#6 for this year brought me back to ACT. This company often presents itself as San Francisco’s “creme de la creme”, and I find that I often have philosophical problems with their highly glitzy, stylized productions. Although they present themselves as being highly esteemed, I also get a feeling from within the theatre circles that they are more closed, often using the same core company of actors and/or importing actors from New York, rather than using local talent. They’re one of the only companies in the city to use a more traditional theatrical audience format, with seating on three levels facing the modest proscenium stage.

Knowing all this background, I sometimes find it hard to engage intellectually and creatively with ACT’s productions. It doesn’t help matters either that I had a poor impression of the first play I saw there (Travesties in 2006) when I was not yet a Bay Area resident. Subsequent visits have only been moderately satisfying. However, when they appeared on Groupon.Com last October with a subscription promotion, offering four shows for about $9 each, I decided to buy the offer. I’ve found that I may not be a most suitable candidate for a theatre subscription, with my highly mobile lifestyle, but I have been pleased with ACT’s attention to detail and willingness to adjust the date and time of the ticket if needed.

This play was a breath of fresh air to the company. Jonathan Moscone, known for his decade of work with the California Shakespeare Theater, made his mainstage ACT debut with this show and seemed to bring a personal creativity to the piece. He made strong used of most ACT core acting company members, two recent MFA graduates, and one guest actor. He cultivated an intriguing tonal balance between farce, satire and drama as the play went on. The actors seemed to be having fun with the material, particularly Omozé Idehenre and Richard Thieriot.

The story took a perceptive look at race relations in the USA, told fifty years apart in 1959 and 2009. Of course, the hidden secret (or open secret, depending on how you look at it) is how things may or may not have changed. It’s true that this depiction may have been more exaggerated than some other real life conversations might be, but it did not lack in intended honesty. I especially appreciated how the script concluded on a note of subtlety, where the audience is not told what happens to the characters but left to draw their own conclusions. Often, this style of story telling is more provocative and intriguing, inciting conversations and lingering in the mind.

ACT invites website visitors to look in on backstage work in this show. Take a look.

This hot button, topical show arrived in San Francisco on the heels of its high acclaim as a Tony and Pulitzer Prize winning show. I will acknowledge that my interpretation of the play might have been different if I was not a current student of psychology. The timing is perfect to see a show like this, with songs such as “My Psychopharmacologist and I” – and I’ve just started a course in Psychopharmacology. As such, it was a stellar excursion for show #5 of the year. By the end of the show, I was willing to join the rest of the crowd in a standing ovation, which is rare for me, as I like to think I hail from the more refined British level of acclaim – you appreciate a play, but don’t jump out of your seat after every production. I also acknowledge that my comments might have been slightly more enthusiastic if I had written this immediately following the show. It was not very likely that I would do that at 1-2am yesterday morning. But I do notice a different feeling with a few days hindsight and after reading the reviews of the show, published today, ranging from strong in the San Francisco Chronicle to modest-fair in another publication. Admittedly, the show covers a polarizing topic of bipolar disorder, and audience reactions are bound to be fairly distinct at each performance. In reading over some of the publicity material with star Alice Ripley, it seems that variability is a big part of her attraction to the part and reason for resuming the role in the national tour. This tour will run for 36 weeks, more than half a year. The theatrical work minded side of me is of course envious that the actors and stage managers have secured such a long gig.

Back to the show. The plot outlines the story of Diana, an attractive suburban housewife, and her complicated life with bipolar disorder. We’re introduced to her family members: supportive husband Dan, feisty teenage daughter Natalie, and seemingly supportive son Gabe. It is immediately clear that the household has challenges, where Diana has struggled with her bipolar disorder for a number of years. However, there is resiliency. Dan recognizes that his wife has difficulty with certain parts of her life and tries to offset it with his own support. The plot makes clear that this does not present easy management or living for Dan, and as the show goes on, he becomes increasingly questioning. Their children take a similar approach to a point, with Natalie’s character arc somewhat abruptly developed as she takes on a new boyfriend, tries life with pills, and becomes generally spiteful of her mother, before arcing back to the other, “normal” side of her life. Through it all, Diana, the mother, is left to confront her own choices, delusions, heart resonance and quality of life as she figures out what she wants. She encounters two doctors along the way, played by the same actor, but mostly stays within her family confines. Her challenges were skillfully underwritten by the multi-layered stage set, which I was surprised by at first glance. All of the actors moved around the space with urgency and purpose throughout the show. In fact, that very tone of immediacy and purpose was something that I most appreciated about the play. Too often, it seems that musicals might draw you into an elaborate fairyland, where suspension of disbelief is taken for granted, and audiences are expecting to be strung along by musical numbers. Not so with this piece.

