Or reboot?
I didn’t intend to not write in this blog for a year. But I will write again. Soon.
Shatner’s World included Philadelphia – and has now moved on to new worlds
William Shatner does not need to keep boldly going at age 80, almost 81. And yet, like any good actor, he keeps saying yes, or may be afraid of stopping, or he may just want to work as long as he can. Or some combination of those three factors. In any case, his latest career turn has taken him back to the theatre, where he got his start but has not spent time for quite awhile. So he turned to a knowledgeable and easy to remember subject: himself. He brought his latest enterprise to Philadelphia for one night only on Tuesday, March 13th.
With celebrity autobiography shows like this, it can be hard to pick out the drama. Well, their life’s drama is often splattered around the stage, but the dramatic throughline of their presentation can be harder to discern. I thought back to my seeing Carrie Fisher’s “Wishful Drinking” four years ago in Berkeley, and how I’d let myself get wrapped up in her forcefully glamorous aura before being reminded by my also in the audience friend to think critically about Fisher’s presentation.
The same challenges exist in Mr. Shatner’s performance, and yet he has become so iconic (treasured?!) that I’m sure a good chunk of his Philadelphia audience took pleasure in simply seeing him LIVE. He did enter and leave the stage to a standing ovation, the latter round of which I joined in on.
This show, “Shatner’s World”, seems to have arisen out of a “now what?” or “why not?” phase of Shatner’s career. Actually, the expression is more likely to be “I’ve got nothing to lose!”
He takes the audience on a merry-go-round of a live autobiography, from the streets of Montreal to the hustle of Los Angeles to the infinity of outer space, and beyond. His most famous credit gets its due, but is not as closely scrutinized as I’d expected it to be. Shatner offers hints of what seems to be a larger theme of achieving personal (serious) acceptance of the role, something I would have liked to hear more about but may be difficult to describe in a public setting.
He doesn’t shy away from describing other parts of his career, but does keep the focus about 90% on his public life. His three daughters are only mentioned briefly, perhaps by their request, and there is no examination of the challenges of maintaining an acting career over so many years.
Shatner gave several unscripted asides to the audience about a range of topics from lighting cues to the eternal question of mortality. I found those thoughts to be more intriguing than the scripted material, and can understand why he’s gained popularity for his open mic and written word skills.
I’m certainly glad to have attended this performance, and realize that it adds to a relatively wide spectrum of Star Trek actors I’ve either seen or met in person – Shatner, Nimoy, Stewart, Spiner, plus two instances of one degree of separation links to Colm Meaney and Marina Sirtis.
And yet, in keeping with my theatrical sensibilities and desire for human insight, I know I might have even more enjoyed being a fly on the wall (or assistant director!) in the rehearsal room for this project. What must it be like to be so closely associated with a persona and therefore make your public life in conjunction with that role? Us it possible to show another side of yourself? How do those close to you feel about that side of your life? Or do they feel fortunate that they know you in real life? Do fantasy and reality blur to an inescapable nebula?
From what I gather, it seems that Shatner DOES ask some of those questions in his recent documentary “The Captains”, interviewing all five additional captain-actors of STAR TREK about their personal and professional lives. I considered buying a copy of this film at the souvenir table, but changed my mind after seeing it can be purchased for $12 less online.
It is clear you are a role model and still very present figure, Mr. Shatner. Thanks for your commitment and perseverance!
Recap to Move Forward
In order to move forward and regain some momentum with this blog, I thought it would be helpful to recap the shows I’ve seen thus far this year. I feel like it should be more than 10, though that is probably a case of wanting to see more shows than I actually have.
>>EDIT: Oh, yes, it is more than 10. Just.
