12/11/05: A bunch of old performance logs (stuff I've seen)
Warning: This post contains a lot of material, descriptions/reactions to performances I've seen over the past few months (not at all a complete log, and not even necessarily the best stuff I've seen). I'm posting it mainly for my own purposes, but if you are reading this and if you think you might see any of these productions, STOP NOW!
Comments on:
Aquila Theatre's Twelfth Night
Theatre of 1000 Juliet's The Nina Variations
North Carolina Stage Company's Dirty Blonde
Manbites Dog Theater's Silver River
Raleigh Ensemble Players' Killer Joe
Mabou Mines DollHouse
--------------
Notes after Aquila Theatre’s Twelfth Night -- Diana Wortham Theatre, Asheville, NC 2/3/05
8 actor cast--good show, interesting and strong choices, some problems.
Mostly bare stage with two simple black bentwood chairs and large painted backdrop of rennessance street and buildings. Very simple. Began with open pine coffin on trestles center stage, long rope with noose, and Feste. Convention was that Feste orchestrated most entrances and exit. Opening section very nice pastiche and rearrangement of scenes and lines--Feste saves Viola, points out other characters to her as bits of opening scenes are played, interspersed with driving modern somewhat harsh music. Low lights. Dark comedy expectation (followed through for the most part).
Staging very nice. Lots of entrances and exits using up-tempo, curving, high-stepping travelling movement (courante), strong sense of debauchery and highjinks in the face of death Olivia’s brother’s to begin with--much later the coffin (on end with a little door eye-hight) turns into Malvolio’s dark house--very effective.
Only eight actors made for interesting double-casting and cuts: Orsino/Sir Andrew, Antonio/Malvolio, Feste straight through (no Fabian, which was good). Feste also played Sir Topas as coweled monk (no beard) and then became friar who betrothes Olivia & Sebastian. Doubling worked well until the end when we couldn’t have Sir Andrew berated by Toby, and Antonio just disappeared. Cuts and rearrangements worked except that Sir Toby’s pursuit of Olivia never established and reason for challenge and fight with Cesario wasn’t established (but worked).
Boxwood scene played behind three decorated Christmas trees brought on by Feste, Toby, and Andrew (with, of course, a tiny tree). Worked great. Malvolio’s speech started great (sat on letter which stuck to his ass) but went on so long--he milked “MOAI” mercilessly and not well--that I think audience was secretly glad when he left (though they applauded).
Acting choices were strong but my reactions quite mixed. Language clear--too clear, as if they were working too hard to make meaning clear yet at the same time not trusting the language and adding sounds, faces, etc. after lines to make them funny or make reactions clear. Annoying. Overall, acting pretty strong and very definite--which was good--but even interesting choices were often unbelievable. Feste carried it off the best--really fine, edgy, aggressive clown--not overtly melancholy but the schtick at the beginning where he comically tried to hang himself set the tone. Bare-chested with an open leather jacket (vest?). Really a fine performance except for the songs which were slickly done but had that smarmy, modern “sincere” yet showbiz style I hate.
Costuming very interesting mix of modern feel with renaissance feel (almost cavalier with high boots and all). Lots of skin but kept the slightly period (or mixed) feel. Sir Toby with renaissance-like doublet and hose/codpiece & boots? and bowler hat--worked. Sir Andrew wore black tights with no pants and suggestion of codpiece. Malvolio had kind of a cassock which he ripped off to reveal particularly outrageous yellow tights, cross-gartered, weird pantaloons with big codpiece (of course) and kind of an undershirt. Worked ok. Maria in a kind of leather top which still managed to look period. Viola & Sebastian in leathers, high boots, sword.
What made this production work? Music throughout and strong sense of visual style carried through in the staging--very modern/period feel. Feste really held it together as ringmaster. High energy. Very physical.
What made it not work? Some poor performance choices (Olivia seemed to be playing a spoiled JAP-esque girl, which made sense, but was trying awfully hard). An overall sense of trained actors making strong choices and very pleased with themselves--familiar sense of slickness with actors not revealing very much. Exception was a really terrific Cesario/Orsino scene (“patience on a monument”) which just worked like gangbusters in the simplest, way. Raw vulnerability with Viola doing her best to tell Orsino she loved him, laying herself wide open--til he laid a big kiss on her (an obvious “risky” choice but played through all the way) which shook them both to the core. Funny and wrenching.
I liked this edgy show, but the edge was mainly stylistic--not a “dangerous” show. But much, much better than I expected from Aquila.
I’m thinking my preconceptions about Anglo-American Shakespeare won’t last long. How much does a show like this owe to European Shakespeare? A lot, it seems to me.
