Theatre-Tucson

Working on "As I Lay Dying."

2011-09-27T09:18:00.000-07:00

My perspective as a spectator is gone for this topic, replaced by my sense of being a performer. Work has started on a stage adaptation of William Faulkner's novel "As I Lay Dying." We will have to turn brilliant poetic explanation and discription into living dramatic action. Somehow. And not that a collection of talent automatically makes for a good or meaningful or engaging production, BUT...it does bring excitement to the beginning of the work. I'm happy at rehearsal to be in the presence of actors with the kind of deep instinctual abilities that our cast has. What will come of it and where we will take it remains to be seen. I'll be in touch.

"Physical Comedy" Workshop

2011-09-26T10:15:00.001-07:00

If you are in Tucson during the month of October, I suggest you check out the following workshop. Matt and Angela (the instructors) are wonderful people, you won't find better, and terrific teachers.

For Immediate Release—21 September 2011

TRAINING IN “PHYSICAL COMEDY” TO BE HELD AT THE ROGUE THEATRE
TUCSON— Through the month of October, The Rogue Theatre will sponsor “Physical Comedy: A Beginner’s Intensive,” led by Matt Walley & Angela Horchem, graduates of the Dell’Arte International School of Physical Theatre.

“Physical Comedy: A Beginner’s Intensive” focuses on the realm of the eccentric character and his or her hilarious interactions with the surrounding physical world. Inspiration comes from archetypes: It’s the Trickster, in control and always stepping out of danger. It’s the Fool, always failing miserably and getting up to try again--to the delight of the audience! It’s Bill Irwin, Carol Burnett or the timeless appeal of Lucille Ball, Buster Keaton, and the Looney Tunes. These are just a few names from the vast realm of eccentric character and physical comedy.

The training will begin with character creation and physical principles--such as slips, trips, falls--and move on to explore relationships and status. By the end of the course, all participants will create a unique character using voice, movement, and costume. On October 22, participants will share their collaborative process with their family and friends in an original showing.

Participants should be age 15 or older. The entire four-session course costs $160. For more information about course content, eligibility, or to register, please contact Angela Horchem: theroguetheatretucson@gmail.com.

Matt Walley & Angela Horchem graduated from the Dell’Arte International School of Physical Theatre where they studied Commedia dell’Arte, mask, clown, acrobatics, and movement. They have appeared on stages across the country from New York to Chicago to California. Their flagship production, I Hate ♥, marked their first foray into the realm they call “Cartoon Theatre,” and was met with wide celebration among its initial audiences. In Tucson, they have worked with various companies including The Rogue Theatre, Live Theatre Workshop, Pinnacle Peak Pistoleros, and Stories that Soar! among others. Whether approaching Shakespeare or an original, devised work, they bring a passion for character, love for the physical, and spirit of exploration and discovery.

###

WHAT: “Physical Comedy: A Beginner’s Intensive” led by Matt Walley & Angela Horchem
WHO: Participants ages 15 and up; first-come, first-serve basis
WHEN: Saturdays, Oct 01, 08, 15, & 22 from 12-4 PM; Final performance October 22 at 4 PM
WHERE: The Rogue Theatre, 300 E University Blvd, Suite 150
ON-SITE CONTACT: Angela Horchem, 347.870.9834

Dario Fo and F. Scott Fitzgerald

2011-08-25T11:35:00.000-07:00

A couple of "unusual" shows that I am looking forward to seeing this upcoming season - "We Won't Pay! We Won't Pay" by Dario Fo, which will open late January at Beowulf Alley Theatre Company and "The Great Gatsby" at Arizona Theatre Company in late February.

Thirty-Three from the sacred bone, cross bone, to the top

2011-08-23T16:36:00.000-07:00

33 bones from your sacrum bone to the top on your spine - symbolized throughout history as 33 steps to unite your body with your mind. Oneness. The body as a temple with 33 steps. Illustrated for example as 33 miracles performed by Jesus in the new testament. 33 steps to illumination of the mind.

Giorgio Strehler - Notes on The Cherry Orchard

2011-07-16T09:08:00.000-07:00

Patrick Baliani recently reminded me of an essay written by Giorgio Strehler. It is simply called "Notes on the Cherry Orchard." In it Strehler says the problem,or challenge, of Chehkov is what he calls "The Three Chinese Boxes." I won't attempt to explain the entire essay or premise here. I certainly recommend reading it though. Strehler describes the play itself as being like a serious of boxes nestled inside one another, the second containing the first, etc. For Strehler the first box is "reality." The second box is "history." And the third box is "life." Each box he says has it's own aspect and it's own danger. For example, the first box holds the danger of pedantic minutiae, the second box has the danger of isolating the characters as historical symbols, and the third would risk being merely abstract. A "correct" production of the play he says should stage all three perspectives put together, sometimes giving a close up of a hand or heart, sometimes letting history pass before our eyes, sometimes questioning us about the destiny of our humanity.

That Was Your Cue! or can I once again escape with my life!

2011-06-15T08:50:00.000-07:00

For those in my area, who might be so inclined, I am taking a turn in Rogue Theatre's production of The Real Inspector Hound. Starting tonight.

Suddenly I'm funny. Or so some think. Little did they previously know of my comic genius. I'm unleashing it on the world. Again. Surely this will be a profound stage episode...

But I will only be satisfied if I can pull off a second coming of "Cindy, that was your cue!" Yes, that is my challenge for this run!

Twenty-five years ago, or so, me and one of my acting mates in this show...who I shall not, uh, name...were in a show together. She played the house-help character and I played her boyfriend. We had multiple entrances and exits. One night, during the very quiet and concentrated "young lovers scene," my acting mate was sitting backstage, fully in preparation, etc. I went up to her and with urgency whispered "Cindy, that was your cue!" She jumped up, anxious, startled, and dashed on to the stage! Only to find herself in the middle of a scene in which she did not belong! LOL. I can't help it! she will kill me for sure even now! Anyway, the very surprised actors playing the intimate young lovers scene looked up at her...lol...she backed slowly off the stage...step by step...LOL. I ran like hell down to the men's dressing room and locked the door - never to come out - for the remainder of the run I think - save to go straight on stage and off.

Well, my un-named acting mate is once again playing as the house-help, with multiple entrances and exits! It will be difficult...and being the serious artist that I am...it goes against all ethical behavior...but...I think I have to give it a try.

Enjoy the show otherwise!

In Out

2011-06-13T12:02:00.000-07:00

I am more than happy to talk about acting as an inner and outer process. In this day and age that goes against the grain of common attitudes and perspective.

But,

Actors create experientially what poets and other artists only describe - to borrow from or paraphrase Lee Strasberg. And once they do it, they have to repeat it, over and over, from one try to the next, from one day to the next.

In order for that replication to take place - literally as if for the first time each time - the actors body must follow a set of commands provided by the mind. And this happens actually on two levels so to speak. One level is the actor as artist...he/she percieving the work to be done. The Other level is the actor as the living material of the art, the stage experience. Sounds complicated, but its not. Simply put..."The mind asks and the body responds."

Beauty

2011-06-13T11:02:00.001-07:00

Simplicity and Earnestness

2011-06-09T09:19:00.000-07:00

The effects/results of ones yoga practice is found/measured in ones relationships with other people.

This being a blog dedicated to theatre(not to yoga), I mention that only to stress my non-trendy nature toward that type of practice, and/or toward actor training and preparation - and other similar pursuits. The practice, or the training, is something you just do, daily, and without fanfare, without showiness, but with hard work and dedication, perhaps in solitude, perhaps with others, but always with respect and with a gracious intent of improvement.

diagram for yoga

2011-05-27T15:09:00.000-07:00

Strasberg-Strasburg Yoshido-Yoshida

2010-06-21T20:27:00.000-07:00

Lee Strasberg was a brilliant and innovative director, a great actor, and a legendary teacher for actors. Stephen Strasburg is the young baseball pitching phenom for the Washington Nationals of the Major Leagues. Togo Yoshido is credited with discovering the works of Zeami, the flower in drama and the principles of Noh. Eri Yoshida is the eighteen year old Japanese "knuckleball princess" who currently pitches for the Chico Outlaws of the Golden League. The Majors its not - but she is far enough along with her skills to compete with men and to be considered professional.

Last night the Outlaws were in competition with the Tucson Toros - and I was there. But Eri never made it out of the dugout. Cameras were ready, and binoculars were aimed at the bullpen in anticipation. In fact I've never seen more interest in the bullpen than on the playing field until last night. I suppose Eri can throw the ball from the mound across homeplate, but she looks tiny. She must have a hell of a knuckleball though. And I'm not sure if I am happy or sad that I didn't see her pitch last night. But I did have a hell of a lot of fun at the game and it was exciting, even though the Toros lost in the freakin ninth inning!

It was the ballpark on a summer evening. My daughter took me there for Father's Day and I ate hotdogs and hamburgers and drank beer (six dollar beers in a plastic cup). All in all it makes me think I did something right with her upbringing. Had I done things wrong, she might have said "Hey Dad, I'm going to take you to see a play for Father's Day." Scary.

Othello Book

2010-06-14T08:32:00.000-07:00

Here is web address (thank you Royce) to the Shakespeare in Production Book - Othello.

http://www.amazon.com/Othello-Shakespeare-Production-William/dp/0521834589/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276152083&sr=1-9

I recieved this book once as a birthday gift from my roomates at the time, and very dear friends. So its always held a special place in my heart and on the shelf.

Sunday Notes

2010-06-06T11:34:00.000-07:00

Today I'm off to the Fox Theatre to catch Le Petit Carnival. Then to a gathering of buddies to watch basketball, drink my share of some really good beer, cook out and all that stuff.

You know, Samurai Warriors used to study Noh Drama, part of their desire or goal to be elevated or refined. Not stuck up...but enlightened...enlightened.

A Couple of My Heros Move Along

2010-06-05T09:57:00.001-07:00

In the last couple of days Johnny Gibson and John Wooden passed away. Johnny was a local hero, Coach Wooden a national one. Both were complex men with seemingly simple philosophies and ideas that served them well. Both were gracious and caring and always put the spotlight on others. I keep a copy Coach Wooden's pyramid of success handy in my office and I will always cherish the times I sat in Johnny's chair to get my haircut. For these men there was a true intersect of life and sport and integrity was it's hinge.

Love and Lee Strasberg

2010-06-03T10:25:00.000-07:00

One of my former co-workers used to listen to me explain for long periods of time about some of the activities and work we used to do in Actor's Gymnasium sessions. She always asked me "What did you do this past Saturday at Actor's Gymnasium?" And I would tell her. She would nod her head and tell me she was going to attend the coming Saturday. But never did she. And that didn't matter because our weekly talks became just as important to me. They became a chance for reflection, for new ideas, etc. And I would talk Stanislavsky and talk about Lee Strasberg's work, and all things good like that. My co-worker was a supremely talented actress and singer. She was also a student of and lover of theatre history like myself. But she didn't take to the ideas I would discuss, the practical work and notions of Stanislavsky and of Lee. Which was all fine and good with me at the time. Acting is not an intellectual process as many imagine it. The mind is of course involved, but learning and experience and understanding of the craft on the stage requires the actual body in process.

Skip ahead three years now. My former co-worker has completed her Master's Degree through Pace University and the Actor's Studio. She was of course immersed in the basic teachings of Strasberg during that time. Her recent assesment of her own work was that before she was a disembodied voice on the stage, but feels now that the different aspects of her personality and talent are integrated and more fully functioning on the stage. Her own mother she said, hardly recognized her most recent work, thrilled by the things she was seeing and hearing and experiencing her daughter do on stage. We haven't talked yet about the specifics of the process, but whatever they taught her, she acknowledges was/is inspiring and helpful.

And I'm not surprised. Whenever I see someone with exceptional talents, and see them facing the difficulties and basic challenges of acting, of performing on stage, I know there is one place they can go where their own individual needs as creative artists can be addressed - and that place is Lee Strasberg's work and ideas. The subject came up recently (and I wrote about it on this blog in the "You Don't Bring Sonia Moore in this House" post) about who would I recommend and why. And in fact I am meeting later this very day with the actor in question of the post to discuss his recent discovery and reactions to some of Lee's work. His take so far... "The guy (referring to Lee) is O.K. by me!"

Beowulf Alley Theatre - New Works

2010-06-01T12:01:00.000-07:00

Beowulf Alley is by far the most prolific theatre in town in terms of sheer activity. And I suppose Live Theatre Workshop is a close second. I can't keep up with everything Beowulf has going on sometimes, but I do know that this summer they are producing three brand new plays. I won't say they will be full productions...I don't think they are designed to be that...but they will be step or two or maybe three beyond a staged reading for example. The emphasis or concern will still be limited to the structure and content of the written script I imagine, and its potential for eventually becoming the basis of an actual real deal spectacle. Whatever and however they manifest, to me they are another welcome and much needed project in Tucson. Let's count again how many new plays were produced in Tucson this past year as part of someone's season of shows or added to a repetory. ? And no, we cannot count that thing Arizona Theatre Company did with Second City. I can only take so much buffoonery from the "State Theatre of Arizona." Anyway...one, two...or none, depending on how you add it up.

No theatre company has come to full maturity unless they grow and produce their own playwrights and plays, or develop distinguishing features of production for their time, place and reason. In that regard, our theatres are lagging - although many are new and so still learning their ways. As a community as a whole we are lacking this new play element just as we are lacking solidified and well prepared acting ensembles. So Beowulf's summer new play projects are an alert, a signal. Check the Tucson Stage Website, or Beowulf Alley's Website for details, and then go check out the shows!

Grand Ideas

2010-05-25T14:41:00.000-07:00

Nice Day

2010-05-24T08:41:00.000-07:00

Sad News

2010-05-21T10:35:00.000-07:00

Sad News.

http://azstarnet.com/entertainment/arts-and-theatre/article_4af7f63c-898a-5a7a-9ff0-ad77bec7f990.html

Othello at the Rogue

2010-05-14T07:31:00.000-07:00

The beauty in Rogue Theatre's production of Othello lies in it's simplicity. It rises and unfolds like a song, using Shakespeare's text as lyrics. And its a soft song. This is the quietest Shakespeare you have ever heard. But you mustn't assume that is a bad thing. The spectacle (production) is soft in overall behavior. The physical life of the characters is simple and casual. The volume of their speech is ordinary. And for us spectators, this is in many respects a welcoming and inviting phenomenon.

There is a certain intellectuality or cerebral-ness to the performance and very often the actual events and circumstances of the drama were not manifest at all - but...it was moving as a story telling practice, unique in its own way...and there were a couple of simply outstanding scenes, well played and engaging. With Rogue, its difficult and challenging fare, making it completely exciting to be present as a spectator.

Thoughts on Othello - part six

2010-05-13T10:57:00.000-07:00

One thing I didn't mention about Othello. I said he is a great story teller, lover, warrior, things like that - but to cap it off, dude is a party animal! Which just about completes all the things some of us aspire to and to be.

In the scene where he returns victorious to Cypress and we have the great "reunion kiss" that I mentioned in an earlier post, Othello makes the announcement of the end of battle, the war, which in large part was due to the storm that has been ravaging the island. Shortly after that announcement comes a proclomation - an island party!
I don't know the exact lines but something about everyone is to get busy partying, some to light bonfires, music, etc. It's to be a celebration for the end of war and also a wedding reception party for Othello and Desdemona. Dude goes in during the middle of the night and steals away the hot young daughter of a powerful and prominent citizen, goes off to fight a war, and then comes back to party like its 1999. Now me being me, I imagine this island party scene to go down big.

The theme of the party is 'Freelove." (as made up by me). And I know this is America and we have certain retarded rules about what is allowed on stage in theatres and what is not...and I'm not talking about sex or nudity mind you...I'm talking about flames - some good bonfires and bbqs happening. Cause that is what I imagine in the scene. BBQ's, bonfires, drinking, dancing, music, skimpy clothes, freelove all around. Hey, Men have been at war and now everyone wants to get it on. Its an all day and night party mind you. This is one of Othello's legendary shindigs. Its big and bold and passionate like him. If you are on the A list - you got it made. Island party!

That becomes the backdrop for more of Iago's scheming of course, and he proceeds to get Cassio drunk. Now Rogue Theatre had a nice little rousing scene of this with music and drinking - this particular section. Their production for various reasons played down and edited some of the war references and context - which is something often done in productions these days. And in the manner of presentation of the play they were not going to haul barrels on stage to light up some bonfires and roast some lambs - to my lament, to my lament. Neither was there going to be sensual love making to stand in stark contrast to Iago's distant persona - to my lament, to my lament. Neither was there going to be cliff diving - to my lament. Or swinging from the rafters and trees - yes, to my lament. But they did have the rousing little "haha drinking" scene with songs, to get Cassio drunk. And I enjoyed it.

Othello via the Rogue was not the bold party dude type. Nathan Crocker's Othello was more proper and prim and well behaved and mannered and official acting and sounding at all times. Formal. I had a bit of a hard time believing this dude would go in the middle of the night to steal the hot young chicka out of the house. He behaved more like an A-Student goody two shoes, sometimes even walking around reading as if he was working on some intellectual project, a thesis perhaps. Now there is logic in that interpetation, reason for it. But me being me, I was hoping for a more swaggering, bold, bravado, come-with-me-cause-this-is-where-its-at kind of guy. Something that would really make Iago jealous. Othello can be that smart and succesful bad boy who gets the ladies. Hey, he gets them somehow, and I dont think its because he is prim and proper and official at all times. Ladies love him and men want to be him. And sometimes vice-versa. And then there is Iago - who is afraid of him and completely jealous of him. In all else in life, until Othello came along, Iago, with his brain and mind and good humor, his honesty etc, got the attention and did all the right things. Now comes Othello, with a bigger strut in his step, a more powerful sword, experience to make others wish they had only, etc, etc, etc. And it drives Iago bonkers! Especially after Othello hops in the sack with his wife (perhaps). (In the unsaid and said behavior between Desdemona and Emelia comes some depth and contrast and interesting relationship in that manner).

Storm, kiss, party, ...love this play!

Joe McGrath/Iago/Othello/Sea Creatures

2010-05-12T07:34:00.000-07:00

I was gonna write this post something like a very long Irish limrick entitled "Can We Get Joe McGrath Some Rest?" I got this far -

"Can we get poor ol'Joe McGrath some rest,
He's been a working just a tad bit harder than the rest,
of us."

But something...just didn't sound correct there...so...back to my prosiness.

First of all, if you haven't seen Othello playing at the Rogue Theatre yet, go see it. Despite my recent posts on Othello here, I haven't written about this particular show yet save for mention of one lovely scene. But there are lots of very good reasons to see Rogue's production. So...go to.

Can we get Joe McGrath some rest? Joe McGrath plays Iago in Rogue's Othello. Its a very demanding role and Joe does an exceptional job with it. But here comes "however." However, there is something missing - not so much with interpetation or execution of the role/character itself, but rather what seemed absent to me was a spirit and energy, a persona, that I believe is present when Joe is at his creative best. Where was it? I believe it just wasn't able to manifest itself along with Joe's work here because Joe is exhausted - physically and creatively. And, along with that, there have grown recent barnacles on, in and around Joe's creativity. That last part may sound harsh, but it happens to all of us from time to time. In fact, I borrowed that from a recent description I read of an actor, which happened to reference Stanislavsky's thoughts on how barnacles grow on our creativity and we need to clean those off periodically so we can get back to our best work. I believe its apt in this case.

Joe McGrath is the hardest working person in theatre in our Town. Now lets put this in perspective. There is hard working and then there is hard working. The first hard working is like me, I think I'm busy and have so much to do, etc. The second hard working is the real deal. Theatre-wise in this second category in our town we have people like Joe and Cindy and others at Rogue Theatre, and certainly both Dell's at Beowulf Alley Theatre, a few perhaps at Live Theatre Workshop. These are all people in official capacities with theatres. Then there are hard working people like Patrick Baliani who combine family, profession, interests and social activity, formally and informally. Anyway, with all due respect to everyone else, I think Joe McGrath is the hardest working and also the most all-around working,theatre-wise, doing some of everything. Usually, for people like this, love and passion and creative fun and purpose fuels and sustains them for long durations. But it just so happens sometimes you get a little tired, mentally, physically, etc. And little habits develop. and then more little habits develop on top of those habits. And still you keep going going creatively. But now the habits of creative behavior begin to engulf or enslave you - the barnacles are taking over, getting heavy, loading you down. A good nights sleep won't resolve it. You need rest but you need creative rest and renewal also. You have to clean the barnacles and re-examine and re-understand your creative body and mind. You have to get sleek and ready in that respect.

I said the barnacles happen to all of us from time to time. Well, that's not totally true. In order for the barnacles to start growing in the first place, you have to get into the water, into the creative act. And so at times, despite their "ugliness" in appearance, you can wear your barnacles with momentary pride, because you have been to "the depths." If you haven't been in the water recently, you likely are barnacle free. But if you go in there and get them, you eventually should clean them off. If you want modern reference, think cookies and spam and spyware on your computer. Gotta wipe it clean!

Stanislavsky was brilliant at creative renewal and even as an elderly man, few could keep pace with his creativity. But he worked at the renewal, at revitalizing himself, and did so consciously. The various manifestations of his work throughout his life attest to this. Besides his daily "rote and drill" for actors which is legendary and is one aspect of the process, getting to nature and to rest and to reflection was also included.

Which brings me back to Joe. Can we get Joe McGrath some rest? Can we send him on a cruise that doesn't have a scene shop? A cabin without scripts? How about a workshop or a massage or yoga retreat or some order of business that prompts new perspective? Not because Joe is bad, but because Joe looks tired, and barnacled.

Now in fairness and specifics to his work on Iago, we have to separate certain things. We already said the work was "pretty good" (for lack of better term and time at this moment). We have to separate though certain reasons for "things missing." Time is one reason why "things are missing." Lack of time that is, meaning preparation time. A short rehearsal period like Rogue's does not allow actors to prepare roles fully in context within themselves and their fellow actors. That type of reason is different from creative exhaustion and barnacles. So we have to recognize that and understand it. In this case, more rehearsal and production time will take care of certain problems, but it wouldn't necessarily take care of others -that spirit, that persona. For that, rest and barnacle clearing is needed.