More details to come. And here they are:
1. Vsnessa Schukis – Community Music Center of Boston
2. Copenhagen – Flat Earth Theatre Company
3. Body Awareness – The Wilma Theater
4. Fallow – People’s Light and Theatre
5. Dead Man’s Cell Phone – Bootless Artworks
6. Time Stands Still – Delaware Theatre Company
7. Peggy Shaw in Conversation – Hampshire College
8. Almost, Maine – Lewiston/Auburn Community Little Theatre
9. Romeo & Juliet – Salisbury School
10. What Corbin Knew – The Penny Seats
11. Totally Awesome Players – Delaware Theatre Company
Corbin knows what Ann Arbor needs to know
Once again this post finds me in the friendly outpost of Ann Arbor, Michigan. I’ve made a short yet enjoyable return to this area, primarily to support my friends The Penny Seats in their current and second-ever stage production, What Corbin Knew by Jeffrey Hatcher. Leap Day brought the second performance and consecutive sell out for the company. They have ingeniously enhanced the second stage “Mosh Pit” of larger local company Performance Network for this show. In fact, I see that the whole turn of events epitomizes my own cornerstone three Cs of theatre work: Community, Creativity & Collaboration.
Working on a script like this demonstrates a skillful broadening of horizons for The Penny Seats. The buoyancy and open-air theatrics of last summer have been exchanged for a tight playing space and awareness of unstated nuances. In several cases, what was not explained (or rather what was imagined) had more impact than plot dialogue and wordplay.
The show tells the tale of Roger Corbin, a successful yet somewhat mysterious contractor. He maintains a swanky skybox in a stadium venue, choosing to use the location to introduce two couples who did not previously know each other. Corbin has no way of knowing how the couples will find each other. The plot begins, and immediately thickens, when he’s the last one there to their introductory party… I could say a little bit more about the plot, but on the other hand, I like surprises.
The five actors worked strongly together, and while they seemed to be still balancing out the pacing of a few scenes/parts of dialogue, I’m confident those elements will tie together by the time the show resumes next week. Actors Melynee Saunders Warren and Russ Schwartz delivered particularly nuanced, vivid interpretations of the seemingly more urbane couple whose reality is a little different than that. Roy Sexton and Rebecca Hardin countered as a couple who seems to lead a perfect suburban existence, but has personal challenges to address. Matt Cameron explored the duality of Corbin, serving as the eyeglasses for the audience, but sometimes throwing those off to suggest Corbin’s individuality. Director Jacqui Robbins clearly led with a specificity and creative approach.
Structurally, the show appears to be a comedy at first glance, but Robbins and the cast succeed in holding a slightly uneasy, uncertain tone for the first act that left me knowing something was going to happen. And yet, I still got enveloped in the farcical comedy, so that when the tone shifted, it came as a genuine surprise.
Design elements made the production into a cohesive whole, most notably in a series of creatively colored outfits for the women, and a crucial photograph. The set itself didn’t need to be large scale, relying on imagination through sound design and use of entrances & exits.
I’m delighted to support and encourage a company like the Penny Seats and hope they continue to find success.
It’s a CREATIVE business
I returned to my alma mater, Hampshire College, last night, and greatly enjoyed the opportunity to offer alumni support to performance artist Peggy Shaw, who has released a new anthology book. I discovered that her troupe, Split Britches, has developed a WordPress site and performance archive right here.
On a personal level, seeing the breadth and rapt attention of the student audience assembled in the Red Barn, where I once performed my final Hampshire theatrical production, reminded me of creativity and enthusiasm and their important role in the theatre business. It may seem obvious to note, but I feel that those goals are something that (I) someone might lose sight of in the professional theatre world, where the focus is often on what the production might do for the (company’s) revenue, and for the freelancing artists, if and where the next gig is coming.
It doesn’t have to be that way!
Where’s the love for the independent art? The art that speaks to people and where the personal investment of the cast and crew shines through? I’m sure it is there, somewhere, and I want to find it again. Not to forget about it.
On that business side, I’m reminded of the musical Curtains, which I saw in 2010 at PCPA Theaterfest and even features a song about the theatre business – excerpted below.
CARMEN:
BUT LET’S FACE IT YOUR COLORATURA SUCKS BAMBI,
THOUGH IT BREAKS YOUR MOTHER’S HEART,
FORGET ABOUT THE PART,
IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO KNOW
WHY I REALLY BACKED THIS SHOW.
