Show #14 brought another visit to ACT in the heart of SF’s primary theatre district. I must admit that I always notice the heightened theatricality of ACT at their Geary Theatre home. They are one of the only theatrical venues in San Francisco that maintains a classic, tri-leveled theatre space, with stalls, mezzanine and balcony levels. I often feel a slight sense of vertigo going up to their third level balcony (‘cause that’s where the cheap seats are) and having to squint down at the actors on the stage. I also recall my one visit there when I sat on the main level – in the first row, in fact – and had a direct eyeline to the actors and their expressive performance of the epic play WAR MUSIC in April 2009.

This time, I was there for THE HOMECOMING, a classic play by Harold Pinter. ACT’s artistic director, Cary Perloff, has been very expressive about her love of Pinter’s work. A carefully staged photograph of her working with Pinter himself in the early 1990’s is featured in the current ACT program, and Perloff says that she has been looking for a Pinter project to do since his passing in late 2008. She chose this play for their company member Rene Augesen, a versatile actress who has the pleasant problem of playing most of ACT’s female roles, as she is the only female core company member. Indeed, in THE HOMECOMING, Augesen tackles the showy role of Ruth, an enigmatic visitor to a testosterone filled North London house.

I loved the stylistic choices and nuances of this production. Both acts opened with sinister, macabre pieces of jazz music, setting the stage for the unease that was to come. The Pinter Pauses were respected and enhanced throughout the show. The direction clearly played to the stage’s advantages, with several careful tableaus etched in my memory. In particular, usage of chairs on the stage showed an attention to detail and curiosity about which character aligned or interacted the most with another.

The character choices were left wide open to debate and interpretation. The sole female character, Ruth, for example, is a woman of few words. I would dare say that her choices speak greater than her words. The patriarchal figure, Max, is prone to bellowing, but shows a softer and more inquisitive side in Act 2. That reminds me… I felt that Act 2 actually IMPROVED on Act 1 here, which I can’t say always happens in theatrical productions. The characters and/or staging seemed more engaged and layered. The aesthetic remained spare, with minimal underscoring during the scenes and actions speaking louder than words. The story could continue after the curtain went down, and it’s no surprise that Pinter continued to explore similar themes of manipulation and surprise in many of his later works.

I finally made my way to Stagebridge in Oakland for show #13, GRANDFATHER’S JOURNEY, a poignant and sentimental tale of immigration and multigenerational lives in Japan and the USA. Stagebridge is an unusual company that specializes in opportunities for elder (60+) individuals to participate in theatre. I first heard about their work and opportunities shortly after arriving in the Bay Area in the fall of 2008. I didn’t realize until this performance that they are actually inclusive of ALL ages, but place particular emphasis on working with older folks. I have a few connections to the company, where my current roommate was the composer and music director of this production, and Stagebridge itself offers yearly internship opportunities to students enrolled in my graduate school department. I could have worked there last year, but chose to do Shakespeare at San Quentin instead.

I wrote in my personal journal that I did not want to be overly critical of a piece that has such clearly positive intentions. I still feel that way, but did wonder about the choice to have a major character portrayed as a life size puppet, with another actor operating it for some, but not all, of the scenes. The same actor than portrayed a different character in other scenes. There seemed to be some modest technical challenges with the performance venue. Actors were miked, but the high ceilings of the space (a church) made it sometimes challenging to decipher their dialogue.

The production was clearly a labor of care for all the actors, with the lead grandfather role portrayed by an expressive film actor. The show was not very long, maybe 50 minutes, but clearly enjoyed by the audience members. Interestingly (to me), there were many members of the Bay Area Japanese community in attendance, drawn in by the multigenerational story line. I am sure that the leaders of Stagebridge appreciate their clear impact on their audiences and ability to draw across age ranges. Now that I’ve finally seen what they are about, I look forward to checking out another production or performance event they will offer.

How does a theatre (or any) company know it is a HOT company? How can it navigate the balance between an esteemed reputation and quality or quantity of product? Does the reputation of the company precede or enhance their business model? Their artistic choices? The audience experience?

I am sure that many organizations face those challenges at different points in their artistic careers. Within the Bay Area, the two organizations that most come to mind are the Shotgun Players in Berkeley and the SF Playhouse in San Francisco. Both have seen a meteoric rise in their local status over the past few years. Shotgun has navigated the transition well, with a particularly strong emphasis on visual and artistic identity through their work. SF Playhouse may have hung back slightly, as they have a smaller space, but they show no hesitation in the diversity of their artistic product. For example, the summer production they offer is often a familiar title – in 2009 it was ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST, while 2010 brought THE FANTASTICKS. They compliment those performances with more offbeat fare, such as the recent West Coast premiere of CORALINE and the first play I ever saw there, ABRAHAM LINCOLN’S BIG GAY DANCE PARTY, a local hit that went on to be a darling of the NYC Fringe Festival, even making it to a re-cast Off Broadway run last summer.

