On the Way Down

Friend, burlesque co-conspirator, and frequent purveyor of Bardian verse Patrick J. Saxon posted the following quote on Facebook this afternoon:

Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down. - Ray Bradbury

It also seems like a fairly accurate description of producing theatre.

Imagine the Possibilities

Project Glass, from Google:

Can you imagine an entire audience equipped with these devices? How could the heads-up display be used to enrichen the theatrical experience? Some thoughts:

• A play where the character's "inner monologue" pops up at key moments.
• The heads-up display could be used to superimpose a ghostly character onstage.
• A character watches a video message on her electronic device. The audience sees this video message on their headsets.
• During blackouts, the device could extend the narrative, provide linking scenes, etc. (Imagine a stage production of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where the guide segments play out on this device.)
• For an environmental staging, the device could guide the audience through the space, from scene to scene.

This looks to be an amazing device with some incredible potential.

Read more about it here.

A Specific Place and Time

Clifton's Cafeteria, Downtown Los Angeles.

“We have wasted History like a bunch of drunks shooting dice back in the men's crapper of the local bar”

- Charles Bukowski

One of the blogs I follow (although I don't read it as often as I should) is Scott Walter's Theatre Ideas.  His philosophy is an inspiration:

Theatre Ideas is based on a single premise: something is deeply wrong with the state of the American theatre, and without radical change it will continue its slide into irrelevance. As Al gore says in An Inconvenient Truth, quoting Winston Churchill, we have passed the "era of procrastination" and are now in an "era of consequences." It is no longer enough to simply "do the work," one must reconceive the context, refashion the business model, revise the purpose, and refocus the values.

At the center of his philosophy is the community.  Not the insular, social network-stuccoed community of artists, but the community-at-large.  The Joe Publics, if you will.  Please take a moment to read Scott's summary:  "Welcome, New Readers".  I would like to draw your attention to his second principle:

2. Localization. Connected to number one above, regionally-based theatres should encourage the development of local aesthetics. Regional theatres should not be like malls -- the same no matter where you are in the country. The choice of plays, the artistic staff, and the experience itself should reflect the place where the theatre is based. The Era of McTheatre must end.

Ceiling of the Palm Court in the Alexandra Hotel, Downtown Los Angeles

On Saturday, March 3rd, my wife and I took a tour of "Hotel Horrors and Main Street Vice" with the kind and knowledgeable bunch at Esotourric.  What was intended to be a fun diversion on a beautiful Saturday afternoon was instead quite revelatory.  We know that we're steeped in history -- this is tinsel town, after all.  For instance, the Elephant/Lillian/Theatre Asylum complex is just across the street from a parking lot that used to be Buster Keaton's movie studio.

The corner of Lillian Way and Eleanor Avenue, the site of Buster Keaton's original motion picture studio, Hollywood.

This sort of history is all around us.  There's a cemetery walking distance from my house, Rosedale Cemetery, the final resting place of Hattie McDaniel.  Hattie won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress in 1939, for her work in Gone with the Wind -- the first black actor to win an Academy Award.  It was her wish to be buried at Hollywood Forever Cemetery (then known as Hollywood Memorial Park) along with ... well, everyone who was anyone.  At the time she passed, Hollywood Memorial Park was "Whites Only," and so Hattie was laid to rest at Rosedale, the first cemetery in Los Angeles to be open to all races and religions.

It's fascinating.  And there is such a fine line between the glamour and the gutter in this town -- Randy Newman nails it in "I Love L.A.", a wry song for a cynical city:

Look at that mountain
Look at those trees
Look at that bum over there, man
He's down on his knees
Look at these women
There ain't nothin' like 'em nowhere

(Odds are, that bum used to work in the industry.)
  
I'm not saying that every story should be an L.A. story.  Still, it wouldn't hurt to listen to Scott Walter; to tell stories that speak to this specific place and time, stories that may reflect and comment upon the lives our audiences lead.