YOU ASK ME FOR MY MOTIVES
WELL, YOU NEEDN’T BE SO SMART,
IT’S A BUSINESS.
IT ISN’T MAKING HISTORY,
IT ISN’T MAKING ART,
IT’S A BUSINESS.
SHAW AND IBSEN TAKE ‘EM AWAY,
AND DON’T BOTHER ME WITH MOLIERE,
THOSE RUSSIANS NEVER PAY.
SO GO ON CRITICISE ME,
PLEASE, PROCEED WITH YOUR ATTACK,
IT’S A BUSINESS
I PUT ONE MILLION IN
AND I EXPECT TWO MILLION BACK,
IT’S A BUSINESS
SO, WHAT CRIME HAVE I COMMITTED
IF I’ PUTTING UP A FIGHT
IT’S A BUSINESS
AND I WANT THOSE PAYING SUCKERS
OUT THERE GIVING ME THE BUSINESS
EVERY NIGHT
CARMEN:
Am I getting through to you Elaine?
BAMBI:
I’m sorry mother but to me the theatre is a temple
CARMEN:
What so it should only be filled on Shabbat? Give me a hand fellas.
(they clap) Very funny. You know what I mean back me up.
CARMEN:
THE NOT FOR PROFIT THEATRES
DON’T NEED TO TURN A BUCK
THAT’S NOT BUSINESS
GUYS:
THAT’S NOT BUSINESS
CARMEN:
SO GIVE THEM LYSASTRATA
AND I WISH THEM LOTS OF LUCK
I DO BUSINESS
GUYS:
SHE DOES BUSINESS
CARMEN:
DORKY SCHMORKY
MONEY MISSPENT
YOU WON’T SURVIVE YOM KIUPPUR
YOU’LL NEVER GET THROUGH LENT
I ONCE KNEW A PRODUCER
WHOSE PROTENSION KNEW NO BOUNDS
IN THE BUSINESS
GUYS:
IN THE BUSINESS
CARMEN:
HE MOUNTED SAMUEL BECKETT
I DON’T MEAN IT LIKE IT SOUNDS
IT WAS BUSINESS
GUYS:
IT’S WAS BUSINESS
CARMEN:
SO NOW HE’S DOWN THE CRAPPER
WHILE I’M WORKING IN MY PRIME
IT’S A BUSINESS
GUYS:
IT’S A BUSINESS
CARMEN:
AND THE SHOWS I DO DO BUSINESS
CAUSE I REALLY KNOW MY BUSINESS
AND I’M GIVING THEM THE BUSINESS, HONEY
ALL THE TIME
BAMBI:
But what about the great poets of the stage
CARMEN:
Honey I put on the ice man cometh and nobody cameth
CARMEN:
TO STAGE HANDS
TO THE DRESSERS
TO MUSICIANS IN THE PIT
IT’S A BUSINESS
GUYS:
IT’S A BUSINESS
CARMEN:
THE OWNER OF THIS PREMESIS CLEANS UP IF WE’RE A HIT
HE’S IN BUSINESS
GUYS:
HE’S IN BUSINESS
CARMEN:
UNION WORKERS DON’T WORK FOR FREE
HEY HARRY ON THE SPOTLIGHT
BLINK TWICE IF YOU AGREE
See!
