Mutually Assured Destruction

written by Peter Lefcourt

directed by Terri Hanauer

presented by Theatre Planners

 world premiere debut at The Odyssey Theatre

review by Phillip Kelly

Mutually Assured Destruction is a play that focuses on the lives of three just over middle aged married couples, all friends, and the one sordid detail that creates a slew of possible sordid scenarios that dance between them in their imagination and on the tip of their tongues, threatening to explode at any moment into a flurry of melodrama and comedy gold. But it never quite happens. Peter Lefcourt shoots for a certain level of sophistication, the Annie Hall Woody Allen years come to mind. A continuing analogy during the show is made between the situation at hand and the Cold War, it brings about some good opportunity for jokes, but like much of the show Lefcourt can't help but get in the way of his own ambitions by overdoing it.

Lefcourt makes two of my least favorite mistakes that seem to be trending in current original plays. First, his narrator, Arnie, an enjoyable and energetic Kip Gilman, doesn't simply narrate. He manages to, not only step in between every scene to say what just happened, is happening or about to happen, he even stops scenes midway to do this - sometimes more than once! Mr. Gilman, and the director Terri Hanauer, have directed and performed these beats so there isn't a break in energy, but after awhile, I just wanted a scene to finish so I could enjoy something from start to finish without being told what I was watching. If the writing is good enough, the audience will know what they're watching. Let something surprise us, don't tell us a surprise is coming. Let us laugh at a situation, don't stop to tell us how crazy a situation is. We know! Let us enjoy it without holding our hands. I want to see a story unfold, not be told about the story unfolding.

The second is the number of short, shorter and really short scenes. Theatre isn't film or TV. No matter how tight your transitions are, the audience still has to wait, over and over again. There's no build. Maybe this is why Arnie was given a monologue between every scene. I remember thinking to myself during a scene at a party nearing the end that something was going to happen, that this scene might build and go somewhere and I was becoming invested, but just as I thought this, Arnie steps forward, tells me nothing happened, tells me months and months pass, that there are other parties, and we not only see one more party, but two - in which nothing happens! The reason why there isn't a movie about the entire Cold War is that nothing happens, there's no third (fifth) act. It doesn't make for interesting drama from beginning to end. Hidden within however there are moments in which very interesting stories happened. Those moments are hidden throughout this show, but are never brought forward to their full dramatic potential. I would suggest to Lefcourt to focus on one of these parties, build up to it, and leave the rest of the play within that party. In the Mutually Assured Destruction is a series of misunderstandings, situational comedy without real punch.

This isn't to say there aren't funny and entertaining moments. While Lefcourt is shooting for Husbands and Wives Woody Allen, Hanauer sprinkles in Everything You've Always Wanted to Know About Sex but Were Afraid to Ask Woody Allen. Other characters pick up the narration, our narrator comes out into the audience, they address the fact that they're in a play (allusions to Mel Brooks), there's a giant map in the back with silly pictures of the characters as global chess pieces. In its more inspired moments these beats are a lot of fun, but the two tones don't always mesh, and the sillier side sometimes ends up feeling tacked on.

The performers, all pros in the industry, all charismatic and very talented, embrace the proceedings, and with Lefcourts sometimes clever writing and Hanauer's direction, can be quite funny, but other times they're left lingering on stage with nothing particular to do - especially as the play nears the end. They watch each other with bemused expressions. And at the end, Arnie steps forward and tells us nothing happened, which is something we knew

To keep in mind, that while I didn't particularly like the show, (I enjoyed elements) there was a very loud and very vocal part of the audience that enjoyed it far more than me. The audience seemed split in this regard. Take a chance, you never know.

Mutually Assured Destruction

Presented by Theatre Planners at the Odyssey Theatre, 2055 S.Sepulveda Blvd, West LA 90025.

Through Aug. 26. Fri-Sat 8pm, Sun 3pm. Tickets $25.

www.plays411.com/destruction. 323-960-5772

Fierce

Spotted backstage at Theatre Asylum:

Pretty cool, Fierce Backbone.  Pretty damn cool.

Ten-Gallon Giggles

Once more into the breach ...
 
Tomorrow night Phillip, Pamela, and myself put our money where our mouths are as we produce an evening of entertainment: The Mr. Snapper & Mr. Buddy Rumpus Revue in: "Ten-Gallon Giggles!" 
 
We didn't really go into Rumpus Revue with any kind of philosophical aim, but over the past year we have unknowingly pursued one. From time to time I've banged on the "Bespoke Theatre" drum. At this scale (i.e. under-99) I think we have the opportunity to hand-craft an evening of entertainment for our audience. We take great joy in crafting each show, and we look forward to making the audience laugh. I hope you'll be there.
 