I'm preaching to the choir, by and large, and I take great satisfaction in theatre companies that "get it".  Leo Geter may have set Naked Before God in Arizona, but it's an industry story that speaks to a Hollywood audience.  Based upon Phillip's review of Feedback, Jane Miller's play concerns itself with identity, the need for self-improvement, and the loneliness that caused by constant outside evaluation -- sounds very Los Angeles to me.  I'm terribly interested to see what Sacred Fools does with Stoneface, a play about Buster Keaton that opens May 25th. 

Let us continue to listen to Los Angeles.  Tell her stories; react to her news, her events and her people.

"Three million people in the City of Angels according to the last census, easily half of them up to something they don't want the other half to know. We all get sucked in by the lobby.  Palm trees finger the sky and there's enough sunshine to lay some off on Pittsburgh.  But that's all on top. L.A., truth to tell's, not much different than a pretty girl with the clap."

- City of Angels, book by Larry Gelbart

The Seagull

by Anton Chekhov

directed by Andrew J. Traister

translated by Paul Schmidt

Presented by Antaeus

review by Phillip Kelly

I could summarize Chekhov's The Seagull for you, but by God just type it in your google search bar and you're bound to run into a few story and character breakdowns, or simply go see this magnificent production by Antaeus. Although they do mostly everything by the book, they do such an extraordinary job at it, it makes me wonder why people try to do it any differently.

A couple years ago I was involved in a production of a selection of Chekhov's short works, his comedies, and I read many of his essays. It was startling to me how intoxicating and incisive his sense of humor was; his pessimism gave an edge to his wisdom and understanding of human complexities. As a writer, he doesn't so much show us the world, but heightens aspects of it ever so slightly, allowing us to laugh at ourselves while feeling empathy for those we're watching. It's hard for me to understand when people overlook this element, especially when it's so essential to not only his work, but any tragedy you hope to produce, write, direct or act in. Comedy is essential to tragedy, because it allows us to see the characters as human. It gives them life as they approach death. Directed by Andrew J. Traister, this production of The Seagull is brimming with life and characters that simply don't know how to make it work in their favor. The ridiculous often meets the dry comment. It's really quite funny. The only way this comedy can be mined at the doors of tragedy to any degree is if the actors on stage embrace the imperfections of their characters, leave their egos at the door, and become as vulnerable as newborns; suffice to say the actors here are up to that challenge and Traister's fluid, subtle and natural direction allows us to be enveloped by the performances. There's nothing here to distract.

Antaeus makes it well known they double cast their shows and revolve the actors in and out, mixing and matching them. I love the concept, not only as a way to get more people in the doors, but as a way to keep the performers on their toes. I was blessed to get this cast (and would love to see the other!), not only because the fanboy in me ate up Kurtwood Smith's perfectly balanced Doctor Dorn, or because each actor found a corner of this world to inhabit all their own, from Bonnie Snyder as the Maid, who with her two lines cracks up the audience, to Joe Delafield's portrayal of the tortured writer Konstantin, so driven to break free of the world's mediocrity and discover something new that he can never relax into his own voice as an artist or a person, to Abby Wilde's portrayal of the innocent and naive Nina, so wanting to embrace life that she confuses fame for the joy of creating art and has to suffer from the consequences of this confusion the rest of her life. Yes, everyone that graces this stage proves that they are more than just capable performers, but no one more so than Laura Wernette who embodied completely the matriarch, Arkadina.

From Arkadina's carnal seduction of Trigorin (an excellent Bo Foxworth), to her dismissive assumptions about her son Treplev, and her sudden realizations of her abhorrent behavior which bring a tenderness to her face, Laura brings a divine light to the stage like I imagine the great actors of Broadway and London did in the Golden era of theatre, when actors were treated less like faces for marketing campaigns, and more like Gods, as well they should have been. Ms. Wernette breathes, as they did, altitudes of complexity into one of the most complex female creations written and literally brings words on the page to life in the form of a living breathing human being. Chekhov as Dr. Frankenstein and Arkadina as his Monster can only work with someone like Ms. Wernette bringing beauty, grace and a willingness to embrace every imperfection of this tragically unaware and sad creature. I liken her to a Monster, but what might be more apt is Cleopatra:

Age cannot wither her,
nor custom stale Her infinite variety.