Opening Night was technically challenged by what was either vocal strain from Alice Ripley or a very rough sound mix. Ripley projected significant intelligence and moral gravitas in her acting. When she switched gears into her singing, I was surprised to hear a lower alto register. It was difficult to interpret many of her lyrics as the show went on. In contrast, her colleagues project extremely clear singing voices, most notably Asa Somers as Dan.

The cast is only really just getting into their game with this tour. Judging from their wide, genuine smiles at the curtain call, it seems clear that the experience has much meaning and generosity and they are treating their level of artistic expression with generosity and gravitas.

Show #4: EMMA back in California. I’ve traveled several thousand miles since my last theatregoing experience!

This production is the fifth incarnation of this musical, having previously been featured in Mountain View, CA, Cincinnati, OH, St.Louis, MO, and New York City. I was not yet a Bay Area resident when the show first premiered at TheatreWorks in 2007, but am told by reliable sources that it was a large hit and highly memorable. I am sure that the script underwent some revision in between various productions. It seems that this version may have been in the works for a while, with possible Broadway or return to New York ambitions. In their program, the Old Globe boasts that they have sent “over 20” productions to Broadway over the years. They do have a highly esteemed reputation, and this would fit the trend of musicals receiving out of town, far distant tryouts (see also Seattle and Berkeley) before entering the massive New York theatre world.

I wouldn’t mind getting to know Emma! This musical surprised me with its tunefulness and relevance. I must add that my own relationship to musicals has improved somewhat over the last few years. For a long time, I thought of them as no more than crowd pleasers with little dramatic meat to please true theatrical aficionados. After working on a few professional musical productions and attending such shows with more regularity, I began to see the high level of technicality and artistry that goes into the process. It also helps if the librettist and composer are right there with you in the rehearsal process. Musicals also present creative challenges for the actors and artistic company. Though it has been some time since I myself acted in a musical production, I recall the debate of how much character to convey through song or simple stage presence. Sometimes creative improvisation can help with the process of engagement, so that the actors role is more fully embodied by their own research and risk taking.

The Old Globe developed a beautiful and well utilized set for Emma to hang out on. In particular, the design made frequent use of a swiveling floor, built into the thrust stage, which often carried props and actors on and offstage. This same device was used to convey the passage of time, with Emma walking hastily on it or adding or taking off layers of her deceptively simple costume. She was ably supported by a large ensemble of actors, three of whom have traveled with the show since it began at TheatreWorks. The music did not detract from the storytelling, which is often a pet peeve of mine. It seemed that the plot was expanded by the presence of the music, and several tunes lingered (and continue to remain) in my mind following the Sunday evening performance. I wondered how the writer chose to include specific plot elements, as a few threads, particularly Mr. Knightley’s change of heart towards Emma, seemed more rushed than they needed to be.

Ultimately the production was highly satisfying and had the whole preview audience on their feet by the end of the final applause. It will be interesting to see how this six week run proceeds for the theatre company and the show itself. The Old Globe is clearly aware of their audience’s needs and delights, where they have a large courtyard complex nestled into San Diego’s Balboa Park. This design makes the theatre’s exterior as pleasing and creative as what unfolds on their stages as the actors trod the boards.

I was recently turned down for a long term theatre position that I feel I was well qualified for. The specificity of my questions prompted the interviewer to reveal more specific information about the job than she initially let on. It became apparent to me that what was advertised as a fully immersive position within their company might actually turn out to be more of an office assistantship for their full season. Nonetheless, I was still interested, and even when her decline came through over my email, I wrote that “I very much hope to work with you in the future” – which is the truth. This company occupies a slot of high esteem in the Bay Area Theatre and seems, at least from the audience side, to have effortless and strong production values.

I do feel that her impression might have been different if I had only briefly mentioned my college theatre career, instead of going into a detailed explanation about it in response to her first question, “tell me about your B.A. In theatre and social change…”. I have noticed for some time now that the presence of my college theatre career in interviews, and in the professional world, is a tricky dance. I feel that it makes me seem younger if I spend a significant amount of time talking about those four years. However, I loved that time in life, which gave me excellent preparation for the arts world and a lasting group of friends from the department. How could I or anyone balance the two together?

I remember a stage management interview shortly after I moved to the Bay Area, where the potential supervisor had attended UMass Amherst, and noticed that I also had been in the Five College area. The artistic director, also speaking with me, was familiar with the region, but not in as in-depth away. We spent a little too long talking about student hangouts in Amherst and what I, and she, had done there – and I didn’t get the position. Ironically, I ended up befriending their eventual stage manager and attending that same show. I knew fairly immediately after the interview that the focus had been off and it was not my best performance.

