Monthly Archives: September 2011

Etymology Naked Girls Reading finalist

27 Tuesday Sep 2011

Posted by in readings, writing

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

,

I received an email today announcing my short story Etymology is a finalist for the Naked Girls Reading writing contest. Describing my joy at this announcement would fall short, so I’ll be brief: There has been dancing, singing, and later this evening there will be beer.

Here’s an excerpt from the story:

When she is submerged in words, late into the evening, I walk to the desk, rub her shoulders, whisper an invitation to bed, and say even early man took a break from hunting to mate.  She tries to explain the limited linguistics of early man that led to the naming of mountains and gods as I kiss her ears, unbutton our shirts, massage her wrists away from books.  She says that language led to everything we name now, to our apartment, our mismatched breasts, our pillows, our bed.  The headboard in our neighbor’s apartment we try to overpower.

 

The reading will happen in Chicago on November 18th after naked girls read each submission. So, in my mind, if a naked woman reads my work aloud, I’m already winning. Now I just need to scrounge up the money to buy a plane ticket.

OSF’s August: Osage County

17 Saturday Sep 2011

Posted by in response, shows

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,

August: Osage County
Author: Tracy Letts
Date attended: 15 September 2011 evening
Venue: August Bowmer at Oregon Shakespeare Festival
Director: Christopher Liam Moore

Why this play now?

I generally enjoy plays about families that are more than off-kilter (see post re: Lie of the Mind). However, I didn’t feel that this play actually added anything to the discussion of what family means, or even how we grieve the loss of a family member.

The play opens with the father giving a lengthy monologue to a women he’s hiring to look after the house. In the monologue we discover that he’s a poet who drinks and whose wife takes pills and is diagnosed with mouth cancer. He also mentions T.S. Eliot a great deal. The next scene is a few days later after the father has gone missing. The wife is high on pills and calls her three daughters home to take care of her and then we discover the father has committed suicide. The action continues to unfold in a meandering way revealing nothing particularly revelatory about family, death, survival, or sisterhood. In fact, the play just seems to force one shit sandwich after another onto the family, but for no purpose except to showcase the family’s cruelty.

The play ends in a particularly trite moment with the mother sobbing, her family having left her, and Johnna sings “This is how the world ends” over and over, never finishing the famous line. Despite all of that the play was engaging if only because the actors were incredibly talented. The story just never said anything worth the ticket price. It seems to revel in shock-value of how horrible people are instead of using that horrible nature to actually say something about families, or how we cope with death. In many ways, even though the family is brought together because of a father’s suicide, they never seem to talk about his death. It seemed that the death was simply a tool to get all the daughters back in the house but served no other purpose.

What’s happening in the work thematically?

  • Families are psychotic
  • Trying to understand
  • Survival
  • Selfishness vs. self-sacrifice
  • Truth
  • Wasted potential

Were there moments of disunity, or areas in which the story-telling deviated from the apparent desired direction? (apparent in this case meaning the direction as it appeared to this member of the audience)

The whole show felt unified on its specific path, though I don’t think that’s a merit in this case. The redeeming factor of the show is that the actors were all wonderfully skilled at portraying the family. The down-side was the play felt scattered. Unlike, Sam Shepard for instance whose families are evil but with a point, the Westons felt evil for evil’s sake. By the end of act one, I was wondering where the story was actually heading and not in an interested way, but because I didn’t think there had been enough information to actually present a cohesive theme or direction.

Every scene was filled with vitriol and bitterness for no apparent reason. The show’s central point seemed to be the family reaction to the father’s suicide, but then Letts added too many elements on top of that very basic and emotional idea. The mother’s addicted to pills and has cancer; the oldest daughter is going through a separation; the middle daughter is having an incestuous affair with her first cousin (later revealed to be her half-brother); the youngest daughter is self-centered and pathetic; the youngest daughter’s fiancée is a stoner, who molests the 14-year-old daughter of the eldest sister; the mother’s sister had an affair with the now deceased father, etc. Add to that, the mother’s abuse as a child which she uses as an excuse to verbally attack her children, and the number of physical assaults that occur between various members of the family and the experience becomes so watered down that there’s nothing left to actually interpret.

