School, Theatre

Self Revelatory Weekend

This weekend (last night and tonight) is the bi-annual weekend of Self Revelatory Performances for my Drama Therapy Program at CIIS.

In the words of our founder and professor, Renee Emunah, in self-revelatory performance “the issue must be current so that there is an immediacy to this transformation; this immediacy is theatrically compelling and at times riveting. The creation of the scene itself and the transition contained within it imply a kind of transcendence, which the audiences witnesses and applauds.”
(Further information, and that initial quote, is described and taken from here.)

“Self Revs”, as they are affectionately known, have been a presence in my and my classmates CIIS experiences since close to our first day of classes in September, 2009. We had to prepare a short 10 minute self rev as a final project for an introductory Drama Therapy class. We were encouraged to review videos of previous Self Revs from years past. Starting with our first semester, we were invited to attend the final performances and presentations given by older students in the department.

Now, the feeling is different. Self Revs have become our friends, literally and figuratively, and my classmates have begun to step on to the stage to perform their own stories. This is not just a scripted scene that looks at personal history. This is a long-form process lasting between 30-40 minutes, where being part of the audience is just as specific a role as being the one onstage.

Last night, three students went. One performer is my classmate; we worked together last year on the San Quentin Shakespeare Project. Tonight, three more students will perform, including two additional classmates.

There’s something interesting about being in the “in-between” stage of performances, as I am right now. Last night’s stories are on my mind, even though I am physically here at home in Marin. I look forward to tonight’s stories with some anticipation and wonder about the stories of my friends and acquaintances who are performing.

Each performance last night was highly distinct and equally powerful. In self-revs, the performer can choose to be literal or metaphorical about their personal issues. Everyone seemed to go for something in between. For myself, as a reacting and witnessing audience member, I paid attention to my response. I felt more trusting and understanding of the first performer, whom I had previously only really gotten to know in one context. The second performance gave me a similar feeling of understanding, where I only slightly knew the performer through 1-2 contexts and really not on a personal level. The third performer brought their own story right on to the stage. This was intriguing and provocative for me to witness, as I was familiar with some aspects of the story. I also recognized when the performer addressed particularly sensitive and/or important material for them on an individual level.

As of this week, I’ve just begun my own self revelatory performance process. The final performance, in whatever form it takes place, will be performed sometime in July. I am attracted to the idea of having the performance on my birthday (July 18) and using the significance of going on that date in the piece somehow. The first rehearsal brought more immediacy than I anticipated. I’m honestly and wholeheartedly looking forward to continuing the process.

Standard
Theatre

Hugh Jackman in Performance Live at the Curran Theatre

Mr. Wolverine has taken up residence in San Francisco for the next two weeks, and he seems very happy to be here. I notice thanks to my “site stats” options that his fans have also picked up my blog post from yesterday (and presumably will do the same for this one) so welcome!

Again I notice how it is a different feeling, and effort, to write about a performance a few days after seeing it rather than immediately following it. I see why professional critics must have strict deadlines and work ethics. For my comments, I’ll use the Broadway World review round up as a cheat sheet.

Jackman clearly loves being onstage. And he loves interacting with the fans. I’ll repeat a little bit from my post yesterday:

The audience was a real hodgepodge of theatre fans and people who may have attended solely to see him live onstage. The level of theatre ettiquette was troubling to me, with several people in front of me texting and/or getting out of their seats to use the restrooms during the performance, all following lots of initial audible grumbling about there being no intermission in the show.

Jackman never lost his cool and seemed to be enjoying himself more as the crowd reacted loudly to his onstage shenanigans and personal stories. He seemed to intuitively know that people would be there for different reasons and naturally appreciated that. He also, crucially, was prepared to ride the wave of spontaneity and precision that a performance generates, as when a technical element failed early in the show, and his later invitation of an audience member to join him in an onstage cover of “Fever” by Peggy Lee. Jackman’s ease and delight seemed to exemplify that in-the-moment effect that performing onstage brings.

On the technical side, the production was still getting on its feet. Sometimes the vocal mixing seemed to overpower Jackman. This seemed to happen often with his two brassy and energetic backup singers, Merle Dandridge and Angel Reda. I wondered just how much rehearsal time they had, where Dandridge’s Facebook fan page makes it appear that she may have been cast just 2-3 weeks ago. Admittedly, sometimes gigs are like that, and you have to make all systems go.

I did very acutely notice the tonal shifts in the performance. Jackman’s early buoyancy – including changing his pants onstage and presenting a montage of scenes from his film appearances – was later tempered by a segment about the Australian Outback and a closing number with “mystery guest” Richard Marx. I’m not sure if Marx will appear in every performance of the revue, or if Jackman has other guests up his sleeve, where Nicole Kidman was reportedly in the preview/first night audience.