Why be audacious about this and say it to begin with? Afterall, Joe's work was exceptional in many ways. My reason is selfish. As a spectator I want to see an inspired performance. I want to see Joe as Iago as lightning in a bottle. And I think it could be, could have been. The night I saw the show there were some obvious signs even within the fine work - stammering over a line here and there, missing a stair step, the overall sounds and looks of a body on fumes, still running seemingly ok, but trying to burn the last of fumes, and then being overtaken with the habits, the barnacles. In glimpses things broke free for Joe. But not in a complete sense, and they weren't going to. But the talent and the know how and the experience is there for lightning in a bottle. So, I'll ask once more. Can we get Joe McGrath some rest and renewal?

Thoughts on Othello - part five - main event

2010-05-07T12:37:00.000-07:00

Back in my part one I mentioned the idea of an "initiating event" and said there was the related "main event" of the play. And I said there was or should be a logic of action and association with between these two ideas. Very often directors use this as a way of constructing the series of actions that become the performance. The two ideas serve as the reasoning behind it all so to speak. When faced with how or why questions about what characters do or don't do, a director will often try and see what squares best with the logic and association of these two events before making a decision.

In part one I said that I like the suggestion that the initiating event in Othello is the fact that Othello himself is such a wonderful story teller, was invited often by Brabantio to his home, told his stories there of war and adventure and travel, and Desdemona fell in love with him and he with her during that time. It makes sense to me I said because you can line up every other thing in the play behind that.

To me the main event of the play itself, is when Othello kills Desdemona. It is the most profound and meaningful action in the play, with the widest repurcussions. And of course there is a direct link, connection between that and what I take as the initiating event. So in my mind, the story, the play goes essentially from the falling in love to the killing.

For that reason, I believe the play is appropriately entitled "Othello."

While certain events as happening in the play are manipulated by Iago, Iago's own behavior and scheming is a result of what Othello is and has done. Therefore again, Othello is the catalyst, the turning point of this play. For that reason also, I believe the play is appropriately entitled "Othello."

Before our modern fixation on Iago's "psychology" great actors and producers through the ages understood Othello to be the role of a lifetime, the measure of an actor's greatness. For that reason also, I believe the play is appropriately entitled "Othello."

Shakespeare entitled it "Othello, the Moor of Venice." Therefore, I think that is the appropriate title.

Many other reasons exist too for the title - but I'll leave it at that.

It's a brilliant and complex play and tracing the logic and the action bit by bit between the initiating event and the main event of the play is a challenge, but one all actors and directors can love and appreciate.

Thoughts on Othello - Part 4 - questions for scenes one and two.

2010-05-07T09:08:00.000-07:00

Curious things about the first two scenes of Othello.

As the play opens, the Duke's council is in session in the middle of the night because a possible war is brewing and decisions need to be made quickly. Brabantio, one of the Senators, is home sleeping. His daughter Desdemona has been stealed away out of his house earlier that night by Othello. The war council has sent out three separate dispatches to try and find Othello. Obviously he wasn't at his usual abode because he was someplace getting married to and then (at the Sagittary) getting on with Desdemona. But the council has been trying to find him. They need his services. But apparently no one has been searching for or trying to call Brabantio to the meeting. Why? Or why not? And the second question is who in the world gets to interrupt a hastily called middle of the night war council meeting to complain that their daughter has eloped with someone they don't like and so they want the guy taken care of, prosecuted with the law? And why do they get to do that? We need answers or possibilities for answers in order to grasp the logic and the tension, the full dramatic action of these first two scenes.

Stanislavsky for one offered some interesting and plausable answers. Stanislavsky suggested that Brabantio, whose influence we hear is double the Duke's, could or would be Duke himself, save for a political agreement between him and the current Duke. Brabantio essentially did the Duke a favor. But the Duke has been slowly dismantling some of Branbantio's ideas and policies. (reason perhaps not to invite him to the council meeting that night?). Before Brabantio and Othello come into the council meeting, one of the Senators announces Brabantio's entrance. The Duke however proceeds to greet Othello first and then say to Brabantio, "oh sorry I didn't see you there and we missed having your council tonight, so sorry you weren't here." When Brabantio explains what happened to his daughter and asks for revenge on the man who took her, the Duke agrees - seizing on it as a chance to repay that political favor. However, when he finds out the guy in question is Othello, things change. Suddenly these are now two men (Duke and Brabantio) in a power struggle with one another politically, socially, in front of the rest of the Senators and others now present. How will it go down? Some of the Senators would be worried and fence walking like crazy having given their own allegiance to one of these men one way or another. Its a political throwdown. And then Othello speaks giving his side of the story. And with his charm and charisma, his great gift of storytelling, and in this case humility as well, he throws the lead over to the Duke's side. But of course Othello had suggested that they don't really listen to him but rather go get Desdemona and let her tell her side of things. And so there is still Desdemona to be heard. When she arrives, fresh from a little time alone with Othello on their wedding night, after sneaking out of her father's house (where she has basically been a captive all her young life) she gives her side of the story, cementing politically reprieve for the Duke (who now will not have to prosecute Othello).

Addendum: The very talented David Morden who plays Brabantio in Rogue's production looked like Hulk Hogan with that wig and cap he was wearing. Maybe why I used references like "throwdown!" Sometimes these modern references and images get in the way!

Thoughts on Othello - part 3 - a scene?

2010-05-06T17:06:00.000-07:00

Lots of writing and I haven't yet gotten to any impressions of Rogue's production. Well, I can't get to the entire play right now but I'll get to one scene so as to make you believe I really went there.

If you don't see another scene (or play) for the rest of the year, see the scene between Desdemona and Emilia as it was played out the night I was there by Avis Judd and Patty Gallagher. It's the famous scene in the last act, "sing willow, willow, willow." It wasn't a "perfect" scene the night I was there but it was damn good. And it's not perfection that we seek as spectators, but rather lives and relationships and purpose and action and story and thoughts and emotions. And such was present in that scene that night. Avis Judd and Patty Gallagher sought something as artists in that scene, taking us with them in their search. There were no histrionics or mistaking energy and business for dramatic action and emotion - it was the real deal. Words were backed by actual thoughts, feeling was backed by actual sensation and the reactions to one another were backed by actual listening and hearing and empathizing. And the words as written by Shakespeare suddenly grew in leaps and bounds bringing meaning and relevance, rhythm and metaphor, sound and logic alive in the moment as theatre, as drama. And I as a spectator begin to think and feel and imagine. Not just with my mind but with my entire biological being. The words had an impact on me via sound, the movements and postures of the characters impacted me visually, and my mind and feelings worked those things together in anticipation of what was to come. As played out by Avis Judd and Patty Gallagher that night, it was a properly quiet and powerful scene - a prelude to what is to come later in the play, a tribute to what is good, a lament and lesson of what is wrong, and a celebration somehow of dedication and beauty and love and possibilities...all in one. All in one. And all in ones like that can only happen when playwright words merge truly and logically and literally with the creative process of the performers.

Thoughts on Othello - part 2 - the reunion kiss.

2010-05-06T14:05:00.000-07:00

Question/Problem: How to play out the kiss in the following scene.

Here is the setup - Desdemona and Othello have not seen each other really since their wedding night. Othello has been at war and Desdemona has been at home under the watch of Iago (and Iago is home [at Othello's request] watching Desdemona instead of serving his own duty of office. Buts that's another question/problem). It's been months perhaps. Now however they have a planned meeting at a seaport town in Cypress. But to make matters bad, a storm is raging and that has made travel almost as risky as war, with ships tossing up and down on the sea. Never-the-less Desdemona arrives safely (with Iago and others) first. And Othello soon makes it onshore as well. The storm has calmed, if not completely passed as they see each other, a kind of poetic silence if you will descends. And then.

Othello: O my fair warrior.
Desdemona: My dear Othello.
Othello: It gives me wonder great as my content
To see you here before me. Oh my soul's joy.
If after every tempest come such calms
May the winds blow till they have waken'd death.
And let the labouring bark climb hills of seas
Olympus high, and duck again as low
As hell's from heaven. If I were now to die,
Twere now to be most happy; for I fear
My soul hath her content so absolute
That not another comfort like to this
Succeeds in unknown fate.
Desdemona: The heavens forbid
But that our loves and comforts should increase
Even as our days do grow.
Othello: Amen to that, sweet powers.
I cannot speak enough of this content;
It stops me here; It is too much of joy;
And this, and this, the greatest discords be
(Kissing her)
That e'er our hearts shall make.

She is his "warrior" and he is her "dear."

And so you must imagine like I do, two soaked, wet, drenched people, tired from travel and worry, so deeply in love with each other, standing now before one another, at last, legs a little shaky still from the ship's tossing and tossing. And saying these lines! Come on - it's too beautiful! I love it. This is Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett! ('cept Othello and Desdemona actually do it) Note: Us actors like to say we find clues in the manner in which Shakespeare presents his language - and like great writers, the characters themselves become more and more poetic and beautiful as they become more and more emotionally engaged, with all their senses highly activated - just as in this scene. In the unspoken, in the action, in the kiss itself, they say "I love (and need and want) thee to the depth and breadth and height my soul can reach." (more or less you know).

And so...to the question, the problem...how to do that? How to play out this kiss? Maybe it's only Othello who is soaking wet from the storm, and perhaps we have seen just previously as she has come ashore, Desdemona being protected from the rain. But now, perhaps she freely embraces and kisses Othello without concern for the wet and maybe coldness. Or maybe Othello begins the kiss with the intent not to get her wet, kissing her ever so very delicately, but then slowly they meld together, feeling the wettness between them (no puns intended!!!) and after stepping away from each other, there is "Othello's mark," the outline of his body, in the form of the wetspot (no pun intended again!!!) there on Desdemona. This is love. And the need to feel one another. The need to express love after so much time away. Wet fabric,clothes, clinging as they part, peeling away from each other, lips first, then slowly back from one another, as the wet fabric of their clothes holds together still, like bodies peeling pieces of one another, taking bits of each other.

I think however the kiss plays out, it must have as much poetry and beauty in the action of it as the words spoken between them do. It must have that exactness and precision that the words do. Its not a wild and crazy embrace and kiss, nor is it awkward or too forceful or too casual. It is (or should be) just right. Simple somehow, yet so rich in and full of love. It should be two souls coming together. These are not jaded and angry people (not yet) nor are they momentary lovers or just sexual partners. This is Othello and Desdemona. No matter how odd or unfamiliar a pair, their love is mature, their sensuality full and appropriate in happiness and sureness. This is a kiss the spectators and the others witness - the full blown beauty of love in action. Everyone should be taken, captivated by it in their own way, for their own reasons, from their own point of view. How do you play that kiss as actors?

And who wouldn't want or wish that they had told their love upon seeing them "My soul hath her content so absolute that not another comfort like to this succeeds in unknown fate." And then a moment later kiss her/him! Don't we all want to give and receive that kind of love? My gosh! This in contrast to what we have just seen from some of the other couples or would be couples in the play.

This challenge of Shakespeare, of not only how to say the lines, the words themselves, but how to create the physical action with the same kind of depth and meaning. We can imagine the raw power and grace of Othello, contrasted and combined with the delicate and graceful flow of Desdemona, working somehow in harmony to create, to make, this incredible kiss.

And in related matters of the play - let's take note that Desdemona says in this short but gloriously beautiful and meaninful scene "The heavens forbid but that our loves and comforts should increase even as our days do grow." And so we know, we learn, we are told - as spectators (as is Iago) - in some sense it will become Iago vs the heavens as to what will happen next.

Thoughts on Othello - Part One

2010-05-02T13:24:00.000-07:00

There is a book, well worth reading, that was published in the mid 1980's, a Shakespeare in performance series one, which details great actors through the ages in the role of Othello. From Richard Burbage on down through the years, Salvini, Kean, Stanislavsky, Aldridge and others, we get the details and descriptions of their work. For many years, in the 18th and parts of the 19th centuries, Othello was considered the measure for the greatness of an actor's skill. The role of Hamlet perhaps took over that mantle in more recent times and now even in Othello itself it has become more fashionable and hip for actors to play the character of Iago rather than Othello and the emphasis of the play itself during production has often shifted in this regard as well, focusing primarily on the mind and intentions of Iago. But for a long time, Othello was it, the dream role, and actors spent careers working on it. Who wouldn't want to play such a charismatic guy? a daring and successful warrior/traveler, a great story teller, and exciting and sensual lover? It's everyman's fantasy to be such anyway. Add to that all the other stunning challenges for the actor in the role and well, its huge, huge, huge.

Into the fray comes The Rogue Theatre now, with Nathan Crocker and Joseph McGrath as Othello and Iago respectively. I saw the show on Saturday night.

Before I go farther along with the play itself and/or Othello and Iago, let me remind or say that the play has several other wonderful characters, not the least of which are the women, Desdemona, Emilia and Biancha. And in this production they are worth more than a mere noting. But I'll get to all that.

My number one guy Stanislavsky spent a great deal of time working on Othello during his life. As a teenager he saw Salvini play the part and was captivated. He attempted it himself as a young actor and director, and many years later directed a production again. If you have read his books, you know all this. The play and the part of Othello is used often in his teaching. And in the published prompt book of his direction of the play are brilliant notes and descriptions of scenes. He knew it well.

Further background and interest to me personally with the play (in addition to all those monologues and scenes from it in various classes) are a production directed by Eimuntas Nikrosius and a production called Oro de Otelo, which is a dance performance by Augusto Omolu from Odin Teatret, created for ITSA. Augusto's performance I saw in person. Nikrosius' Production I've only read about and seen clips of scenes on tape. And I would be remiss if I didn't say I fondly remember a production in Reid Park several years ago that had a terrific Othello. Where this actor came from or went to after I don't know.

These three productions that I just mentioned stand in wild contrast to each other in terms of aesthetics and accomplishments. Granted Oro de Otelo is not the play itself being done, but rather is a performance based on someone reading Shakespeare's text while listening to Verdi's opera - and then imaginatively taking on the characteristics and actions of the main characters. But one thing that production had was a sense of immediate and palpable sensual and sexual excitement. Austusto is a fantastic dancer/performer to begin with and placed within this role, he was terrific. Many of the comments (during and) right after the performance by women (and some men probably) was that they were on the verge of a certain sexual happening as they watched Augusto's performance. I mention this not to be funny or clever, but rather because I think it is a critical element to the play - that immediate and palpable sensuality/sexuality. Without it, the ensuing jealousy, worry and revenge doesn't make sense to me except as an intellectual exercise. Nikrosius' production was over four hours long, of which two hours included dialogue. If you know of Nikirosius's work, this makes perfect sense. If you don't know a thing about Nikrosius' work, your reaction is probably to ask what they did for the other two hours. The answer is in the way that Nikrosius uses music, sounds and speech together with action and objects to compose his productions. The production in the park was your average amateur production done straightforward with the exception of one slightly brilliant performer in the role of Othello. Given all that was, this actor did not completely stun us, but the potential was there at any moment to do so.

There is a question frequently asked by directors and actors or those seeking to understand or analyze a play. The question is what is the event or incident that sets the play in motion? What thing or things happened that most prompted the events of the play to happen? Its commonly referred to as the inciting (or initiating) incident or event. If this thing never had happened, the play itself wouldn't happen. The companion question, is what is the main incident/event taking place in the play itself? There is a relationship or some equation between these two things that is dramatized and animated along the way. For many people the initiating event of Othello is when Iago is passed over for promotion to Lieutenant and is instead made his Ancient. This has its obvious basis if you are imagining the play primarily from Iago's perspective. For other people it is when and because Othello used to go to Brabantio's house and tell stories of his adventure's. The fact that he is such an amazing story teller who has had so many travels and adventures, including battles, prompted Brabantio to invite him over and ultimately led to Desdemona falling in love with him, and he with her, and then for the two of them to take off and get married. This makes more sense to me personally as the initiating event of the play. It makes everything else fall in line behind it logically. It puts together Iago and Rodrigo, who has his own crush on or love of Desdemona. It gives Iago an "in" to Othello via his wife Emilia who is working for Desdemona. Ties in Cassio more. It sets Brabantio suddenly against Othello which in turn pits them politically and socially, calling the Duke into the fray as well contextually. And more. The fact that Othello is such a mesmerizer, a charmer with his tales, his words and demeanor, puts more pressure so to speak on Iago, and his own abilities, perhaps new found abilities, to sway and charm with words and demeanor - only done in a different way than Othello.

That makes for two things now so far that I find critical, or at least very important for this play. One, Othello has to be charming and charismatic and have a way with words. It must be believable that he has had the adventures, the swagger, the bravado, the scars, etc. And two, Othello and Desdemona, and others in the play as well, must be full of sensual and sexual excitement and charm. There's more than two things in total importance, but these two issues turn so much of the other things that I want to stay with them for another moment. But let me take another angle for a second. Desdemona is a hottie. No doubt about it. A chaste hottie at that. As Brabantio's daughter, she has essentially been locked up all her life, kept under watch, told what to do. Brabantio has kept her suitors (including Rodrigo) at bay while never dreaming she would fall for an older man like Othello, a Moor, an outsider, who he (Brabantio) himself often had over in the house for entertainment and connections. Desdemona is ready and ripe - to be rather blunt. No doubt she spent more than a few nights fantasizing about Othello before the stealing away for the wedding night escape, the opening eve of the play itself. When she is called before the Duke, her father, the other Senators, and all to give her testimony whether or not she loves Othello or was in fact was mis-lead and charmed by him via potions and spells, (setting aside Shakespeare's irony there), she has just earlier been making the beast with two backs, and the pleasure of it all would still be prevalent with her. Of course she cannot say "Papa he makes me go oooooohhhhhooooooooo." She has to say all about her allegiance and honor, etc, instead. Make no mistake, Othello has set her free, and Desdemona, a most difficult and dangerous catch for Othello (if you will pardon the expression), makes Othello happy, happy, happy. And here is a man who could apparently have any and many women, and probably has. But he wants Desdemona now. Why risk all the problems with her father and politics and standing unless its love and happiness! Afterall, he could just go get any of several other women. Love...yes. Sensual...yes, very. Exciting...absolutely. All as a classic odd pair, taboo pair.

Pause and Go

2010-04-28T11:21:00.000-07:00

I started writing this blog just over a year ago. It was bad time in my life. Not bad as in terrible, can't take life, things are incredibly difficult. Just bad as in several things seemed to conspire at once to work against me. No biggie. We've all had worse times and worse situations in our life. But, I was not exactly feeling on top of the world. Far from it. And so one of the things I undertook was to write about theatre and Tucson and a few things I enjoyed. But I wanted and intended to write primarily from the perspective of spectator, not as performer. Teacher, student, hobbyist would work its way in there for sure, with new ideas, study and research always at hand. I've written a few interesting posts, had a handful of wonderful contributions from others, and touched on some perspectives I believe that tend to be rare. I don't advertise or publicise this blog other than a notice I sent originally to a few friends. From time to time I will mention it or tell someone "oh yea, I wrote about that in my blog." For those of you who found it, read it - thank you. I appreciate it and I hope you enjoy it. I do plan to continue. Profound moments in our live's often come in small ways, and we discover meaning, sensation, understanding. Much like acting, much like acting. With all the activity going on in Tucson regarding theatre - I can't keep up - try as I might or wish to. It really is amazing how much the swell has taken off. Kudos to those working it.

Speaking of Anton Chekhov

2010-04-21T08:55:00.000-07:00

How about thumbs-ups, as they say, to The Comedy Playhouse and their first production "One Acts of Love" featuring The Bear and The Proposal by Anton Chekhov. I like it.

Chekov Plays

2010-04-19T12:52:00.000-07:00

How to describe this…

You know that idea that in Chekhov’s plays nobody does anything, just talk about it…well that has come up several times to me recently, in conversation, via email, and in group discussion. And I just don’t agree with that notion. Don’t get me wrong, I can easily understand why people might think and feel that way, depending on reading and/or seeing a Chekhov play (as in one of the major plays). I’ve seen some productions that really are just talk (and not good) and I’ve seen a couple of productions that were full of weird but supposedly comic behavior. In each of those instances the precise dramatic action of the play and the characters, and the actual doing of things, was indeed absent as could be. Nothing happened! But, that doesn’t mean things shouldn’t happen in Chekhov’s plays, and very precise things for that matter, as established and set out by Chekhov in the writing. And I’m not referring specifically to, or just about subtext or “interior character action” (thoughts, emotions, sensations) – though that is part of it. I am talking about specific circumstances and events unfolding right in front of the spectators, with immediate implications for all.

Let’s imagine on one hand those dry intellectual mundane productions, where everyone either seems to be living on some philosophical island or caught up in emotional stagnation, and on the other hand those productions where they insist the play is funny and/or hip and go about trying to demonstrate such with unusual and uncanny character behavior. Now imagine a third way where the plays are realized with all the factors set forth by Chekhov given proper consideration and execution, logical and precise and “forward moving.” In this seemingly mythical third way, the characters don’t seem like bored Russian elite or odd drunks, but rather seem like you and me, everyday ordinary people. And the action that takes places before our spectator eyes is not hapless and endless talking and not dreamed up stage fanfare, but charming and clever unfolding of real people in particular places and circumstance. In the first two ways Chekhov is either a bygone era, or a fancy rendering of something old made “relevant.” In the third way Chekhov is eternity.

Now to realize a production the third way requires sensibilities, discipline, and consideration in piecing together the factors that Chekhov gives to us and turning the consequences of those into precise and logical behavior on stage. But it’s not impossible. Not long ago I watched a production of The Three Sisters on DVD (private “homemade” DVD), a production with primarily student actors in fact, and lo and behold, here were characters “doing things” and making complete sense. Now mind you, these girls did not literally end up in Moscow by the end of the play but along the course of it I wasn’t thinking why don’t they just shoot themselves already. Because things kept happening in the moment, there was excitement in the moment, with surprises and mystery and story. And at the end of the play Moscow was not just a distant city, memory or painful goal, but was that true thematic representation of the grandeur and love in a person’s soul, in life.

So it’s not impossible this third way - rare though it may be.

What more I want to say about this…I’m not sure right now. But probably I will return to it.

Why? in fact, How in the Hell?

2010-04-16T10:05:00.000-07:00

Am I the only one that thinks ATC's production with Second City is just plain dumb? If I was planning a corporate retreat and needed some goofy, sophomoric entertainment for the evening I might pick this show. If I am the Artistic/Managing Director for ATC I do not pick this show as part of a season. And I don't care how many sold out houses there are or how many laughs it gets. Two plays in twelve months from a production company with a sweetheart deal from the city doesn't sit well with me, and doesn't justify in my mind crap like this. There are thousands of plays out there already written, great works of art still to be done, and plays yet to be written or produced, that need a company like ATC to give them a life. What do we get instead? Stupid laughs about trivial crap and satire for the ill-informed. This city needs cheap corporate retreat fare like it needs a Monsanto cotton farm - two complete wastes of time and resources and intelligence. The sooner this show goes to Phoenix where it belongs, the better. I have even deeper questions and concerns about the good and the quality of ATC now. There was a time when we couldn't imagine our city without ATC. Now? I wouldn't miss it in the least if it were gone - but my preference would be for ATC to remain and engage itself with some challenging endeavors worthy of general standing and resources. Artistic stagnation and programmatic formula is ruling the roost there right now.

