1 week, 1 million dollars... 1 good show

I had the privilege of going to The Met this weekend and seeing one of my favorite plays: "The Dead Guy" by Eric Coble.

I have a special connection with this show. I've worked with it a little bit and I love the script. This could've either helped or harmed me: I could've just loved the show no matter what, or I could've held it to a higher standard than it should've been held (you know, that whole "it was better in my mind" sort of thing). In this case, I would say that this particular production was so different than the one I had imagined when I read it that it really couldn't compare. I emphasize the word different, because I will not say it was better or worse than what I had imagined. It had its own life, its own style, its own direction, and it ran with it very well.

A quick review of the plot: One man has one week to spend one million dollars before the audience at home  votes on how he dies. Yes, it's not a matter of "if," it's a matter of "how," and through Eldon Phelp's last week on earth, he can either find meaning in his existence or squander it all away.

The set was simple. In fact, couldn't have been any more simple: bare stage, flat screen TV in the back that showed whatever the cameraman onstage was filming in real-time. The play traveled to all kinds of locale, from bars to homes to hotels to Disneyland (and many more). Set pieces were flying in and out very smoothly. It was understandable that the set be so simple, especially because I think there might've been some "double-booking" of the space by The Met, but I guess I would've liked to have seen just a smidge more creativity in the design. Maybe make it look more like a bare television studio? Maybe more TV's showing us the action? Then again, maybe all that would've been too distracting... but I myself am a guy who loves to see all kinds of different theatrical creativity when I go see a show. For what it was, it worked great. And the video segments were stellar, too.

I had the distinction of knowing a few people involved in the production. It's always nice to watch people you know work, to watch them grow as artists, and I was not disappointed. Peter Macy as Eldon blew my mind. Coming from a guy who knows the script, as soon as I got a glimpse of his character, I said to myself, "Eldon sure has a long way to go before he becomes the man he is at the end of the play." And indeed, Peter's Eldon struggled and fought and grew and changed right before everyone's eyes from a man with no meaning to a man who finally had some purpose in life. Matt Katzenmeier played Dougie amazingly, taking a character that could have easily been overlooked into a character with depth and importance. No one ever thinks of the camera man when they watch their favorite TV shows, but an aspect of this show that makes it so cool is that we see the camera man, his reactions, and his person as he makes a difference in the show (the TV show, not the show show --- ok that just got confusing moving on). Matt played that part so well it changed the outlook I had on the play entirely, and in a really good way.

Trevor Belt's direction to the show was, as I said, very unique. The script is, intrinsically, very funny, and could've gone into two different directions (particularly with the ending): a crazy, out of control, light-despite-the-gravity-of-the-situation; or dark, serious, and more contemplative. Trevor, in my opinion, chose the later. I wouldn't say that I particularly preferred it this way, but he definitely pulled it off well.

As far as everyone else I don't know, I certainly enjoyed watching them as well. Brett Alexander playing the bumbling dork of a brother was very good, bringing a very likable quality to the character that was essential to the show. Nicole Hall was excellent as Christy, the on-again-off-again romantic interest of Eldon. Peter and Nicole played exceptionally well together as a couple and Nicole herself did a great job portraying multiple characters on stage. Jayme Overstreet was one of my favorites. She seamlessly went from caring, loving, abusive mother to Disney hooker and back again.

Gina was a very important character, and Laura Jacobs had quite a challenge ahead of her when she took this role. By the end of the play we have to wonder who the protagonist was: Eldon, this total loser whose life gets revived by this opportunity (and, subsequently, extinguished) or Gina, a struggling producer at the end of her rope who is willing to do anything to save her career. As far as drive goes, Gina seems to have the most, literally sacrificing a human being to stay afloat. When I read the play, I saw lots of dips and dives in her character, lots of struggles. Would she really go through with it all? Does she ever really care about Eldon, or is Eldon just another step up the ladder? The words seem to suggest this struggle, but I don't think I saw it the whole time in Laura's performance. She was certainly excellent, I'm not denying that -- but there were times when I was left wondering if the character on stage had gone through any struggle or change from the beginning. She seemed to be the same throughout the whole play, like she knew everything that was going to happen from the start, and I think the character could've lent itself to more struggle with the matters at hand. Maybe that's what she intended, maybe it was the direction, I don't know -- I'm just sayin'.