If I was shaping the show for future performances, I might look at that same flow of songs and subjects. The Outback segment was very moving, but also felt like a tourist infomercial for Australia. Similarly, the film segments and Wolverine jokes had their place and time, but didn’t appeal to everyone. I’m a firm believer of the power of simplicity in performance, as in when Jackman took the lead on solo numbers on stage. If he sprinkles some more of those in to the mix … or saved them until the end, creating literal stages of his show, he can have a winning theatrical combination.

Standard
Theatre

The play is the thing ESPECIALLY while onstage

Cross posted from Reactionary Meter.

I’ve been realizing, with a certain level of disappointment, that it has been nearly a year since I last worked on a major performance project. (Meaning something that was rehearsed for a set period of time, then performed for an audience for a set period of time.) I have been making up for this absence by attending an abundance of live theatre productions as an audience member, and chronicling them, too. However, the relationship is not identical.

I feel rusty from not getting opportunities to practice my craft. I also feel some envy at those who are getting the gigs and the work, and some tension over my union membership’s possible role in all of this, but I don’t want this post to be a meandering whining vehicle.

I thought about this conundrum while in the audience on Wednesday night watching Hugh Jackman perform the opening night of his current revue in San Francisco. The audience was a real hodgepodge of theatre fans and people who may have attended solely to see him live onstage. The level of theatre ettiquette was troubling to me, with several people in front of me texting during the performance and getting out of their seats to use the restrooms during the performance, all following lots of initial audible grumbling about there being no intermission in the show.

And yet, through it all, Jackman never lost his cool and seemed to be enjoying himself more as the crowd reacted loudly to his onstage shenanigans and personal stories. He seemed to intuitively know that people would be there for different reasons and naturally appreciated that. He also, crucially, was prepared to ride the wave of spontaneity and precision that a performance generates, as when a technical element failed early in the show, and his later invitation of an audience member to join him in an onstage cover of “Fever” by Peggy Lee.

Jackman’s ease and delight seemed to exemplify that in-the-moment effect that performing onstage brings – and watching it day after day from the stage management booth, spot op overlook, or some other location. One never knows what to expect in live theatre, and there is a clear visceral, addictive and distinct thrill from the unexpected…and the reaction… and the satisfaction of performance.

It seems that this topic is also perhaps a “hidden” dilemma of modern professional theatre. So much emphasis is placed on the art of getting the gig, with little consideration of what happens to those who are still in the wings, or want the gig but don’t get it. I’m sure there is some commiseration and support amongst informal groups of friends, but I might be interested to see a more formal group or acknowledgement, somewhere.

I also recognize how it plays into the tricky professional dance where you are generally going for the work (unless you are working for your own company or have a certain level of stature) rather than the work coming to you.

Standard
marin county, Theatre

A Pitch Black Comedy at the College of Marin

It can be hard at times to think critically about a show where I/you/anyone knows members of the cast. That thought returned to my mind last night when back at the College of Marin (COM) for their season closer. In this case, I know two members of the cast who happened to have the two leading roles. I also know the stage manager and set designer. I’m sure this dual relationship can be a conundrum for professional critics, when and if they know anyone involved with a production.

In this case, my pre-existing connection didn’t really bother my opinion of the show. It may have unconsciously enhanced my impressions, where I was especially pleased to see my friends in leading parts. I also noticed how the play, set in a London flat, was an appropriate choice for Royal Wedding Day. (I was also sporting my London “MIND THE GAP” t-shirt during the day.) I see upon looking up background of the play that the original 1965 production featured Derek Jacobi, Maggie Smith and Albert Finney in leading roles.

I appreciated how the show plays with theatrical convention, opening in complete darkness and then bringing on the lights only after a few minutes of dialogue. It presents a skillful acting and staging challenge in that the lights are supposed to be out, onstage, so the actors have to perform as if they can’t see anyone else. This works to their advantage when another character enters halfway through the play and proceeds to steal the focus of the plot away to her. The plight of the main character becomes especially notable, or even reputable, when his deception and double crossing emerges later in the show.

I often notice how COM chooses to spotlight local non-college age actors alongside their student performers. This was true again in this show. In particular, the role of “Miss Furnival” offered actress Marilyn Hughes several opportunities to carry the plot and be appreciated. It might have been interesting to see the dramaturgy work for this show and how we look at “historical” 1960’s London now in the present day. I’m fully aware that the past becomes glamorized, while the reality may be more mundane. In some ways, director Jeffrey Bihr’s staging played off that knowledge… the audience could see some of what went on, on and offstage, light and dark, but wasn’t completely told the whole story.