2010-04-08T08:37:00.000-07:00

Butler vs Duke for the National Championship

2010-04-05T08:52:00.000-07:00

NCAA Basketball in Indianapolis, lots of stories. Butler itself, the Plumlee brothers for Duke. I will cheer for Butler, as I have throughout the tournament. Watching Butler play defense, is as the saying goes, like watching poetry in motion. Duke is a very difficult match up for them but they are loose and happy and who knows what may happen.

Beckett - Eisenstein -Meyerhold

2010-03-31T09:37:00.001-07:00

Samuel Beckett once wrote a letter to Sergei Eisenstein. He wanted to go study film making at the Gerasimov Institute in Russia where Eisenstein had been busy teaching and still making history and fame. This was before Beckett himself of course had reached any such status, just after his college days, and after his father had passed away, and during a time when his mother was encouraging him to get out of the house and get a job, around 1936. The letter apparently never reached Eisenstein.

I don't know to what extent Beckett knew of Eisenstein's work, but obviously he must have seen it and been influenced enough to write the letter. And Beckett being the studious and curious type, must have known of some of the theory and history of Eisenstein's work with Meyerhold and Biomechanics. Beckett certainly had read Pudovkin's thoughts on acting and filmmaking.

That brings me back to the recent Beckett production I saw at Rogue Theatre, specifically Act Without Words. Now Beckett conceived of and wrote that piece for a dancer/mime friend of his and also based part of it on behavioral experiments he had witnessed involving gorillas and the stacking of boxes. Beckett's brother wrote music for the original production which was used to underscore the piece.

If you have seen Biomechanics training, you know many of the exercises, the more advanced ones, are usually based around a little scenario, a little story of activity. In that regard, it's easy to imagine Act Without Words functioning, played out, under the ideas, principles and aesthetics of Biomechanics. Its admittedly a jump at this point to say an influence of Meyerhold's Biomechanics had a conscious and immediate effect in that particular Beckett work. But its not a far fetched or impossible leap to say a long lingering infatuation and remembrance of it was combined with other influences to spur its creation. Act Without Words overall premise and style, along with the particulars of the activities themselves carried out by the actor, make it ideal for Biomechanics at its most mature.

Robert Montgomery Knight - Its a small world afterall

2010-03-29T08:31:00.000-07:00

Well, Butler is in the final four and on a related note, Big Vance came through with his Annual from Cuyahoga High School 1963 - featuring Robert Montgomery Knight, fresh out of college and coaching JV Team and assisting the Varsity. Vance is basking in the glow of having walked in his presence.

The General

2010-03-25T16:16:00.000-07:00

Casual talk in the office about the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Vance is an Ohio St. fan. I'm cheering for Butler because ....well, Hinkle Field House all that.

Me: Vance, you know Thad Motta (OSU Coach) used to coach at Butler. Went from there to OSU.

Vance: Really? I saw one game when I went to OSU. But it was right after Havilcek and Lucas left.

Me: Hey, you know who else was on that team? Bobby Knight.

Vance: Really? I didn't know that.

(Vance pulls out his fancy phone and uses the voice activated search. "Bobby Knight," he says. Results come up. He reads them).

Vance (Astounded): Oh my gosh! I can't believe this. It says Knight was at Cuyahoga Falls High School (in Ohio) for one year, 1962-63. That's my high school. I was there then!

Me: Wow! That is awesome!

Vance: Come to think of it. I think he might have been the guy that ran our Study Hall then and was always giving me detention.

Me: Did he slide the chair across the room at you?

Vance: I think he did!

Me: I love it! The General! Bobby Knight! Give me five Vance! You Rock!

Three Reasons

2010-03-25T11:25:00.001-07:00

why April should be a great month! Picnic at Live Theatre Workshop. The Trip to Bountiful at Waypointe Theatre. Othello at The Rogue Theatre.

John Sheedy New Work

2010-03-25T09:07:00.000-07:00

Check out Chuck Graham's article on film-maker John Sheedy when you get the chance, there on the Tucson Stage pages. I bumped into John a couple of weeks ago when he stopped in at Prescott College, Tucson Center. (He earned and received his Masters at Prescott). He is a terrific, down to earth, caring person and a great film-maker with unique insight and perspective.

Principles of Review.

2010-03-23T12:37:00.000-07:00

A panel session on criticism in the arts was held this past Sunday, sponsored by The Rogue Theatre and Arizona Daily Star. I did not attend. Not because of any reason pro or con. I was just otherwise occupied. I haven't heard a peep about it since but I bring it up to give me an excuse to put in my two cents about the subject, generally. I have no doubt others on that panel and at that discussion are better qualified and more informed than me when it comes to addressing specific issues around Tucson and newspapers and/or journals. So I'm sticking to a more vague, overall approach. And in this case I am talking about individual events, individual productions.

Personally I have two notions, or basis, or sets of principles that I work from. The first set is well known and applicable to all art in general I suppose. The second set specifically regards theatre and production of plays, spectacles as I like to refer to them these days.

I'm no expert on Thomas Aquinas (I know a little about the man and his work, but I'm not that well studied), but I believe my first set of principles has to do with his notion of beauty, or what makes a thing, a work of art, beautiful. And even here, I no doubt have adapted his concepts for my own, not knowing if I have added or subtracted anything. James Joyce and others have picked up readily on it, so if its good enough for them, I'm in too! Anyway, for Thomas Aquinas, beauty has three components - Wholeness, Harmony and Radiance. Briefly stated, wholeness is our ability to perceive and understand the form and concept of a piece, or perhaps its ability to show that form and concept to us clearly. Harmony has to do with the working relationship of individual parts within the form and concept, and to the form and concept itself. Radiance is that ooh-ahh factor, a distinct or noteworthy creative presence, lifeforce. These three things function, or can function, independently of each other. In other words, wholeness plus harmony does not make radiance.

If I am mulling over a play production after the fact, perhaps even trying to write about it, I try to keep this triptych concept of beauty in mind as a way to find, to discover certain values or shortcomings in a work.

The other set of principles I keep in mind is that the behavior of the actors that we spectators see on stage has three possible origins. One is the actor's personality, his or her way of moving, talking, looking, habits, thoughts, etc. Everything about them as humans. Second is a particular interpretation idea regarding the script or a character. For example, an actor may decide that a character walks with a limp, or speaks rather quickly or softly, or reacts angrily most of the time. Third would be a convention of theatre. Actors tend to face toward the audience for example. Or if its a particular style of theatre as in say Japanese Noh Drama, there is a way of walking, moving that is particular. So the overall behavior we see on stage is a result of one, two or all of these in combination. When I am watching a production, it is usually readily evident which behaviors arise for which reason. Further, its readily evident if the overall behavior has a cohesion among the three origins or if there is a kind of disconnect or conflict between the three both logically, aesthetically and within the actor him/herself.

That's a very, very general overview of the perception that plays in my mind while watching or later reviewing a production in my mind. I won't for now go into larger purposes or reasons for criticism, concepts like to "persuade and promote." Nor as I said at the beginning of the post do I have reason or handle on the details of the machinery available to us here and how to best make do with it all. But when it comes to a community, working, practical vocabulary and dialogue, I'm all for it.

Rambunctious Enthusiasm

2010-03-22T09:53:00.000-07:00

There is an awesome picture for Dance in the Red (Art.If.Act Dance Project) on the Tucson Stage List. To me it looks invigorating, cool, and full of love and life and enthusiasm. A little bit daring even, with an accelerated attitude. And those are the very things I often find missing, or finding myself longing for when I am at a theatrical spectacle. I sense things too contained, too stilted, too conventional, too controlled, too expected. I am speaking general experience - there are small exceptions. But commonly, even at productions I am enjoying, I find myself as a spectator longing for vibrancy, a reckless abandon within the boundaries, absolute joy, sense of adventure, these kinds of things, be it within a moment, a scene, or an entire production, something to make the spectacle "take off" and become "magical." I always feel I am watching re-created pretend life, no matter how interesting and compelling, rather than something that has come surprisingly to life. Mind you, this has nothing to do with style, i.e. realism, naturalism, etc. No matter how the form and content mesh, there is always the question, or problem, for artists and spectators of does this thing move on its own, does it have life, excitement? or is it earthbound, banal?

You Don't Bring Sonia Moore in This Household! and other tales.

2010-03-19T09:16:00.000-07:00

This past Tuesday, I met up with Royce, Howard and Patrick for a two hours session of theatre talk (geeky, geeky, geeky). This event was supposed to take place before or after our trek to Rogue Theatre and the Beckett plays, a beer drinking, pizza grubbing, theatre talking macho-fest. But one of the four of us scheduled a date along. As I told this one, I would always recommend taking a date, especially one with the charm, good looks and education of this young lady, over going along with Cretans the likes of us. But don't mix the two! It won't work! And another of the four developed a birthday bash conflict. So, plan B became meet on Tues. And so we did.

This session was intense. I was the last to arrive and there were essays on the table! Patrick was a couple of expressos to the wind, just getting warmed up, Howard was in midday form with those compound questions, and Royce always has some new element or purpose he is in full study on...usually the Brits (heaven help me). And I was early! At least to our scheduled time. Needless to say, two hours flew by!

I railed at Royce that he needed to see the short clip of Gennadi Bogdanov doing Lucky's monologue from WFG. In fact, he still needs to do so and I'm awaiting his call as this goes to post. Somehow out of that Beckett/Bogdanov/NotellingwhatcrapIwassaying talk, Royce says..."David, what acting teachers do you like/recommend?" Now I can forgive Royce because you will not meet a more appreciative, respectful, and gracious young man. He is old school. Fathers all over this land are tying to arrange marriages between their daughters and Royce. Would we all grew up along these lines. If my own daughter were a little older...
I have met his mother, and while Royce is completely his own man, it's evident charm and personality run in the family. But enough of that. He said "David, what acting teachers do you like/recommend?" Said it very sincerely. Now, we knew in the moment Royce wasn't talking about someone local in town who runs a workshop or whatever. He meant anyone in the history of theatre. "David, what acting teachers...is there someone I should read?"

I didn't fall out of my chair. I suddenly realized for the time I have spent with Royce, working on monologues, hanging out talking, I have given him many references, never seemingly stressing one over another, just running a litany of great artists past and present, each wonderful and applicable to the moment and purpose.

But let's pause more. Reflect. "David, what acting teachers...is there someone I should read?"
Several levels to consider. There is a tired old someone out there somewhere wagging a finger perhaps and saying "You can't learn to act from reading a book!" To which I say emphatically "No shit, Sherlock." (I cuss when I'm playing basketball, teaching Actor's Gymnasium, and sometimes writing this blog. Rarely otherwise). But there is a world of inspiration and ideas and practical substance out there in books about acting for those would seek it. But which books? When the words Stanislavsky and Strasberg roll out of my mouth in response to Royce's question, which actual writings will I send him to?

The problem was I didn't get that far in my considerations in that precise moment. I just said "Lee Strasberg." and then I said kind of comically "I like Stanislavsky too." And Royce said "Which one? I've Read his first book?" (referring to Stanislavsky). I didn't hearken back as I should have, to the days when I wanted to know what book to read and my teacher/mentor patiently loaned me book after book after book with quiet and thoughtful explanation of each. Instead I said "Royce! Weren't you at my Stanislavsky talk?" He said, "Which one?" O.K. I've given a few over the past couple of years, but to me they all equal one. Everyone should have been at each session - thereby, equalling one talk! Then I remembered, Royce came late, missed all that crucial stuff on the publications of Stanislavsky's work, etc.

The years go slowly by...

Then Royce asked about Sonia Moore...if I liked her work. I ripped up the marriage contract I had just drafted between Royce and my young daughter. Sonia Moore. No. The only one who likes Sonia Moore is Phil Bennett. In like twenty seconds I was exasperated. All my years of work and preparation and patience, even the normal licking of my chops and glimmer in my eyes when someone says things like "David, who do you like in acting?" was gone. If we were father and son it would have went to one of those old fashioned love/hate/can't communicate fights. I would have stood up and shouted "You don't bring Sonia Moore into this household!" Stormed out. Mother (played by Howard in this case) would have come to comfort him, baby him. "Son, your father just wants you to love the real Stanislavsky as much as he does." "I can't help it Mama, I was reading Zeami, the Flower in Drama..." "Talk to your father about that then. He mentioned Zeami just the other day in his talk. Let that lead you back together. But don't mention Sonia Moore. Afterall, your father is right. She is junk." "Do you think he will let me keep the Sarah Bernhardt biography?" "Let's keep that between you and me. We will let that be our little secret. If your father asks, I will tell him its mine. That I'm doing comparative study research." "Thank you mama." "Oh, and by the way son, don't mention to your father about that musical theatre class you are taking either." "But why not? Uncle (Patrick) is in that class." "Just don't mention it! Now off you go to read My Life in Art for the one hundredth time! Scoot!"

On a more serious note. My answer to Royce came down to Lee Strasberg, A Dream of Passion. You see Royce has been among the Brits, and the LAMDA's and the Phil's. In their household, you cannot mention Lee. These things happen. So we have to go directly to the source, to the beginning so to speak. We have to get directly to the heart of the matter. In other instances, I might make a different recommendation, related closely of course, but different.

I believe in Royce. He is smart and talented. With or without Lee Strasberg, Royce will do wonderful things. But if he wants the specifics his talents deserve - Lee is the one.

Frozen Heart Revisitation

2010-03-18T13:11:00.000-07:00

I got a notice that Frozen Heart, a new play written by Dawn Sellers and directed by Phil Bennett will be playing at Live Theatre Workshop in the Etcetera Series, late night. I can't stay up late enough hardly to see it, but hopefully it will get plenty of turnout and reception. Last summer I went to a staged reading at Beowulf Alley of this play. I even wrote about that event on this very blog. I was not personally taken or captivated by the script. However, its music to my ears or eyes, to read of its continuation into production. It speaks to the desire and the commitment of the individual artists involved, and to the framework and infrastructure of the producing organizations helping to make it possible. And, I don't have the answer to this, but I want/need to ask the question, how many brand spanking new plays have been produced in this town recently? No theatre (separate concept from producing organizations) is complete, mature, without generating its own playwrights, and/or its own plays. Events such as this one are always important and noted steps along the way.

When I was at the reading, and the talkback afterward, Phil mentioned that he thought the script represented a "new form of theatre." And I was thinking to myself "Phil, have you lost your mind?" And then Dawn said her next step would be to add dancers in some expressive context she had in mind. And I was thinking to myself "Dawn, have you lost your mind too?"
Luckily they never for second paid me any attention, or would have had I opened my mouth.
A reading is just that - a reading. What I perceived in the script at that time that could transfer to the stage who knows...I would have to go back and read my post on it. The important thing is that Dawn and Phil and those working with them sense something and I'm happy to report that it seems dancers have indeed been added.

So, we need to find a way collectively to endorse this process, to relish it. The theatre activity in this town is crazy great right now, awesome really. And Frozen Heart has its place and time.

Act Without Words

2010-03-18T08:45:00.000-07:00

I didn't see Slava's Snowshow when it came to town two years or so ago. I wish I would have. By all accounts Slava Polunin is the greatest clown performer in the world right now. If you are my generation, or above, you probably saw Red Skelton or Carol Burnett when they had TV shows. I'm gonna say I was really young then, but I remember. I tried to copy the antics and routines. My family will tell you so. Those ways they were so fascinated by or slaved over some small thing, some object or some seemingly trivial happening, how it would get out of hand. I loved that. In fact, a few years ago when Howard Allen talked me into being in The Birthday Party I put in a sequence of pouring and drinking coffee, full to the top of the cup, having to sip, spilling etc, that was my kind of tribute to that clown style. I believe my partner in the scene probably hated it, but he was great. To this day, I have a character named Mr. X that I originated in our family Gong Shows - held annually during our family reunions. (Why I always get gonged though I don't know). Mr. X is in that tradition, with a little Jerry Lewis slapped on for good measure. Anyway, the point is, most of us have some fond memories and admiration for those kind of performers. And I think they have been a dying breed - It sure seems like it.

Enter Patty Gallager and Joe McGrath, playing respectively in Act Without Words and Krapp's Last Tape for Rogue's Production of Beckett plays. While I might have preferred a more physically dynamic and exacting rendition by these performers, I found something charming, simple and glorious about their work. Their thoughts, their actions, their attitudes were ordinary everyday, put one foot in front of the other, just trying to solve a problem or lead a nice life. Which in turn as we all know can result in great achievement or great failure.

Why do we laugh when we see someone slip on a banana peel? And what happens when they almost slip, but don't? I hate those kinds of questions! But people somewhere use them for some basis, some theoretical foundation of comedy. Good luck with that. But I guess they speak to fate and chance and luck anticipation and imbalance and all that. I'm smart but not that smart.

I've seen Dario Fo on tape, improvising, and I've seen Corporeal Mime training with Etienne Decroux. There is wonderful inventive use of the body in that work, and when constructed in action holds forth a compelling logic, all including chance and fate and anticipation, reason, desire and gratification (or not), etc. Decroux was a fan and admirier of the great French boxer Georges Carpentier. I wrote of this in some earlier post. Decroux wanted his performers to possess the same kind of balance, grace, power, speed, and control that Carpentier displayed in the ring, executing "The Sweet Science." (Note to all you Ultimate Fighting fans...not even close, so don't go there).

In order to start many of these actions, clown-like or otherwise, you need a good old fashioned big breathe of fresh air - inspiration - and later expiration - life to death so to speak. When that man gets thrown on stage in Act Without Words, tumbling out perhaps, somehow landing on his feet, his first action is a big old breath. Welcome to life baby! Or so I would imagine it. In Rogue's production, Patty was more subtle with her use of technique and action, less exacting and less obvious than I would have asked for. As a spectator I don't need or want to be hit over the head with a stamp, but Patty's rendition made it more difficult to determine what, if anything, was going on. In many respects that was just fine. I enjoyed that even to a degree. The work was of a more general nature and an acceptance of the script as vague. Given Patty's talents and background in Clown work, in Balinese Mask, I think a more specific and tightly woven set of actions could have been constructed which would have built the intensity and anticipation and consequences of the actions accordingly.

We all know the word text (often glorified by intellectuals of the theatre, and those who consider theatre an outreach of literature) is short for texture, meaning a weave...think rugs and all that. There are tight weaves and loose weaves. On stage, a text is created by actors composing a series of individual actions. These actions include physical movement, thought, emotion, etc, all the characteristics of human nature and behavior, including use of words and language sometimes. What the actors create is the performance text - that which us spectators see and hear. As we experience the text (the sequence of actions) unfolding on stage, we as spectators begin to identify certain behaviors. We begin to understand a certain logic unfolding. We start to harbor expectations and anticipations. And this being America with a mostly upper class British culture influencing our social, educational and entertainment commitments, we suppose we have to pay attention to every moment in polite fashion - which only furthers our expectations and our ideas for what is happening in our presence on stage. In some production, our expected logic plays out fully right to the end and we as imaginative spectators follow it right through with satisfaction. It meets our emotional and intellectual expectations and needs, moment by moment. Other productions interrupt or change the established logic. This sends our senses scrambling. Sends our intellect scrambling. Sends our emotions scrambling. We hate it. Or we love it. This can happen in big or little jumps, slowly or quickly, often or rarely within a production. In Rogue's Act Without Words, and Krapp's Last Tape as well, to me it seemed to follow the established logic through to the end. We could say the initial set up was unconventional - we didn't have all the story and bells and whistles we spectators like to have to indulge our intellect and emotions - but once established, the logic of each piece was carried through by the performance text created on-stage, beginning to end. And so as a spectator, you get left wondering what was it all about. You try to arrange the events in your mind in the same consistently it was presented in. Hard to make sense of that way.

On the other hand, its not easy to craft Beckett's work on the stage with the same spirit that he crafted in on the page, with disruptions of established logics, and biological impact on the spectators senses. You can't throw out all conventions of polite theatre practice - you need them. But you have to craft some violation of those into the performance. You have to give the spectators some unusual considerations, within unusual considerations. One level of unusual consideration is not Beckett. Beckett needs at least two, maybe three levels. Unusual within unusual, within unusual.

OK - I'm calling time out again for now. Hopefully I'll more to say as I continue to mull it all over. Like good theatre makes you do!

New Seasons

2010-03-18T08:39:00.000-07:00

For those theatres and companies which operate with "seasonal" series of plays, is it getting earlier and earlier each prior year that announcements are being made as to what the schedule will be for the next year? Or does it just seem like it to me. What about companies announcing two seasons in a row? I guess I don't have much of an opinion about it, except its nice to know of all the plans being made, all the activity happening, the second stages, etc.

Samuel Beckett

2010-03-17T18:36:00.001-07:00

This being St. Patrick's Day, I've tried to do my Irish duty - and so I think I can write and have a lot of important things to say right now. JK - not that bad - only one brief, single Guinness.

I have yet to finish writing my thoughts (still forthcoming) on the production of Our Town which happened at the Rogue Theatre, but I am "skipping ahead" to write about their production of three Samuel Beckett plays. But before I even get to that, I want to make, if not a proclamation, at least one hell of a plea. (You know you can do such a thing when its your own blog). This proclamation/plea will get me in trouble with friends and foes alike. And that's o.k. Perhaps it will even warrant a comment or two - there is that feature available here to all who would not abuse it, so please feel free. The proclamation/plea is this; all of us here in Tucson, especially those of us who like and are involved in theatre as spectators, actors, directors, etc, should swear an oath to defend and protect the Rogue Theatre at all times...bear any burden, pay any cost...

Why write such a thing? Afterall, I'm not personally enthralled with every action undertaken by the Rogue. But my answer is simple as pie. I know a theatre when I see, hear, touch, taste and smell one - and the Rogue is such an animal. What do I mean by saying its a theatre? Aren't there lots of theatres? NO. No, no, no, no, and no. Not in my book. There are producing organizations, entities which consists of administrators, often well run, who job in artists for single productions, which are often very well done, who envision and carry out their work like eclectic library keepers. Then there are Theatres, organizations which consists primarily of a group of artists, who share common philosophies and ideas about art and life, and who band together on a permanent basis to create theatrical productions which bespeak those ideas and philosophies. The artist's individual talents and skills are used in proportion and are developed relative to the whole. A clear example of a producing organization is Arizona Theatre Company. An example of a theatre is The Rogue. And as far as I know, and I wish and could only hope that I was somehow gravely wrong about this, it is the only such one for hundreds of miles. Therefore, it should be recognized and held as a community treasure.

