"Elsinore...the darkness inside the human soul."
There are very few flaws with Mary Job's production of "Copenhagen," and much to be said for the massive undertaking in directing it for the Riverwalk Black Box Theatre.
The set is simple; a smattering of purples, greens, blues and yellows swirl around the stage and stand out like a vast universe as the play begins and a black light is lit. The galaxy seems to jump out then slowly fade back into the background as the actors take the stage. Once their feet hit the circling patterns of atmosphere, molecules, and even the dots of humanity's existence itself, "Copenhagen" starts off strongly and doesn't stop.
Initially, I was a little overwhelmed by the density of the language and how fast this cast of three - Jeff Magnuson, Rick Dethlefsen and LeAnn Dethlefsen - sprinted into the heart of the heat of the race between Germany and the United States to create the atomic bomb during World War II. Their beginning pace felt a bit forced, and the actual tone of the show was intense and slightly dry - however, once these veteran actors hit their pace they were certainly a force to be watched and admired. I use the word "force" because of the intensity and the acumen of the cast as they circled deftly around each other, using the mostly blank set to their advantage. All three actors hit their stride at about the same time, making for compelling theatre.
Jeff Magnuson portrayed Werner Heisenberg, an extremely ambitious physicist who spent years studying under the fatherly tutelage of Niels Bohr, played by Rick Dethlefsen. A disagreement arises between the men regarding fission and atomic theory, and the question of Germany pursuing the advancement of nuclear science with the ultimate goal of building an atomic bomb before the rest of the world. LeAnn Dethlefsen, as Bohr's wife, Margarethe, is the glue that holds these men, and the show, together. She is the voice of reason, explaining what these brilliant minds discussed, argued about, agreed upon and facilitating the highly technical scientific narrative for the audience. "The past becomes the present inside your head," she remarks at one point - nobody can outrun their choices and all should be accountable for the part they play in life. She propels the play forward and is the voice of reason between these two scientists who lost a part of their ability to be objective and reason clearly about fission and it's implications should the Germans build the atomic bomb before any other country.
I was impressed with the way the actors used the space to circle each other the way that photons and electrons would encircle a nucleus, and their use of the chairs to circle on a smaller level. The use of circling and facing out to an audience on three sides also worked extremely well - the actors played to all parts of the theatre in fairly equal measure and were easy to hear and understand.
The show was chock full of wonderful touches of the actors used clever blocking to punctuate the quintessence of the show - the supreme importance of discovering the atom and using it for destructive purposes. LeAnn Dethlefsen's subtle and lovely choice to step outside of the circle sprayed onto the floor as Rick and Jeff argued, joked, reminisced and confronted one another. Jeff's facial expressions, because he was so close to the audience, were especially delightful and although all three actors were able to bring some humor to a fairly dense script, he seemed to most visually expressive. At one point Werner states, "How much harder it is to get a glimpse behind one's eyes." I loved this short but potent tribute to the blindness that we all have within ourselves. We only see the other people in the room, and not ourselves. Rick Dethlefsen deftly played Niels Bohr with the compassion of an older man who loved his protege, as a father figure, but first of all a scientist. He is believable as a man who is horrified at the implications of his much younger colleague, and at the atrocities that he survived. I'd like to point out that Rick and Jeff share a wonderful stage chemistry, which is enhanced when LeAnn joins their conversations.
Werner Heisenberg actually did say, "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." The way we perceive the world depends on the questions we ask, and how we interpret what we want to believe are the answers. Werner didn't ask enough questions, and fell short of Hitler's prize - atomic energy to unleash at his whims upon his enemies. Nihls Bohr understood that sometimes not taking action is an action in and of itself, and withheld information that could have given Hitler what he wanted. As a country who ran a great many of their best and brightest scientists beyond their borders, they quite literally doomed themselves as a result of their own racism, greed and hatred.
What a beautifully put together show that exemplifies the best of what theatre can offer - an extremely well-acted play that is meaningful beyond the level of entertainment. I was fascinated by the material and would like to congratulate Ms. Job on her fine work. This isn't a light show for some nighttime fun; it's intense, well-rounded, visceral and deep. You have to pay attention and really listen, because the actors aren't going to stop until the lights go dark and come up again for the curtain call - it's a fast paced, energetic repertoire of two of the most brilliant minds in recent scientific history, their relationship, and how it affected the world.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Time to Write Again
Since I don't have a horse in the race this season for any of the theatres, I thought I would try to see as many shows as I can and write about them. Likely most will be Riverwalk Shows, although I'd really like to hit LCP, Peppermint Creek, and Over the Ledge Theatre, Co - a new troupe in town formed by Joseph Dickson.
I really enjoy writing, and I've missed the theatre. I've been very comfortable at home and just celebrated my first anniversary with Roger in Vegas - but I think now it's a good time to get back into the field and involve myself in the best way I can. It's ambitious, but it feels good at the same time. Kind of a personal goal, I guess you could say.