-------------
THEATRE LOG: Summer 05
THEATRE LOG: THE NINA VARIATIONS
PLAY: The Nina Variations
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Thursday, May19, 8:00pm
COMPANY: Theatre of 1000 Juliets
DIRECTOR: John Catron
VENUE: Wedge Gallery, Asheville
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: small warehouse space, 40 seats (8-10 people in house)
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL: very spare look in a bare concrete box with large rolling metal door which was lowered for performance; pillars (girders) dc and sr & sl; freestanding folding screen upstage for entrances & exits; desk w/chair and electric pencil sharpener right center; 2nd chair (moved around); small table with glass water pitcher (full) and glass. Scene titles (usually just numbers in sequence) projected on both side walls. I really liked the look of the space.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: sort of proscenium set-up, extremely intimate; seats on low risers divided into two sections, each slightly angled toward playing space; pillar in middle which was used in action. Actors often spoke to audience--made intense contact (particularly because so few spectators).
ACOUSTIC: sound quality was amazing because of echoing nature of space (all hard surfaces, enclosed box). Sometimes obscured words but mainly effective, interesting. I can’t remember if there was taped sound--don’t think so.
TEMPORAL:
TEXTUAL:
OTHER:
ACTING: pretty bad, really; much too much effort, all on the surface, no hiding, rarely any layers (particularly frustrating since the play was based on Chekhov). Actors obviously very committed to each choice, terrific concentration, yet rarely any real contact. Interesting problem. Too bad because I like this company so much. Possibly a problem with doing script written by someone else (like Otrabanda).
STAGING:
COSTUME:
MOMENTS:
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
MISCELLANEOUS:
--------------------------------------------------------
PLAY: DIRTY BLONDE, Claudia Shear
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Sat., May 21, 7:30 pm
COMPANY: North Carolina Stage Company
DIRECTOR: Nina Munoz
VENUE: NC Stage
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: 90 seats, shallow, wide thrust
NOTABLE ELEMENTS
VISUAL: projections on rear wall identifying time, place; very simple scenic elements, props (mostly mimed); vis. emphasis on actors, costumes especially denoting time (dresses at end become important plot element); piano up center; usual entrances (ul, ur, dl, dr); near end of show the Vegas number included footlights and little chase lights on edges of set.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: intimate. actors frequently addressed audience, usually very close; Mae West sat in audience member’s lap once (only phys. contact);
ACOUSTIC: live piano (one of the actors played ocassionally, not full songs); at one point, Chris (another actor) faked playing piano for one of Mae’s numbers--very well done, terrific timing. Can’t remember specific transitional music but it set the period (along with costumes). Recorded. Wonder: did it come with the show? One number at least had recorded music.
TEMPORAL: Most of the show moved easily at leisurely pace but pace was good with all the short scenes; as went on, pauses between scenes became a problem for me impeding the overall tempo of the show (necessary because of frequent and fast costume changes, but still a problem). No dramatic tempo changes that I recall.
TEXTUAL: I liked the script pretty much. Nice interweaving between past and present, between Mae West story and contemporary romance. Entertaining script, pretty slick, not outstandingly interesting (except in portraying a fascinating character). Nice business near end of meshing past and present.
OTHER:
ACTING: Very good, especially Chris. Three actors playing multiple characters (woman played Mae and present-day fan, 2 men played a number of characters). All actors very good (older actor seemed a bit unsure but still a pro); woman playing Mae did a really find job of portraying without characaturing character. Struck by her use of stillness as older Mae. Very high status (but also fragile in a way). Chris just seemed right on the button with each character he played--not trying to hard, not mannered (as he has seemed in the past), direct and clear.
STAGING:
COSTUME:
MOMENTS: Chris’s character (male) is onstage in Mae West dress and wig (he likes dressing up as her); the girl comes in wearing another Mae West dress and wig. She refuses to look at him at first. Struck by the visual mirror image (sort of) with one character in drag.
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
GEN. REACTION:
======================
PLAY: Silver River by Romulus Linney
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Fri, 5/27/05, 8:00 pm
COMPANY: Manbites Dog Theater Company (Durham, NC)
DIRECTOR: Jeff Storer
ACTOR: Christine Morris
VENUE: Carol Belk Theatre, UNCA
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: maybe 50 people in house of 150? (half theatre’s arena seating
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL: nice set: square of molding enclosing carpet at angle w/ stool, table, desk; very simple, wood tones; lighting simple, very effective changes, especially in dream, church; hardbound journal central prop. The frame of moulding defined the acting area and effectively created the sense of character as trapped within the house (no break indicating doorway). At end of play she walked out of the box (and out of the light) and addressed the journal (I think) from outside the space. VERY effective.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: pretty intimate, deep thrust created by half oval arena. However, first row well separated from acting area so no sense of intruding into the actor’s space (would be interesting in a different space).
ACOUSTIC: opened with taped sounds of anvil (sounded like train a bit) for recurring dream; in church scenes actor would start singing acapella and be joined by her own voice on tape (once changed to speaking, then shouting hymn lyrics while taped voice-over continued singing)
TEMPORAL: show moved amazingly well considering it was one actor talking to her journal for two hours. She wasn’t rushed but had good sense of tempo and attacked beats clearly--also didn’t dwell or draw out emotional scenes. In scenes where she would address other (unseen) characters, we only heard her half of conversation, but she was adept at making us hear other half without waiting for actual time--not rushed but really moved along. There were moments when action stopped (climactic moment in 2nd act especially) but action resumed quickly and even that moment wasn’t milked.