Tickets are $10 at the door, and we will be taking credit cards.
 

This steamy hot July, the Rumpus Revue brings you a special gun-totin', whore-hoppin', singin' and dancin' and steer-ropin' hour of vaudeville, variety and half-naked women.
  
The Wild and Wily West Welcomes Won and Wwww… ALL to… The Mr. Snapper and Mr. Buddy Rumpus Revue in: "Ten-Gallon Giggles!"
 
Snapper, a ukulele playing songster, and his silent foil, Buddy, are your hosts, making a barely capable attempt at maintaining order as the libidinous passions of a group of ragtag performers rage wildly out of control!
 

With Jacob Smith as Pistachio the Mime

Burlesque by Red Snapper and Scarlet O'Keljus

The King of Fling, Jack Dagger

Magic by Phil Van Tee

Music by Jim Martyka

Special Appearance by Jeremy Gayhorse

And the Craigslist Wildcard!

Wed. July 25th. Doors open at 8:00. Show begins at 8:30. About an hour long.
  

Theatre Asylum

6320 Santa Monica Blvd,

Hollywood, CA

A block West of Santa Monica and Vine

  

$10 AT THE DOOR. $10 ON LINE.

tickets.snapperbuddy.com

BYOB!!!!

  
Go to http://www.snapperbuddy.com/ and follow our updates on Facebook! Or follow us on Twitter @snapperbuddy

Photos from past Rumpus Revues:

From "A Pocket-full of Mischief!" Photo by Markus Alias
L to R: Mr. Snapper, Mr. Buddy, and Chase McKenna as "Billy"

From "Krampusnacht!" Photo by Markus Alias
Mr. Buddy and Mr. Snapper.  And "Little Mr. Buddy" (under the hat)

From "Krampusnacht!" Photo by Markus Alias
Mr. Snapper and Jacob Smith as "Pistachio"

From "Festive Crack-Ups!" Photo by Markus Alias
L to R: Rob the Balloon Guy, Mr. Snapper, Red Snapper, and Mr. Buddy

From "Festive Crack-Ups!" Photo by Markus Alias
L to R: Liz Luttinger, Sean Pawling, Jacob Smith as "Pistachio", Mr. Buddy, Mr. Snapper, and Rob the Balloon Guy

MACBETH

by William Shakespeare
an Antaeus Production
directed by Jessica Kubzansky
the Kinsmen Cast

review by Phillip Kelly

As far as productions of Macbeth go, or LA productions for that matter, this show is a technical achievement. From the set to costumes, lighting, sound design, directing to performances you can tell everyone involved are professionals of their craft. It's a strong production, with very good performances. Fair or not, I'm going to spend some time below talking about what could have made the show that much better for me, because I hold Antaeus to a higher standard than most.

What I liked, the director, Kubzansky, made enough interesting choices throughout the night to keep things fresh, while remaining a fairly straightforward classical interpretation. One of these choices, is to start the show at the funeral of the Macbeths' child. This death is something that's referenced only a few times throughout the play and most productions tend not to deal with it at length. Kubzansky hits you with it from lights up. It gives a really interesting spin to several of the moments throughout the production, most unsettling, the murder of Macduff's family, and Ann Noble (Lady Macbeth) and Bo Foxworth (Macbeth), use this scene to bring some of their moments to life in ways I haven't seen before. It grounds them in a stronger reality as things go awry.

The classical interpretation includes the performances as well (except for maybe the Witches, but I'll come back to that); Foxworth, and his Lady, Ann, are strong actors. They follow the map set out with clarity and emotional intensity. Of all of Shakespeare's shows, the map is hard to stray from. Almost immediately we're told the story, and Macbeth is told his destiny. What room does that allow the actors to take. If he hadn't taken the actions he took, would that destiny still have prevailed? If he had stepped back and let things take their course, would the predictions have come true? Is there a part of Macbeth that believes he's worthy of this before it's handed to him? This all should be dealt with in the characterizations. And these are questions I've been asking myself since seeing the production. This brings me to thinking about what I thought was missing from the production. The night I went, the actors on stage were a little disconnected. They were doing what was rehearsed very well, but not always playing off of each other or reacting genuinely to each other, but it wasn't that. That can happen in theatre, depending on the night.