With this interview, I’d thought I had turned the focus away from my college theatre enough, mentioning it in the cover letter, where the position specified a B.A. In theatre, and then moving on to Bay Area theatre experiences. (Funny that B.A. could also mean “Bay Area in Theatre” – but of course it does not.)

My college theatre career now occupies 3-4 lines on my resume, coming towards the lower end of nearly 5 years of professional experience. I wonder if I should reduce it down to 1-2 lines. I don’t want to eliminate it completely, and I’ll probably always credit the B.A. In theatre and social change somewhere in the document.

The truth now is that I’m a professional, not a student, and my representation needs to continue to reflect those higher standards of working across the arts.

I paid another visit to Flat Earth in Watertown this past weekend. I’ve taken a keen interest in how this company has developed over the past few years, having attended their very first show in 2006 and been college friends with several core company members. This production continued Flat Earth’s admirable trend of engagement with what could be seen as challenging performance material. I was intrigued to note my own reaction to it, where I didn’t feel uniformly positive nor overwhelmingly negative. I do commend the company for continuing to engage a discussion and debate through their theatrical productions. They also seemed to have carved out a local niche in Watertown itself, now performing with regularity in the black box of the Arsenal Center for the Arts. I did one show with their larger neighbor, the New Repertory Theatre, in 2007, and have watched that company evolve under a new artistic directorship and some changes to their production aesthetics.

Flat Earth’s “Goat” is a highly stylized production. The set designer clearly went to town on an artistically bourgeois set design, with long white walled shelves and a stark white floor standing out against the black box space. Part of the plot necessitates the destroying of multiple props during every performance. I’m not sure I would want to see what their props budget is per show, but was impressed that they have a willingness to break and repair, or buy multiple items of the same prop.

I wondered about pacing choices in the play. The first scene seemed deceptively slow paced, and meant that the story took a while to get going for me. Some actors’ dialogue delivery had a considerable amount of Pinter-esque pauses, while others delivered their lines in a more conversational style. The mix of acting styles led to my wondering about the conviction and engagement of the characters. Not all seemed to be completely believable nor rooted in the world of the play.

It could be argued that the plot demands a certain distancing or conviction on the actors’ efforts. A seemingly successful businessman develops an unusual and controversial relationship with the Sylvia of the title – indeed, the title could spell out the whole plot of the show. He decides to share his predicament with a close personal friend, but then finds out that the friend cares more about the man’s own family and is equally concerned for him.

The play certainly engages with the provocative angles of theatre, which I tend to appreciate greater than what might just be a crowd pleasing performance. I wanted to see more of the domestic relationship at the root of the play, between the husband and his wife, in order to set up the surprise of the plot mechanics and leave a heightened impact by the final curtain. I may be repeating myself, but I certainly and wholeheartedly applaud Flat Earth for choosing a challenging piece that doesn’t spell out the answers for the audience and isn’t guaranteed to have an audience member walking out smiling.

SONIA FLEW was a stellar choice for my second seen production of 2011. I had been looking forward to seeing this play for awhile, where a good friend played a featured role. I chose to attend the closing performance of their very long run. (In general, I enjoy and appreciate the heightened sense of character, place and emotion that the finale often brings to shows.) This production, a “co-pro” between JET and the Performance Network Theatre, began performances in mid September of 2010 and continued to the JET in December after a break in November. I also chose to attend the play semi-cold, not reading any reviews ahead of time and only having a basic knowledge of the plot. I was glad to have done both of those actions. Finally, I felt the play as a whole was well worth the effort to come and see here in Michigan. I learned after the fact that there had been a Bay Area production last year at San Jose Repertory Theatre, but that was not on my radar screen at all, where SJ is a good 70 miles from Marin.

The show was certainly worth the wait and the trip to get here! It told a stirring and powerful story of an interconnected family crisis or turning point in 1961 and 2001, centered around one character, Sonia. The entire cast played dual, non overlapping roles in the first and second acts, in some cases making a total 180 degree turn in character. Interestingly, the story was told in reverse chronological order. I did not initially understand the choice for that mode of storytelling, but appreciated it, drawing comparisons to works of film (Memento) and theatre (Betrayal). The playwright, Melinda Lopez, used a “flash forward” technique that I always appreciate, dropping a start of show foreshadowing clue to events that were explained much later. I used the same device in my own play Future’s Secret in 2006.