TEXTUAL: really interesting way of delivering lines, especially at beginning, almost as if reading journal entries without inflection. very effective. Convention of all dialog as journal entries worked better than I would have thought--made effective by the way she would often literally address the book, sometimes from across the space.
OTHER:
ACTING: Very strong. At the very beginning I thought it was going to be too “actory” but not at all. Very intelligent choices, especially in the first half where she is immensely repressed. An accomplished actor (in her 50s?). Would often play against obvious choice without violating the essentially realistic style of the play. The only problem I had (directorial choice?) was with the character acting out the other characters when describing a scene (top of Act 2 especially). Too animated, too much acting, creating of characters, seemed to cheapen an otherwise terrific acting turn.
STAGING: good use of the confined space. little sense of boring repetition, even though limited options given one actor within a rectangle. Again, moment of stepping outside the confines of the rectangle very strong after two hours inside.
COSTUME: black Victorian dress and top buttoned up to throat. during Act 2 she removed top, then skirt and shoes and stockings, revealing white corset and shift under. unlaced and removed corset until she was in somewhat unbuttoned shift and bare legs and feet. finally let hair down. Quite a contrast. Eventually added white blouse and skirt and pinned up hair. Still, white loose look at end contrasted dramatically with black corseted look at beginning and served idea of the play.
MOMENTS: one moment when she had her face averted and reached out her arm in a strange gesture, hand seeming to have a life of its own. another moment (climax) when she lies back on floor and, describing dream, seems to experience a moment of death or orgasm.
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
MISCELLANEOUS: I liked the play quite a bit though not really to my taste. at times reminded of Beckett’s Happy Days: in a strange way she was like Winnie. First act really strong, second act less so. The incest theme seemed overheated to me (obviously the dark secret repressed, repeated, to dire consequence. But only because the restraint of much of the writing/acting so effective. Not necessarily a play I would want to direct, but quite good. And a terrific piece of acting, though not really astonishing--just very good.
===============================
PLAY: KILLER JOE
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: FRI, 5/28/05, 8:00 PM
COMPANY: R.E.P. (Raleigh Ensemble Players)
DIRECTOR: ?
VENUE: Carol Belk (UNCA)
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: restricted seating of arena to sections on opposite sides plus chairs in front. Very full house: 150? Really interesting set-up: set (representing a double-wide trailer, with actors’ entrances from ends as well as through front door on my side) prevented audience movement to seating on opposite side, so audience entered from outside theatre on both sides.
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL: very interesting realistic representation of trailer (except that sides were removed leaving front door, windows, studs and solid roof). Floor raised as it would be in a trailer. Audience looked into living room/kitchen/dining area, with exits to bedrooms on each end. Interior very realistic with working televsion, running water in kitchen, practical lamps which provided almost all interior light except for some moonlight shining in through windows (all scenes were night scenes). Interestingly voyeuristic. Scene changes broke realism but in very conventional way: almost no light, actors left or entered quickly, stage hands moved props.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: Intimate stadium seating--conscious of seeing audience through other side of trailer--yet “walls” of trailer made an almost cinematic distinction between performers and spectators. Actors approaching trailer from outside entered through audience on my side, and at one point Joe emerged from trailer to look around outside, yet never any acknowledgement of spectators. Nudity strong but
ACOUSTIC: realistic sounds of storm, thunder, rain. Every time someone arrived at or left trailer, vicious dog barking sounds from off stage on front door side. Sound of televsion when turned on accompanied and sometimes intentionally vied with or overcame dialog. No music except when Hank Williams tape was played quietly near end of first act.
TEMPORAL: realistic passage of time broken into several long scenes. Good acting sustained and varied tempo well, though 2nd act seemed very long, especially before violent climax: intentional long silence when eating dinner.
TEXTUAL: Very realistic dialog, well-crafted but not literary in any way (not even in Mamet way). Seemed like screenwriting. Language very strong, sometimes very funny (Father’s line in reaction to stepmother flapping her dress, “As soon as you’re done airing out the gates of hell...” got a big laugh).
OTHER:
ACTING: very good, very even, very realistic acting style (maybe actor playing Joe was weakest yet he, too, was quite strong--just didn’t make as interesting choices). Violence quite convincing, especially in such intimate staging--yet it seemed to be trying and failing to achieve realisitic quality of a film. Actors playing daughter and son were particularly effective (parts written to be) with wonderful intensity, focus, contact, clear strong actions played (true of all the actors). Yet my admiration of the realistic technique (not my favorite) didn’t make up for my dislike of the play.
STAGING: worked very well from my perspective. very realistic with no obvious sightline problems in spite of constricted set-up. Again, violence in an intimate setting pretty convincing.