I’M NOT DEVOPID OF CULTURE
BUT MY FEET ARE ON THE FLOOR
IT’S A BUSINESS
GUYS:
IT’S A BUSINESS
CARMEN:
I DO THE KARMA SUTRA
WITH A RICHARD ROGERS SCORE
THAT’S GOOD BUSINESS
GUYS:
IT’S A BUSINESS
CARMEN:
YES GREEN’S MY FAVORITE COLOR,
AND I DON’T MEAN ON THE GRASS
IT’S A BUSINESS
GUYS:
IN A BUSINESS
CARMEN:
AND THE SHOWS I DO DO BUSINESS,
YES I’M GOOD AT DOIN’ BUSINESS,
AND IF YOU DON’T LIKE MY BUSINESS SWEETIE,
BLOW IT OUT YOUR…
GUYS:
IT’S A BUSINESS
CARMEN:
BUSINESS
ALL:
IT’S A BUSINESS
IT’S A BUSINESS
IT’S A BUSINESS
Finally picked up the Dead Man’s Cell Phone in spaces where Time Stands Still
I had a very enjoyable double header of theatrical outings right in my backyard on Thursday and Friday night, but might have waited a little too long to write about them. It is interesting to notice how the energy wanes after seeing the show, although the positive impression lingers. What I may mean to say is that writing about the experience now feels more like a chore or task to do, as opposed to the riding of enthusiasm and creativity in that post-show mood.
Thursday evening brought a visit to the Bootless Artworks Theatre Company for their production of Dead Man’s Cell Phone by Sarah Ruhl. This was (at least) the fourth opportunity I’d had to see this play, and it was worth the wait even after reading the full script last fall. It was a pleasure to see storefront theatre in action, too, strongly reminiscent of my old friends at AlterTheater in San Rafael. Emphasis was placed on evocation rather than realism, and I felt that worked well in the context of the play alongside some subtle lighting cues. It seemed that some of the acting styles of the ensemble clashed a bit, but the cast did individually work well with each other to tell the story and move the play along.
Friday brought a return visit to the Delaware Theatre Company for their Regional Premiere of Time Stands Still, enjoying its first outside of NYC production following a successful run with Laura Linney in the lead role. This version has vaulted to the top of my shows seen for this year, and I’ll be curious to see if it lingers. The production offered a stunning natural realism shared by the actors, designers, and director. A spacious and evocative set led the viewer into the lives of Sarah and James, connected journalists based in NYC but with their hearts and minds elsewhere in the world. Their longtime friend Richard and his new lady-friend Mandy occasionally dropped by to see how things are going. As the play begins, Sarah has been injured while photographing a (un-named) war torn country oversees. It’s clear this predicament has troubled James, but their path from there is anything but what I expected it to be.
As I said above, the specificity was admirable throughout the show, whether having rain appear in the back of the stage, real food being cooked in a kitchen area, and other natural-seeming loft decor. The one distraction for me involved a television running on one side of the stage while crucial character development occurred on the other. My eyes were drawn to the novelty of the TV, but in doing so, I missed the initiation of a plot thread. It was interesting to notice that the story continued during the scene transitions, with the actors functioning as their own in-character run crew while using a gracious and considerate level of body language.
Since this was a co-production, it will now move to the Act II Playhouse up in Ambler, Pennsylvania. I’m pleased to know that more audiences will have a chance to visit this distinguished work.
The show had its moments, but…
I find myself once again brushing up against a recurring theme of this blog – how a theatrical or performance experience is different when you know or are connected to someone involved with the show. And, how or if one (me) writes about their impressions of the performance, especially if it is not perfect or totally complimentary.
There are forms of theatre that thrive on this pre-existing knowledge (hello, Self Revelatory Performance!) but I’ve found that it can be positive and negative in more “mainstream” theatre settings. I had the situation happen to me in both my 1st and 3rd shows of this year, which featured individuals I know from my alma mater, Hampshire College.
In the first show of the year, Copenhagen, seen at the Flat Earth Theatre (a company created by several fellow Hampshire theatre alumni, visiting in The Factory Theatre in Boston) on January 13th, I liked the space and initial staging choices, but wanted more to happen from the play itself, which became a series of evolving and repeating circles in the small in-the-round space. Meanwhile, a small stage in another part of the room was only briefly used and moments of dramatic tension did not seem to reach their full potential. I should have written more immediately following the show, but my main point was that I wanted the show to take me in (as an audience member) more than it did.
In the third play, Fallow, seen last night at the People’s Light & Theatre Company in Malvern, PA, and featuring a fellow Hampshire theatre alum in a lead role, I felt the script and direction did not present a unified approach to the material. I checked out some of the reviews of the show after seeing it, and found that I essentially agreed with the Philadelphia Inquirer, so here is their review.