This makes her wondrous and treacherous. Arkadina in Ms. Wernette hands is Nature herself. Bravo to her and everyone else for bringing such vulnerability to the stage, it makes it hard to look away. Rarely do I gush, but this is well deserved for everyone in the production I saw.

Another round of applause for the scenic design team Lechetti Design, for which my only constructive criticism would have been to force the road and river's perspectives ever so slightly. Though in the 2nd half they create a haunting, ghost like interior, which is elevated by the very subtle, yet effective sound design by Jeff Gardner. Combined with the lighting (Jeremy Pivnick), costume (A. Jeffrey Schoenberg) and prop (Heather Ho) designers, it truly feels like you've taken a step into their world. One I'm tempted to see a second time only to rediscover the story again with a whole new selection of actors!

In the end Chekhov's The Seagull, isn't about our dying elderly, but our dying youth. We have the potential to destroy them with the emptiness we feel inside ourselves, that we're too afraid to deal with, and like a weapon when we choose to do so, that emptiness can lash out and needlessly shoot them out of the air.

The Seagull presented by the Antaeus Company. March 1st - April 15th. Thurs.-Sat. 8pm, Sun. 2pm. Tickets $30-$34. The Deaf West Theatre, 5112 Lankershim Blvd. North Hollywood. 818-506-1983. www.anteaus.org for tickets and cast dates.

The cast I saw:

Arkadina.........Laura Wernette
Sorin................Gregory Itzin
Treplev...........Joe Delafield
Nina.................Abby Wilde
Shamrayev.....John Achorn
Paulina............Reba Waters
Masha.............Avery Clyde
Trigorin..........Bo Foxworth
Dorn................Kurtwood Smith
Medvedenko..Patrick Wenk-Wolf
Yakov..............Brian Abraham
The maid.........Bonnie Snyder

Feedback

a new play by Jane Miller

directed by Craig Jessen

presented by the Lyric Theatre Foundation

review by Phillip Kelly

Feedback, a new play by Jane Miller, was a delight. I'm truly glad I was able to see this show in it's first live incarnation, because I feel with a little more work it has a bright future, and I can say, I was there when ...

Our heroine, Holly (April Grace Lowe) signs up for a new self improvement process from a company called Perception, in which they assess your personality and re-brand you, so you can better fit into society and move ahead in life. From your boyfriend to your hobbies and career, they will adjust your personality and make you the best brand of "you" that you can be, so the consumers, your friends, coworkers, etc, will want to metaphorically purchase you. Kinda creepy, but really interesting.

The emotional center of the play occurs between Holly, played with a grounded vulnerability and sincere likeability by Ms. Grace Lowe and her agent at Perception, Elizabeth, whom Angela Ryskiewicz fashions to be a by the books observer but is too easily swayed to empathy by Holly's struggle and outgoing personality. Both women find themselves reaching out to one another for a sincere connection in the hopes to rediscover who they truly are. It's a touching, funny and ultimately moving relationship that works because both actors are so good at just barely containing their burdensome emotions. They come from the school of less is more. Ms. Grace Lowe gives us the pleasure of seeing Holly's transformation on stage and, Miller has crafted the character's arch beautifully. There's nothing overtly clever about Miller's dialogue, it's real, awkward, and a testimony to her ear for the natural rhythms of regular people. She's given each character a distinct voice - refreshing.