Now I have near and dear friends who would readily knock certain practices and criteria adopted by the Rogue. I hear all the statements and "complaints,' and I throw out a few myself - though not on the same order of business as others I hear. Have you heard this one? "Cindy and Joe and Patty play all the parts!" Or this one? "Cindy and Joe and David M. direct all the productions!" That's right. And Tom makes all the posters, and Harlan organizes all the music and Clint does all the lights. That is what happens in a Theatre. Like it or not. Think of going to see a band, or a single musician even, or your favorite sports team. The players are not constantly changing out, but rather they are developing and integrating and hopefully growing in their art and craft. Guess who played all the roles in the Moscow Art Theatre at the beginning. Yep, Stanislavsky. Guess who directed. Yep, Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko. Guess who directs almost one-hundred percent of Odin Teatret's productions. Eugenio Barba. Guess how many artists/actors in Odin Teatret to perform in every production for the last forty years. About eight. Would those who have been lucky enough to see Odin's repertoire of productions conclude that they need more or different actors or another director? I doubt it. I wouldn't.

The cause and origin of mine and my friends "complaints" in that vein stems from professional longing and the habits of being a jobbed-in, piecemeal-worker actors. We so accept and are so dependent on the status-quo of those Producing Organizations, that we forget how art is made, or can be made in the theatre. The fact is, as I said earlier, there are a bunch of producing organizations around - and that's great. Let the Rogue be what it is - a theatre with a point of view. Don't make or want them to be something else. Cherish what is there as rare.

When Tucson Art Theatre was in operation back in the day, we had all the same kind of knocks and labels used against us. "It's cult-like." "Same people play all the roles in every production."

It comes down to a matter of understanding intent, and to understanding that not every play has to take shape in four weeks of rehearsal by a group of freshly introduced actors. Nor should they. My feelings about what constitutes a Theatre are particular and strong, and rooted in the work and teachings of Harold Clurman. These go in detail well beyond the established practices of The Rogue. Never-the-less, The Rogue is well in the door - and in this day and age, that is no minor feat. So I say again, let's embrace them as a community treasure.

Now I can get to my complaints about the Beckett plays...plus all the things I liked too. First of all, let me refer to the comment feature again, as I'm about to say something to send my friends scrambling to say I'm only a friend and they don't share all my beliefs, and for my foes to say "see, I told you he was crazy." (Comment feature - I don't edit as long as you don't personally slander anyone). Ok, here goes. With all due respect to the talents and skills of Patty Gallagher who played in The Rogues production of Act Without Words, the first feature of three, I think you just have to have a man, a male, play that role. Yea, yea, it goes against certain basic beliefs of theatre and life to say that - but once in a while, to me it seems, there are those roles which just have to be played by a certain gender, or ethnicity, or shape or size, etc. This is not an insult or even a comment for or against race, gender, size and shape, but rather a specific requirement within an artistic structure - in this case, Act Without Words. You need the man to make it holistic, and give the full effect, purpose and consequence to the spectators. It can be done with a female, as Rogue and Patty showed, with effectiveness, but not with full effect...and consequence etc. (Comment feature). I would say its especially important to have a man in a production where you are attempting to display strictly the author's personal imagining of a piece, as Rogue seemed to be attempting to do throughout otherwise. My companion complaint, and I might be wrong on this one, but I don't think I am, so I have to proceed as if I know exactly what I'm talking about, is that the Patty as the character chewed her fingernails on a couple of occasions. I can't claim to recall this script as written by Beckett, but I think, I think, it says the man looks at his hands...or studies his hands...something along those lines. I don't think it says "chews or bites fingernails." I'm pretty sure that later it says the man uses the shears for cutting his nails, but I don't think it indicates or says chews them prior to that. And that is important to me in the grand sequence of actions and logic of the play. Very important. And my third complaint, which also falls in relation, is that there was an object on the stage prior to the appearance of the man! I mean, gasp! Seriously, gasp!

To say those things about the production infers that I know a little about Beckett. I came as a spectator to this production with some general knowledge. And now because of that knowledge I hold some criticisms and prejudices against the production. But what if I hadn't had the previous knowledge of Beckett? No expectations in that regard as a spectator. Perhaps just general theatre going experience. What would be, or what was my experience then? Impossible to say for sure but believe I would have been questioning, not heavily, but in the sense of "ok if this is suppose to be funny, how come its not that funny, and if its supposed to be serious, how come its not that serious, and if its supposed to be profound, how come its not that profound, etc." I would have been confused I believe, in general. Bored at times and interested at times. Surprised at times dying from the obvious at other times. Now you may think that is bad. And if this was your everyday, daily newspaper review perhaps so - because aren't spectators supposed to know what is happening and why at all times and be entertained one-hundred percent of the time? Nah. Beckett gets you differently. I don't know if they intended it, but I like the stop action in Rogue's production. The stillness. And the slowness. So against the grain, I loved it. Not alot happened. And when it did happen, it wasn't complicated. Just a few critical things.

But in my prejudiced and preconceived mind, those few critical things that happen, and must happen in particular sequence, were warped, contaminated if you will, by having an object on stage prior to the man's appearance on stage, and by the chewing of the fingernails. The logic and reasoning of the sequence of actions, and subsequently their collective depth and meaning is confused and partially lost by these additions. Now Rogue's production was still "about" something, and that something is totally up in the air, but it has a changed logic and sequence of actions from Beckett's as he described it on the page. Rogue's production had a life and immediate theatrical impact within the moment on the spectators, and that's naturally different for all of us, but we are left more to guess perhaps than even Beckett would have wanted on any emotional and intellectual understanding of it.

There is (or should be) a bare-bones magnitude to Act Without Words. One single, simple, clear action at a time, slowly brings the man, and the spectators, to conscious awareness and decision, instinct and choice, innocence found and lost, and a whole host of other things real and imagined. It's a lonely, or rather a solitary experience, for the man and the spectators, undertaking and contemplating each action. Gaining experience, prejudice and preconceptions along the way. Wondering what part of those are real, which will reoccur, and how and why do I handle them. There is in a sense a birth when the man is thrown on stage...an empty stage I might add...and through sounds and movements and actions and reactions, the man develops awareness of self. And there is the discovery of environment, and needs of the self, physical needs, emotional needs, intellectual needs. There is the discovery of the interaction and control or non-control of over ones environment (thus the observation and use of the hands...one of the keys for mankind), and so on it goes. But this is all done, or intended to be done, with the supreme simpleness that only a supreme "clown" as performer can do. Because Beckett builds the bigger ironies that way, of theatre and life.

At the beginning of Beckett's script, as the man is thrown onstage, there is only "self." There is no "place." As the stage is empty. However, in Rogue's production, place was already present prior to the man being thrown on stage. It was there in the form of that object on the stage, as rock or piece of ground, (however difficult it was to identify). That is what I mean by the logic being changed. It doesn't discount Rogue's production for what it was, but it made it different from Beckett's very precise sequence of logic and actions. In an otherwise empty space, or dark space if you will, I see only the man. But in Rogue's I saw the man and the rock, or earth, or at least object in relation to him. I am aware of a certain "on stage" and a certain "off stage" already - way to soon. It was a change of sequence, and change of logic, and even story.

One school of thought might say Beckett gives you so little at a time but it adds up to a lot somehow. Another school of thought would be Beckett always gives you a lot, but in a deceptively small form and it adds up to a lot, (or to nothingness). In an English garden you see layers and layers of plants and colors. In a Japanese garden you might only see one plant among one or two colors or rock or water. But don't forget there are hundreds of those black rocks. A lot in a deceptively simple form. I am in the second school of thought. And that placement of the plant in relation to the rocks is the logic and sequence for me. Critical. Its all very crucial and even delicate. Even the title, Act Without Words, like all good titles, plays its own little part. For what do we see soon enough on the stage but a word - WATER. In written form, but a word none-the-less. We don't see two words, just one. One word. It's appearance is silly, ironic, reasonable, theatrically appealing, and loaded with meaning, as form and content.

I'll have to pause and finish reference to the last two pieces later - and the many things I enjoyed or questioned. I look forward to more reflection on them.

The Glass Menagerie - How is Truth Revealed?

2010-03-11T08:35:00.000-08:00

I have yet to see The Glass Menagerie at ATC - but of course I have been hearing about it, and reading about it. And waiting - hoping to hear the insight from a reviewer or a spectator of what this play and production is. I have heard mostly "good" things. And those good things are mostly about the set, and the manner of presentation of the events of the play. But I haven't heard about the "soul" of the play - the reasons its a brilliant story, the subtle specifics that can only live, come to life, in the thoughts, feelings and actions of the actors. I haven't heard the how and why. Not yet anyway. The logic and reason hasn't come forth. That is not to say its not in this production or doesn't happen. But I haven't heard or read of it yet.

What do I mean by this?

First of all, I am as Meyerholdian/Vakhtongovian as they come. Give me a few proscenium servants and the back wall anyday! If you open the window all the better too! It other words, I have nothing against what people think of or consider to be "theatrical" or "non-realistic" etc.
I'm all for it.

But here is one of the questions of the play - when Tom, the narrator, says "I give you truth disguised as an illusion," what does he mean by that and more importantly WHY does he say it? Why does he want to represent and present his story that way? This was (as it should be) one of the lines, ideas, discussed by the director and written about within various articles. Yet the nuts and bolts of it were never mentioned in those articles- that why? And isn't that the fist question you learn to ask as a director/actor? Journalist? Why? In this case its not to celebrate the joys of theatre and theatricality and non-realism. It has to be specific, and with cause. The answer to this why is simple - but comes with complex and meaningful history. When he (Tom/Tennessee) has been obvious with the truth before, he has had the shit kicked out of him! emotionally and physically! Tom/Tennessee is shy, scared of people in that sense now. He needs to tell this story and he needs it to be completely honest and truthful - but he is reserved, trepid in his approach. And so he chooses to put it the context of "truth disguised as an illusion." He doesn't want the shit beat out of him again! He wants/needs to ease into it all, soften it so to speak. And so he says "truth disguised as an illusion." That makes us all pause and think - allowing him to slip in all the truth and get away unharmed.

Ok, that's one part. Tom/Tennessee as shy, afraid, trepid, insecure - but desperately needing to tell the truth, somehow, someway. The follow-up question to that is why does he need to tell the truth? What is it that happens that makes this story relevant? The answer is his sister was sacrificed in such a way as to makes him become who he is, makes him become truthful and daring as a person, an artist. Without that sacrifice, he might not, in fact its doubtful, ever would have gotten to that. Its a sad but brilliant story. And it has many layers of depth and meaning and intrigue.

Here's a catch, or rather an insight, perhaps just a fact, of interest. In one draft of this play, Jim (the Gentleman Caller) and Laura, make a second date! And Amanda (Tom's mother) tells him that he will always have a home to come home to! A happy and hopeful ending! That's how Tennessee wrote the play prior to learning the dire reality and consequences of his sister Rose's lobotomy. But something didn't sit right with Tennessee about that. He couldn't leave it that way. He had to tell the truth, to reveal it. And along with that, find a way to proceed in life, that somehow preserves the love, displays the guilt, and honors his sisters life, her fate, and speaks to who and what we are as humans. He needed, wanted to live the truth for the rest of his life, somehow, someway, difficult and risky as that might be - for the alternative to that, the lies and the disguises, is much, much worse. And so he changed the play, to the truth. And in the play, through confrontation, Tom/Tennessee shatters the illusions, the games, the distractions created by his mother and society and says this is who I am, this is who we are, and this is what the world is. He cries out that his sister was sacrificed so that we might know the truth - (biblical like that even).

I haven't heard or read of this shy, scared young man, attempting to tell the truth to us. I haven't heard how he would approach the audience with trepidation at first, and whether or not he does, or would, develop a trust with and for this same audience, a compassion, an understanding through the means he uses to tell his story. I hope it happens in this production. I hope it does. Its a fragile process - like a glass menagerie. You can be distracted by its form and beauty - like a glass menagerie. You can lose yourself in its glamour, its light - like a glass menagerie. You can wander lost its fantasy and illusion - like a glass menagerie. Or you can see and find it for what it is...really is...love to cruelty turned back to love.

OMG!

2010-03-04T12:12:00.000-08:00

Ok, I'm not a big movie buff. I watch 'em, but I don't keep up on current releases and all that. And I know little about and follow the Oscar Awards even less. But of all the movies I did not see this year, the one I did see was "Up In The Air." Today, I discovered this movie has been nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture! And got three nominations in the Acting categories. OMG! (always wanted to use that). Now really I couldn't care any less about these awards. They interest me only as trivial conversation. But...But...How in the hell did this movie get nominated for Best Picture?! I mean seriously, if this is one of the "best" I would hate to have to watch the worst. I didn't hate the movie or anything, but it is mostly trite, totally one-hundred percent predictable, downright boring at times, and nothing about the way its filmed or presented bespeaks of creativity. It is Hollywood workmanship, average through and through, at best! Somebody would have to have extraordinary insight into to some hidden gems about this baby, something approaching a miracle, that they could explain to me to make me even consider watching or caring about an awards ceremony where this flick is one of the stars. I'm no high-falutin kind of person but lets me real. Average crap is average crap.

I'm Hip!

2010-03-04T09:48:00.000-08:00

Back in 1975-76, I was in Junior High School. The popular music was like Shake Shake Shake Your Booty and Earth Wind and Fire, The Hustle, probably the Eagles...stuff like that I remember. Anyway, I played on our school basketball team and we had a guy in 8th grade named Alex. He was mostly soft-spoken, but could occasionally be loud and funny, had a good sense of humor and a really big giant afro that kind of went all over cause it wasn't a tight curl. I believe Alex was multiple ethnicity's. Anyway, I liked him and always got along with him, and we depended on him on the court - he was one of our "big guys." He could run and move well but had suffered some kind of accident when he was younger so he always had a kind of limp, as if one leg was a little shorter than the other, which I think was true. I had long hair at the time and had been nick-named "Hippie" by the track coach. (My hair wasn't all that long, but you know, such were the days). Our basketball coach was from inner-city Detroit, and had played a stint in the ABA, and had come west to work and teach, but still had a shoe on the court and an eye and ear out for another contract really. He could do some pretty amazing things on the court. At some point in the season something happened, some conflict and Alex was off the team. Later he got reinstated though and finished out the season. Late in the school year, after the school basketball season was over, coach organized a three-on-three tournament for us. Alex was one of my two teammates for the event.

Flash forward over the years, and I had forgotten about Alex, about the three-on-three tournament, and what became of a few other friends from that time. Then by chance I read an article about a murder trial. Alex's name (he has an uncommon and unusual last name) appeared on the page as a witness who had been testifying. Apparently Alex had met and befriended the suspect when the charged party was doing some time in prison. Alex was, and still is locked up - serving a very long sentence apparently, for what I don't know. I vaguely remember hearing rumors or discussion somewhere, someplace of some event that happened...but I can't recall. My memories are we were just kids, and he had a good turn around jump shot in the key, and came from or lived at a place or a home that was "different," like supervised or something...I don't really know, can't remember. I remember him laughing and arguing and all the things we did, hair flying, and all of us saying "I'm hip" in response to any and everything.

Reflecting on Our Town - Part One

2010-03-03T10:29:00.000-08:00

There was a time in America when the identifying symbols of a city or town were the courthouse and the churches, representing our commitment to the ideas of democracy and freedom of belief. That has since been replaced by sports glory structures and corporate high-rises, representing the emergence of our desire for vicarious fantasy and money as primary pursuit and value.

Reflecting on Thorton Wilder’s play Our Town and the recent production given it by Rogue Theatre, is not just an exercise in nostalgia or longing for different or simpler times. But rather it’s an immediate examination of current actions, current hopes and dreams, crisis and catharsis, and a question of what drives us onward, what do we hold near and dear to our hearts. I love this play for many reasons, and in fact consider it to be one of the best plays ever written. Its stigma as a “high school” play with accompanying perpetrated cliches is too bad – because that it ain’t. So when Rogue announced its production, I was elated.

Rogues theatrical manifesto holds language and imagination as joint and primary conveyors of story and theatrical expression. My own manifesto if written would hold event and ritual as the essential components. With that difference defined, let me say I include language and imagination and Rogue includes event and ritual. The degree of emphasis though, and the reasoning behind it, separates us. I may talk more of this later but I bring it up now to offer a clue as to my own bias and taste, and to try and appreciate and understand what it is to be a spectator at a particular theatrical function.

Returning to the facts of the first paragraph: If change and relief are going to come again to our cities and towns, from where and how will it happen? Like all good answers today, I believe the “Green” Revolution holds the best hope. When Wilder penned his play and chose the time and place of the story, he crossed from agrarian society to industrial society, and from one calendar century to another effectively – the “big boom” of change. In our present day and age we hold the next change at hand, and perhaps it will take us back to something agrarian like.

In Our Town, cause and effect is measured and understood by the inch, neighbor to neighbor, rippling out eventually to the larger world and back again. “Green” Revolution ideas ask us to consider life the same way, inch by inch. What happens next door socially, politically, psychologically and ecologically when I build this, or say this, or do this here and now? What systems and applications will create the ways and means for us to have a healthy and holistically sound living environment? What is the reasoning behind our infrastructures, and what are the goals? And what is actually happening there within the infrastructure? The promise of America still waits. Green Revolution ideas create things that hold both individual meaning and value, as well as collective meaning and value – based on every single individual in daily life, daily action – whether you are famous or recognized or not – simple and practical and understandable. The industrial revolution on the other hand created what we have today – systems and infrastructures based on general economic leverage, whereby the unique individual is by-passed for convenience, profit and uniformity. (And then is asked to stay healthy.). Cultural symbols of the Industrial Revolution represent fame or glory, and/or the vagueness of monetary wealth and power.

Tennessee and Glass

2010-03-03T09:27:00.000-08:00

Sheila OMalley is a terrific writer and has yet another wonderful post in her blog "The Sheila Variations" - this one on Tennessee Williams and his journal, with reference to The Glass Menagerie. Check it out at sheilaomalley.com

Also, a friend of mine who saw Glass at ATC (preview performance I believe) said Laura wore a cane brace on her arm. Is this possible? In the sense of "a little defect?" Would mom have gone that far in either allowing it or that far in denial once it was there?

Bang the Drums and Sound the Horns!

2010-02-26T11:59:00.000-08:00

Joyous time is just upon us! The time of the local productions I have been waiting all "season" to see - Picnic by William Inge at Live Theatre Workshop, The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams at Arizona Theatre Company, The Trip to Bountiful by Horton Foote at Waypointe Theatre and Othello by William Shakespeare at Rogue Theatre. I can't wait!

[And oh yea, I just want to mention, Steve Anderson...best among the best (in my opinion) is directing Flaming Guns of the Purple Sage...at Beowulf Alley Theatre. I'm just throwing that in there...flaming guns of the purple sage...Steve Anderson...great director...Beowulf...flaming guns...]

Anyway, just to kick of those first plays I mentioned, here is a excerpt from a preview article in the Star regarding Glass Menagerie.

There's nothing like getting some direction from the dead.
"Being a memory play, 'The Glass Menagerie' can be presented with unusual freedom of convention," Tennessee Williams, who died in 1983, wrote in his introduction to the play.
The words were like a great ringing of the Liberty Bell for Juliette Carrillo, director of the Arizona Theatre Company production opening in previews Saturday.
"That was really freeing," she said in a recent phone conversation before a rehearsal. "I tend to make choices that are not realistic."

O.K., my question, reaction to that is "what does that mean?" Read the entire article and go see the play...but in the meantime, here is another excerpt

"What I'm doing in the conceptual approach to this play is I'm investigating how we lose ourselves in the world of fantasy as a means of escape," Carrillo said.
"I'm literally dissecting that process, turning it upside down and looking at it. I don't think I'm judging it; I'm just examining it in a new way."

My thoughts: Don't we all know that Americans lose themselves daily, almost all day long in some sort of vicarious experience or fantasy or virtual reality and the acting out of personas? Do we need to examine that process in detail? Or do we need, as Tennessee intended, for us to see the absolute truth and reality of our daily situations? Don't we need to have those fantasies obliterated? and reality revealed? As happens in the play?

And what of that notion Tennessee mentions about the play being presented with unusual freedom of convention? That does not mean an escape or change from realism or reality, into the so-called "theatrical" or unreal, but rather it means throw off the disguises, those things, those conventions that hide reality, the false scenery, etc, and get to the literal, the literal, thoughts, feelings and actions of the characters. The simple but oh so difficult, "o.k., this is who and what I am and who and what you are - now let's deal with it."

This could be a case of the director mimicking our lives of hiding and playing in fantasy, avoiding what's actually there - trying to outsmart and over think, over conceptualize the play. It remains to be seen what reaches the stage.

Whatever the answers are, here's looking forward to the production!

Meyerhold and Brecht

2010-02-23T10:20:00.000-08:00

There is a great book by Katherine Bliss Eaton called The Theatre of Meyerhold and Brecht. It was published in the mid-eighties and details the immediate and practical connections between the work and ideas of these two great directors. Essentially it tells of the massive influence Meyerhold's work had on Brecht's own. It's no stretch or great secret to say Brecht was a "borrower." But many Brechtenites are completely ignorant of the fundamental theory and obvious connection between him and Meyerhold. Eaton's Book is one of several wonderful sources to offer insight into this.

I bring this up as prelude still to Vakhtangov and the First Studio. We have to think what came just before the First Studio and what came after. We have to realize how trends and forces of theatre prior led to the formation of the First Studio and how those trends and forces were released back into the world from the First Studio. The First Studio was that turning, that intensifying moment in time for theatre - where everything changed.

Meyerhold crosses the threshold of before and after. Brecht was an after, under Meyerhold's concepts. Before the First Studio, Stanislavsky set up an experimental studio theatre with young actors under the leadership and teaching of Meyerhold. In that studio you find the first notions of the "Making Strange" ideas later adopted by Brecht.

Grotowski too was an after, and under the influence of Vakhtangov's protege, Yuri Zavadsky, with whom he studied with in Moscow for a year. Grotowski later of course formed his Polish Laboratory Theatre (as it eventually came to be called).