Standard
Theatre

The future is still secret

I’m clearly recalling April 28. 2006 (five years ago?) today, which is when my original play FUTURE’S SECRET premiered at the Hampshire Red Barn.

Of the many sensations and experiences to look back on that project with satisfaction, the biggest one for me is the sense of collaboration and shared artistry. In the professional world, I have not been able to find a project that has the same level of moving along together, working side by side with like minded individuals, and truly seeing a play through from start to finish. It is a top of the world feeling. There is attachment, but there is also accomplishment. There is a sense of creativity and trust. In the grand scheme of the Hampshire Theatre, I had reached the top of the world and could bring all my skills together into a culmination of theatre work and practice.

I miss that level of creativity and spontaneous artistry. I have gotten back in touch with it in some ways since 2006, but never (not yet) in as consistent a way as those few months were. I would love to find the time to write another script or take the lead on another production.

Perhaps the only way or ideal method to make that happen is to sit down and DO IT. I want to, I can, and I will.

Standard
marin county, Theatre

Catching Up for Shows 21 and 22…

I saw two shows in quick succession last week, and was distracted from writing them up by a family visit. I would have seen a third show a few days later, but had to cancel that plan when my car developed technical problems and I had to stay local within Marin.

Show #21 took me, my mom, and many theatre friends to the 142 Throckmorton Theatre in Mill Valley. Nigel Richards, a friend of a friend, recently visited Marin from his home base in London, England. My good friend (and his close friend) Molly Noble produced the event. I’d helped Molly a little bit with the pre-show publicity, and was somewhat uncertain how strongly attended the evening would be. 142 Throckmorton offers a very wide range of performances and subjects (comedy, theatre, music…) on any given week. This performance could have gotten lost in the shuffle, but thankfully, that was not the case.

Nigel brought charisma, intelligence and a sense of fun to his stage presence as he presented his cabaret, “From Blasphemy to Rapture” over the course of an hour+, where he returned to the stage for TWO encores. He seemed to captivate the audience going through a range of familiar and lesser known songs. He didn’t shy away from storytelling in between most of the songs, whether it was about a personal/family memory or something in a broader context. In the latter category, he presented an especially memorable series of one liners based on real excerpts (malapropisms) from a church newsletter.

Nigel clearly thrived on the performer –> audience interaction of his work. I was pleased that the audience members, about 1/2 of whom I knew, were so clearly enthusiastic about his offerings. Part of the joy and excitement may have come from his relative exoticness to us. British performers don’t come through Marin every day, even though there are many theatre companies and ties to history within this area. I know I am often keenly aware of California’s distance from Europe, having grown up in a place where the proximity and cultural evolution is much more apparent. It is possible that for this evening, in a place I like to call “the perfect combination of California, England and Switzerland”, that cultural connection was fully realized.

____________

My mom and I returned to Mill Valley the following evening to catch my 22nd show of the year, Fuddy Meers at the Marin Theatre Company. MTC’s art department seemed to really be having fun with the marketing for this show, evoking a zany funhouse of comedy just through the poster. I later noticed that they constructed a YouTube video for the show with the actors interviewed off stage and in character. The reviews glowed with comedic praise for the cast’s ensemble efforts. But for me, the performance did not connect.

I’m not sure if it was the hyper manic energy of the scenes, a wide tonal difference between interpretation and execution of the plot, or a general uneven storyline… I was not drawn into the show and found it difficult to empathize with an increasingly absurdist plot. It was only in the final scene, when the true humanity of the story is described in broad strokes, that I felt some level of identification and understanding with the protagonist and her family members.

It’s too bad, where the premise sounds like it could be Memento on magic mushrooms. A woman, Claire, wakes up one morning with no memory of her life. Her husband and sullen son quickly arrive on the scene and inform her that this routine happens every day. When the husband steps away from her room, a masked intruder appears and says he is Claire’s brother. The visitor convinces Claire to come with him to their mother’s house. Once there, they reconnect with their speech impaired mother and another seemingly random friend who has a clear manic disorder. Another woman also enters the scenes before everything comes to a head at the mother’s house for the rest of the show.

The set and sound design carried the themes of the show with a high level of panache. I appreciated the SF Playhouse-style unfolding main set, which started the show as a bedroom, and later transmogrified into several other rooms based on unfolding and refolding compartments. The sound design evoked an Amelie-style flair of cheerful whimsicality.