The other voices that add to Holly's struggle for strength and direction in her life, and may or may not be holding her back, are her kind-of ex-boyfriend, Ian (Cody Roberts) and Claudia (Karen DeThomas), who both do a respectable job here. The 5th member of the cast is Judith (Dorrie Braun, equally as solid as her cast mates) the creator of Perception who has taken up the cause, as one of the panel members for the deconstruction of Holly's life.

I laughed out loud often and was moved, because I understand what it feels like to question my own identity based on others' assessments and that sense of loneliness that can come from being uncertain if you matter or are liked at all. I think these are fairly Universal feelings and thoughts people have at all points in their lives. Am I really worth it? Is what I'm doing worth it? Every day, especially in the environment of Hollywood, we're assessed and judged by all around us. It's a city of glances, ogling and glares, and it has the ability to beat down your self esteem. There's a very telling line in which Holly calls herself aware, then back peddles to self-aware, and then that further curtails to self-conscious; the very funny part is she's so anxious at that moment to please she doesn't seem completely aware of the differences. The show is elevated by these small truths; which means it was most likely written by someone who is aware of their faults as a person and not afraid to explore them. That could make this a very personal play. The Director, Craig Jessen, then, knows how to keep those faults grounded and enjoyable to watch. He guided these actresses and actor with a smooth hand.

The show however isn't without it's flaws, most of which will hopefully be ironed out as Ms. Miller is allowed to see the show through the eyes of her audience's reactions and really just to see the show performed over and over again, and of course a little critical appraisal doesn't hurt. My only problem comes nearing the end of the show: we're allowed to see and hear about Holly in her most vulnerable moments, yet we aren't allowed to see the climax of Holly's journey in a way that is cathartic before the different stories come to a conclusion. Usually when something is missing in the end, you need to go back and look at your beginning.

***Some spoilers, as this is intended mainly for the writer.***

I don't like simply writing reviews for certain shows--what's there to learn for the audience or author? I like, I don't like - kind of boring and unhelpful, and my years of developing original work in a theatre company won't let me leave the conversation without giving some constructive criticism, especially when the show is so close to being great (and easily sold in the film market! I'd option and direct it myself.) So, I ask the writer, what is the overriding relationship in this show? Holly and Ian? Holly and Elizabeth? Holly and Claudia? Holly and Holly? It's not Holly and Claudia. I never felt it was Holly and Ian, it could be if their relationship is at least as strong as Holly and Elizabeth, but it's not. So, right now it's Holly and Elizabeth, who share a final scene together, but the falling action hasn't been earned yet. Between Holly's final assessment and that final scene there has to be something else. My first thought would be, we need to see Holly try and play out the personality she was given and realize through the act of it just how unnatural and unlike her it is, so the audience can live with her through that awkward moment. This can add another layer to the Holly and Ian arch before it's complete. I felt it would have helped to see Elizabeth try harder to get her assessment to Holly before Elizabeth is forced to leave the room, so when she finally gives it to her, we're waiting to hear what it was, why it didn't work when she tried to be that way with Ian and just couldn't be. Right now these last moments come and go before Holly can reach bottom, yes, we see her become empowered throughout the show, but we miss the final moment of struggle before she rears her head and proudly says, no. She's decided while the lights are down. What might also strengthen this is allowing the audience to see a little more of the unhealthy side of the Holly and Ian relationship story in the beginning. Yes, they argue, but it's brought on by Holly's paranoia - he's actually there to do something kind. And aside from what's said about the relationship before the show started, that's all we're allowed to see, the two of them being really good to one another. We need to see what's talked about, some of that interaction that we only hear referred to as it happened before the show's start. I do like the paranoia aspect as well. I wonder if there's a way to hold onto that until Elizabeth reveals it and then Holly goes back to Ian, but that doesn't seem as detrimental.

***Spoiler done.***

All in all an original and intelligent idea that drew me in with it's sincerity, humor and insight. I recommend it be seen.