One of the nice things about writing in a blog is that I'm not limited in space. I also try to hit both positives and negatives and provide constructive criticisms, instead of leaving off for the "I didn't care for this or that" kind of line without much of an explanation. I realize too that the only people, and I'm sure they are very few, who might read this blog will be theatre people, so I'm also not bound by my audience necessarily. I'm writing for theatre people and I do have direct experience in just about every aspect of what it takes to put a show up, including hanging lights (I HATE THAT!). So I think I bring a more discerning eye than a lot of people with much less experience who critique - formally and informally.
And I do my best to be impartial; there are many people I like and don't like however I have to give credit where credit is due, and I think to point out mis-steps, particularly big ones, is important no matter what show or actor or techie or director. Ultimately a director is responsible for a show, but given that this is community theatre - and I'd like to see some Williamston shows as well to write about them too but the criterion of course would be much different for the sake of review - you simply can't assume you'll be able to cast exemplary actors/singers/dancers/techies in every show. There's a lot of local competition.
And there are many actors/singers/dancers/techies who only like to work with specific directors and vice versa - so these relationships can lesson the chance for a great show to get an equally great cast. The timbre of the script also reflects upon the acting and everything else the show brings to light; if the script is piss poor it's going to be hard to salvage the show. And I understand everyone has different ideas of what piss poor probably means, and it's also possible to semi-save or even rescue a badly written show with very good acting. It's been done before.
At any rate, I'll be cutting my teeth on "Copenhagen" - and will try to see "Follies" as well. Time to get back to it and then I'll be in for the full season, at least at RWT, and will branch out as I can.
Thanks for those who support me, and for those who disagree with the things I write, I respect that too.
Happy Friday, everyone!
e.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Deconstructing Mike
1. First – tell us a little bit about yourself, Mike Siracuse!!!
I am originally from Buffalo NY, and landed my first hotel desk job at the Holiday Inn near the Buffalo Airport. I moved away to Normal IL in 1982 taking a promotion to front office manager for a new hotel we purchased which was a Sheraton Inn. From there, I changed jobs and started working as a General Manager for a group that was building brand new Hampton Inn hotels, and I moved to Luisville, then Lexington, Ky. All in all, I opened 4 new Hampton Inns in Illinois and Kentucky. From There, I moved to Lansing in 1991 and have been here ever since. I started with the Riverwalk Theatre in 1995 and have stayed here since!
2. You’ve been at the Riverwalk for 15 years – over the course of that time, what is the strangest thing you’ve ever seen at the theatre while you’ve been there alone? (There is a myth that all theatres are haunted!) Please elaborate as much as you can! And who have you "seen" at the theatre when you know you've been alone?
I was doing a mailing in the lobby about 2 years ago, and I was diligently working away, and kept noticing movement just outside of my peripheral vision. It was enough to make me look up. Each time I looked up, there was no one there, and it was getting aggrevating… So finally I said, “Knock it off Jack!!!” as I just felt it was Jack Dunlevy playing tricks and chuckling the whole time! (It stopped).
3. How many times have you been on stage at the Riverwalk? Twice. I played the rude ticket taker at the greyhound bus terminal for “The Trip to Bountiful” in 1997, and I was a horse in “Equuis” in 2001. Bountiful wasn’t too much of a problem, but It was impossible to do my job up front dressed as a horse, so that was the last gig.
4. How old were you the first time you made a stage entrance (if you started when you were younger), and when was the last time, and what shows? The VERY FIRST time was in 1997 for Bountiful, and the LAST time was for Equuis.
5. What do you enjoy most about being the House Manager for the Riverwalk? It is so SOCIAL. I love visiting with everyone. Its like MY party, and I’m making my rounds around the room as Host for every performance.
6. What REALLY grates on your nerves in the line of duty? Answering to things that are not under my control. Ie: the parking lot….. when our neighbors (whom we share the parking lot with) have an event on a day that we have a show, not only do the patrons come to me and complain, but so do the volunteers… the same volunteers who have been here longer than me, and KNOW why its so busy in the lot, but feel compelled to ask me anyway. It is very frustrating and I’m sure my answers have been rather “short” in the past.
7. What is one of your most touching moments while at the Riverwalk? Not sure how to answer this one… Touching how? I can say that I am most touched when we loose someone who we all love to be around, and they die. It is very hard to take sometimes. I have lost many friends over the last 15 years, and I miss them all! My mother passed away in 1999, and from that moment on, whenever someone I am close to dies, I ask her to introduce herself, and show them around. I’m sure she’s going to give it to me good when its my turn, as I’m making her work so hard in the afterlife!