These are tid-bits of information...but all roads here hopefully lead back to an eventual coherent story that tells of these connections, these ideas instigated by Stanislavsky and contained nowadays in modern theatre practice.

Strange Days Indeed

2010-02-23T07:47:00.001-08:00

Two things! One is something which I rarely do, and one is something I haven't done in I-don't-know-when. First one is I went running, jogging. I'm no raramura, but I put in a little effort - part of an overall attempt at regaining some speed and power and agility (as if I had a lot of that before) in my movements. The second thing was I made an appointment to get my haircut. An appointment! I know some people do that all the time - but to me getting a haircut entails walking into the barbershop, waiting your turn, talking sports or politics, looking through magazines, etc. And then when its your turn, the barber cuts your hair. But I made a mistake - I went to a different place (for various reasons. none great). When I walked in the "barber" said "Hi, you have an appointment right?" I was like "Do I need one?" He said yea, so I said o.k. and the next thing I know I had to come back in two hours...Well, I did and finally got my hair cut. It wasn't the haven of male might I'm used to for the occassion. And it was fine in the long run, but being the only one present other than the "barber" and having him wash your hair as part of the process on a slow Sunday afternoon...

Good Looks

2010-02-19T05:25:00.001-08:00

I love the publicity photo for Frankie and Johnnie! Winding Road's. Maybe Terry and Amy look a little too subtly comfortable as the characters in it...but still, I love it. It's like the play, simple, straightforward, focus on the humanity, the relationship. No mugging. All good.

Rogue Theatre always has unusually amazing production photos too. If any theatre can stage what we commonly call "a spectacle" in a relatively small theatre space, its Rogue. Their plays just look and seem big and glamorous, and that comes through in the photos. Part of that comes from that fact that they put people on stage. By that I mean they have good old-fashioned (in the best sense of that term) plays with lots of cast members! OK...there is the one show with one, two, maybe three people in it, per their season. But usually, things are spectaclish there.
In fact, as far as I know, every Rogue production has 4o musicians, 30-40 actors, 97 characters, 2-3 stage managers, 17 ushers, and 4 kinds of directors. And you see them all!

And here is a plea for Bill Killian to dust off his Chekhov one-act, On The Dangers of Tobacco, and get to performing. I saw a very short section of this in Patrick's seminar earlier this week and cracked up! It is very, very funny...and Bill was lively and improvisational with it within the circumstances of setting - and darned if he wasn't dapper as could be in that get-up he was wearing. Do it Bill!

Fresh Air, Blue Skies.

2010-02-18T08:28:00.000-08:00

What happens when you take a twenty-minute leisurely walk to work on a morning when the weather is almost perfect? Well, in my case the following - saw and heard a mockingbird singing away, then a fat emerald green hummingbird in a Palo Verde tree, next I came across Technicians for Sustainability (http://tfssolar.com/) delivering and getting ready to install solar panels, which they were transporting by an awesome bike and trailer combo, electric power assisted, spoke to them briefly about their work, and finally standing in the middle of road, on the median, waiting to cross, Patrick drives up to make a turn and tells me to get a job, to which I reply "I'm begging for change from the medians these days, cough some up!"

Sleeping Frogs Farm

2010-02-11T09:43:00.001-08:00

Students working along side a chicken coop at Sleeping Frog - an organic farm - labor intensive.

The Best Stew of All Time - introduction part 2

2010-02-08T11:39:00.000-08:00

There was all this great work and these great people that came together in the time and space and years just before the forming of First Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre. All that collective knowledge, all those collective ideas and all that collective experience was put into form and practice in the First Studio - compressed and intensified so to speak. And then following, from out of the First Studio came this explosion practically of more ideas, more influence and more work. The First Studio is like the hinge, the turning point ...no, sorry that metaphor is wrong...more like the stew pot where the best ingredients arrived and somehow this stew pot magically fed everyone and then led to a whole new series of recipes, nourishing and sustaining us even to this very day...theatrically speaking that is. OK, that's a little hokey, but that's how it worked. That's what it was. It's Los Alamos. It's Darwin's trip to the Galapagos. It's the New Deal. It's the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It's the Jets winning the Super Bowl even! What came before it, leading to it, what it was in the moment, and what has come to be since as a result...

The First Studio is the single most important gathering of people and practice in modern western theatre culture. And Vakhtangov is the single most important person from within that particular gathering.

Prior to, leading up the First Studio, you have Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko forming the Moscow Art Theatre and achieving success with the plays of Chekhov, Gorky and others. You have Meyerhold first as an actor in the Art Theatre, then as a director/teacher in Stanislavsky's studio theatre (Not in the First Studio - a different studio theatre. Bear with the names, they are kind of like how I call animals...white dog, little cat, skinny cat, black dog, one fish, two fish, etc.) You have Stanislavsky working with Gordon Craig, Isadora Duncan and other international artists. You have Sulerzhitsky. You have Tolstoy hanging around. Artists, Poets, Designers, Musicians. You have revolution in the air. And that is but the tip of the ice-berg! There is a gathering of force if you will - work, ideas, influences, including the notion that theatre can literally and immediately combine them all, especially via the work of the actor.

So comes Stanislavsky and puts together a group of young theatre artists under the leadership of Sulerzhitsky, and this group comes to be known later as the First Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre. I will leave aside their actual work and practice for now, except to say that now you have the idea of a "laboratory theatre." Now you have actor preparation that includes work in the realm of pre-expressive as well as the expressive. You have theatre dedicated to a specific idea. You have science and psychology and progressive ideas. You have nature and yoga and ancient ideas. You have a fusion of writer, actor, director and designers. You have ethics and spirituality. You have the question and idea of individual within a collective and vice versa. You have the question and challenge of form and content. None of these things were unique or entirely new in and of themselves. But being put completely and consciously together in totality - this was absolutely new. And it changed western theatre.

After the First Studio you have the work and ideas of Michael Chekhov, Vakhtangov's, and Stanislavsky's continuing work. You have numerous theatres under the influence of their example, including The Habima. You get Meyerhold full blown. You get Grotowski and his ideas. You get Boleslavsky and Ouspenskaya. You get the Group Theatre and in turn Lee Strasberg, Harold Clurman, Stella Adler, Bobby Lewis, Clifford Odets, Elia Kazan, and others. You get Popov, Zavadsky, Knebel, and Brecht. And again this is but the tip of the ice-berg.

The sphere of knowledge and influence leading into the forming of the First Studio and the sphere of knowledge and influence coming out of the First Studio is completely unmatched on any level in the history of theatre. But how many people actually know of it, of its details, of the people who were the First Studio? How many people know of the details of Vakhtangov's work?

Vahktangov - First Studio - a very brief introduction

2010-02-07T09:42:00.000-08:00

About 99 years ago, Yevgeny Vakhtangov appeared on the scene at the Moscow Art Theatre. He was a young actor and soon-to-be director, fresh from the Adashev Drama School. At this time, Stanislavsky was in the process of organizing yet another group of young theatre artists - this particular one, of which Vakhtangov was chosen to be part of, came to be known as The First Studio of the Moscow Art Theatre. Much has been written and talked about regarding this group, though not nearly enough. And in a blog post like this, its difficult to decide where to begin in examining Vakhtangov and/or The First Studio. The lead-up to it is as rich in detail and excitement and historical importance as any moment of western theatrical history, as is the huge, huge aftermath. Given the set-up and the following influence, its easy to say the First Studio was the single most important theatrical group ever in western theatre practice. And in the amazing make-up of people who were part of it, Vakhtangov was/is, in the end, the single most important member and contributor to its work and influence - in those immediate moments and beyond.

Vakhtangov was born in February of 1883 and died in May of 1922. He worked with and is the in-practice combination and common link uniting Stanislavsky, Sulerzhitsky, Michael Chekhov, Meyerhold and others. To understand Vakhtangov is to understand, in fundamental practice and potential, the history and work of the Stanislavsky System and many of the subsequent great directors and teachers of theatre including Lee Strasberg. What came before, and what came after Vakhtangov is all part and parcel of, and contained in the body of work he set forth as an actor and director during his short life. His humble and dedicated endeavors (working in small theatres with as-of-yet unheard of folks and bare-bones conditions) provide an example of love and a story of promise and hope that is as good as they get.

That's my brief, brief introduction. Its a long tale, but I can give you some detail and perspective over time, over more posts, and of course there are others out there who can contribute mightily to the story. Revisiting Vakhtangov is always a must!

Making Adobe Bricks

2010-02-07T09:11:00.000-08:00

Last week I took a ride to the Prescott College Tucson Center's "Greenlots." We have two. I was accompanying a group of resident students down from Prescott and our local Ironwood Tree Experience leaders/organizers. The Greenlots are intended to be working, ever-changing areas bringing together adults, children, nature, and urban life - projects of The Center for Children and Nature at Prescott College. On the agenda for that day at one of the lots was making adobe bricks!

A Million and One Things

2010-02-05T12:19:00.000-08:00

Yes, there are a million and one things (at least) that I haven't yet gotten around to writing about. Here's my working list of generalities up to about # Nine or so (and I'm open to suggestions).

1. More Stanislavsky.
2. Much more on the local productions, and local artists.
3. Brecht.
4. Meyerhold.
5. Vakhtangov, Vakhtangov, Vakhtangov.
6. Lee Strasberg.
7. Play Analysis.
8. Rehearsals.
9. Anecdotes.

Reading a Play Script vs Going to the Theatre

2010-02-05T11:38:00.000-08:00

The question came up a couple of weeks ago, courtesy of Patrick by way of quote from Maya Angelou I believe. The quote was to the effect that it is often, usually, better to read a play than to see a production of a play. The idea was that one could get more out of a script (personal value) by reading alone than one could get sitting in a theatre experiencing a production of that very same script.

Rather than get into an either/or debate about the qualities of each, I want to articulate the concrete, fundamental differences between the two (besides the obvious).

First is logic. Reading a script (a play) allows for one single flow of logic - the words as written on the page. No matter if you move from a chair to the bed to the patio to field nearby under the shade tree while you read, this logic will be single and the same. A theatrical production/spectacle, allows for simultaneous, parallel and multiple streams of logic. (O.K. most U.S. directors and presenters, including our local artists, rarely present more than one stream of logic/action unless by accident - but the possibility is there, and even in the normal gussied up stage readings advertised as full productions there is some simultaneous logic and action).

Second is that in reading a script you are in the art and realm of the writer, the word(s). Sitting in the theatre you are in the art and the realm of the actor, action/behavior. The page belongs to the writer. The stage belongs to the actor.

These two fundamental differences, means that there are also fundamentally different skills required for the "audience" of each. The reader of the script is required to read and comprehend. The spectator is required to take in a production via the senses - sight, sound, taste, touch and smell. Reading is a mental, intellectual challenge. Being a spectator, while including mental intellectual challenge, is a visceral experience.

Hell Freezes Over!

2010-02-04T09:30:00.000-08:00

I'm about to sing the praises of Arizona Theatre Company. Shocking but true. For ten years or so, such a notion has been strange to impossible for me. I might have said previously, "If you like technical wizardry and gadgetry in theatre, sets that are nice if not truly interesting and meaningful, silliness and buffoonery, dark skinned people singing-dancing-and smiling, over-priced tickets, then go see shows at Arizona Theatre Company." But I wouldn't have actually praised them. Times change. I change. And I'm happy to say that while they may not have changed they are at least doing something that makes sense to me. They are doing a series of free public events around the production of The Glass Menagerie - and I was the first one to sign up for the Actor's Lab, Text Analysis through Scene Study Workshop! That's right, numero uno!

(Check out the theatre announcement list or perhaps their website for the full listing of events, and then get yourself involved too!) .

I love the play, The Glass Menagerie. It might be a hard case convincing a few knuckleheads, as to the relevance and importance of this play today, but then again lots of great work goes unnoticed and unappreciated...in favor of ...uh...other plays. Anyway, I am looking forward to the workshop, to learning a little more about the play perhaps, and meeting the facilitator and the other attendees - as well as seeing the production itself.

Fool For Love opening soon at Beowulf Alley Theatre

2010-01-06T08:17:00.000-08:00

Fool For Love, is going to play at Beowulf Alley Theatre this month. Check out their website for details. Now I like my doses of Sam Shepard few and far between but I must take in this one. Which brings me to my cause today. I am long overdue to write about many of the wonderful people working in Theatre around Tucson and Mike Sultzbach is one of them. Mike is directing this production.

This being a blog, with free-flowing thoughts of my own, if and when I mention others as I have on occasion, its strictly from my own experiences and opinions. The Patricks, Bills, Cindys and others of the world that I have touched upon in writings here, have through their personalities, deeds, works, words, etc, inspired or excited me in one way or another, made me feel good about myself and/or humanity, the world. So whether brief or in-depth, as I write, its what I recall in the moment. I suppose what I am trying to say is that I'm not conducting interviews or even trying to place some objective perspective or story in front of you. Its what I think, feel, believe, recollect.

Back to Mike. In the brief time I worked with Mike (on a production of The Birthday Party where we met) and in the subsequent passing moments of seeing each other here and there, I have to tell you that there is always a bit of an inside joke present. I may or may not be a skilled enough writer here and now today to impart it, and let you in on this joke - but I'll try. Hopefully it will be apparent in my attempt to reveal it that Mike is a great guy - in the best and most exciting sense of that of that overused and mundane little phrase - a great guy. Emphasis on great. He has a wonderfully alert and engaging personality. He is creative and talented and totally humble. He exerts and asserts himself as needed with charm and intensity as brilliant men often do. He is educated, accomplished, caring and capable all around. And every time I have seen him, I smile and feel glad to have been around.

And the joke is that Mike has seen me in some compromised ways. Nothing too terrible mind you - I'm not that kind of person. I don't steal or lie, don't seek to take advantage of anyone, don't try to impose myself too much and always try to do what seems good and just and right. But...occasionally I forget my lines or attempt grandiose moments on stage, drink too much (rarely but so be it), flirt incessantly, and sometimes miss a belt loop or two. When those moments happen its wonderful to have a Mike around, as in a Mike Sultzbach. I'm sure Mike can tell a funny story or two or three about me - and that would be o.k. with me. I'm not too proud, or too worried or too insecure to not laugh about myself and the things I may have (allegedly) done. And I'm not saying Mike has or does tell stories about me , but if he did, I believe he would do me "justice," with just the right emphasis and without malice, etc. And I would laugh hearing it for sure.

A few years ago, three, four, I don't know with certainty, Howard Allen wore me down and talked me into auditioning for him for The Birthday Party, by Harold Pinter, which he was directing for Beowulf Alley Theatre. For at least ten years prior to that, I had worked, artistically speaking, with a very small number of people, all who had associations with Tucson Art Theatre. It was a purposeful and conscious endeavor on my part - to not seek an individual "career" as an actor, but rather to be part of a collective group of artists working together over a long period of time. That was my satisfaction, my identity and my reference. But Howard was a persistent and encouraging man, and I like him a lot anyways - so I did it. And he freakin cast me! So what could I do. I was flattered and appreciated it really.

My image and memory of the first rehearsals for the Birthday Party include actors arriving late, eating food onstage during rehearsal, chit-chatting incessantly about any and everything, manners of seeming carelessness, and a good deal of confusion about the play and the organization of roles and duties. Right or wrong it was all very different from what I was used to under the closeness and dedication of the Tucson Art Theatre group. There was this one exception though. This guy named Mike was always there early, always focused, always polite and good natured, always prepared and ready work, and so did. Now let me say I grew to adore and admire everyone in the cast and crew, but during the early stages of work I was perplexed by the attitudes and approaches. Except by Mike's.

Howard provided excellent questions and guidelines in his work with me, which then gave me full reign and inspiration to run wild and free with my role. At least in so far as much as one can do in only three weeks worth of rehearsal. (I know some of you feel that is sufficient and plentiful time - but I don't). But try I did. I attempted to create a psycho-physical characterization that gave spirit and meaning and perspective to the hidden but suffocating and threatening aspects of life embodied in the script, and our human attempts to overcome and/or embrace those. Those attempts, per my character, included indulgences, fetishes, and extremes, tempered within an impeccable and gracious attitude - leading to imbalance at times, physically and mentally, emotionally and psychologically, and ensuing attempts to regain composure, control, balance - a never ending cycle. But what my work as an actor did to my co-actors in this case, at times, was to elicit the "what the fuck is this method actor doing?" refrain. Though not in a malicious way.

(I swear this post is about Mike and not me...I'm just on a mini-tangent).

For the record, and to dispel some myths, those of us actors who work under the influence of Stanislavsky and Strasberg, "System" and "Method" - We do not try and become our characters. That is insanity. We do not hope for or work to have spirits from another dimension inhabit us and influence us. We do not try to reincarnate. We do not try to literally believe in the fictional world of the play. We do try and create what may be called a "theatrical belief" whereby our bodies function in a sense biologically "as if" the fictional circumstances were real but with our full everyday consciousness as a person and artist knowing full well that its all make believe. It is a dual activity and awareness. It takes a training of the body and mind, and cooperation of full sensibilities in order to achieve certain levels and details of behavior this way.

It takes time and effort to integrate this living material with words and ideas from a page (a script). Suffice to say that in this time with The Birthday Party, I was having my share of both success and difficulty in this endeavor. And without a unified understanding and approach from our entire cast, things were at times confusing for everyone. For example (o.k. now I'm on a longer tangent) there is a vocabulary that is commonly used and prevalent in most rehearsals that is made up of words and phrases that describe how things should look and seem to the outsider, the spectator, as understood and envisioned by the director. Sayings like "there is a build there" (meaning it should increase in volume, speed and intensity perhaps), "cheat out" (meaning the spectators need to see you or a part of you better), or "that's a transition" (a change of subject or action or activity), dominate. They denote and suggest generalities of behavior by the actor based on a logic that is sprung from the viewpoint of outsider. (A whole way of working in fact, "Viewpoints," is based on this directors perspective). The assumption is that the actors, in their worldliness and professionalism, will somehow translate and justify and jive those generalities with their perception of their characters and behave accordingly. Actors are supposed to "make it work." I don't offer that up as a critique. But rather to further explain a difference. I was entering these rehearsals from a world where the vocabulary was the perspective of the actor in specifics, reasons and desires and means of creating behaviors of characters. I knew the lingo of The Birthday Party rehearsal just fine - I wasn't such a novice or sheltered person to be ignorant of it, but there was a big adjustment that I went through where I was like "oh yeah, this is how it is! I remember all this stuff!" Weird to say the least.

In my moments of difficulty, some self-created and imposed, others just a product of our different approaches and intents, others constraints of time and place, there was Mike, patient and recognizing and always in just the right way, the most respectful and cordial, but with his wicked sense of humor when necessary and appropriate, reminding me of what went wrong and why and offering any help if needed or wanted. He was that way for all of us. And in my mind he became the glue and the thread that kept us all together. He was reason, advice and encouragement, on stage and off.

Sometime later Mike became the chair or the leader of a volunteer artistic committee overseeing Beowulf Alley Theatres artistic endeavors. It seems to me that when these type of committees form they usually don't last - something happens or someone emerges often through force and will as the dictator/person in charge. I don't pretend to know the particulars of how this committee worked and functioned but I know they have had a wonderful success based on the sheer volume of activity and people involved at Beowulf. I can only imagine (Beth and Bill's dedication and work aside for a moment) that it is because Mike was there - the right person at the right place at the right time, steadfast and capable and reassuring. I don't know if he still does that job or what the status is, and I haven't tried to look it up even now as I write. But I'm glad to see and hear of Mike directing this show. So I must go.

I'm leaving the time I drank too much tequila (which Mike brought to the party) and a couple of other "stories" aside - I've decided. Its better that if you know Mike or meet him someday, to let him tell you if he wants or will. I tell a pretty good story but Mike is masterful.

Grover's Corner is Coming to Our Town

2009-12-31T08:14:00.000-08:00

"Our Town" in our town begins at the Rogue Theatre January 7th. Check out their website for the details. Among others in a fine looking cast is Robert Anthony Peters - all around great guy and terrific actor.

Why is it that people like Robert and Cindy Meier (and others in the cast I'm sure) who show themselves simply and beautifully, the ones we ultimately find the most interesting, fascinating and captivating? What is it about their curiosity and joy for the way life functions that gives rise to the enormity of their thoughts and their feelings(?) - creating depth and magnitude, perspective and meaning in their everyday actions. My gosh they embody this play - they are the play!

There is a dictum, attributed to Stanislavsky, regarding acting that says the difficult must become easy, the easy must become habit, and the habit must become beautiful. Its tricky though because in reading it or hearing it at first glance without explanation, it implies a progression from one thing to another, seemingly leaving behind what was, and ending with something that is beautiful in form and content. But that is not the dictums intent. It's intent is to imply an "adding to" rather than "progression from." So when we get to Easy, Difficult is still present. As we get to Habit, Difficult and Easy are present. When we get to Beautiful, Difficult, Easy, and Habit are there as well.

Substitute what words or concepts you will if necessary, apply the dictum to life, and the same holds true. People like Robert and Cindy, simple and beautifully shown, contain all the difficulties and everything else along the way. Nature has all the same forces at work today that were present at "the creation." And in the tranquility of a beautiful garden we can discover all the those complexities that will reveal it to us in a whole new way.

So who knows what we may find in this particular "Grovers Corners."

Train Running

2009-12-12T17:23:00.001-08:00

Post Play

2009-11-30T19:12:00.000-08:00

How come there aren't any good post players anymore?! O.K. this doesn't really have anything to do with theatre, its basketball, but its a damn good question and therefore worthy here - and in time I may find a connection between the two.

What happened to the days when you could throw the ball down low and get a bucket?! It doesn't really happen anymore, not like it used to. Gone is the great footwork, the jump hooks, sky hooks, up and under, slide move, drop step, head fakes, power moves. All gone. I have grown completely tired of a high post on ball screen followed by a drive down the lane with or without a kick out pass, and the weave to "attack the rim." For goodness sakes that is, or should be, so easy to defend! Of course most team defenses these days cannot but its easier done that said on here - take my word.

Double Check

2009-11-04T18:53:00.000-08:00

This past Saturday, I took a trip, along with several other adults and a group of eight young adults, to the Double Check Ranch. This ranch practices what is called in our modern terminology "sustainable agricultural" or "natural" farming. The beef (cows) is all grass fed, throughout its life. There are mobile chicken coops to move chickens from field to field as a means of fertilizing. Grass fields are not plowed before seeding, only mowed in order to keep the underground system of organisms intact.