The actors worked great together in the smaller, more intimate scenes -- 2 characters, 3 at most -- but whenever they were all together it seemed a little chaotic and lacking focus. A few scenes (the hospital scene in particular) seemed less rehearsed than others, and I just wasn't sure what I was supposed to be paying attention to. Maybe they were trying to play with chaos, that crazy reality-show-disorder, but I think in a play you should never leave the audience wondering if you'd rehearsed enough. Improv is one thing, but I just expected it to be a little tighter from 3 weeks or more of rehearsal.

Then again, they didn't even really get their stage at The Met til, what, a week before opening? I know this because they worked the majority of their rehearsal time at my space (and I assume without many, if any, props and set pieces.) Bearing that in mind, I think they did a great job with the time and resources they had.

This got a lot longer than I thought it would, so I'll wrap it up by saying that I did love the show despite my minor criticisms. I'm new to the whole professional world of theater and maybe what I'm saying is petty or out of line, but these are just my personal observations and feelinsg. Overall, the show was excellent, and I really look forward to seeing more what Relevance Productions has to offer in the future.

Cheers,
Corbin


Exactly what it says it's about

Hello.

I've been continuing my journer into Edward Albee's late career. This next play sounded at first like it might be a metaphor, or a simile, or ... hyperbole? Something. I didn't think it would be about what the title says. But it's exactly like what the title says. I happily present my next little review of...

"The Man Who Had Three Arms"

by Edward Albee

(Ok, this is not the cover art, I couldn't find any. But I thought this was kind of approriate. Kind of.)

Our play takes place on a stage where a Man and a Woman are starting up a lecture. They are disappointed to announce that none of the original speakers could make it there tonight so the best they could get on such short notice is a man who needs no introduction --

And, indeed, who does not get one, as he struts out into the stage and begins bombarding the audience with his story.

In Act 1 we don't actually find out too much besides what we can deduct. We know at one point this man had three arms, but we can obviously see he doesn't have that any more. He establishes himself as a has-been celebrity, but is still doing lectures and telling his story despite the fact that no one really cares about him since he became "normal" again. It isn't until Act 2 that we really start to find out what happened.

At one point in this adult man's life ("Himself" as his character is named in the script) he grew a third arm. Just grew it. Started out as a tiny, tiny little hand with tiny, tiny, tiny little fingers and then sprouted out from there. And then his life of celebrity burst forth into full glory, where he met everyone who's anyone from the President to the Pope. And then, as quickly as it had grew, it shrank.

I'm not going to tell you where he grew the third arm because he waits to tell you that, which creates a lot of suspense that I don't want to ruin for you if you decide to read it.

The Man and Woman play parts as other characters in his story as he lectures about it. As soon as they get done playing the wife, or the doctor, etc, they're back in their seats off to the side as the nervous mediators to this "group" or "club" that the audience is supposed to represent. Are they aware of their transformations? Are their transformations real? Do they play these 'parts' so that the play wasn't just one guy up there telling his story of rags-to-riches-to-rags again? I'm not %100 sure yet but I think yes.

It's hilarious. It's witty. And if I hadn't read the author's intro I would have a hard time finding its meaning. But what Albee says the play is about is critics and how ridiculous their role in society can be. How they can raise up someone to god-like status and just as easily destroy them. He's an incredible playwright for making the message interesting without taking it literally. Can you imagine how boring it would be if the play was about a writer who made it big because of the critics, then they tore him down and he was nothing again? Lame! But a story about a man who gets famous because of a third arm? Genius!

And the ending. The ending!  I haven't been so happy about an ending in a long time. Wonderfully written from start to finish. A rarely read or even heard of gem from one of the best playwrights in the modern age.

If your experience with Albee stops at "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" you're missing out on a lot.

And you can take that to the bank!

(hah! get it? 'cause I work at a bank? I make myself lol.)

Cheers,
Corbin

Prickly thorn but sweetly worn

Oi. Hello there.

I have a wonderful and amazing person in my life who has gifted me with Volume 3 of The Complete Works of Edward Albee. I'll be reviewing a lot of his plays as a result. I am filled with nothing but joy at the thought of this.

The first play in the anthology is... Eh...

"Lolita"

by Edward Albee

I couldn't find the cover for the play version...



I had only heard of the book back in my college days, so when I found that the first play in this anthology was based off the book, I had mixed feelings. If perhaps you haven't heard of the book, let me give you a brief glib of the only thing I knew about it going in:

It's about a pedophile.

I'm not the kind to shy away from shady or disturbing subject matter. Sometimes I embrace it (perhaps more often than I should). But this was going to be an exception. Murder? Sex? Drugs? Gangs? Psh, kids stuff. But this was gonna be... Weird. I braced myself for the worst at first, but then I remembered that this is a book read and studied by hundreds and is embraced as a classic in literature. Ok, I thought to myself, then it must have something else going for it besides a guy doing unspeakable things to a little girl the whole time.