Feedback an original play by Jane Miller. Directed by Craig Jessen. March 30-April 28. Friday & Saturday at 8pm; additional matinee performances on Sundays, April 15 & 22 at 2pm. $20.
The Lyric Theatre, 520 N. La Brea Avenue, in Los Angeles, 90036. Street parking available.
Tickets available online at www.plays411.com/feedback, www.Goldstar.com,
www.LAStageAlliance.com, or by calling (323) 960-1055.

Effort vs. Achievement

Bitter Lemons draws our attention to Samuel Bernstein's review of DOMA's production of The Who's Tommy.  The salient point for me, and the reason why when I first read this I wished I had written it:

Are we meant to applaud the attempt itself? Our culture’s psychological and human development strategy has become one of rewarding effort rather than achievement. I’m not a fan of the idea. Nor do I want to sit idly by and let it take the theater hostage.

As a hard and fast rule, I disagree.  Sometimes the effort is enough, but we would have to be talking about a pretty goddamned spectacular effort -- Amelia Earhart not quite making it across the Atlantic, Rocky not quite defeating Apollo Creed, etc.  When the effort itself is the point, the achievement doesn't really matter.  When the effort is the point, odds are you are doing it for yourself.

And yet theatre is not for us.  It's for them.  No one cares about the effort it took to produce the play.  Maybe your mother, but outside of her, no one. One of the take-aways from Counting New Beans: Intrinsic Impact and the Value of Art are the reasons why people go to the theatre.  As Larry Pontius at LA Stage Times summarizes:

For most, a primary motivation was to relax or escape, which goes up significantly with age, and then tapers off.  Second in popularity was the desire to be emotionally moved or inspired, which also went up with age, before leveling off.  The third motivation was to spend time with family members, which rises during the child rearing years, and then, “plunges” later.

Go read the whole thing.  I'm pretty sure "To go see how hard everyone worked" is not on the list.

We are not children.  We don't all get a ribbon at the end of the day, emblazoned with tacky gold letters that read "Participant."

That's not to say critics should be heartless.  If anything, a negative criticism, artfully relayed, may do  more to improve the work of a theatre company than all the smoke one could possibly blow up their asses.  It's tough, but necessary.

A fantastic article was posted at HowlRound earlier this week, "Criticism! Eeek! Run! Run!"Here is a brief excerpts:

When artistic colleagues are working together, we expect to exchange criticism of one another’s work. This is the job of collaborators, to engage in an ongoing, critical discussion of what is working and what is not. But when it comes to a colleague’s work that we ourselves did not participate in making, while it may be easy to comment either critically or superficially on our positive response, it’s understandably more difficult to speak to our negative response.

Yet we must. How else can we hope to make and see stronger work? Obviously it’s important that collaborators be critical with one another. Collaborators have the unique, up-close perspective that comes from creating the work. This is the vital, key perspective that no audience can have. Likewise, the audience is privy to a perspective that nobody who worked on the production can have. And this perspective is ultimately the vantage point from which a theater production is made to be experienced. Gathering the perspectives of our audience is essential. To that end, artistic colleagues in the audience can provide a particularly informed perspective, since they understand firsthand what goes into making work. Thus, we who make theater can be of great value to one another in the ongoing effort to determine how our work is working.

(Emphasis added.)

No more "A's for Effort."  Producing a play--any play--is damn near impossible.  That's a given.  Let's save the praise and ovations for those who actually achieve something.  We owe those who don't quite hit the target honesty, not a pat on the head.

How Creativity Works

via Scott Myers at Go Into the Story:

IMAGINE: How Creativity Works from Flash Rosenberg on Vimeo.

Looks like an interesting book.

On the heels of calling out a director for lacking vision (Jesus Christ, I can be a real asshole sometimes) I find myself absorbed in thought.  How?  How do we approach something with a fresh set of eyes and create something new and exciting?  We do it, but how do we do it?

If we know how we do it, maybe we can be more consistent about it.  Maybe we can share the skill with others, and improve the overall quality of what we do.