In Act 1, we’re introduced to Sonia, a seemingly successful although possibly anxious woman in her early to mid 50’s. She has a comfortable life in Minneapolis. She’s married to a Jewish man, though she herself is not Jewish, and they have two teenage children – a 19 year old son and 15 year old daughter. Having been right in between those two ages (17) myself at that time in 2001, I appreciated the contextual details in the script, such as the teens hogging the phone line because they were online, the sense of urgency and confusion following the 9/11 attacks, and the question of how much one can do to serve one’s country. Along those lines, the dialogue also hinted at the politicizing of the USA that would come in the future, which I found intriguing, as the play premiered in 2004 at the height of “Blue vs. Red State” tensions.

The audience is quickly introduced to the developments of plot. Zak, Sonia’s son, has decided to enlist in the National Guard/Army, claiming that he feels compelled in a time of national crisis. However, he’s also in college, and his parents are immediately conflicted by his choice. Initially Sonia is not sure what Zak wants to talk to her about, and I recognized the honesty of her lines that said to the effect of “Whatever you want to tell me, it will be alright” – conveying the unconditional family love. When Sonia discovers the reality of her son’s choice, she is less supportive. We’re offered hints as to why Sonia feels so anxious about her son’s decision in a few soliloquies she gives to the audience. The momentum doesn’t stop there, as family tensions escalate over Zak’s process and the family is thrown into ideological conflict when Sonia’s Polish father in law, a veteran, comes to visit for a holiday dinner. The family reaches a boiling point, and the audience is left to believe they have made a permanent split. The Act 1 closer hints at further challenges that Zak may face, and fates are left unclear.

The dramatic urgency of Act 1 made a clear agreement with the audience to come back for Act 2. I appreciated how the JET Theatre offered some dramaturgical analysis for the audience to view. Great detail was given to the topic of Operation Peter Pan, a component of Cuban history that plays a key role in Sonia’s life. I was not familiar with this element of history. I could tell that the cast took great care to develop a sense of historical authenticity and honoring the past. My friend told me that the Ann Arbor opening night was graced, just by chance, with the presence of a Cuban refugee family.

The second act transports the story back to Cuba in 1961. The change of venue was artfully conveyed through some modest set and lighting changes. Initially it seemed surprising to see the actors in different roles, with “older Sonia” now taking the role of “Marta”, a housemaid, for example. I was reminded of a deck of cards or layer cake motif as the plot continued to develop. What initially seems to be charmingly domestic and historical is revealed to be much more intricate. I won’t spell out the whole dynamics of the story here.

Ultimately the story concludes on a hopeful note. In my theatregoing and dramatic criticism, I always appreciate plays the most if they strike a feeling of humane honesty, which was certainly true with this show. I feel that I/we go to the theatre for reflections and direct engagement on our lives. With a play like this that looked at older historical and recent historical events, the balance between story, intensity, drama and LIFE was movingly clear.

I’m pleased to have sampled Michigan theatre in two very different offerings this weekend. I find it’s useful to be reminded of the value of “other markets” when traveling away from the Bay Area, not getting too caught up in the region’s status as #3 theatre market in the country. And as I said earlier, something about seeing shows conclude also feels transcendent in its own way. With a show like this, that undoubtedly grew as the long run went on, I feel grateful to have seen it at its peak – and shared in a movingly honest embodied experience.

With this entry I am launching a new blogging challenge/effort that I’ve been thinking about for a while. I will offer reviews or commentary on ALL theatrical productions that I see this year. A former colleague, Sam Hurwitt, has been doing a similar routine at his blog, so I’ll credit him with the inspiration.

I’ll offer some thoughts on the performances I see, but not necessarily a full review of the production. This directive may change over time. I am grateful to be setting this intention, especially where I wanted to keep a list of plays last year, and did not. The last time I did was nearly four years ago in London, England, and that was only through a book of ticket stubs and some brief notes on each play.

To kick off the new year, I attended THE DROWSY CHAPERONE at the Performance Network theatre in Ann Arbor, where I am here for a New Year’s weekend visit.

The show was light, cheerful and ultimately entertaining. I wondered about the lighting design, where many actors were out of the spotlights and follow spots, as well as the general lighting plot. Oddly, some scenes were lit with what seemed to be partial lighting, while others were full and hearty. In reading the reviews of the show, it seems that other audience members also picked up on that discrepancy. Nonetheless, the exuberance of the performers made the material shine. I particularly enjoyed The Drowsy Chaperone herself, as well as her associate, Janet, a so-called “rising starlet”.

The musical’s device of a narrator leading and occasionally interrupting the action reminded me of my own role in a 1999 high school production of Agatha Christie Made Me Do It, a comedy by Eddie Cope. Both plays essentially shared the character of a central narrator who watched the whole show and eventually was integrated into the performance at the end of the evening. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.