To my relief, yes, there was more to it than that.

Humbert Humbert is a man who has been struggling with pedophilia for most of his life. His first love was at the age of 12, and since then he hasn't been able to break himself from lusting after anyone who isn't 12. A French professor, he is looking for a place to live whil he teaches at the university when he finds the house of a desperate widow and her child, Lolita. He falls instantly and uncontrollably in love/lust with her.

As he tells the audience what he wants to do to her - what he swears, indeed, he will do to her - waves of awkward and uncomfortable can and will sweep through readers and viewers. And this is where the "author" character (named in the script as A Certain Gentleman, or ACG) plays such an important part. He is our link, but he relates to our feelings. He calls Humbert a sick, sad and disturbing man. We feel a little more comfortable with him on stage expressing our outrage.

Humbert's quest to win Lolita is a story filled with anger, revenge, murder, lust, and pity. He truely is a sick and disturbed man, yet a man who seems frightfully intelligent, articulate, and sharp. He is aware just as we are aware that his desires are disordered, but he will not admit that his love is anything but pure. From the moment he is first seen to the moment his part is completed, a sick sense of fascination and pity swept over me, and although he is a rare breed, his character had much to say and teach about the human condition.

The play version of this story takes on a new life (I would imagine) than the book. Most characters interact with the audience, some for long lengths of time. The forth wall is continally broken if non-existent, making the audience always aware that this is just a play and not something trying to imitate real life as in a straight realism play. This method of playwrighting and production is intentionally done so that the audience tries to pay more attention to the message of the play rather than it's production as a realistic and imitative-to-life piece. This play would've been infinitely uncomfortable if it had tried to play itself as realism.

Overall, I did enjoy it. Albee is a tremendous playwright and his characters are all stunningly vibrant and infintely interesting to imagine. If I ever get the pleasure of acting in one of his plays some day, I might just die a very, very happy man. My overall recommendation is that this play is not for the weak of heart, but rather a play for someone looking to challenge themselves in their reading. And trust me, you will be challenged.

Sincerely,
Corbs

Oddly satisfying

Sup?

So I went up to the wonderfully smelly town of Atchison to see the Benedictine College production of...

"The Odd Couple (Female Version)"

by Neil Simon



This isn't there poster, they didn't have on online. Back in my day...

Let me start by saying that if you honestly have no idea who I am, yes, I graduated from Benedictine College. I was a very active member in their theatre department when I went to school there. I know the people, know the space, all that stuff. So it was a real treat to see the show and know that good stuff still gets done there ;-)

From the moment I sat down in the theater I had a sense of disorder. The set was in pieces - doorways without walls - and there was high contrast in the designs on the floors. Upstage were hardwood floors, downstage were tile floors, with smaller, more colorful square tiles as facing in some areas. Hah! I just got it! The little colorful tiles were Trivial Pursuit colors! Hah! Cool stuff!

Ahem. Anyway. The play focuses on the odd couple - the strange friendship between Olive and Florence that turns into a living situation from hell - but the opening scene focuses on the group of friends in which Olive and Florence are a part of. It was a crucial scene in establishing the sense of friendship between these girls and would either convince us they were all friends who liked each other or convince us we wasted $5 tonight. The former was achieved.

From the moment the friends leave, we start to see the obvious dynamic between Olive and Florence. Yeah, you guessed it, one's a slob and one's a neat freak. It's such an obvious formula for comedy that you'd think it'd be impossible to screw up... But community theaters screw it up all the time, so would this small college fall into that niche?

No, of course not! Haha

Olive and Florence could not have been any more different. The transformation of sympathy turned into hatred that Olive goes through in the show matched the energy of hopelessness turned hopeful that Florence transforms into. And then, of course, what could be funnier than seeing two white boys in dark skinned makeup play the ridiculously romantic Spaniard brothers? Hilarious stuff all over.

From the start and going all the way through the show, the fast pace, witty delivery of dialogue, and intense emotions sent the audience on a near non-stop laugh trip. I would guess that in a "normal" crowd outside of Benedictine College it would have been literally non-stop, but some of the only times the audience wasn't laughing were the uncomfortable silences after a slightly dirty joke. Risky as it was to keep that type of content in the show at a Catholic school, I commend the director for staying true to the intention of the playwright.

Updating the show's lines to fit certain cultural and social standards that have changed since the show was written (cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, etc) was also risky idea. However, the additions and their execution were brilliant and the audience reacted in due form.