Not to harp on the amazingness of Sam Shepard, but when Shepard uses these elements it doesn’t feel forced or shocking. He uses it to make a broader point. Letts’s play came off more about shocking the audience with a “real” family but without ever really achieving great story-telling or any revelation. Had he instead focused simply on the family trying to cope with the father’s suicide, the story could have been poignant and vital. However, as it stands there was no character with which I could identify and other than a few funny lines, I felt like the back and forth quality the play is lauded for was entirely overrated.

OSF’s Julius Caesar

17 Saturday Sep 2011

Posted by in response, shows

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,

Julius Caesar
Author: Shakespeare
Date Attended: 15 September 2011 matinée
Venue: New Theatre at Oregon Shakespeare Festival
Director: Amanda Dehnert

What elements need to work in order for the story to be successfully conveyed?

  • Generally, presenting a side in the wrong and a side in a right, however, this production didn’t do that and I was greatly impressed with the choices they made to support the decision
  • Human side of Brutus
  • Marc Antony

How did the production’s interpretation serve the story?

In the lobby and courtyard of the theatre, the production team created large banners with two interpretations of assassinated politicians with quotes on either side supporting the title. For instance, Abraham Lincoln had one side labeled TYRANT and another EMANCIPATOR. They presented the play in the round in a blackbox space with a female Caesar. Calpurnia was cut from the story, and there was a greater focus on the text. The play had a timeless feel. One character took pictures with a digital camera, they fought with quarter staffs, in one scene they used a gun, and they stabbed Caesar with knives. The costumes also reflected a timeless quality with a focus on flowing or draping fabrics.

The actors were in the theatre as audience came in and they spoke with audience as actors, not as their characters before the show. There was also an element of audience participation. Whenever Caesar lifted her arms the audience was asked to applaud, stand, scream, and cheer. Sometimes this level of audience dependency comes off annoying, however the effect worked well and propelled the audience immediately into the story.

Because we were in the round we felt conspiratorial with the assassins and then during Marc Antony’s speech, we felt allied with Caesar. I enjoyed that there was never clearly a right or wrong side. The audience became a hive-mind answering to whomever was giving you a more compelling cause to action.

Why this play now?

I must say that this play employed many conventions I happen to love, including theatre in the round, actors on stage at the start of the show as actors not as their characters, bare stage, double-casting, gender-blind casting, emotional intensity, and live sound effects. I have never seen Julius Caesar staged and I don’t know if any productions after will live up to this. I had always assumed that in order for the play to be successful the audience would have to believe that Caesar was righteous and good with no possibility of Brutus being in the right. The production instead showed two sides of everyone – the just and the vengeful; righteous and hypocrite – which made the play all the more powerful and made Brutus, Marc Antony, and Caesar all too human.

I was sitting among several middle school students from San Francisco and eavesdropped on their responses. They had some really interesting observations and some silly ones. They didn’t think the blood looked real, which I think is more a factor of it not being a movie. One student said he thought it was too bloody to the point of making him queasy. They also talked extensively about the choice to have Caesar’s ghost on stage after she’s been killed. Caesar walked among the remaining actors throughout the rest of the play, sometimes sitting and watching and occasionally welcoming them to their death by wiping clay on their face – an effect I truly enjoyed, but one in which I overheard the students say “But she was dead.”

The play is more about mob mentalities than justice. Brutus kills Caesar for Rome, not for personal gain, but he’s easily swayed into a mob sense of justice as I never believe Cassius acts in Rome’s best interest but his brother’s. Marc Antony with his amazing speech is able to convince the community to take up arms to revenge Caesar’s death. The murder of the poet Cinna was wonderfully staged to showcase this sense of Rome spinning out of control with blood lust.