The day itself was absolutely gorgeous, the weather crisp and clear. You could see forever. The ranch is situated in the San Pedro Valley, just along the San Pedro River. In fact, much of its acreage extends into the river itself. It's beautiful there. I cannot describe our hosts as anything other than lovely, wonderful, spectacular, and inspiring. Put all that together...It was a great time.

Imagine a place where everyone is friendly, kind, easy-going, and affectionate - and I mean everyone, adults, kids, dogs, horses, cows, etc. And all about you is life and beauty in various forms. And the work, though never ending and no doubt long and difficult at times, is all about solving problems in ways that help make everyone happy. That was the Double Check.

They are online at http://www.doublecheckranch.com/

Say It Loud

2009-11-03T08:00:00.000-08:00

I will be reading the role of Galileo from Brecht's play by that name tommorow...courtesy of my friend Patrick. It's part of a symposium that he hosts for retired professionals and academics, one of whom is a former Nobel Prize winner. The question is, how does a tall, slender man like myself find his inner "Falstaff" in a couple of days? I'm working on it.

There is a speech, or monologue or whatever you call it, toward the end of the play given by Galileo. Patrick is correct in his assesment of this speech when he says that its rendition carries the meaning and the purpose and the overall understanding of the play. How does/did Galileo feel about his work, his recantation, collectively? With a little more than 24 hours to go I'm working on that as well.

A Dream of Passionlessness

2009-11-02T05:05:00.001-08:00

Last night I dreamed I was in some kind of terrible production of Hamlet. At first it was supposed to be this ultra relaxed portrayal, but it turned completely casual and boring. Next there were swings and Bob Marley songs. Then horror of horrors, there was that thing that people refer to as "Brechtian" (which ruins Brecht's ideas but what the heck) where people turn and comment to the spectators on the action of the play. At least I knew my lines though. Very often, well, not that often, when I dream I am in a play, I never know my lines and I haven't been to a single rehearsal! I think that must be a common theme. Anyway, thank goodness I'm wide awake now and have no plans or desires to play in any Hamlet shows right now.

Love's Labor

2009-11-01T16:15:00.000-08:00

A few days back, I rode the city bus from my work to an event downtown. Sitting across from me in the back of the bus was a young man who I noticed kept smiling to himself, seemingly thinking of or remembering something funny. Well, turns out he was thinking of something exciting. A few blocks before the final station downtown he reached in his pocket and took out a ring box. He opened it and turned my way to show me. "It's pretty nice huh?" he said. "It's very nice," I replied. He nodded in agreement and stared happily at the ring. "Do you have someone special that is going to get that ring?" I asked him. "Oh yeah!" came his energetic and sure answer. Our conversation went on from there covering his search for a reasonably priced ring, one he could afford. His struggle and attempts to get time off from work in order to get to some of the stores in time. His worry about whether or not his girl would like it. And how he should present it to her, and where would he hide it in the meantime. He was a picture and model of a certain innocence and pure belief. He was young and blue collar. His smile held the happiness of love and dreams for the future. At the final station I wished him well, one man to another, with earnestness and pride in fellowship. The future was now.

A couple of days later I was driving down a major thoroughfare. Stopped in traffic near a crowded intersection I looked over to see one of those human billboards, a guy wearing a sandwich board.
He was waving to the traffic, smile on his face - yes, the same smile he had on the bus going downtown. "Right on," I thought to myself.

Times are tough, and even during the days when they seem easy, people are often just trying to survive, make a living and be with the ones they love. I think we call it life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - and we owe it to ourselves to give it full honor in its various forms.

Perezhivanie, Stanislavsky

2009-10-23T08:54:00.000-07:00

I received an invitation to a "Stanislavski Symposium." I was very happy to get this invitation because it meant two things - first is the obvious, the topic is Stanislavky! Second it means Phil Bennett is back to work doing one of the things he loves, teaching actors. And that is good news.

Its no secret and I make no bones about how I disagree with Phil on his interpretation of fundamental aspects of Stanislavsky's work and teachings. Never-the-less, I will be there as an observer at this event. The workshop is billed to include a lively discussion on "Stanislavski's Lost Term," exercises in "The Method of Physical Actions," and a demonstration on "How to Use Active Analysis through Physical Action." If you haven't yet signed up or are not yet planning on going, I encourage you to do so. See the Beowulf Alley website for details.

Now, "Stanislavski's Lost Term" is borrowed from a chapter in Sharon Carnicke's book "Stanislavsky in Focus." Its the title of chapter seven in the latest edition. (I wrote of this book just like three posts back). The term in question is the Russian word "perezhivanie." Its an odd title for the book chapter because the word (its meaning and concept) was not lost or forgotten or unknown at the time Dr. Carnicke found it for herself and wrote the book. That aside, this particular chapter, like most of the book, is a marvel of hodge-podge. If I were to make a list of erroneous and misleading statements and sentences from this chapter you would need ample, ample time for your reading.

The depth and breath of Dr. Carnicke's misunderstanding about "perezhivanie" comes alarmingly as the first sentence in the third paragraph which reads "In the first place, it does not name anything concrete that can be described and learned, but rather identifies a creative state that the System, with luck, can foster." GULP! (As in Dear Lord is this really what she thinks?!)

She goes on in the next paragraph "In the second place, experiencing [her translation word for perezhivanie] expresses a totality that cannot be broken down into component parts." GULP! (As in Its worse than I thought!). Next paragraph "In the third place, experiencing resides within the tacit dimension; it can be known but not expressed." GULP! (As in can we change the title of the chapter to Carnicke's Lost Mind?).

So let me get this straight right off the bat - you can't describe it or learn it, can't identify a single component of it, and you can't express it but you can know it. Well, all I can say is that its too bad Stanislavsky didn't read Dr. Carnicke's book. It would have saved him a lifetime of work. All he did his whole life was describe it in detail, teach it, and express it through his work and writings, and did so with great enthusiasm I might add. In other words, if Dr. Carnicke has read Stanislavsky and thought about it, and has come to that conclusion on the term "perezhivanie" then there is a fundamental problem in her outlook and understanding. And that problem is highlighted further in the next paragraph when she (correctly in her logic) asks "So then, what is experiencing?" Now I want to say this next part right so you get what her answer is...but I can't stop laughing as I type...I know that's terrible...its terrible and I shouldn't be laughing...I'm sorry...O.K. her answer is "contemporary jargon calls this state "flow," a term coined by US psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalye who studies subjective accounts by athletes and artists at peak performance." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sorry I couldn't hold it back.

Alright, I'm up off the floor, and I really shouldn't be laughing. This book after all is hailed in some academic and professional circles as insightful and genius. So why would I laugh? Well, since I'm not in one of those circles, let me count the ways! Is this the very same Dr. Carnicke who consistently throughout this very same book accuses and criticises Lee Strasberg of demeaning Stanislavsky's work and ideas with popular psychology interpretations?! The kettle has called the pot black! (and no I ain't racist). Flow...that's like "in the groove." And there is nothing wrong with the concept of that particular state of being as it relates to various activities, but as an explanation for "perezhivanie" it is wholly lacking. It is eighties sheik though!

Dr. Carnicke goes on to conclude this section of the chapter with this gem - "The ability to recognize a subjective state of experiencing in oneself ultimately offers the only direct means of appraising one's acting. If I feel this "happy moment," I can infer that the System has worked for me. " ...Is it just me or are you speechless too?!

So now we know, so far, that according to Dr. Carnicke, as she understands and interprets Stanislavsky, "perezhivanie" is a subjective state of being - that can't be learned or described really but its like the contemporary notion of "flow" and when you feel a happy moment in your acting that is how you know you're in perezhivanie. Well, I can certainly see how the broad based complexity of that would be lost on Lee Strasberg and all the other American theatre practitioners who studied Stanislavsky all those years. How could we have expected them to grasp such a deep and detailed and specific and elusive idea as that? No wonder this book is hailed how and where it is...and I shouldn't laugh again...Yes, that must explain it - a subjective state of being, that can't be learned or described really but its like the contemporary notion of flow and when you feel a happy moment in your acting then you know you are in perezhivanie. I get it.

Now lest you think I am being too facetious, or too hard on Dr. Carnicke, unfair or cutting her short, read that section. Because that is it. That is how she defines "perezhivanie." Now she does go on to include three other sections in the chapter in an attempt to tell us how lost or confusing its been up until publication of her book. Those sections are called "The Word," "The Concept" and "The Oxymoron of Theatrical Truth." Given her weird but false premise, these sections get even more hodge-podge, weird and false.

This is not to say that Phil at his presentation will present "perezhivanie" in this way. That remains to be seen. No jumping the starting gun on this.

Rambling Note re scene work

2009-10-21T09:36:00.001-07:00

Here is a kind of short, rambling note I wrote to my scene partner (yes, I'm working on a scene) trying to define an overall approach and understanding.

I'm completely open to approaching the work on this scene in any fashion really, but I'll tell you my own process, tendencies and ways of trying to understand, grasp and create the scene. If it is helpful for us along the way, good - but if not, no big deal. First I try to determine what the basic situation of a scene is, and then what is the main event of the scene. For example in Joe/Edna from Waiting for Lefty, the basic situation is a married couple, after long individually stressful days, having been separate from each other, now together, in their living room, furnishings gone and kids sleeping in the next room. Simple and obvious stuff. No rocket science or insight yet. Just things that anyone and everyone can understand, get. Its crucial though because the actors will have to eventually create the basic situation fully because out of it comes the event, the action of the scene. (Sometimes there is an obvious and profound relationship between the situation and the event, but not always). It depends on the skill and apptitude of the writer. In Joe/Edna the event is that Edna convinces Joe to get his buddies, his fellow cabbies together in order to try and take back control of their union, their livelihood. The event arises from the situation - and in order for the event to have its proper impact on spectators, the logic of the characters behavior must flow out of a fully created basic situation. Therefore, for me, the first order of business and work of the actor is creating that basic situation of a scene. In our scene as I currently understand it, the basic situation is two individuals, both alone in a park, each there on their leisure time. And the event of the scene is that they meet. Again simple and obvious. As we progress with the work we may determine or describe the event as a "magical" meeting or a "mundane" meeting. We may discover that the basic situation includes rainy day. In other words, the details will follow, eventually, based on our work and on the rest of the play - with good analysis. Working on creating "the place" last night was for me, a step toward creating the basic situation of the scene. Going forward there will be additions and specifics to consider in the situation - like why they are there and all that. As that work comes to fruition the event itself, the meeting, will take whatever significance and style it will and in time we will shape it to our artistic likes. So, part of the point of this explanation is to say common things that I hear many actors ask or consider up front - such as what is my "intention" or what do I want from the other character in this moment and what is my obstacle - can be completely left aside for now. Stanislavsky brought those heady kinds of questions forward late in the game, as needed, to make behavior more specific or appropriate. The wisdom is that if the scene is well written and the basic situation created and understood logically and fully, the event can't help but take place with detail and specifics.

workshops

2009-10-21T09:19:00.000-07:00

This past Monday night I attended Steve Anderson's Open Acting Workshop. If there is a better teacher within a 500 or thousand mile radius I don't believe it. If you haven't been, go.

Likewise, short notice but check out Beowulf Alley's website for a workshop Phil Bennett is doing this Saturday the 24th.

Street Theatre - The fox and the cat

2009-10-11T17:27:00.001-07:00

This morning, driving through the neighborhood, I saw a fox. The four legged kind. It darted out into the street, paused and looked back from where it had run from, then continued on quickly into a desert scrubby area between the houses. I do believe it was the first fox I have ever seen around here. Now I don't know my foxes (the four legged kind) well enough to say what kind it was and I haven't yet tried to look it up. But, it was low to the ground, had a bushy tail and a long little snout.

Later in the afternoon on a walk to the neighborhood store, I came across The Cat in the Hat standing on the corner holding a sign. "How does my hat look?" she asked me (yes this Cat in the Hat was a woman - and I am refraining from any crude terms...kind of). "It looks wonderful!" I said. "We all have to take our turn out here" she said, "only for a half of an hour. I'm almost done." She was referring to the employees of a nearby store which was selling costumes for Halloween. "Well, you're doing great" I said, "Looks hot!" "Yes, it is hot in this get-up" she said. (Now I meant a different kind of hot but I didn't go there with her). I left her with a good luck kind of thing and went on my way.

Stanislavsky in Focus...or Not.

2009-10-07T10:24:00.000-07:00

Oh dear. Sometimes you have to undertake and write and explain things that you don't want to but which need to be set correct, or straight, or better. This post is one of those.

Occasionally, but not as often as you might think, I do a quick search on the Internet for "Stanislavsky" and sometimes I even read the found entries. Well, I did one very recently and did read some entries in some blogs and elsewhere. Several were related to the book "Stanislavsky in Focus" by Dr. Sharon Carnicke. There were enough entries to make it seem like a kind of outbreak again of this material. For those unfamiliar with this book, the premise is that here in America, due to inadequate translations of Stanislavsky's writings, his books as published in America, and an apparent mis-understanding or mis-interpretation of Stanislavsky's ideas and work by Lee Strasberg and others, but especially by Lee, our knowledge and grasp of Stanislavsky and his work is poor, wrong, or incomplete, with entire notions missing. That is the premise. The book is hailed in certain circles as a definitive and practical account, a long overdue correction and clarification, the so-called righting of the myth in America of who and what Stanislavsky intended and did in his work with actors. These recent Internet offerings by people who have recently read the book confirm this circle of thinking. It is a clever piece of work Dr. Carnicke has put together to be sure. Clever, meaning often misleading and downright wrong - but not something your average Stanislavsky or theatre reader would catch or understand in that way, and so the book passes as truth. And that is a sad thing.

Now I'm just a guy who likes Stanislavsky, nature and sports, but I can smell a fake and a cheat of a book when I read one. I won't go into numerous examples, but I will use one from the book that touches upon scholarship, accountability, interpretation, and integrity and shows the absolute shoddy and bad work by Dr. Carnicke that is present throughout the book in its details. Chapter nine of the newest edition is called "Emotion and the Human Spirit of the Role: Yoga." The first sentence reads as follows

“When Strasberg writes that for Stanislavsky “the actor’s internal means […] was still called at that time the ‘soul’” (1987:67), we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace “soul” with “subconscious,” reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology.”

At face value, after reading that sentence, we would assume that she is quoting Lee Strasberg (from his book "A Dream of Passion") and that Strasberg is talking about or somehow referring to Stanislavsky and there must be something in the way he says it or in what he says that is obvious and would lead us to understand, as she says, that to him this notion of "soul" in acting really has to do with "subconscious" as it is understood in popular psychology. And from the title of the chapter we know that later she will explain that Strasberg was wrong and that Soul means Soul as understood in Yoga practice and thought.

Dr. Carnicke needs Strasberg to appear wrong so that she appears right, or more right. It is a theme that runs throughout the book, meaning this example as it unfolds, is a microcosm of the entire work and her modus operandi. To better understand this and move forward, let me set out the paragraph from Strasberg's book that is cited. Here it is

Equally important was the implicit recognition that not just the actor’s technical means – his voice, speech, bodily actions – could be trained. Boleslavsky contended that the actor’s internal means – what was still at that time called “soul” – could be trained. There were concrete methods or exercises that dealt with the most difficult aspects of the actors work, such as imagination, emotion, and inspiration. The means of arriving at the actor’s imagination, emotion and inspiration were through concentration and affective memory.”

Notice any problems? I do. The first one is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky. Second is that Strasberg is not talking about or referring to Stanislavsky's use of the word or concept of soul. Third is that nothing about what is there would lead us to believe that Strasberg wants soul to mean subconscious. I could go for four and five but I will spare you for now. Three significant errors in one little sentence! Who would have thought it possible? Can you mess up that bad even if you try to?! There is a density to the wrongness combined with an audacity to see it through to print that is baffling.

Just to be on the safe side, lets examine what Strasberg is saying, what he is talking about and referring to in this particular paragraph that Dr. Carnicke has chosen to quote from. Strasberg is referring to his days at the American Lab and classes with Richard Boleslavsky. He is talking about what he learned from Boley. In case anyone harbors doubt, Boleslavsky is not Stanislavsky. When Strasberg says an actors internal means was at that time still called "soul' he is simply mentioning a universal historical use of the term, not anything particular to Stanislavsky or even Boleslavsky. It was a widely used and common term for a long period of time - like when Shakespeare wrote "is it not monstrous that this player here, but in a fiction, in a dream of passion, could force his soul so to his own conceit..." The general thinking was that you couldn't train or practice these internal workings of the actor, this soul. It was a puzzle as to how it all worked, and Shakespeare's Hamlet character marvels over it. And now for Strasberg, here was Boleslavsky saying you could indeed train and work on an actors internal means - an actors imagination, emotion and inspiration - and the way to do so was through concentration and affective memory. Its that straight forward and doesn't need me really to interpret it for anyone - least of all Dr. Sharon Carnicke (or whoever did the research for her).

So the question is how and why would someone draw out the statement from it as Dr. Carnicke did that "we understand that Strasberg wishes to replace "soul" with "subconscious" reflecting his own assumptions about acting as grounded in popular psychology?" Its a hell of a leap and I don't have the answer. I could come up with a few theories but I would sooner invite Dr. Carnicke to give us an explanation of her abstract reasoning. In the big picture its helpful to just make something up if one wants to go the route of "good" argument where you have a foil who is not only wrong but evil too. Strasberg is this kind of foil for Dr. Carnicke in this book. He is so bad and evil in this book that surely what Dr. Carnicke presents as alternatives is not only correct but is good hearted and decent.

So there you have it - one small catch from a sea of mistakes and misleading statements. The research and scholarship on Stanislavsky has long gone beyond Dr. Carnicke's assumptions and theories presented in this book. Time will show and tell. In the meantime, if you've got the book in hand, keep your own close eye on the facts and logic as presented.

Following the Winding Road

2009-10-01T09:43:00.000-07:00

If you received your invitation to the launch party for Winding Road Ensemble, you might have noticed, if you are like me, that thirteen(!) people are inviting you. Why do I think this is so great? Because most theatre organizations are started by one, two, three or maybe four people. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that - but if you long to witness a real theatre, an ensemble of like minded folk who continuously train and prepare themselves individually and collectively to present works that bespeak their experiences, well, you need some bodies! And Winding Road apparently has them. And, if memory serves, they will be presenting a play by one of their very own. More wonderful news there. I cannot and would not pretend to speak for Winding Road of course, but right off the bat they seem to have all the inherent traits that set a real theatre apart from a mere producing organization. When I say producing organization, think Arizona Theatre Company. They have a permanent group of administrators who oversee individual productions consisting of various unrelated artists and works. Each show is a piecemeal endeavor with actors jobbed in to fill roles solely for a particular show. The administrators view their organization as having the same function and responsibility as a museum, e.g., presenting classic or "professional" work to a wide audience. Actors, whose very home should be in the theatre, are just temporary and usually one-time visitors there. In contrast, a real theatre company grows and nurtures its own artists over time, actors, writers and directors, with a conscious and deliberate effort, working in specific relationship with one another.

Biomimics

2009-09-30T20:44:00.000-07:00

Bi-o-mim-ic-ry
(From the Greek bios, life, and mimesis, imitation)
1. Nature as model. Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature's models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems, e.g., a solar cell inspired by a leaf.
2. Nature as measure. Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the "rightness" of our innovations. After 3.8 billion years of evolution, nature has learned: What works. What is appropriate. What lasts.
3. Nature as mentor. Biomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature. It introduces an era based not on what we can extract from the natural world, but on what we can learn from it.

The above is from the first plate page of the book Biomimicry, Innovation Inspired by Nature, by Janine M. Benyus.

About a hundred years ago, the great Russian stage director Meyerhold was borrowing ideas from man-made industrialization and turning out a fabulous training technique for actors known as Biomechanics. Before, during, and after Meyerhold, Stanislavsky was discovering ideas rooted in nature, in the natural world and in human behavior, and making his own science and practical technique for actors. Perhaps his work could have been called "Biomimicry - a conscious emulation of life's genius. Innovation inspired by nature." Perhaps the credo could have been "there is more to discover than to invent." In any case, Stanislavsky as most who know him know, was way ahead of his time.

The three points listed in the above description of Biomimicry run exactly through Stanislavsky's work with actors. Point one, nature as model. Stanislavsky sought to find out what is the basic natural process that is "acting." In other words, what occurs that brings together fictional, made-up circumstance and living behavior in a way that becomes art, processed fully with human thought, sensation and feeling? The answer he called Affective Memory, and he described and articulated it and all its accompany details and qualities over a lifetime of work. This fundamental creative process he often said was akin to all other "magical" processes in nature, and he used many metaphors of such in his talks and work with actors. Point two, nature as measure. In the most simplistic sense, Stanislavsky knew that if an actor was violating what he called the creative laws of nature, the acting was "off." For Stanislavsky this measure of nature was his way of telling what kind of short and long term impact an actor's work would have on the spectators, how shallow or how deep it would it affect their sensibilities. Point three, nature as mentor. What could we learn from those characters in Uncle Vanya or The Three Sisters when they were presented to us not as metaphors or political operatives but as fully functioning living breathing human beings with all their interconnected and interdependent lives? An eco-system of a play? What would the actor-artist grasp in a visceral sense? What about the spectator? What is to be learned when you go "into the forest" or "into the play?"

Nature runs on sunlight.
Nature uses only the energy it needs.
Nature fits form to function.
Nature recycles everything.
Nature rewards cooperation.
Nature banks on diversity.
Nature demands local expertise.
Nature curbs excesses from within.
Nature taps the power of limits.

Ah, good ol' Stanislavsky! Gets better all the time!

What happened to, or where are, those who came before us?

2009-09-25T14:11:00.001-07:00

I was flying commercial, several thousand feet above the Republic of Texas, looking down at the trees, the rivers, the tributaries, the land. Not that it matters but I was on my third bloody mary... potent little suckers. I had almost finished reading "1491," a captivating book that considers the Americas pre-Columbus, and supposes that the societys and cultures here were as vast and sophisticated, as complex and diverse as any in Europe at the time. And so looking down I was imagining the people of that time, managing their lives, farmers, hunters, craftspeople, warriors, politicians, artists perhaps. And I was thinking of the land itself, how if I was on the ground below I could just reach down and pick up a fossil, millions of years old perhaps. This area of Central Texas had once been underwater, a shallow sea and the build-up of shells as fossils, limestone as cliffs is enornmous. Maybe the water went all the way up and formed a shore along the the Llano Estacado, the high, staked plains above and to the west of Abilene. The oldest known human remains of North America have been discovered on those plains. Perhaps they were hunters following ancient herds of bison or mammoth. And then there is the Marty Robbins song, a sad but melodic refrain of lost love, somewhere out over the Llano Estacado. These thoughts, images and sounds were running through my head as the airplane dipped south and east, eventually flying along the Gulf of Mexico, over the great Mississippi just above New Orleans, bound for Atlanta and the busiest airspace and landing strips the world has ever known.