Overall, it was a very funny and very enjoyable show. The set, lights, and music all augmented the show's brilliance, and, of course, all actors were top notch. Strong, believable characters coupled with an obvious and clear direction made the show a great performance to witness. The technical side met the strength of every other facet, with tight technical cues and fast, efficient stage hands.

If you'd missed the show, don't let it get you down. Just make sure you make it to the next shows up at Benedictine College. Nestled into that smelly little town is a theater which produces work worth seeing. I can't wait to see what comes next. :-)

Wonderful job all,
Corbin

too stupid for Stoppard

Okay, I'll just get this out of the way right now. I'm kind of an idiot. This is a hard fact of life to deal with sometimes, especially when trying to read someone as literarily daunting as...

Tom Stoppard.

And so begins my   . . .  review..? . . . of ...

"The Invention of Love"

by Tom Stoppard

This, uh, play... is ... about... Well, let's start from the, start, shall we? A. E. Housman is the main character of this play, and he just died (in the play, not in time, this was the early 1900's). His journey down the River Styx to Hades brings him along the shores of his memories, and especially the love he had for his friend, Moses Jackson. Housman was a real dude, writing poetry about the same time Oscar Wilde was making waves. You may have heard of a little book called "The Shropshire Lad"?   ......Ok, well I haven't, but apparently it's really famous.

Anyway, the play   .... uh, it's, like, well... So his memories are floating by, sorta, right? But then, there are also people talking about his work, or talking about... other...things... Things that, uh... I don't really know what they were talking about, or why, but, there were people, LOTS of people, talking, and....

Ok I'm sorry I can't really do this. It was supposed to be a comedy and I did laugh a few times. But I really wasn't sure what the hell was going on most of the time, or what they were talking about, or why, but I did get bits and pieces. Oscar Wilde is a character in the play, too, which is kinda cool.

I know it talks a lot about literature, the classics, poetry, ancient history (Greeks, Romans), art, science; and, obviously, love. So if that sounds like your cup of tea, you can go for it. Hope you have better luck than I did. I didn't hate it, but then, how can you hate (or like) something you didn't really understand? Oh well.

Fun fact: This play lost to David Auburn's "Proof"  for the Tony Award for best play in 2001.

Until next time,
Corbin



where do i begin

Yes hello.

I know what you're thinking: "But Corbin, you barely fill up one blog! You think you can handle TWO? Psh!"

Well, I've created this one to talk about theatre. Thoughts on theatre, reviews of shows I've seen, thoughts on plays I'm reading, etc.... I felt like it merited its own place instead of gettin tossed into my "life" blog. So here we go!

I've been reading a LOT of plays lately. As a result, some friends of mine and I have started an official "script club", if you will, and now we're on round two. We're going to be reading 4 plays between the 4 of us and then discussing once all the passing around has been done. Here's #1 for me:

"The Violet Hour" by Richard Greenberg



(in case you can't tell, yes, that's Robert Sean Leonard)

 Where do I begin? I must say I'm surprised I haven't heard of the playwright, after looking over his scriptography (there's a new word for the day)... He's been a very active and consistent playwright, winning lots of rewards for his work, and this is one of his "best" (according to critics).

The year: 1919. The city: Manhattan. A period piece, you're thinking? In New York? Hm. And then I'll be interested to tell you it's essentially about time travel. Oh yes, this was an interesting piece.

So this guy John is starting a publishing company and he only has one problem: What in the hell does he publish? A good friend wants him to publish his book (which is, literally, millions of pages long, but uncannily good) and his love interest wants him to pubish her book (a captivating memoir that John is as much in love with as he is her.) John's problem is, as with most men, commitment. He doesn't want to commit to either one for fear that they won't sell, and he'll be left shirtless in the process. And then, on the one day this all comes together, a machine is delivered to his office.

By whom? What does it do? We don't know the answer to the first question, but we eventually find out the answer to the second: it spews out, page after page after page, books from the future. Books from the end of the current century. And the revelations these books provide are shocking and disturbing.

The play is a poetic and insightful journey into the age old question of our decisions and their far reaching consequences. Can what we do ever be undone? If we could we change the past or the future if we wanted, would we? Should we?

The writing in this play reminded me of the style of August Wilson: sometimes it took poetic liscence to dialogue but for the good of the play and its message. The characters were all very interesting, each with brilliant and lively personalities. The story was rich, fun, and page turning. I really liked it over all. It certainly has my recommendation.

Anyway. Work's almost over and I've got to go. I think this is a good start.

Until next time,
I am THEATRON!
gOD of the THEATRE