8. Is there a show that sticks out in your mind as being “cursed”? If so, why? YES! Boomers, in August of 2004. There were several illnesses during rehearsals, to the point that most rehearsals were missing SOMEONE, then we lost all power on the entire eastern half of the country on opening night, so that didn’t happen, and then 2 days later, we had a tornado warning! No show ever had that much to deal with!
9. How have you seen Riverwalk evolve since you began, to where it stands now, and what was your role in its growth (from your perspective)? When I first started, we did approx 7 main stage shows and 2 fundraising events per season…. We now are scheduled for 27 total events in the upcoming year, which includes main statge, black box, fundraisers, music concerts, and play readings. We’ve expanded and improved our green room and workshop, built a props loft, and a furniture warehouse, a black box stage, the rehearsal hall, a board room, and renovated our lobby, restrooms, and concessions area. Not to mention we bought the building to boot! That’s a lot of change, and evolving in my mind. We also used to pay others to do our box office reservations for us, and we started our own operation in 2000. We went from no website to one that Bob Gras designed and we used for 10 years, and we are now on facebook, have our own e-mail, and are re-vamping our website as we speak. I was knee deep in most of it, but most prevalent was the box office, as I installed the software, and manage the box office and personally answer the majority of the reservation calls. I also managed all of the online reservations which are at the moment stalled due to the website problem.
10. Why is theatre important to the community? I feel that a community theatre is a place where all members of the community are welcome to come and play, doing what we all have in common….. Theatre! I tell people its like our “Club” where anyone can join, and when they do, they inherit a HUGE family who welcomes them with open arms. As a result, we have a large presence throughout the community and get involved in so many things! We are involved with the Renegade festival & Silver Bells, and we open our doors to groups who want to perform and co-produce shows on our stage, like the singers on the grand, the doowops, Peppermint Creek Theatre co, All of Express Children’s theatre, and even LCP did a show here back in the 90’s. I think our little theatre gives the folks in our community an option of getting involved, whether as a participant, or an observer.
11. What is your opinion of actors as a “type” of people (have you ever eaten with one?)
I Love actors! What a fun, dramatic group of people that are just like me! LOL! I always said that life is a huge DRAMA, and thank God we are all actors, so we can all play the part correctly!
12. Is there actually “risk” (as far as content – i.e. nudity in “Equus”) involved in putting on a show? If so – what is it for the theatre, the actors and the community? Whenever you do a show, you have to look at the whole PIE. The Pie is the entire group of people that could come and see it.. When you add nudity, or a focused theme ie: Gay, opera, ethnic, etc… you remove slices of the pie. The more slices you remove, the less audience you will have. If you do a show that the entire pie would love (not possible) you will have a large audience, and great participation. When you limit the number of slices in that pie, so do you limit the revenues produced, and the number of butts in seats.
Down & Dirty Questions
1. Favorite line of any show? “La Cage au folles”, “Have you ever seen so many legs in the air?”….. “I’ll bet YOU have” as she is pointing at someone in the audience.
2. If you could play a character of any show, what would it be? Mayella Ewell in “To Kill a Mockingbird”
3. If you could direct any show, what would it be? I would love to direct a talent show. Like “Riverwalk Idol”
4. Have there been any lyrics of a song you can’t get out of your head from a show that randomly haunt you, like while you’re brushing your teeth or getting dressed or trying to read, for example? Almost every musical comes to mind….. I find myself waking up at 3am and the songs in my head are driving me crazy! Hairspray comes to mind, and we haven’t even done it yet…… that’s just from the movie!
5. If you could do anything else to the theatre space, what would it be? New heating and air conditioning system so that we could operate them silently DURING a performance, and better sound.
6. Why is theatre important to you, specifically? Are you kidding? For the past 15 years its been my life… not only what I enjoy, but my livelihood too.
7. What stereotypes do you battle about theatre people and annoy you? I really dislike DIVAS. We are all in this together, and have a common purpose… those who think its all about them just P*** me off.
8. So rumors have it that you tackle people for opening candy and answering cell phones during performances - is this true? I actually did it as a joke in front of the audience once, and got a standing ovation! I just put that in my curtain speech so that it didn’t sound like such a hard ass rule.
9. You've been the House Manager for 15 years at the Riverwalk - congratulations! And - any advice you would have to pass on to others about working with people? Leave your petty, pre-conceived notions about people outside of the job, and get along with everyone, no matter who they are. I learned a long time ago in the service industry that you accomplish a lot more with sugar. Its not that I’m phony mind you, I CHANGE my attitude to meet the situation.. Attitude adjustment really works when you are dealing with so many different types of people…. No one is right, and no one is wrong.
10. Thank you for your time, and one last question: what are you most proud of as the theatre Manager of the Riverwalk? I am most proud of what we as a group have accomplished here. SO MUCH to be proud of, and so proud to be a part of it.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
To Award, or Not to Award...
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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