2009-09-02T08:53:00.001-07:00

Like Old Times - Theatre and Dissent

2009-09-02T08:01:00.000-07:00

Yesterday morning I was lucky enough to have been at a presentation by a Prescott College Student regarding Theatre and Dissent. It was shades of the old days at the Tucson Center when Esther would have two or three would be "subversives" in her office and I was being subpoenaed by the FBI to testify.

This particular student that did the presentation is a hardworking all around good person who takes on his education with full stride. He hasn't just joined a cause and gone to work. He has spent a multitude of time researching, comparing, gaging and trying to understand the complexities of this world, including the injustices and the atrocities.

Led by a powerful mentor, Mr. Howard Allen, for this course, this student took on the study of some difficult plays - Antigone, A View From the Bridge, The Mad Woman of Challiot, Julius Ceasar among them - all plays with "dissent" from moral or political or personal standards, but not your overt and obvious ones really, Antigone aside. In other words there was no "Waiting For Lefty" (although he may go one to explore Odets Paradise Lost as part of his follow-up).

Patrick, who was also present to hear, and I drank some espresso (mediocre we decided, although we do not claim the abilities to distinguish the finer aspects of espresso. Our measurement was that he said it was like the espresso he drank in Orvieto at a cafe where he was advised "not to be seen" if he wanted to to be considered a person of refined tastes) and settled in to listen. I might have made a mistake giving Howard Allen espresso. Has anyone ever known Howard not to be at full alert at any given time? No telling what he accomplished later that morning. In any case, the presentation prompted a good amount of discussion in the little available time we had so we agreed on an informal meeting over beer at a later date to finish it off.

2009-09-01T16:12:00.000-07:00

Bias and Anxiety of a Spectator

2009-08-26T11:03:00.000-07:00

My favorite theatres in town to go to are Beowulf Alley and The Rogue. But at the moment I am having a difficult time being or getting excited about their first shows. Beowulf is doing Seascape. Yes I know Albee wrote it and I know it won a Pulitzer Prize... but the whole lizard couple and all...I just don't feel it...yet anyway. And The Rogue is doing Animal Farm. Yes, I can imagine all the music and puppetry and a little razzle dazzle story telling, the politics, etc, but it doesn't touch a nerve in me as a spectator that gives or makes for the hint (or better) of excitement...not yet anyway.

I can experience a show and enjoy it objectively well enough, whatever it is. But my personal opinions and aesthetic taste in theatre is specific, perhaps narrow. I like shows where there is an obvious artistic challenge and sense of theatrical unearthing. I like great and large roles within great and large plays, where actors and directors attempt to come to concrete terms with how to make the material, the script, alive and meaningful on stage. I like theatrics but I don't like shows that are tricked out with novelty. I like emotion on the stage - real emotion, not fake, crappy indicated joy and pain, but the real deal, happiness and sorrow. I don't buy the argument for a second that if the actor cries the spectator does not or if the actor laughs the spectator does not. I do buy into Brecht's idea that you can have the spectators laughing when the character is crying and vice-versa though. Brecht always loved the real tears on stage. He called his type of theatre Epic Realism to contrast it against all the other theatres around him claiming to be Epic but which operated with a sense and style melodrama and fake behavior. Brecht said he wanted it real, like life, but set out in Episodic ways which show characters in various light and logic. By doing so he could indeed induce tears in the house while the characters were seemingly laughing on stage. I like that. And I like a good story as much as the next person - however it is told - but especially with surprises.

Like any good spectator though a show does not have to fit my personal taste or conform to "how I would do it." The Rogue Theatre has produced two of my all-time favorite plays these last couple of years, The Cherry Orchard and Six Characters in Search of an Author. Neither production was as I personally envision how the play can live on stage, but as a spectator at their productions of these scripts I was captivated in various ways.

Some theatres in town have absolutely left my consciousness, though I try my best to keep them in mind - Arizona Theatre Company and Invisible Theatre being the most prominent. There has been nothing intriguing or desirable about their shows for me, the choices of the scripts, and the actual productions themselves, over the last few years that has made me take notice or make me have to go see them. Perhaps I am to blame as much as them for this malaise, I don't know. As much as I hate to say it, they seem to present their shows with a kind of polite triteness while wrapped never-the-less in some socially relevant and entertaining context. I have arrived therefore at the "who cares" point. I hope to break out of it or be broken out of it soon.

Live Theatre Workshop verges on this same scenario for me - polite and trite. But sometimes it manages to escape itself, to free itself from its self-imposed imprisonment and make artistic headway. BTW if you have ever read the mission statement or sense of purpose or whatever they call it these days for Live Theatre Workshop let me know if you are amazed as me at all the things they intend to do - so many buzz words I got lost. Anyway, I do like the fact that at times they come up with a little gem of a production one way or another in and around the murder mysteries and bland comedies. Picnic is going to be one of those this year for them. I feel it. And their late night series, though I have seen a couple of presentations that I kind of enjoyed, is just not my cup of tea, not these days anyway.

I am making my personal preparation as I like to do as a spectator for those scheduled shows that I am excited about. For example I am re-reading and looking over Othello - even as I am finishing some thoughts on King Lear with Patrick. He has recently sent me some wonderful materials and some of his own perceptions and thoughts on that play following the discussion of it in his Honors course he was teaching earlier this month. I've got a few months to go on Othello but I like to make it "a journey." Picnic, The Glass Menagerie, Trip to Bountiful, come later in "the season" as well and I will be returning to those plays in various ways prior to seeing the productions themselves.

In the meantime, I am working on that "in" for Seascape and for Animal Farm. So, if you have any insight, great reasons, fun facts, know of sexy performers in the shows, or any reason small or large why I should be chomping at the bit as a spectator for these, please, please, please let me know.

Tennyson's Ulysses - As Tribute to Teddy K.

2009-08-26T09:04:00.000-07:00

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match’d with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me

I cannot rest from travel: I will drink
Life to the lees: All times I have enjoy’d
Greatly, have suffer’d greatly, both with those
That loved me, and alone, on shore, and when
Thro’ scudding drifts the rainy Hyades
Vext the dim sea: I am become a name;
For always roaming with a hungry heart
Much have I seen and known; cities of men
And manners, climates, councils, governments,
Myself not least, but honour’d of them all;
And drunk delight of battle with my peers,
Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.
I am a part of all that I have met;
Yet all experience is an arch wherethro’
Gleams that untravell’d world whose margin fades
For ever and forever when I move.
How dull it is to pause, to make an end,
To rust unburnish’d, not to shine in use! As tho’ to breathe were life!
Life piled on life
Were all too little, and of one to me
Little remains: but every hour is saved
From that eternal silence, something more,
A bringer of new things; and vile it were
For some three suns to store and hoard myself,
And this gray spirit yearning in desire
To follow knowledge like a sinking star,
Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle,—
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and thro’ soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail:
There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil’d, and wrought, and thought with me—
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads—you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;
Death closes all: but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:
The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,
’Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Corrections for Open Studio

2009-08-26T07:17:00.000-07:00

SORRY!Figures, the day after I send this out, I have to change the dates. The Open Studio will now be on Mondays ONLY in September, rather than Mondays & Thursdays.So, the Open Studio dates are: September, 7, 14, 21, 28 from 6-8:30 p.m. We're beginning with these dates only to gauge interest and will add more dates if attendance is pretty good. So, invite some friends!
Thanks! Steve

From Steve Anderson

2009-08-21T06:42:00.000-07:00

Hey, all.Starting Open Studios. Here's the info. C'mon in and jam for a while. It'll be fun! Hope to see some of you there.The Open Studio for Actors, a new actor training series under thedirection of Steve Anderson, announces Open Studio Sessions forActors. The goal of the open studio is to provide a safe, creative,and empowering atmosphere for actors who wish to explore theirpotential without a major time or financial commitment. There is noadvanced registration for the open studios; actors simply show up andpay for each individual session. Each open studio session willinclude relaxation, kinesthetic awareness, and various exercisesdesigned to give the actor the tools to layer sense of stillness,focus, place, relationship, character, impulse, and intention-drivenaction. Actors are encouraged to bring scenes or monologues to workon. Steve Anderson earned his MFA in Acting in 1991 and has beenteaching and directing ever since. He has worked with actors from thebeginner to the Broadway pro and is consistently regarded as a giftedacting teacher. For testimonials and more detailed information,please visit www.steveandersonacting.com.WHAT: Open Studio Sessions for ActorsWHEN: Every Monday and Thursday evening from 6-8:30 p.m., beginning Sept. 3WHERE: Artfare. 55 N. 6th Avenue, Tucson - 3rd floorFEE/REGISTRATION: $10.00. No advanced payment or registrationrequired. Simply pay at the door. Credit cards are not accepted.WHAT TO BRING: Bottled water, towel, scenes and/or monologues to work onQUESTIONS: Contact Steve through www.steveandersonacting.com or callhim at 520.981.0145

Bill Killian

2009-08-19T10:57:00.000-07:00

Brecht said "All Art contributes to the greatest Art of all, the Art of living."

Bill Killian tells me he is seventy going on seventy. I don't believe him. He is twenty-one all the way - and a bit of a Renaissance man. I offer a few examples of his deeds and interests, in no particular order, but with freestyle commentary.

Bill has made over one-hundred basketball free throws in a row more than forty-seven times. Just this past week he made 197 out of 200. This is staggering. His form and rhythm when he shoots the ball is impeccable, flawless, and seems effortless, graceful, poetic. Now when I was a kid, I beat the then world record holder, Ted St. Martin, in a free throw shoot out. I made 10 out of 10. Ted missed his first shot, didn't shoot again, but claimed he made 9 out of 10 on the certificate he gave me. I hate to have to dust off my shoes and head down to the gym to give Bill a little competition but I might have too! The only problem is I really don't think I would stand a chance vs Bill. Therefore, I am staying at a distance, preferring to cheer Bill on and admire his ability in this skill which he often shares with young players, teaching them proper habits and the fundamentals of shooting. Bill's personality, love and enthusiasm combined with his knowledge, practice and experience make him an ideal teacher of this sort.

Bill has been to more Actor's Gymnasium sessions with me than anyone. Therefore - I love him no matter what! It's not just that he attends though. His presence has been crucial for many reasons. Bill's work as an actor existed of course long before Actor's Gymnasium and will continue well after Actor's Gymnasium but for this space and time, Bill has shown his great commitment to his craft, his art, with the work he has shared with all of us in Actor's Gym. The list is a long, long one if I tried to mention each session that jumps to mind when I think of Bill's work. But I will give you two, as classic examples, though seemingly opposite types of work.

The first one is of a monologue from Horton Foote's "The Man From Atlanta." Bill presented this work to us in several forms the first time he brought it in. He did it first that day as a straightforward monologue. He worked on it a second time that day, not with the language of the piece but instead with music playing. (For those unfamiliar with Actor's Gymnasium the short explanation is that we explore and work on ways to make ourselves more scenically expressive as actors). In that repetition with the music playing, Bill worked his way through various actions of the character, sometimes metaphorically, touching certain rhythms and moods. A couple of weeks or so later, Bill was ready to present the monologue again to us, having continued his work on it at home in the meantime. Let me clarify something though. Most, most, work on monologues in workshops and classes consist of a stage where the actor has almost learned, memorized, the lines of the text itself, or has just learned the lines and is now trying to work out the basic action and activities as to how best present it to spectators. Depth and detail, meaning layers and layers and layers of human behavior within a specific event and situation are usually nowhere to be found. That is not the case with Bill here. With this monologue Bill was well in to the depth and detail and we were trying to figure out how to organize it craftwise and draw it to a poetic rendition. And then it happened. Bill, as the character, begin to actually live in the space with full blown thoughts and emotions and physical actions, at one point picking up a picture of his son in the most simplest of fashions as he spoke - a loving, heartbreaking moment as he gently but deeply felt asked for his son back. On that day Bill was not just a good actor, he was a great one. One that day Bill was not just a technician with the ability to speak and move and indicate skillfully, he was an artist in the deepest and widest and best sense, revealing to all of us something unique, something profound, something captivating. It was great!

(And BTW the next week Bill, in typical hardworking and practical fashion, was right back at the rigours of the daily physical and vocal exercises that are the "beginnings") .

The second example is when we were all working as group, or taking turns rather, with the words from Hamlet's To Be or Not to Be monologue. Bill and Tom Wentzel were ripping through segments of the speech using the most bizarre and unexpected vocal qualities and intonations. I was on the floor dying of laughter. I won't give further details now but it was hysterical. You should have been there!

Bill has purchased many books and DVDs on theatre and acting that he has generously shared with us and he has participated actively in a ton of research on various topics that we have done through Actor's Gymnasium. He has always been a conscientious supporter of theatre and the arts in general here in Tucson as well as in Phoenix (that god-forsaken soul-less wasteland of a town to the near north).

Bill recently came out of retirement and started back to work again as a Chaplain. This time he is at Corondelet counseling the grieved and anyone seeking spiritual comfort, advice and guidance. If there is a more practical and sympathetic ear than Bill's in this regard I haven't seen it. And, in addition to his daily duties (if I may use that word) as a husband, father and grandfather, Bill is completing a book of poetry. Now this isn't one of those I wrote ten poems kind of books. Bill has so far selected over eighty-five poems from a working catalogue of over five-hundred that chronicle his life and work, much of it theatre related.

And one last thing. While I have seen Bill upset and bothered, I have never seen him without a smile and kind words and compliments for everyone present. Bill, you have made a work of art of your life! Thank you for all you have given us and keep up the great deeds!

Winding Road Theatre Ensemble

2009-08-17T08:29:00.000-07:00

They just keep coming! Another announcement for a new theatre company and its first production here in Tucson. The new one is Winding Road Theatre Ensemble and the show is an original one by Lesley Abrams entitled Dorothy Parker's Last Call. It is to be performed in the Cabaret Theatre at the Temple of Music and Art in mid October. Check the TTA list for the specifics.

I like that they have "Ensemble" in the name. The question is what does that word mean to them. To me of course it means a permanent group of actors and directors who share common artistic views and who plan and implement their work as a long term endeavor, training and preparing themselves consciously as an ensemble in order to achieve their artistic aims. For the general theatrical world it means a loosely knit group of artists who often work together when they don't have better or different offers and projects going on. Fundamentally that makes for a huge difference. In any case, it is exciting to hear about them and regardless of their form I wish them the best.

Glen Coffman, the director of this first show, studied acting at the HB Studio according to their announcement. That means hopefully he at least carries some amount of "Method" tradition in his work. He directed the production of Lemon Sky at Live Theatre Workshop which I wrote a long post about here on this very blog. I don't recall how I worded it in the post itself, but the acting in that show, even though it obviously did not have the amount of rehearsal time it truly needed to come to fruition, showed evidence of earnest and sincere and creatively imagined work. Aside from that terrible set in that terrible performance space which is Live Theatre Workshop, I sensed an attempt at real theatrical life. Perhaps freed from the constraints of time and place that comes with being jobbed in as a director with these various companies, Glen will be able to establish and create his artistic vision much more fully and definitely with his workmates at Winding Road.

Shaping a Theatrical Conciousness

2009-08-16T06:41:00.000-07:00

To write of shaping a theatrical consciousness assumes that there is one, that theatrical consciousness exists. In that regard I may be starting this post all wrong. I may need to write of developing a theatrical consciousness. Hmm. Lets consider both notions at the same time, one big effort - developing and shaping a theatrical consciousness.

But what the heck is a theatrical consciousness? Rendering a precise definition will be difficult. In general it would refer to being actively cognizant and aware of the purpose and implications of theatrical spectacles, of having a strong sense and opinion of aesthetic, and some recognition of elemental functions. If we had a measuring gauge for this, in terms of the average spectator in our society, and for many of our theatrical artists themselves, its safe to assume that the reading would be "parochial." As we might expect, our theatrical consciousness has come into being by our experience and exposure to the habitual and accepted practices of the time and place - whether from one show or from nitty gritty work on hundreds of shows.

Articulation of types of theatrical consciousness is almost endless. Ask someone to describe theatre and it becomes showbiz, art, politics, revolutionary action, literary pursuit, personal journey, etc. Browse through books on theatre and indeed you will find these titles, Theatre as a Weapon, Educational Theatre, Feminist Theatre, The Art of the Stage, Theatre Anthropology, Epic Theatre, Black Theatre, My Life in Art, and Theatre of the Oppressed, to name but a few. There are thousands! While these for example attempt to change or offer perspective, many remain on the parochial level. But not all. Occasionally we run into an experience in our theatre that alters, widens and deepens our theatrical consciousness, lending specificity to our understanding and appreciation. See for example the post in this blog on Lev Dodin's Platonov by an anonymous poster.

For most of us though, we have been to a few shows, we have acted in a few shows, maybe even directed a few shows, we've read some reviews and had discussions with our friends and we have a select few favorite shows and/or performances we can list. In the end though, we typically hold the same assumptions on every single one of them. For example, regarding the "Who Done-It" I saw at live Live Theatre Workshop and the "Literary Masterpiece" I saw at Rogue Theatre, as a spectator I assumed that in both cases it was my responsibility to listen closely and pay attention at all times, lest I miss some clue or important bit of information that will be crucial to my understanding and appreciation by the end. The performers assumed they had to subtly but clearly and with a certain naturalness articulate the words and express the meaning behind them in order to ensure the spectators heard and understood the author whose story was being staged. And do so briskly lest the spectators become bored. My friends and co-workers assumed and expected I would relay to them my complete reaction and experience to the shows the following mornings. Its kind of like the way we "do business" in theatre and this collective way is part of our theatrical consciousness, having been developed and shaped over time.

Let me extract from that description one point, one sentence, for further explanation. "And to do so briskly lest the spectators become bored." Here the assumption is "entertainment." Our theatrical consciousness has been developed and shaped in such a way that we expect as spectators to be entertained by the performers. We do not expect, in other words, to have to entertain ourselves, or find for ourselves, our sense of enjoyment and entertainment. It will be provided we assume by the performers. The logic then goes that this "entertainment" will keep my attention focused at all times on the words the performers are speaking and the actions they are doing so as to finally give me that overall appreciation and understanding of the story.

Since I am not loathe to comparisons...lets say I went to a baseball game. Not one of those god-forsaken professional ones but just some game in the park. I go there lets say with the express purpose of being a spectator to the game, for my own enjoyment. In such an instance, I will not assume that the ballplayers are going to entertain me or that the game itself will move along at such a rapid pace that my full attention is undeniable. Apples and oranges? Yes, but thats ok.
In the long run, the game itself my be exciting with a dramatic finish, or it may turn out to be somewhat typical. Either way, I will, as a spectator, find myself entertained by the action even though it moves at a snails pace most of the time. Brisk pace is not necessary, nor is purposeful attempt by the players themselves to entertain. What I do expect of them though, the ball players, is to be fully involved in the event of the game itself. They may wave at me in the stands at some point but when the pitch is being thrown they are swinging away.

By way of this specific example I am not suggesting that all productions are too fastly paced. I'm trying to articulate the kinds of expectations and relationships we have, that endure in theatre as a result of our theatrical consciousness, individually and collectively. If I took it down to an elemental function and asked what do actors do, the responses again would be varied and somewhat parochial - an actors entertains, an actor does, and actor acts, an actor communicates what the author's intent is, an actor performs the characters actions, etc. If I said an actor takes in information and process it via their affective memory and senses to make living behavior you could disagree with me. On the other hand, you could disagree that a tree takes in water and light and makes branches and leaves. Or I could tell you that a tree stands on a hill, or blows in the breeze, or looks pretty. Any of these would signify part of our theatrical consciousness and our understanding or appreciation for actors, as well as the way we relate as performers to one another.

Make Sure to

2009-08-12T10:23:00.000-07:00

Check out Chuck's posting on Bill Dell on the Tucson Stage site. It's a great service that Bill does for all of us, with consistency and ethics. Thank you Bill.

Tonights New Play Reading.

2009-08-11T10:11:00.000-07:00

The new play scheduled to be read at Beowulf Alley Theatre this evening sounds fascinating. I hope to make it there. Check out the details on the TTA List or Beowulf's website.

Cast Your Actor

2009-08-10T12:35:00.001-07:00

From the TTA List - "Male Actor Wanted to Play Dead For One Scene In Low Budget Movie."

I won't be the only one to drag out the stereotypes for this. What the heck, here goes.

The Newly Minted Stanislavskian Actor: "What would I do if I were dead? How long have I been dead? What killed me? Are my ancestors appearing to me in death? Are bright lights moving towards me? How low is the budget?"

From the "Its All in the Text" Actor: "The text indicates I'm dead, but I'm thinking if it says I'm dead the author could actually be indicating life by the absence of it so now I'm confused about how still I need to be. I mean if I twitch wouldn't that indicate more of what the author really intended?"

From the Veiwpoints Actor: "So much seemed to be happening as I was laying there during the rehearsal. My body was telling me that its ok to just be dead, to be in this moment for me and it seemed so easy to be ok with my body for once in my life and just be still and quiet and let whatever was going to happen happen but then nothing really happened but I was ok with that."

From The Practical Aesthetics Actor: "But I'm supposed to be doing something and concentrating on another actor! How can I do that when I'm doing nothing but laying there with my eyes closed?!"

From the Actor Who Claims No Technique: "So last night I was out with my girlfriend and this group of people came by talking about where they were going on vacation and I said to my girlfriend hey we should go on vacation but she thought I meant separate va...what? oh, you want me to lie down. Sorry, I was telling him about what happened to me last...oh, sorry. I am laying down...anyway, my girlfriend thought I meant separate va...yea, I can close my eyes, ok, ok."

From "The Professional": "Just tell me where to die - but make sure my costume isn't stepped upon."

From the Actor who Studied Boal: "This is crap! Why should my character die? I think it says more politically to live in this situation rather than die. The dynamics of power suggested by this death have more to do with eurocentric influences of male dominated ideas of sexuality and influence. We need to have a counter scene where I live!"

From the Just Tell Me What You Want Actor: "Just tell me what you want. You want me to lay down and just be still? Ok, I can do that. Just tell me what you want. Why put all the horror make up on me if you want me to be still and just lay there? Tell me what you want. I mean you want all this make-up or do you want me?"