One of the most successful uses of the space was the utilization of live sound. During the scenes in which Cassius is talking about the ground shaking, and portents of doom, the actors and crew banged on the seats in a random-rhythmic way from behind, sending at a loud vibration up my spine at random intervals. They also lit the catwalk at one point, while the stage was completely dark and actors talked in low light center stage adding to the Brechtian no-seriously-this-is-a-play, we’re-in-a-theatre, aesthetic-distance-is-awesome way.

An element I had not considered until seeing the play is the righteous suicides throughout the story. Portia, Cassius, Brutus all commit suicide it seems to protect themselves from a greater shame. In a way it feels anti-Shakespearean. We do not see a good guy vanquish a bad guy, which adds to the duality presented by the play. Are their actions for the greater good? Or, are they selfishly motivated?

OSF’s Henry IV Part Two

15 Thursday Sep 2011

Posted by in response, shows

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,

Henry IV Part Two
Author: Shakespeare
Date attended: 14 September 2011 evening
Venue: Elizabethan Stage at OSF
Director: Lisa Peterson

What elements need to work in order for the story to be conveyed successfully?

  • Hal needs to be the Hal from Part One in his debauchery, slowly building to the King’s death which is his impetus to grow up
  • Falstaff and Hal’s relationship still needs to be strong so we feel the pang when Hal rejects him after his coronation
  • Clearly explaining the civil war and denoting the opposing sides so it’s understood

How did the production’s interpretation serve the story?

OSF’s production implemented a loose rock and roll, timeless theme. The costumes weren’t necessarily any period. And Rumor, the prologuist, acted as a master of ceremonies wearing a Rolling Stones t-shirt. The transitions tried to increase the show’s pace by playing guitar riffs while characters ran back and forth in a wonderfully choreographed way. One of the interesting choices was making Poins deaf. Though I felt like that actually detracted from the relationship between Hal and Poins because you didn’t get a sense of back and forth. Instead, Poins signed his responses and Hal acted as his translator. I thought it was interesting though, and I’d be curious to hear the reasoning behind it because I’m intrigued.

Why this play now?

The difficulty with Henry IV Part Two is nothing exciting happens. There’s a war but we don’t see it. There are no tragic deaths except the King, which isn’t tragic but necessary. There are few emotional moments and the ones that could be dubbed emotional generally aren’t because we haven’t seen the characters together until this moment. There aren’t even that many scenes in which we see relationships build. Henry IV, both parts, are more about Hal than the King and, yet in Part Two Hal is only in five scenes. There is only one scene with Hal and Falstaff together. And only one scene with Hal and the King. On top of that there’s the political story which has characters that come in once and are never seen again, but are continually referenced often by different versions of their name. So, it’s a difficult show to communicate story because it’s talking about political shiftings as opposed to showing them.

What holds the play together is Falstaff. As such, his connections with Hal, Shallow, Mistress Quickly and Doll Tearsheet need to be strong so that Hal’s rejection of him at the end of the show is entirely heartbreaking. Sadly, the production didn’t seem to focus on that relationship and as a result what happened was a series of scenes that seemed little connected to one another except that Falstaff was there. This ultimately is the Bard’s fault for giving the script so little emotion or action. If there’s only one scene with Falstaff and Hal, then in that one scene, we have to know their whole relationship and then see it dashed by the end.

In terms of what this play has to say now, I feel like Henry IV is about growing up, fitting into a role, and evaluating your future. This applies to all characters in the show, not just Hal. In the dramaturgy program, there was a quote that summed up what the show offers:

The character of Rumor opens the play with his prologue, setting the tone for what is to come: uncertainty, reversals of fortune and most of all, false expectations. Much of the play that follows is spent building up those expectations among both the characters and the audience and then dashing them, allowing the reality to be shown as somehow false or cheap or hollow.

OSF’s Measure for Measure

15 Thursday Sep 2011

Posted by in response, shows

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,

Measure for Measure
Author: Shakespeare
Date attended: 14 September 2011 matinée
Venue: Angus Bowmer at OSF
Director: Bill Rauch

What elements need to work in order for the story to be successfully conveyed?