There were a few things I think that kept me emotionally disjointed for a portion of the production. The connection to deeper characterizations or choices with Macbeth that might have clued me in to what Kubzansky and Foxworth thought about the character, not where the characters was going, but who he was before his descent. Is Macbeth a simple man? One who's unwise? Normally superstitions exist in those that are simpler people. Does he carry himself nobly? Or with a chip on his shoulder? Who is this man before he is told who he will become? It's clear that he's well liked, and seems friendly, but it's not enough to fill in those blanks. How mad is he driving himself? To imagine to see a dagger in front of him, floating in mid air, how curious, and yet the performance given matched the performance given in many of the other scenes. There wasn't a distinction made, or a build to and from it. I was often missing the why. The lines were there, performed well, but not everything was colored in. I think where this could have been explored most was in Macbeth's speeches. Alone, speaking aloud, we should be able to see through the veneer to who he really is. It isn't simply thinking out loud, it's struggling with everything that defines who you are. And those definitions were lacking.

Where does ambition come from? From someone telling you or you believing that you deserve something better. Macbeth has to be told this, which means he may have never thought it. That's one choice. Maybe he's always thought it but never had the gumption to get it, until now, so he dives head in and makes every bad decision to get there. Either way, deep down I never believe that Macbeth thinks he deserves to be King, but whatever the decision is it needs to inform every word and action clearly. Foxworth is a formidable actor and we see an arch - in the beginning he's friends with all and loved by everyone, and in the end he's detested by all and the blackest of souls, but it's not enough to truly bring the character to full life. My hope is that Foxworth will start to play a little more as the production continues and naturally find these nuances, as will many of the other actors.

This isn't to say I felt nothing throughout the night. There were heartbreaking moments from Foxworth and Noble. Noble, during the "out, out damn spots" and both during the banquet scene were spot on. Noble cracked me up with her dry delivery. Jesse Sharp was quite good in the smaller role of Angus, doing a great deal with very little, his physicality and disposition were natural and fluid. Peter Van Norden as Seyton gave an exceptional characterization, showing us just what kind of man would follow a king like Macbeth. However, James Sutorious as Macduff breaks your heart more than anyone else when he hears of his family's demise at the hands of Macbeth. The actual murder of and delivery of the news are probably the two best handled moments in the Kinsmen's show. Is this scene what makes Macbeth a tragedy? It almost felt so. Sutorious falls silent, his face pales, everything inside him is breaking at once. It's the most vulnerable moment we're allowed in the production, the closest we get to truly becoming a part of the story with the characters. This moment is briefly discolored by the emphatic shouting into the air that ends his moment. Things are more often given the emphatic treatment throughout, except, surprisingly for me, from the witches (Fran Bennett, Susan Boyd Joyce, Elizabeth Swain)! I wasn't sure how i felt at the beginning, because they seemed like normal ladies, but as Macbeth's story grows darker, so too did the witches, and with great nuance. A fine choice by Kubzansky. Those nuances I speak of, needed to be sprinkled throughout to turn this very good production into a great one.

Macbeth an Antaeus Production
Directed by Jessica Kubzansky
Through August 26th.
5112 Lankershim Blvd., North Hollywood CA 91601
For tickets and showtimes: www.antaeus.org or (818)-506-1983

Twylight Zone: the 6th Dimension

written and directed by David Gallic

produced by Four Letter Theatre

review by Phillip Kelly

What a fun show. It's a night of four satirical, absurdist episodes, poking fun at Rod Serling's "The Twilight Zone". Not every piece is as good as the next, but there isn't a dud in the bunch.

The scripts by Gallic feature a lot of guffaw inducing zingers and clever to ridiculous moments, which the cast of five chews on wholeheartedly. There are no pretensions, everyone here is having a fun time and they let you in to enjoy as well.

"Nick of Time" was probably my favorite Ray Fallon and Alex Bueno, Don and Pat Carter are newlyweds traveling the country when their car breaks down. They stop by a quaint cafe and come across a fortune telling machine, that does just what it says it will. The play acting between Ray and Alex is spot on and Matt Stevens and Louise Martin fill the supporting roles in this piece with hilarity. All while Kyle Overstreet flip flops between his Rod Serling and a bouncy mechanic.

Each actor is given the opportunity to lead and support throughout the night. And every actor has their moments of comedic hilarity.

It's scrappy, like sketch comedy. The set is simple, at times it even looks like it was assembled by pieces found in the alley behind the theatre - but it doesn't matter. The production embraces this scrapiness using cheaply made but hilarious special effects, creative staging to show, for instance, the forward movement of a car, and four commercial breaks projected on white cardboard of products that existed when the original Twilight Zone aired. These commercials are hilarious.