When I visit the SF Playhouse, which is relatively infrequently, I consistently find that their local identity casts a very long shadow over their productions. With this most recent excursion to see HARPER REGAN, an import from the National Theatre in London, I felt underwhelmed and I wanted to be dazzled. The last time I was at the Playhouse, for SLASHER in 2010, I felt amused but I wanted to be surprised and ecstatic. It seems that the mental bar for their productions is set very high for me, for some reason. On the flip side, when the scale of the production was more clearly stated, as in the smaller 2010 production of the new play SAFE HOUSE, I highly enjoyed and appreciated that show. It helped in that case that there were unusual similarities to my then-current class in psychopathology at graduate school.

I wanted to like Harper Regan, the character and the play, more than I actually did. As I explained, her (I’ll refer to the play as Harper) pedigree is exemplary. There seemed to be a quiet forcefulness around the play’s early scenes, particularly as Harper, played by company co-founder Susi Damilliano, attempts to break from her London job to visit her ill father in the north of England. Having spent significant time in the UK, I noticed the company’s strong voice work. It was telling, however, that everyone pronounced “what” the same way, like they were saying “wutt” to each other.

Harper continues on her odyssey, trusting more of her impulses as she returns to her Uxbridge home and deals with challenging immediate family situations. The action shifts to Manchester for the second third of the play, as she confronts her past in that northern city and a testy relationship with her mother. Meanwhile, her husband and daughter wonder about her well being, and her mother’s husband casually greets her as one of his own. Harper is left to determine her own course of action, and to me it felt like the play took the complicated exit line, which was particularly evident in an out of place closing scene set after Harper has returned home.
Harper’s story is thoroughly British in that the audience is not lectured to and is left to draw their own conclusions and thoughts about her actions. However, the jagged nature of the scenes, where only Harper’s immediate family members appear more than once, limited my identification with the story. I wanted to see the narrative go into more depth and storytelling, both about Harper’s predicament and her thought process. In this incarnation, she was present on stage, but given little opportunity to share her own cognitive process in the face of her challenges.

I’m reposting a blog entry I wrote about PlayGround last year (January 2010) in anticipation of returning there for another installment tonight.

Another Evening on the PlayGround
I went over to Berkeley tonight for the monthly installment of PlayGround, “San Francisco’s source for New Play Development”. I had bought a subscription at the first show of the season in mid-October. However, due to unforeseen reasons, I had to miss the November and December shows and this evening was my return to the format. However, it’s still a good deal, with the five shows I will see coming out to a total of $50. And I feel good about choosing to support a small, ambitious local arts organization (aside from my home company) on moderate financial terms.

Tonight’s theme for the five-six 10-15 minute plays was “Fish Out of Water”, short musical theatre pieces performed with the accompaniment of Joshua Raoul Brody, a noted local improvisational musician. The climax came in the final piece, “The Origin of the Species/Showtune”, a “Philip Glass Buys a Loaf of Bread” style musical parody of musicals.

All of tonight’s pieces were magnetizing and appealing in one form or another. However, I felt the most successful ones came at the middle of the show, as they focused on 2-3 characters and generally followed more intimate storylines. The two that stood out most for me were “Back” and “A Lovely Day”.

“Back” told a story of family strife in the 1960’s in a humorous manner. A father, mother and daughter broke the fourth wall to express their disdain for their lives. Suddenly, they switched into song and told their stories through a rhyming round, eventually coming back together as one large happy family.

“A Lovely Day” straddled lines of comedy and drama as it sketched a tale of an apparent amnesiac and her husband. What could have been an overly serious (or overly silly) subject was treated with restraint through the dialogue. The husband expressed sympathy for his wife and her plight (which she had no idea of), but then pivoted and said he enjoyed watching “Memento” and laughing at some scenes, as she apparently did too. The theme worked and led to an honest-feeling conclusion.

PlayGround assembles a pool of writers to write these scripts in a period of five days or less. This time, the music was also composed (complete with lyrics) in that same time frame. It has a zestful yet presentational energy of guerrilla theatre at its best, which is exactly why I enjoy being a part of the audience at each performance.

Friday, February 18th, Show #8.

After my nearly month long gap in theatre going, I was happy to go right back to another stage tonight to see Seagull (sic; no “The”) at the Marin Theatre Company. MTC seems to be on a roll this year, having hit a home run, economically and artistically, with their season premiere In The Red and Brown Water and just getting better from there.

This show continues the trend of high standards and high quality. But I want to spend some time thinking about it more. I don’t consider myself a super scholar/follower of Chekhov, even though the company I work with has often been praised for its explorations with Anton. If anything, I’m starting to see the themes and parallels in his work. The Seagull shares much in common with Three Sisters, a play I produced with Porchlight two years ago. Thematically, they are somewhat identical, which may have been an intentional and art from life choice by the playwright.