COSTUME: good choices; my favorite was the Stepmother in tee-shirt and man’s bvds. Joe’s stature increased by cowboy hat (boots, too?) in that trailer.
MOMENTS: shocking moments: simulated fellatio with a chicken drumstick, violence of smashing a woman in the face, pounding the son with a club in the refrigerator, nudity of a large black man (in semi-darkness). Stiking final image: Daughter holding gun after shooting others, terrified. Only one short scene really knocked me out: Joe enters from bedroom, reading bible, Son enters from outside and tries to convince him not to kill mother; at end of scene--which is one long speech by Son with no words from Joe except a short line at the end--Son discovers that mother’s body is in trash bag under counter.
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
OTHER GENERAL REACTIONS: All the elements were there for a terrific theatre experience and altogether it left me cold. I didn’t like the play. It seemed to be trying to provoke me and shock me with incongruity of humor, sex, and violence but it didn’t take me anywhere. I didn’t seem to get it in the same way that many in the audience enjoyed laughing at these people--trailer trash--and I didn’t really care about even the sympathetic character of the daughter. Maybe I was offended or disapproved, which should be instructive or salutory in some way, but I end up feeling like the play was derivative, sort of Sam Shepard/Pulp Fiction combination that did nothing for me. Stylistically, the play was not to my taste: why not just make a film? I guess there’s something interesting about the extreme voyeuristic fourth-wall experience in live theatre, but it didn’t really give me anything. However, I find it interesting to think about my negative reactions, sort of.
=================================
PLAY: Mabou Mines DollHouse (Spoleto)
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Sunday, May 29, 2005, 3:30 (didn’t start till 4:00)
COMPANY: Mabou Mines
DIRECTOR: Lee Bruer
VENUE: Dock Street Theatre, Charleston SC
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: 550 seats (?), proscenium with balcony (I sat in balcony), full
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL:
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP:
ACOUSTIC:
TEMPORAL:
TEXTUAL:
OTHER:
ACTING:
STAGING:
COSTUME:
MOMENTS:
(copy from handwritten--add tarentella 2X in Act 2 (sheets with text); also “No more melodrama!” moment in Act 3)
Act 3
.... triumphant, balletic dance during his speech (initially goes out doors, lifted up behind walls, carried in around set). Ends by being deposited in bed (I think); at which point, Nora, standing facing down & leaning on small piano (?) growls in a low voice we’ve never heard before “I have tried so hard these past three days” (or whatever it is); then she removes her blouse leaving her corset on, moves toward him seductively and then away (but no little girl moves), saying, “I must change” provocatively and exits. Torvald is jumping on bed, very excited at the prospect. His speech follows about how wonderful his is to forgive her: he’s under the covers masturbating during the speech--he comes at the end and immediately falls asleep, snoring. Stage hands move the dollhouse walls back and fold them up and fly them out (word “FRAGILE” stenciled on outside) as Nora is revealed on what looks like a castle balcony high in the air upstage (she pulls red curtain back and ties it up, having a little trouble). She’s dressed in a white gown, her hair is different, she’s statuesque. Torvald says in his sleep, “You’ve changed.” “Ja” she says, dryly. He moves to down right (she’s high on her tower up left) and he pleads with her to reconsider her decision to leave him and the children: The distance between them and the difference in elevation starkly underlines the psychological gulf between them. She hands her wedding ring down to him and he crosses up left to get it--can’t reach, jumping up, another striking image. He climbs wall to get ring. Then (sooner? later?) , at her ringing response to his declaration that no man would sacrifice his honor for a woman--”Hundreds of thousands of women do”--the scene shifts into grand opera! The red drapes rise to reveal 3 tiers of galleries, each box seat holding a man and woman--who are almost life-sized puppets! Nora and Torvald sing (or rather lipsynch to recorded singing) their ensuing dialog with the female puppets moving and singing choral responses to Nora’s lines and the males doing likewise to Torvald’s. Incredible. Torvald is mock-heroic wrapped in a comforter (bedsheet?) delivering his arias. The scene is funny and enormously moving. At one point Nora rips off her wig (this might have happened earlier) revealing a bald head. She’s utterly different, alien almost . Finally, Nora disappears behind fog and drapes, and, as Torvald crawls downstage, still pleading, the pianist tears off her wig and costume in disgust (dressed in black underneath) and leaves the theatre. The drapes descend on the galleries of puppets. At about the same time, the little girl runs onstage with a wooden sword, gets on the rocking horse, and delivers Nora’s line demanding that Torvald return his wedding band. Torvald climbs off the apron of the stage into the audience and stumbles up the aisle peering at the audience and saying, “Nora? Nora?” As he exits through the back of the house, there is an enormous SLAM! and the lights go out.
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
OTHER GENERAL REACTIONS: Incredible, the ending especially. Even though one part of my mind was saying at times, They’re really pulling out all the old “experimental” bits (even a strobe for god’s sake), I was totally riveted. Really a great show. Seemed to me that it might have gotten close to making us feel what Ibsen’s original audience must have felt, especially by drawing attention to the melodrama.