  • Humanizing (fallibility) of all three leads Isabella, Angelo, and the Duke and hopefully in humanizing conveying some likability
  • Angelo’s attraction to Isabella and the choice to proposition her
  • Claudio’s rationale that his life is worth more than Isabella’s chastity
  • Isabella’s innocence, naïvety, and stubbornness which would actually make her believe that her chastity is worth more than her brother’s life, which would leave Juliet unmarried to raise a child on her own
  • Isabella’s growth to compassion and greater human understanding by the end to plead for Angelo’s life

How did the production’s interpretation serve the story?

OSF’s interpretation is Vienna, an American city sometime in the seventies. They integrated live Italian music (signified by titles like “Song for Work,” “Song for Lost Love,” and “Song for Death Row”) and Italian dialogue translated into the original verse by other English-speaking characters. The casting decision which made Mistress Overdone a transvestite was my favorite choice by far.

Why this play now?

I struggle with Measure for Measure, like I assume most modern audiences and readers struggle with a play claiming to be a comedy that seems to be far from it. Isabella’s insistence that her chastity is worth more than a human life, Angelo’s utter abuse of power and reneging on his promise, the Duke’s inappropriate proposal, the Duke’s punishments which do not seem fair or just, Claudio’s betrayal of Isabella, Mariana’s stupidity, etc. all frustrate me. The required elements were all there, which helped with the story, but did not address the question why do we want to produce Measure for Measure?

Clearly, Shakespeare will always be done, and there’s nothing we can do about that, nor should we. However, just because it’s Shakespeare does not necessarily mean it’s good, vital, or necessary. Some of his plays are amazing, but some are completely outdated and even the best interpretations cannot save the story from itself. I feel the same way about Taming of the Shrew. I was recently proven wrong about Comedy of Errors only in the sense that I actually enjoyed the production which I never thought possible, but I still don’t see what Comedy has to say now. Which is the question I have with Measure for Measure. 

The one moment that I gained understanding about why this production, was in the final scene when Isabella enters to begin demanding justice. The production staged her entering from the upper house right door and when she began entreating the audience, they raised house lights ever so slightly to allow us to witness his downfall. “Ah,” I thought, “We will be his judge, jury, and hopefully executioner. We get to hold corrupt politicians accountable. This is the point!” Alas, the feeling wore off as the scene went on and the Duke played with Isabella, denouncing her, making her feel crazy, and withholding the information that her brother was actually alive. I understand that the Duke wants to hide Claudio’s life from Isabella in order to test her ability to forgive. However, I can’t forgive Angelo or the Duke.

The most tragic proof of Shakespeare’s insanity when he wrote the play is Mariana. She’s not only hopelessly in love with a jackass who already turned her down once because she no longer had money, she doesn’t seem to care that he propositioned Isabella for sex, or that Angelo will believe he’s having sex with Isabella as opposed to her. Adding insult, she still wants to marry him and the Duke punishes Angelo by forcing him to marry her. She’s his punishment. And she wants to be his punishment. She then entreats Isabella to beg for Angelo’s life. By this moment, I was squirming in my seat. He was going to murder her brother. She believes her brother is dead. Let him die. Don’t beg for him. Let him go.

So, no, I don’t think I have an answer why we should put this play on now. Perhaps a different interpretation, or a modern adaptation would bring to light what is salvageable and might actually develop characters for the women instead of what is currently represented. Although I did like that Isabella didn’t give the Duke an answer to his proposal. The lights went to instant blackout as soon as she walked up to a microphone to answer. The last sound was the intake of breath before she speaks.

 

Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s Imaginary Invalid

14 Wednesday Sep 2011

Posted by in response, shows

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Imaginary Invalid
Adapted by: Oded Gross and Tracy Young
Date Attended: 13 September 2011
Venue: Angus Bowmer at OSF
Director: Tracy Young

Why this play now?