This new adaptation by Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s Libby Appel (and featuring several OSF company members) placed an emphasis on warm storytelling. I was captivated by the use of music and staging in the first two acts to draw the audience into the story. At the same time, I was drawing parallels to the homage A Seagull in the Hamptons, which was my last encounter with the story at Shotgun Players last year.

I lost my focus with the story in Act 3, and I’m not sure if it was because of the older man snoring in the seat next to me or my own moderate level of tiredness at the end of this week. Thankfully, my mind allowed me to listen back to the stage as time passed in the story and it worked its way to a sudden, but appropriate, conclusion.

I’ll reflect briefly on that odd, trance-like state that sometimes envelops me, and possibly other audience members, if a play doesn’t hold my focus. Where does it come from? Is it something about the low lighting? The time of day? The things I’ve done that day? It never seems to happen to me anywhere else.

The Sonoma County Repertory Theater will go out on a high note with their production of Cyrano. The company’s artistic director, Scott Phillips, introduced the show to a very visible mixed blessing. The sold out audience was pleased to see him there, and cheered, but quickly sighed when he reminded us it was the final production. Fortunately, the theater assembled a talented team to construct Cyrano’s world. I was grateful to be there on “pay what you can” night and make the effort to attend for my 7th show of this year.

Director Jennifer King helmed many of the early shows in Sebastopol, according to history (I wasn’t there to see them) and clearly is familiar with the space. She cast husband and wife team Keith and Allison Baker in the leading roles, supported by Chad Yarish playing multiple male roles. I’d seen the Bakers perform together last year at Cinnabar Theater in Petaluma. That show, “I ❤ You Nosferatu”, was easily the biggest surprise of my theatrical year. I had expected it to be just a comedy, and found it to be witty, clever, and current, much more immediate than I expected. The two of them cannily acted opposite each other over a live Skype conversation. He was visible to the audience, and she was hidden backstage. The play had been chosen at short notice when the original script was not ready in time for production. But all this could be covered in another blog entry.

The Bakers got to show their more serious sides in this production, which condensed the tale of Cyrano into a manageable two hour running time. It did seem like it picked and chose what elements of the story to emphasize. I was thrown off by a tonal shift about 2/3 of the way through the show, partially necessitated by the story, but it may have been possible to lead up to it another way. The three actors were clearly having fun with their roles, getting to stretch and play different parts while incorporating live music and choreography.

Speaking of tone and theatre, an “only in the theatre” moment happened towards the end of the play. One character reached a death scene, and as if on cue, loud ambulance sirens suddenly leaked into the theater space from Main Street outside. The actors stayed in the moment.

Revisiting the story of Cyrano made me suddenly remember the first time I had encountered the tale as a 12 year old. This was in its then-modern film incarnation, with the genders reversed, in the 1996 film The Truth About Cats and Dogs. I was more interested in following the exploits of my then-favorite actress Janeane Garofalo than exploring the source material of the story. I do remember comparisons to Cyrano being explicitly mentioned in most reviews of the film. I hadn’t had occasion to draw further comparisons between the film and play, but now I see that the comparisons are/were extremely clear, and well thought out by the screenwriter, Audrey Wells.

This entry was composed last night in Sebastopol, CA, where I traveled to catch the final production at the soon to be defunct Sonoma County Repertory Theater. The company has existed since 1993 and carved out an active presence in the Sonoma area arts community.

…

I’ve traveled up to Sebastopol (Sonoma County) this evening to visit the Sonoma County Repertory Theater for the 4th production I have seen here. Unfortunately, it will also be the last, as they will be closing following the run of the current show Cyrano (a three person version) on Sunday, February 20th. About two years ago, it was an unfortunate trend to have several theatres declare that they “needed to raise _____ amount of dollars or they will close for good.” Now, we seem to have reached the second round, with the Rep shutting its doors (after a similar campaign last fall) and a few other places in the Bay Area either downsizing or not continuing to produce.

The Rep’s relationship between arts and community is exactly the type of theatrical life that I would like to lead someday. They have a small storefront space nestled right into the downtown Main Street of Sebastopol. They seem to have been well established in the community, and formerly produced in nearby Santa Rosa. They had an extensive outreach program to local schools with education flourishing. The theatre seems to have contributed greatly to downtown nightlife, boosting the income of a few eateries around the town and general foot traffic. They will continue to maintain the “Sebastopol Shakespeare Festival”, presenting one show in a nearby outdoor park during the summer season. It seems unfortunate, but realistic, that they have to close.

What will the theatres become if they all narrow down to a select few houses presenting fewer and fewer plays each season? I wonder if the budgets will survive, either, with headlines today about how the NEA budget is almost completely eliminated and sources of philanthropic funding have dwindled considerably. I suppose there is something to be said for a “back to the land” style of thinking, where the theatres get more involved with their communities – and that is something I would support. On the other side, there are many arts workers, myself included, who have chosen (and need!) to make a living through their artistic pursuits. They need the work and they want to be artistically stimulated and challenged.