Comments on:
Aquila Theatre's Twelfth Night
Theatre of 1000 Juliet's The Nina Variations
North Carolina Stage Company's Dirty Blonde
Manbites Dog Theater's Silver River
Raleigh Ensemble Players' Killer Joe
Mabou Mines DollHouse
--------------
Notes after Aquila Theatre’s Twelfth Night -- Diana Wortham Theatre, Asheville, NC 2/3/05
8 actor cast--good show, interesting and strong choices, some problems.
Mostly bare stage with two simple black bentwood chairs and large painted backdrop of rennessance street and buildings. Very simple. Began with open pine coffin on trestles center stage, long rope with noose, and Feste. Convention was that Feste orchestrated most entrances and exit. Opening section very nice pastiche and rearrangement of scenes and lines--Feste saves Viola, points out other characters to her as bits of opening scenes are played, interspersed with driving modern somewhat harsh music. Low lights. Dark comedy expectation (followed through for the most part).
Staging very nice. Lots of entrances and exits using up-tempo, curving, high-stepping travelling movement (courante), strong sense of debauchery and highjinks in the face of death Olivia’s brother’s to begin with--much later the coffin (on end with a little door eye-hight) turns into Malvolio’s dark house--very effective.
Only eight actors made for interesting double-casting and cuts: Orsino/Sir Andrew, Antonio/Malvolio, Feste straight through (no Fabian, which was good). Feste also played Sir Topas as coweled monk (no beard) and then became friar who betrothes Olivia & Sebastian. Doubling worked well until the end when we couldn’t have Sir Andrew berated by Toby, and Antonio just disappeared. Cuts and rearrangements worked except that Sir Toby’s pursuit of Olivia never established and reason for challenge and fight with Cesario wasn’t established (but worked).
Boxwood scene played behind three decorated Christmas trees brought on by Feste, Toby, and Andrew (with, of course, a tiny tree). Worked great. Malvolio’s speech started great (sat on letter which stuck to his ass) but went on so long--he milked “MOAI” mercilessly and not well--that I think audience was secretly glad when he left (though they applauded).
Acting choices were strong but my reactions quite mixed. Language clear--too clear, as if they were working too hard to make meaning clear yet at the same time not trusting the language and adding sounds, faces, etc. after lines to make them funny or make reactions clear. Annoying. Overall, acting pretty strong and very definite--which was good--but even interesting choices were often unbelievable. Feste carried it off the best--really fine, edgy, aggressive clown--not overtly melancholy but the schtick at the beginning where he comically tried to hang himself set the tone. Bare-chested with an open leather jacket (vest?). Really a fine performance except for the songs which were slickly done but had that smarmy, modern “sincere” yet showbiz style I hate.
Costuming very interesting mix of modern feel with renaissance feel (almost cavalier with high boots and all). Lots of skin but kept the slightly period (or mixed) feel. Sir Toby with renaissance-like doublet and hose/codpiece & boots? and bowler hat--worked. Sir Andrew wore black tights with no pants and suggestion of codpiece. Malvolio had kind of a cassock which he ripped off to reveal particularly outrageous yellow tights, cross-gartered, weird pantaloons with big codpiece (of course) and kind of an undershirt. Worked ok. Maria in a kind of leather top which still managed to look period. Viola & Sebastian in leathers, high boots, sword.
What made this production work? Music throughout and strong sense of visual style carried through in the staging--very modern/period feel. Feste really held it together as ringmaster. High energy. Very physical.
What made it not work? Some poor performance choices (Olivia seemed to be playing a spoiled JAP-esque girl, which made sense, but was trying awfully hard). An overall sense of trained actors making strong choices and very pleased with themselves--familiar sense of slickness with actors not revealing very much. Exception was a really terrific Cesario/Orsino scene (“patience on a monument”) which just worked like gangbusters in the simplest, way. Raw vulnerability with Viola doing her best to tell Orsino she loved him, laying herself wide open--til he laid a big kiss on her (an obvious “risky” choice but played through all the way) which shook them both to the core. Funny and wrenching.
I liked this edgy show, but the edge was mainly stylistic--not a “dangerous” show. But much, much better than I expected from Aquila.
I’m thinking my preconceptions about Anglo-American Shakespeare won’t last long. How much does a show like this owe to European Shakespeare? A lot, it seems to me.
-------------
THEATRE LOG: Summer 05
THEATRE LOG: THE NINA VARIATIONS
PLAY: The Nina Variations
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Thursday, May19, 8:00pm
COMPANY: Theatre of 1000 Juliets
DIRECTOR: John Catron
VENUE: Wedge Gallery, Asheville
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: small warehouse space, 40 seats (8-10 people in house)
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL: very spare look in a bare concrete box with large rolling metal door which was lowered for performance; pillars (girders) dc and sr & sl; freestanding folding screen upstage for entrances & exits; desk w/chair and electric pencil sharpener right center; 2nd chair (moved around); small table with glass water pitcher (full) and glass. Scene titles (usually just numbers in sequence) projected on both side walls. I really liked the look of the space.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: sort of proscenium set-up, extremely intimate; seats on low risers divided into two sections, each slightly angled toward playing space; pillar in middle which was used in action. Actors often spoke to audience--made intense contact (particularly because so few spectators).