OSF’s adaptation of Imaginary Invalid is far from the original, but with translations of Moliere, that’s generally a good thing. It’s difficult to hold comedy up to a standard the way I do for dramas. The fact of the matter is, comedy is harder than drama. Everyone has a different sense of humor. And just like I would want to shoot myself if someone forced me to watch the Blue Collar Comedy Tour, I imagine some would rather have their feet boiled than sit through a 1960s Paris themed, commedia dell’arte adaptation of a French comedy.

Lest I be accused of being a fuddy-duddy, I should explain my views on theatre comedies. Generally, if the comedy is not contributing anything new, I ask myself, why should I care? I have no patience for Neil Simon, for instance, or most of Michael Frayn’s work because their plays have nothing to offer beyond the evening of entertainment and most fail at that (explain to me why I should care about a relationship comedy in the 60s set in New York when there’s little-to-no mention of actual issues happening in the era and in that particular city). And I do use the word entertainment as opposed to theatre because there is a difference. That being said, I have enjoyed recent interpretations of Moliere. I worked at Intiman Theatre when they performed a new adaptation of Doctor in Spite of Himself which was heavily inspired by commedia and incorporated many comedic elements that I enjoyed and that elevated the piece to theatre because it resonated beyond the slapstick jokes (though there were also many dick, fart, and poop jokes as well). So, in other words, the comedy has to operate on other levels in order for me to enjoy it fully.

What I enjoyed about this production of Imaginary Invalid is how it balanced the comedy with stakes that were very real which was something Doctor didn’t do. I have not read the original work, but according to the dramaturgical program Illuminations, the play deviates from the original intent of the play which was to showcase doctor’s, or other persons in power, ability to harm for their own gain even if they are supposed to heal. This adaptation instead focuses on how to live life. Additionally, the adapters create a romance between the maid and Argan’s brother, introduce a new character as the maid’s brother (and incorporate feigned deaf and dumbness into that role for great comedic effect), and allow the other unattractive daughter to have a romance with the unattractive doctor-suitor.

It took me a while to warm up to the comedy of the piece. Fart and poop jokes abound, but there were also moments of great tenderness and even brilliant humor. By the second act, I was sold on the hyper-sixties music and the romances between the characters. I especially loved Toinette’s, the brilliant maid, relationship with the daughters, Argan, Beralde, and her brother. Introducing the romance between Toinette and Beralde introduced a level of emotion I wasn’t expecting.

By the closing song, I was happy that the story had taken the turn it did. It’s nice when a comedy can transcend comedy while still fitting into the mold. Everyone still got their happy ending, but the play also took the risk of telling a more interesting story than just a comedic vent piece about doctors.

What’s happening in the work thematically?

  • Power of the mind to harm the body
  • “All you need is love”
  • Living life instead of trying to live longer
  • Corruption and fallibility of doctors
  • Various deception lazzis
  • Miscommunication

And, poop, fart, and penises 

What moments encapsulate the story?

  •  Oldest daughter’s plea to let her fool herself as she exited the stage – this was the moment signifying the big shift in the play taking it from simple comedy to a more complex story, though still not necessarily drama
  • Relationship build between maid and Beralde up to the kiss
  • Not really important, but a funny moment: Wife saying she wore a WWJD bracelet when she was young to show her devotion to Jesus and a watch that said “What time would Jesus think it is?”

Were there moments of disunity, or areas where the story-telling deviated from the apparent desired direction? (apparent in this case meaning the direction as it appeared to this member of the audience)

Having Argon on stage at the end of intermission was a little strange because there had been no precedent for it in the show. I also didn’t think the musician speaking with one member of the audience trying to write a song about her added anything to the story, though it was done in a very charming way and was incorporated into the show, so it didn’t feel like a waste.

Overall, the production was well-suited to the Paris 1960s theme. The music had some hits and misses, but the final song resonated, especially when they chose to cut-off the last word. I also thought the line-up to curtain call was well done with the gap between Toinette and Guy representing Beralde. I was almost sad to see him actually re-join for the curtain call, though it made sense that he did, and I’m not one to prevent an actor from taking a bow especially if it’s a comedy.