Critics must know some actors personally in the professional world. How do they manage writing about them – a code of silence, gung-ho disregard, careful consideration, review by an editor, or some combination of all those options?
Shows to See! January into February!
It’s time for another round of SHOWS TO SEE, for planning, organizational, and chronicling purposes.
FALLOW at the People’s Light and Theatre (January 31)
DEAD MAN’S CELL PHONE at Bootless Artworks in Wilmington (February 2)
TIME STANDS STILL at the Delaware Theatre Company (February 3)
THE CRIPPLE OF INISHMAAN at the University of Delaware Resident Ensemble (February 9)
THE GREAT DIVORCE at Lantern Theatre Company (February 11)
and yet to be scheduled…
MUSEUM at Villanova University
MICROCRISIS at InterAct Theatre
PARADE at Wilmington Drama League
BLITHE SPIRIT at Clear Space Theatre
CRUEL, CALM & NEGLECTED at the City Theatre
Body Awareness in Philadelphia
Hmm, now I can type reviews and blog entries on my iPhone – these times they are a-changing.
I returned to the Wilma Theater in Philadelphia this evening, where I had previously made an out of towner cameo visit to catch my final play of 2010, “The Understudy” by Theresa Rebeck.
This time, I was drawn to “Body Awareness” by Annie Baker. The writer, a fellow New England native, has become known for her Vermont-set dramas including “Circle Mirror Transformation” and I recall my knowing amusement when reading her describe one of her imagined Vermont settings (within a newspaper interview) as a cross between Putney, Vermont, Amherst, Massachusetts, and Bolinas, California; two of three towns that I have very close ties to.
This story took place in “Shirley” Vermont, meant to be somewhere in the southern tier of the state. The story peeled away several layers as it went on, and on the whole seemed that it could be a sibling or cousin to the 2010 film The Kids are All Right. Both works take a similar plot focus on a lesbian couple facing male/man induced discord, though with Body Awareness, the circumstances were different and the title itself became a recurring theme in the story.
I don’t want to divulge the whole plot here, but I will say that the lives of the protagonist couple, Joyce and Phyllis, proved to be detailed and relatable. Both 50-something women essentially became co-main characters in the story. Well, the writing gives an edge to Joyce, but as a viewer I felt that Phyllis’ choices and predicaments were equally dramatized.
The women are supported by two memorable men in their life. They share custody of Joyce’s biological son Jared, who may or may not have Asperger’s syndrome. A visiting artist, Frank, makes himself at home in their house while guest lecturing and exhibiting at Phyllis’ school, Shirley State College. Joyce employs herself as a teacher at the local high school, but (in the one visible plot hole/weakness) is never seen in her classroom or at work. Complications ensue over the course of a fateful “Body Awareness” week.
The actors spread themselves out on a spacious, wide set, adjusting itself with help from the lighting department to serve as multiple venues. Portions of scenes were played with backs to the audience, and while that can be a dynamic staging choice, I found it to be a flat element here. Vocal projection seemed soft at times. Nonetheless, all four actors maintained full commitment and seemed to appreciate the versatility of each part – no role was one note.
I do appreciate the Wilma’s commitment to new and/or thematically adventurous plays and look forward to returning there later in their season.
Contextual Theatre
In my recently posted “Best of 2011” blog entry, which was quite enjoyable to compile and explore, I notice that nearly every play on the list benefited from my knowing some additional context or background information about the production. In those cases, it could have been (was) related to the reputation of the producing theatre, newness of the company, intent of the artistic director or some production team member, and in one bittersweet case, the impending closure of the theatre company.
I know that my impressions of all of those shows would have been modestly to strongly different if I had not known additional context about the material or company itself. This realization led me to wonder – how much does context play into impressions of the play for the average theatregoer? I’m sure that studies have been done on this issue in some form or another, but the process could be different or unique depending on the geography, location or association of the theatre itself.
Theatrical Buddha Man 