ACOUSTIC: sound quality was amazing because of echoing nature of space (all hard surfaces, enclosed box). Sometimes obscured words but mainly effective, interesting. I can’t remember if there was taped sound--don’t think so.
TEMPORAL:
TEXTUAL:
OTHER:
ACTING: pretty bad, really; much too much effort, all on the surface, no hiding, rarely any layers (particularly frustrating since the play was based on Chekhov). Actors obviously very committed to each choice, terrific concentration, yet rarely any real contact. Interesting problem. Too bad because I like this company so much. Possibly a problem with doing script written by someone else (like Otrabanda).
STAGING:
COSTUME:
MOMENTS:
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
MISCELLANEOUS:
--------------------------------------------------------
PLAY: DIRTY BLONDE, Claudia Shear
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Sat., May 21, 7:30 pm
COMPANY: North Carolina Stage Company
DIRECTOR: Nina Munoz
VENUE: NC Stage
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: 90 seats, shallow, wide thrust
NOTABLE ELEMENTS
VISUAL: projections on rear wall identifying time, place; very simple scenic elements, props (mostly mimed); vis. emphasis on actors, costumes especially denoting time (dresses at end become important plot element); piano up center; usual entrances (ul, ur, dl, dr); near end of show the Vegas number included footlights and little chase lights on edges of set.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: intimate. actors frequently addressed audience, usually very close; Mae West sat in audience member’s lap once (only phys. contact);
ACOUSTIC: live piano (one of the actors played ocassionally, not full songs); at one point, Chris (another actor) faked playing piano for one of Mae’s numbers--very well done, terrific timing. Can’t remember specific transitional music but it set the period (along with costumes). Recorded. Wonder: did it come with the show? One number at least had recorded music.
TEMPORAL: Most of the show moved easily at leisurely pace but pace was good with all the short scenes; as went on, pauses between scenes became a problem for me impeding the overall tempo of the show (necessary because of frequent and fast costume changes, but still a problem). No dramatic tempo changes that I recall.
TEXTUAL: I liked the script pretty much. Nice interweaving between past and present, between Mae West story and contemporary romance. Entertaining script, pretty slick, not outstandingly interesting (except in portraying a fascinating character). Nice business near end of meshing past and present.
OTHER:
ACTING: Very good, especially Chris. Three actors playing multiple characters (woman played Mae and present-day fan, 2 men played a number of characters). All actors very good (older actor seemed a bit unsure but still a pro); woman playing Mae did a really find job of portraying without characaturing character. Struck by her use of stillness as older Mae. Very high status (but also fragile in a way). Chris just seemed right on the button with each character he played--not trying to hard, not mannered (as he has seemed in the past), direct and clear.
STAGING:
COSTUME:
MOMENTS: Chris’s character (male) is onstage in Mae West dress and wig (he likes dressing up as her); the girl comes in wearing another Mae West dress and wig. She refuses to look at him at first. Struck by the visual mirror image (sort of) with one character in drag.
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
GEN. REACTION:
======================
PLAY: Silver River by Romulus Linney
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Fri, 5/27/05, 8:00 pm
COMPANY: Manbites Dog Theater Company (Durham, NC)
DIRECTOR: Jeff Storer
ACTOR: Christine Morris
VENUE: Carol Belk Theatre, UNCA
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: maybe 50 people in house of 150? (half theatre’s arena seating
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL: nice set: square of molding enclosing carpet at angle w/ stool, table, desk; very simple, wood tones; lighting simple, very effective changes, especially in dream, church; hardbound journal central prop. The frame of moulding defined the acting area and effectively created the sense of character as trapped within the house (no break indicating doorway). At end of play she walked out of the box (and out of the light) and addressed the journal (I think) from outside the space. VERY effective.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: pretty intimate, deep thrust created by half oval arena. However, first row well separated from acting area so no sense of intruding into the actor’s space (would be interesting in a different space).
ACOUSTIC: opened with taped sounds of anvil (sounded like train a bit) for recurring dream; in church scenes actor would start singing acapella and be joined by her own voice on tape (once changed to speaking, then shouting hymn lyrics while taped voice-over continued singing)
TEMPORAL: show moved amazingly well considering it was one actor talking to her journal for two hours. She wasn’t rushed but had good sense of tempo and attacked beats clearly--also didn’t dwell or draw out emotional scenes. In scenes where she would address other (unseen) characters, we only heard her half of conversation, but she was adept at making us hear other half without waiting for actual time--not rushed but really moved along. There were moments when action stopped (climactic moment in 2nd act especially) but action resumed quickly and even that moment wasn’t milked.