The evening may go on a little long for a show of it's kind, I felt my interest wane a little at the end, but not so much that I didn't leave with a smile on my face. You will enjoy yourself.


The Twylight Zine: The 6th Dimension
Written and Directed by David Gallic. A Four Letter Theatre production.
Where: studio/stage, 520 N Western Ave., Hollywood, CA 90004
plays Thurs-Sat through July 28th. 8pm
$20 general admission, $15 for students and seniors
for reservations email: reservations@fourlettertheatre.com
www.fourlettertheatre.com

First!

It's been a while since I quoted Seth Godin:

In more and more fields, the originator of the novel idea reaps an outsize share of the benefits. One reason is that it's easier to gain attention quickly. Another is that once you gain attention and reputation, it's easier to lock in permission and turn it into a foundation for your next project. And most of all, when attention is precious, earning that attention with innovation is priceless.

The take away: "earning that attention with innovation is priceless."  Godin is right:  It's easier than ever to gain attention, provided you know how to work a room (virtual or otherwise).

Yes, there are exceptions for those that bring service or price or reliability along to polish an existing idea. And there are certainly businesses that profit from taking over after the innovator, exhausted, gives up and moves on.

Also true.  There are a multitude of ideas out there that people have given up on.  The fact is, you don't have to be a Ron Popeil to be a success, you can be a Billy Mays.  A promoter rather than an inventor.  Since the internet gains us access to the aggregate in a way never before possible, I'd say the exception is more often the rule these days.  Why spend the time building something new and original when you can wrap yourself in the mantle of other, more talented people's creative output?  It worked for Thomas Edison.

The fact is, some people are better at dreaming things up and others are better at selling those things.

But given the choice, I'd say first is a better use of your talent.

I would tend to agree, even if "first" sometimes means relative obscurity.  Someone has to start things, and even if his contributions are forgotten by the throng, his effect continues to be felt.

(Happy belated birthday, Tesla.)

The Science of Art: Dramatic Tension

Only just discovered today, author John Perich outlines a formula for tension at his blog, Periscope Depth:

Every story needs tension. Every story except the truly experimental needs to instill anticipation in the reader, to keep them turning the pages. Even those abstruse literary novels that are adapted from tales everyone knows (like The Story of Edgar Sawtelle) contain some tension, in the mystery of “how is he going to address this issue?” if nothing else.

Go read what he has to say.  There are some great observations on how to build tension in a story, observations that are certainly relevant onstage.
 
I discovered John's blog thanks to a link in a footnote to his blog:
 
Footnote:

* Googling “tension = uncertainty x stakes” yields this review of Circus Vargas. I swear I hadn’t read it before writing this post. Since people who know me know that I’m the last person on Earth who would actively seek out circus reviews, I think I can lay claim to an original thought here, or at least parallel development.

Ha!  I love the internet.

 
For those of you too lazy to click through, here's the salient quote from my review of Circus Vargas:

The circus is Expectation + Uncertainty x Stakes. Or something like that. Or put another way, dramatic tension is the play between expectation and uncertainty. The stakes elevate the dramatic tension to ... to what? I could do graduate work on this one point and be a happy man.

It should probably be "Dramatic Tension = (Expectation ± Uncertainly) x Stakes" or somesuch. 

Dramatic tension is caused by managing and manipulating the audience's expectations, and you do that with uncertainty, amplified by the stakes.  To use the example John provides, the tension we as an audience feel at the Sarlac Pit is generated by our expectation that Luke and Han and company will survive against the uncertainty of the moment amplified by the stakes.

Our formulas are not quite the same, but John is close.  He's only missing the interplay between expectation and uncertainty, but I think he intuits it.  He writes:

Uncertainty is distinct from risk. Risk is a known quantity, like the odds of sevening out in craps. It means you can predict the outcome and make an informed decision. Uncertainty, on the other hand, is an unknown quantity. There’s a difference between not knowing how the dice will come up (risk) and not knowing what you don’t even know (uncertainty).

Perhaps for a thriller, the formula would be "Dramatic Tension = (Risk ± Uncertainty) x Stakes".  The protagonist sticks his or her neck out in a calculated risk, for instance, when Jake Gittes breaks into the reservoir in Chinatown.  He's confronted by knife-wielding thugs (uncertainty -- what the hell are they going to do with that knife!?) and the interplay is amplified by what Jake Gittes has at stake (his life).  Perhaps for a thriller, risk is the expectation.

I'm totally down for calling this parallel development, so long as it's referred to as the "Moore Perich Equation." I like top billing. ;-)