked luster and was unsatisfying. I never believed Macbeth was all that strong or determined or even afraid for his soul – mostly he was pathetic. There is no nobility in pathos.
Shakespeare, if not cast with the right actors who know how to deliver the lines, understand the language and can use their facial expressions and body movements to help translate the story for the audience, falls flat and is a sad sight to see. The minimalist set – while not great – did give Mr. Dawe all the components he needed in and of itself. Lady Macbeth did not require water to wash her hands – the magical effect of the blood appearing out of thin air would have been much more potent without actual water present, for example.
I know Mr. Dawe carries a great deal of passion for Shakespeare – it’s unfortunate that his passion didn’t translate to the stage and into the roles of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, specifically. These are characters are akin to Othello – whose blood runs hot and are made of the stuff action springs from – and once they take the fiery plunge into red depths, they sink deeper and deeper until they know they’ve damned themselves into a place from whence there is no return.
I’m sorry Mr. Dawe; I was looking for regality, rebellion, lust and revenge – I wish I’d seen it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