TEXTUAL: really interesting way of delivering lines, especially at beginning, almost as if reading journal entries without inflection. very effective. Convention of all dialog as journal entries worked better than I would have thought--made effective by the way she would often literally address the book, sometimes from across the space.
OTHER:
ACTING: Very strong. At the very beginning I thought it was going to be too “actory” but not at all. Very intelligent choices, especially in the first half where she is immensely repressed. An accomplished actor (in her 50s?). Would often play against obvious choice without violating the essentially realistic style of the play. The only problem I had (directorial choice?) was with the character acting out the other characters when describing a scene (top of Act 2 especially). Too animated, too much acting, creating of characters, seemed to cheapen an otherwise terrific acting turn.
STAGING: good use of the confined space. little sense of boring repetition, even though limited options given one actor within a rectangle. Again, moment of stepping outside the confines of the rectangle very strong after two hours inside.
COSTUME: black Victorian dress and top buttoned up to throat. during Act 2 she removed top, then skirt and shoes and stockings, revealing white corset and shift under. unlaced and removed corset until she was in somewhat unbuttoned shift and bare legs and feet. finally let hair down. Quite a contrast. Eventually added white blouse and skirt and pinned up hair. Still, white loose look at end contrasted dramatically with black corseted look at beginning and served idea of the play.
MOMENTS: one moment when she had her face averted and reached out her arm in a strange gesture, hand seeming to have a life of its own. another moment (climax) when she lies back on floor and, describing dream, seems to experience a moment of death or orgasm.
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
MISCELLANEOUS: I liked the play quite a bit though not really to my taste. at times reminded of Beckett’s Happy Days: in a strange way she was like Winnie. First act really strong, second act less so. The incest theme seemed overheated to me (obviously the dark secret repressed, repeated, to dire consequence. But only because the restraint of much of the writing/acting so effective. Not necessarily a play I would want to direct, but quite good. And a terrific piece of acting, though not really astonishing--just very good.
===============================
PLAY: KILLER JOE
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: FRI, 5/28/05, 8:00 PM
COMPANY: R.E.P. (Raleigh Ensemble Players)
DIRECTOR: ?
VENUE: Carol Belk (UNCA)
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: restricted seating of arena to sections on opposite sides plus chairs in front. Very full house: 150? Really interesting set-up: set (representing a double-wide trailer, with actors’ entrances from ends as well as through front door on my side) prevented audience movement to seating on opposite side, so audience entered from outside theatre on both sides.
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL: very interesting realistic representation of trailer (except that sides were removed leaving front door, windows, studs and solid roof). Floor raised as it would be in a trailer. Audience looked into living room/kitchen/dining area, with exits to bedrooms on each end. Interior very realistic with working televsion, running water in kitchen, practical lamps which provided almost all interior light except for some moonlight shining in through windows (all scenes were night scenes). Interestingly voyeuristic. Scene changes broke realism but in very conventional way: almost no light, actors left or entered quickly, stage hands moved props.
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP: Intimate stadium seating--conscious of seeing audience through other side of trailer--yet “walls” of trailer made an almost cinematic distinction between performers and spectators. Actors approaching trailer from outside entered through audience on my side, and at one point Joe emerged from trailer to look around outside, yet never any acknowledgement of spectators. Nudity strong but
ACOUSTIC: realistic sounds of storm, thunder, rain. Every time someone arrived at or left trailer, vicious dog barking sounds from off stage on front door side. Sound of televsion when turned on accompanied and sometimes intentionally vied with or overcame dialog. No music except when Hank Williams tape was played quietly near end of first act.
TEMPORAL: realistic passage of time broken into several long scenes. Good acting sustained and varied tempo well, though 2nd act seemed very long, especially before violent climax: intentional long silence when eating dinner.
TEXTUAL: Very realistic dialog, well-crafted but not literary in any way (not even in Mamet way). Seemed like screenwriting. Language very strong, sometimes very funny (Father’s line in reaction to stepmother flapping her dress, “As soon as you’re done airing out the gates of hell...” got a big laugh).
OTHER:
ACTING: very good, very even, very realistic acting style (maybe actor playing Joe was weakest yet he, too, was quite strong--just didn’t make as interesting choices). Violence quite convincing, especially in such intimate staging--yet it seemed to be trying and failing to achieve realisitic quality of a film. Actors playing daughter and son were particularly effective (parts written to be) with wonderful intensity, focus, contact, clear strong actions played (true of all the actors). Yet my admiration of the realistic technique (not my favorite) didn’t make up for my dislike of the play.
STAGING: worked very well from my perspective. very realistic with no obvious sightline problems in spite of constricted set-up. Again, violence in an intimate setting pretty convincing.
COSTUME: good choices; my favorite was the Stepmother in tee-shirt and man’s bvds. Joe’s stature increased by cowboy hat (boots, too?) in that trailer.