My mixed reaction to this production made me think back to a recent group discussion about excellence and feedback in the theatre world. Who do we go to if we have constructive criticism about a performance? Do the actors and production team expect to be always praised? What happens if and when the praise is mixed in with critique? These are all important components of a well rounded theatrical experience. Though I may not always appreciate or want to recognize the mixed-bag theatrical experiences… I do know that they continue to lead to memorable performances. There is an important and thoughtful sense of vital variety.

Standard
Theatre

Truly NO EXIT at the American Conservatory Theatre

I returned to ACT last night for the final show in my Groupon subscription to their season, and my 20th theatre production seen during this year.

I have to note that theatregoing in Union Square (downtown San Francisco) has become more problematic for me than it should. I generally can’t afford the luxury of driving into the city and paying for parking at a garage. This means that I’m at the mercy of the highly infrequent late night Golden Gate Transit bus service. I find I spend too much time being concerned or methodical about whether I will make the bus or not. So far I have always made the bus, but that is probably because of careful planning. Later on in the trip, I become irritated by the bus detouring through downtown Sausalito and Marin City, but I do get home. This is part of a larger local problem where people assume that public transport is primarily for the business community – and not really worth the time and space here. You can see that I have strong feelings about it.

Back to the show. This version of NO EXIT is actually a touring production from the Electric Company Theatre in Canada, and is a remount which toured extensively around Western Canada. In a way, this show coming to San Francisco hints at possible cost cutting by ACT, although I have noticed that they try to include one touring show per year in their season. Company artistic director Carey Perloff spoke in her program notes of how she “knew at first sight” that she needed to arrange for the play to come here.

I found that the piece had its moments. The action is centered around projected images of the three actors trapped in a room, actually located just offstage, with live video feed to link them back to the larger audience. The mainstage focus shifts to the enigmatic Valet character, who remains center stage for most of the show. I felt that the trio’s introductory scenes were spectacularly overplayed, with large white light and overbearing sound denoting their entrance into the hotel. Sitting high in the balcony, I didn’t appreciate that the scenes were played in the lower house left section of the theatre, completely obscured from view for those of us sitting in the “cheap seats”. With live video onscreen, it sometimes became a question of just where to look. The sound design and acting choices helped to direct our attention somewhat. However, I also sometimes felt that the action could have easily taken place in a movie theatre, with the performance fitting right into the current trends of simulcasting opera and international theatre productions.

Nonetheless, the cyclical nature of the story was sly and direct to the audience. I especially enjoyed a “re-start” type closing scene, when the beginning action of the play repeated itself word for word. It also suggested the nine circles nature of the story, truly leaving no exit, but many suggestions and ambiguities.

Standard
Theatre

Pause

I’m taking a modest pause from theatre going at the moment, and will be doing so again for a longer period next month at this time… but look forward to seeing at least three productions next week, if not before then.

Standard
Theatre

The North Pool flowed at Theatre Works

This may be a week of educational drama, at least on the observational side. On Sunday night, I traveled to TheatreWorks for the closing performance of their new drama THE NORTH POOL, set at a public high school in an unspecified USA town. Then, tonight, I stayed in Marin for a sneak preview screening of TRUST, a new psychological drama film also centered around high school. But this post is about Palo Alto’s THE NORTH POOL (show #19 for this year) and its production.

Other reviews online note that this show was marketed as a “psychological thriller”, and that (plus an AEA comp ticket) was what drew me down Route 101 to see it. I was pleased to make the effort, noticing that it was a character-filled drama with sharp staging and careful attention to detail. Since it was just a two-hander (a play with two actors), I noticed the deck of cards motif where each character seemed to want to top the other, and then topple them down. There were no real winners by the end of the show, although it was implied that the two men had come to a greater level of understanding.

The setting was ripe for conflict, as a passed-over assistant principal asks a new Syrian-born, Iranian native student to stay in his office for detention on the first day of spring break. It soon became clear that each man had something to hide, although the storytelling techniques might have benefited from more subtlety. In addition, the story’s resolution was poignant, but seemed rushed at the same time. The play was just 80 minutes long. I appreciated the taughtness but might have enjoyed some more detail. The notes in the program noted that an earlier version might have included that specificity, as the writer apparently had six characters in the piece for a while – before returning back to just two.

The staging specificity and level of set detail was admirable. I especially appreciated that the set designer took the care to include a long row of generic school lockers (which became an important plot point) visible beyond the main characters. The director also somehow arranged for several extras in the show to appear as fellow students for a brief early scene, even though none of them had dialogue.

TheatreWorks’ artistic director Robert Kelley was visible in the audience as I left, clearly in approval of this work and its culmination. Kelley is a devoted leader of the organization, having (amazingly) been the AD since the company was founded in 1970. I am impressed with the consistency and integrity of their work, where diversity, production values, and variety are clearly integral components of strong theatre works.

Standard