MOMENTS: shocking moments: simulated fellatio with a chicken drumstick, violence of smashing a woman in the face, pounding the son with a club in the refrigerator, nudity of a large black man (in semi-darkness). Stiking final image: Daughter holding gun after shooting others, terrified. Only one short scene really knocked me out: Joe enters from bedroom, reading bible, Son enters from outside and tries to convince him not to kill mother; at end of scene--which is one long speech by Son with no words from Joe except a short line at the end--Son discovers that mother’s body is in trash bag under counter.
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
OTHER GENERAL REACTIONS: All the elements were there for a terrific theatre experience and altogether it left me cold. I didn’t like the play. It seemed to be trying to provoke me and shock me with incongruity of humor, sex, and violence but it didn’t take me anywhere. I didn’t seem to get it in the same way that many in the audience enjoyed laughing at these people--trailer trash--and I didn’t really care about even the sympathetic character of the daughter. Maybe I was offended or disapproved, which should be instructive or salutory in some way, but I end up feeling like the play was derivative, sort of Sam Shepard/Pulp Fiction combination that did nothing for me. Stylistically, the play was not to my taste: why not just make a film? I guess there’s something interesting about the extreme voyeuristic fourth-wall experience in live theatre, but it didn’t really give me anything. However, I find it interesting to think about my negative reactions, sort of.
=================================
PLAY: Mabou Mines DollHouse (Spoleto)
DAY/DATE/CURTAIN: Sunday, May 29, 2005, 3:30 (didn’t start till 4:00)
COMPANY: Mabou Mines
DIRECTOR: Lee Bruer
VENUE: Dock Street Theatre, Charleston SC
HOUSE SIZE & TYPE: 550 seats (?), proscenium with balcony (I sat in balcony), full
NOTABLE ELEMENTS:
VISUAL:
PERFORMER/SPECTATOR RELATIONSHIP:
ACOUSTIC:
TEMPORAL:
TEXTUAL:
OTHER:
ACTING:
STAGING:
COSTUME:
MOMENTS:
(copy from handwritten--add tarentella 2X in Act 2 (sheets with text); also “No more melodrama!” moment in Act 3)
Act 3
.... triumphant, balletic dance during his speech (initially goes out doors, lifted up behind walls, carried in around set). Ends by being deposited in bed (I think); at which point, Nora, standing facing down & leaning on small piano (?) growls in a low voice we’ve never heard before “I have tried so hard these past three days” (or whatever it is); then she removes her blouse leaving her corset on, moves toward him seductively and then away (but no little girl moves), saying, “I must change” provocatively and exits. Torvald is jumping on bed, very excited at the prospect. His speech follows about how wonderful his is to forgive her: he’s under the covers masturbating during the speech--he comes at the end and immediately falls asleep, snoring. Stage hands move the dollhouse walls back and fold them up and fly them out (word “FRAGILE” stenciled on outside) as Nora is revealed on what looks like a castle balcony high in the air upstage (she pulls red curtain back and ties it up, having a little trouble). She’s dressed in a white gown, her hair is different, she’s statuesque. Torvald says in his sleep, “You’ve changed.” “Ja” she says, dryly. He moves to down right (she’s high on her tower up left) and he pleads with her to reconsider her decision to leave him and the children: The distance between them and the difference in elevation starkly underlines the psychological gulf between them. She hands her wedding ring down to him and he crosses up left to get it--can’t reach, jumping up, another striking image. He climbs wall to get ring. Then (sooner? later?) , at her ringing response to his declaration that no man would sacrifice his honor for a woman--”Hundreds of thousands of women do”--the scene shifts into grand opera! The red drapes rise to reveal 3 tiers of galleries, each box seat holding a man and woman--who are almost life-sized puppets! Nora and Torvald sing (or rather lipsynch to recorded singing) their ensuing dialog with the female puppets moving and singing choral responses to Nora’s lines and the males doing likewise to Torvald’s. Incredible. Torvald is mock-heroic wrapped in a comforter (bedsheet?) delivering his arias. The scene is funny and enormously moving. At one point Nora rips off her wig (this might have happened earlier) revealing a bald head. She’s utterly different, alien almost . Finally, Nora disappears behind fog and drapes, and, as Torvald crawls downstage, still pleading, the pianist tears off her wig and costume in disgust (dressed in black underneath) and leaves the theatre. The drapes descend on the galleries of puppets. At about the same time, the little girl runs onstage with a wooden sword, gets on the rocking horse, and delivers Nora’s line demanding that Torvald return his wedding band. Torvald climbs off the apron of the stage into the audience and stumbles up the aisle peering at the audience and saying, “Nora? Nora?” As he exits through the back of the house, there is an enormous SLAM! and the lights go out.
OTHER STRIKING CHOICES:
OTHER GENERAL REACTIONS: Incredible, the ending especially. Even though one part of my mind was saying at times, They’re really pulling out all the old “experimental” bits (even a strobe for god’s sake), I was totally riveted. Really a great show. Seemed to me that it might have gotten close to making us feel what Ibsen’s original audience must have felt, especially by drawing attention to the melodrama.
posted by Graham at 7:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home