Tucson is Out of Control

2009-08-06T14:40:00.000-07:00

Are we really big and bad enough, our theatre community here in this city, this area, to have the Arizona Rose Theatre AND The Arid Rose Theatre?! AND the new group in Marana and the group in Green Valley? It seems like week by week new efforts, new groups, spring to life. Its out of control! Its totally fabulous but who would have thought!

Right now its like web domain names - you gotta get the name of your theatre company while and when you can. Therefore, I'm staking claim to the following names. (Not that I have any intent of going beyond Ubi Sunt or Actor's Gymnasium but just for fun.)

Creosote Umbrella Theatre
Teatro Camino Real
Blue Skies and Art
Pueblo Gardens Stageworks
Adobe Players

And then there are names of Theatres around the U.S. and the world that I admire that I wish had thought of like Menos Fortas or Remains Theatre Ensemble for examples.

Send me your favorite names for groups.

Always Learning! and Learning to Learn!

2009-08-06T09:40:00.000-07:00

Well when you put it out there, it comes back to you they say. You know, the whole concept about you put something out in the "universe" and then all of a sudden its everywhere for you.For me I guess you could say "the British are coming! the British are coming!" Those British actors and their work with words that is. And lots of questions about it.

Let me preface all this though. I like anything to do with the work of acting, deciphering texts, directing, etc. I'm not about hogde-podge anything goes and everyone do their own thing, but when it comes to a practical working skill, craft, that an actor does in the actual process of acting, including speaking, I'll take it. What I don't like though is common. I don't like when certain elements fall out of context or assume an emphasis unduly. Further, like anyone, I don't like when a craft element becomes a cliche of itself.

An actor with a rich, strong, articulate, flexible voice who knows how to "handle" words and dialogue as an expression grown out of the total experience of the character - yes indeed! Heady, vocal gymnastics, intellectually ground together at the expense of real experience - boring! Booorrriiinnnnggggg! boring!

Stanislavsky's work with words and language is as exhaustive and comprehensive as any ones, detailed and precise in his analysis and use of sounds, meanings, musicality, etc. It wasn't pure luck that the big man was known to have tremendous vocal quality and ability - he worked for it.

But now back to the British. Like many young actors and others, I spent a couple of months working with and learning from members of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Yes, I had my crush on one of them too, a pretty and engaging lady with a sexy dialect. We all had our crushes at that time. (That's important to this post...somehow). We also had some terrific get togethers and parties in the foothills where the RSC members were holed up at the time. (That's important too). What I learned in that time has always carried forward - I'm talking about working with texts and words again now - and I have built upon it as could be expected.

There was a time when the British with their great tradition of "language" far outpaced us Americans in the ability to be expressive in this regard as speakers and orators and actors. That time is gone. Americans are way better now. Yep, I said it! Way better. That's no slam on the Brits. They are still good and admirable and can teach us, but we, Americans as a whole, are more diverse and dynamic now in our developments and uses of language. Who would have thought I would be promoting or holding up rap music as a kind of example - but there you go.
I'm not suggesting it holds the poetry of Shakespeare (as much of it is closer to nursery ryhmes), but the intricacies and the cleverness and the overall sound and action of the words is unique in form. Love it or hate it, it is an American original (as original as we can get in America) and part of a larger complex movement or way with words that has taken hold. We have more regionalisms and sub-cultures old and new, than does UK, each with their own unique sound and details which our playwrights have been able to take hold of for good use. In this case, size matters! As does depth!

That said, I do love watching some of those UK actors in action. Who wouldn't or who doesn't? Royce has been keeping me refreshed in the work of some of the best. Recently he sent me a video of Trevor Nunn working with David Suchet and yesterday with Howard we watched John Barton working with Patrick Stewart and David Suchet on Shylock. My favorite thing about Trevor Nunn in this case, although he didnt go very far with it under the circumstances of the demonstration, was what he told David Suchet at the beginning of their work. They are working on a sonnet. Nunn suggest the first thing that must happen is that Suchet must use an imaginitive and personal substitution to make the words come alive out of a specific situation and circumstance. He gives Suchet a very simple and personal imaginitive substitution for the context and tells him he should focus on this as he speaks the words. Suchet does so. As this work demonstration is brief, they do not follow up with any specifics or other adjustments to this but it is telling in and of itself. Suchet's talent is evident when he takes Nunns suggestion and you see him that first time through using the language to articulate what he is thinking and feeling and doing, exploring his being, his relationship with the world around him with the language, hearing it himself for the first time, making discoveries, all that. The subsequent times through when Nunn asks him to consider certain arrangements and sounds of words, Suchet's action becomes that tired old obvious one that so many actors do - to explain! In the most obvious of fashion. And to show! In the most obvious of fashion. While somewhat entertaining and admirable, the specifics and complexities of life and the poetry are lost, the dualities that existed in behavior and meaning are gone, all at the expense of an intellectual appreciation of the "text."

A more obvious contrast exists in the work with Barton and Stewart and Suchet. Stewart in each of his scenes as Shylock plays an intellectual analysis and understanding of the language, literally, at all times. In other words, he plays an abstaction. Suchet on the other hand plays the life of Shylock as could be created based on the circumstances and events, as real behavior done in actuality. The layers and details and complexities of Suchet's work stand in sharp contrast to the very general and one demensional effort of Stewarts. Suchet makes a human being. Stewart makes words. Suchet's language, the poetry, the meanings, the sounds, intonations are far more beautiful and elegant and impactful than Stewarts. Stewarts words have nothing to hold on to except a single overall action, and that action itself exists only on Stewarts charisma and general energy. There is no depth, no substance as there is in Suchets.

Break time!

Patrick on Language, Shakespeare...

2009-08-06T09:03:00.000-07:00

Several things come to mind here in relation to David's post about words, language, Shakespeare, etc. In a dream, Graham Greene taught me that in writing fiction, dialogue must be action. (He reiterated the notion in his autobiography, "Ways of Escape.") Perhaps for obvious reasons, this notion is a given in theatre (though not always the case) and less generally considered in fiction, where we don't think as acutely of every passage needing to propel action forward. So it was a fabulous lesson. When you think about it, this "dialogue/action" occurs naturally in the best fiction writers, and doesn't occur at all in weaker writers. Pick up 9 out of 10 novels in the store and you can practically "see" the story "take a break" as chunks of dialogue sit there, maybe revealing character, certainly taking up some pages, but not necessarily developing "action" as it is understood in theatre, i.e. dramatic, sense One of the reasons I liked the Phaedre, as a play, was that the dialogue propelled the action forcefully. The acting has been criticized as emoting, but the lines themselves, maybe Ted Hughes had something to do with this, the lines themselves kept the story moving forward potently. I.e. the lines were action. Now when David speaks about words as actions in his post, the sense I think is primarily of them as physical action. (Not that he's minimizing their other values, of course, but simply that his post is about the actor's physicality.) And this brings us to Shakespeare. To this day, I hear exceptionally brilliant people, such as George Orwell, say that Shakespeare endures most primarily because of his poetic qualities. That the plays themselves, as plays, are faulty enough not to have endured the centuries were it not for their unparalleled linguistic genius. I also hear exceptionally brilliant people, such as Howard Allen, say that the reason Shakespeare is taught in virtually every English Literature and Theatre program in the world is because he has survived the test of time ON THE STAGE. His plays continue to be produced the world over---and in obviously weaker translations of hundreds of language---and this is why he is still read. In this moment, and probably in most moments, I think Orwell is more right. Shakespeare is our Dante, and he endures for some of the same reasons. By the way, for an experience of language primarily as action, and language which at times stops action, read The Divine Comedy. And we'd probably say that in many Shakespeare plays, the same thing happens. That passages (which are often cut today) do not necessarily move the action forward. I think this may have more to do with our shortened attentions, or, if you will, our quicker mind frames, than with the actual text. I have a suspicion that 16th century audiences found much more of the Shakespeare's text as "active" because they thought differently than we do. Maybe the porter scene in Macbeth (Shakespeare's leanest tragedy) was not simply a "relief" (comic or otherwise) but a propelling forward of the plays thematic action. The "gardener" scene in Richard II is another example that comes to mind. And this brings us to Chekhov's Orchard. The study of "time" in the text by Bill Killian that David describes and then develops as part of his process/production seems a strong example of the indivisible qualities of poetry and action---Chekhov's work as a whole seems particularly apt in this regard. In other dramatists, as in other fiction writers, one can more readily see whether the dialogue propels the action or not. In Chekhov, as David's process emphasizes, the beauty is in the union of theme, action, dialogue, etc. More can be said, but we'll leave it to Gertrude to close with her calling for "More matter, less art." But let's question this plea. She too was all too ready to divorce truth from reality. Patrick

King Lear at the Honors College UA

2009-08-04T07:30:00.000-07:00

We had a great time yesterday attending Patrick's class at the Honors College and trying to answer questions from the students regarding King Lear. The questions were sharp, astute and required some serious consideration from us at times. I am still considering the last one, "How would you dress The Fool?" Metaphorically, or perhaps representationally and even literally The Fool is Art. He is Theatre. He is Entertainment. But how to dress him? You could say well it depends on the context or how you conceive of the entire spectacle. True. On the other hand, how you construct that character could release the entire spectacle in your imagination.

To me the play is like a well done fairy tale, as Patrick described it at one point, tragic though it is, and something about that Fool's getup I think could be a hinging point. I'm not jumping to any conclusions about fairy tales or cliche costumes - but the question still has me thinking.

Language, Words, Vocal Sounds.

2009-07-30T10:10:00.000-07:00

Several questions, comments and readings have conspired to prompt me to write on language, words, and vocal sounds as pertaining to theatre and acting. It seems to be hot sub-topic in the footsteps of Phedre and Platonov. I won't attempt to completely summarize or bring home certain points in this post. That will have to come in later discussion. I'll just mention a few ideas or thoughts that have come to mind recently on this wide topic to get started.

When an actor "speaks" or makes sounds on stage, I consider it "Physical Action" and no less so than any other part of the body in movement or motion. The total process from breath and impulse to thought and intention to precise activation of the vocal cords, resonance and articulation should be taken into consideration. The sound produced affects the spectators (and other actors) senses and should be generated and intended to do so with specific reason.

French writers like Racine and Genet wrote words in a fashion that was meant to be performed in a way that was rhythmically inundating, something akin to modern Amercian rap, fast, witty, biting, non-natural, loud and clever. The sound and delivery of the language, coupled with the thoughts behind it was meant to overwhelm. Translated to English and delivered vocally in that belabored British stage cadence with the impression of individual words manipulated ad-nauseam, the language becomes stagnate and obvious. The power and surprise of the language is gone, the Phedre production being a classic example.

Watching and listening to actors in Odin Teatret go through vocal training and practice was eye and ear opening. The possibilities seemed endless in combination of speed, sound, rhythm, resonance, and flexibility. They did not appear to be shy or inhibited about sound, the quality, the volumes, the pitches, etc. Odin Teatret's productions though do not begin with a written script, words as representation. They begin, originate, with a series of physical actions by actors individually. The actions are then put into a dramaturgical form (the dramaturgy) by Eugenio Barba as director. Words and dialogue get added as necessary in the process.

Lev Dodin said regarding Maly Theatre's work on King Lear "From the beginning, we very much wanted to force ourselves to hear the plain and coarse sense of Shakespeare's words... Killing what was poetic - this was one of our aims. Killing the poetic so as to get to the poetry."

Bill K. once did a detailed study of the style and themes of the language in The Cherry Orchard when we were working on that play in Actor's Gymnasium. For example, he noted over a hundred (I forget the exact number) references to Time in Chekhov's script. Things like "we're gonna be late" "Is the train on time" "How soon?" "It was springtime" "My watch has stopped." I'm paraphrasing but you get the idea. Bill's study was the kind of "probing" that Lev Dodin and his actors do over time with the various aspects of a play. In this case it was Language, Words. We then worked in Actor's Gymnasium to determine how we could apply this theme of Time theatrically. Chekhov himself had indicated in notes for example about the actual, literal time certain acts should require on stage. We used a cuckoo clock to interrupt action in one of our improvisations of the early scenes of the play. We worked on a "flashback" dream sequence. We thought about how in "silent" moments on stage when there were no other sounds, there could be the ticking of time always present and noticeable then. This type of activity was language interpreted and applied.

Shakespeare never used an exclamation point nor did he include much of the punctuation you see in most editions of his work today. Granted punctuation was different in Elizabethan England than it is today but comparing what Shakespeare actually included with what Riverside and other editors do is a little frightening at times. Their punctuation is just that, theirs and not necessarily the "correct" punctuation and certainly not Shakespeare's punctuation always. If you are into strict adherence or interpretation of punctuation in order to determine meaning or intent or emotional content, be careful when using these various editions.

Notes on Lev Dodin, Maly Theatre

2009-07-29T10:42:00.000-07:00

Here are some of my notes from 2004 that I wrote regarding Lev Dodin, Maly Theatre. Enjoy.
-David

I finally got my hands on “Dodin and the Maly Drama Theatre: Process to Perfomance.”Some of my favorite stuff...-The Introduction by Simon Callow. It alone is incredible and almost single handedly gives or restores faith in theatrical possibilities.-For The Devils, the actors rehearsed three years and read 240 books as part of their immersion. -Many of the descriptions of the productions sound almost impossible – “Platonov” for example, with its behavioral combinations of music and dance would require everything we just are not “prepared” to do here in America as actors, individually or collectively. See below.-Quote from the book – “The Russian notion of the “life of a production” is particularly relevant for Dodin’s theatre where organic development and maturation are understood to be paramount.” (Their understanding and experience of “organic development and maturation” is not the same as ours! See the above – 3 years rehearsal and 240 books preparation, then three more years in production before the actors “felt relatively ready,” then three more for it to settle.). Overall it makes you question everything, and I mean everything, we think and do with our theatre in America. Dodin and his company did something we hardly know of or can fathom. Read the book if you get a chance. I can’t wait to read “Journey Without End.”

Inspired by reading the stuff on Dodin, I finally got around to watching “An Unfinished Piece for the Player Piano,” the 1977 film by Nikita Mikhalkov based largely on “Plantanov.” All I can think is that Russian actors must read the words of a script (or story), then imagine the circumstances and events from which those words might have arisen, construct a series of actions based on those events and circumstances, which the words then in turn can become part of. Whereas American actors, read the words and then construct a series of actions based on the literal meaning of those words and then use events and circumstances to make it “natural.”
As for the film itself – Among other things, I thought it was great how cinematically the setting, the environment, gradually, as the action progressed and the characters do what they do, drink, tell stories, play, touch, dance, went from being this literal place with overgrown shrubbery, insects, heat, and rain, to being a surreal and poetic place, serving as both hindrance and facilitator for the characters, right down to the final shot on the river with the fabulous morning light reflecting in the ripples. The light, the physical space, the views, the objects, played out symbiotically with the actors. Kind of like the descriptions of Dodin’s or Nekrosious’ sets, which have an immediate and tangible affect on the actors besides simply being a “setting” for the audience to understand something, i.e. place, time, metaphor, etc

Shirley Ellis or is it Carlisle Valentine

2009-07-28T10:37:00.000-07:00

I haven't seen it but I've heard from at least two good sources that Carlisle Ellis rocks the house in "Shirley Valentine" at Live Theatre Workshop. All my bias' (good and bad) probably will prevent me from seeing this show - the British thing, its a "chick flick," stuff like that you know. If I do go of course it would be to see Carlisle in the role. I think Carlisle has the most unique and interesting voice (as in vocal quality) of any actor or actress in Tucson. Wrapped around a British dialect gives me pause - not because Carlisle couldn't do it but because, well, its British! That aside, her voice is outstanding! Its rich, melodious, enchanting and she knows how to utilize it as real physical action, not merely pretty sounds or correct sounds. When she activates her voice, it is with clear and specific intent and the action is carried along. Put that together with her eyes and her warm personality and ka-boom, "Stage Presence!"

Affective Memory as discussed by Stanislavsky

2009-07-26T16:01:00.000-07:00

If you have read the comment under the "Phedre in HD" post, then you have read what to some will be (or should be) a revelation. If you haven't read the comment, you should, as it mentions more in the growing and unmistakable evidence that Stanislavsky held Affective Memory as his primary "discovery" and as the most important and foundational aspect of his work. Further, it puts Stanislavsky's ideas of "Physical Action" in the proper historical (time) and working (craft) context. What does all that mean or represent generally speaking? It means that if you believe, propagate or teach that Stanislavsky changed his mind later in his life, that Stanislavsky thought or learned that Affective Memory was "dangerous," that he concluded that the Method of Physical Actions was his/the ultimate technique, or any other such thing, you stand squarely outside of the actual facts and working practice of Stanislavsky. In short, you are completely wrong.

Now anyone is free to invent, concoct or borrow any ideas they want and to call it an "acting technique." If however, you say you teach "Stanislavsky" for example, and refute Affective Memory at the same time, you are wrong. It is as simple as that. Call it false advertising. You actually teach and propagate a myth about Stanislavsky.

Frankly I have been a part of these debates for a while now and and as the years have gone by I have heard and seen the people who propagate the myths about Stanislavsky's "last work" and The Method of Physical Actions as the be all and end all, while bad mouthing people like Lee Strasberg for example, ignore facts and evidence and create false impressions almost at will. Its funny now to see and hear them say "Oh, I don't engage in or worry about who is right or wrong anymore" because the new and irrefutable evidence is so much against them - Stanislavsky's own words burning in their ears! When there are no more excuses for them, when they can't justify or wiggle out of the facts any longer, they are quitting. Why they don't just say "Oh my gosh I have been wrong all these years" is beyond me. I mean if somebody showed me something so clear as Stanislavsky saying "Look David, Affective Memory is dangerous. I used to use it but then I came to the conclusion it didn't work or had to be used only in a certain way, very small doses at certain times. And David, I have happily come to the conclusion that the Pavlovian concepts as supported by my Soviet interpreters is the best way to go. Method of Physical Action all the way David!" Well I would have to reconsider what I believe, what I teach and what I say about Stanislavsky and his work. And I would do it! However, that has never come to pass despite all the years of people saying such notions were historical truths. The dominoes are falling the other way in fact, and fast!

The sadness comes from the fact that students and others will still hear and believe what they are told by these people as they claim to come with credentials, and the brilliance of Stanislavsky will continue to be lost behind an arsenal of petty personality rank, lasting Soviet dogma or trendy applications and concepts. Some simplistic or worse, some unattainably "great" version of Stanislavsky's work will permeate. The remedy for my sadness would come in the form of them saying "I teach a perversion of Stanislavsky's ideas and I ignore all relevant facts associated with the man's best work and thought." That would solve so many problems for current and future actors and others interested in Stanislavsky.

If this sounds harsh or "out of character" for me, so be it. Its not meant to be mean but it is meant to be completely straightforward. In the end its about Stanislavsky and a legacy of work by dedicated and serious theatre practitioners - and getting that legacy correct. Its been difficult but its not that difficult once we get everyone to look honestly at the facts, the record. The overall history is fascinating and sometimes intricate and includes a Russian revolution for godsakes! But as I said, doable, understandable.

Stanislavsky built his theatres on integrity - personal and artistic. If we choose to associate ourselves with him, I believe we should do so in the same manner.

Regarding Lev Dodin's production of "Platonov"

2009-07-25T13:16:00.000-07:00

Hi All, this was sent anonymously for posting. Please read and enjoy. I have heard and read about the brilliance of this particular production of Chekhov's "Unfinished Play" (Platonov) but have never seen it of course and have never heard it quite described in this fashion. It is a telling and insightful description and I will write more and hope to have more on Lev Dodin soon.
-David

After 30+ years of theatre experience I finally saw the kind of theatre I have been dreaming of seeing all that time. This was not the current production of Dodin's Maly Drama Theatre playing in the Lincoln Center Festival -- "Life and Fate" -- as I will see that tomorrow. No, this was a film of one act (2 hours long) of his production of Chekhov's "Untitled Play" commonly known as "Platonov". I have never seen perfect theatre before until this production. The sense of what a permanent theatre company and only a permanent company can achieve because they are all trained in the same craft approach and all share the same vision of what theatre is deep in their individual and collective beings was alive in every second of Dodin's profoundly illuminating and overwhelmingly humane production of Chekhov. It embodied what happens in theatre when rehearsals last for years and even after productions open they are allowed to continue to evolve year after year in both performance and in continuing rehearsals. There was no hint of the current popular approach to Chekhov where he is turned into an Oxford wit, simplistic postmodern semiotics or a Russian Neil Simon. The production was a comic delight but in a Chekhovian sense -- the truth of human thought, feeling and action, i.e. behavior and how so much of this living on our part is funny because we are so blind and desperate in our needs and self delusion. We may even see ourselves doing it but we cannot stop. All we can do is laugh at our own foolishness while loving it. Nothing is "hit" as being a comic convention and yet everything makes one smile and cry in delightful recognition of HUMAN beings. The acting is truly experiential action. As Meyerhold said, "words are only the embellishment on the tapestry of movement" meaning that theatre, fundamentally, has nothing to do with words. With Dodin, words are the embellishment on the tapestry of LIVING expressed within deeply imaginative theatrical form. Like all the great theatre masters, Dodin never turns his actors into puppets of some ridiculous intellectualized postmodern concept plopped onto the play's theme as a critical conversation piece for academic "brain theatre". His actors live as independent beings in the world of the play and production and with a moment to moment improvisatory reality that is absent on Broadway and American regional theatre but is the essence of great acting -- not to mention theatre itself. The staging is both the natural life of a group of friends and enemies partying by a lake -- the lake is on stage and people swim, play musical instruments, jump in from 20 feet above to commit suicide, splash one another, hang from pier poles, role up on the (actual)sandy shoreline, while lighted candles float by in the water -- and at the same time the staging is a theatrical expression of the psychological levels of the play and its people which physicalizes both visually and emotionally what it all means; what Chekhov is saying. The seamless mix of all the actors playing musical instruments all through the play -- actors form a jazz band as well as play as soloists -- at almost any unexpected time while doing it so unselfconsciously as to make the inherent theatricality here seem to be just a musical extension of the character's soul, coupled with the playing of early jazz music, gloriously playful dancing and gorgeously human singing of all of sorts makes this production truly theatrical in a way that defines what theatricality actually is -- a deepening and sharpening of content and form without loosing the living emotional humanity of the actor. The stage is alive with levels of existence. Scenes are played in the foreground while the entire implied life of the play's circumstances and the production's vision continue all over the multi-leveled set behind the text based action. Never have I seen the visions of Meyerhold and Stanislavsky so fully combined. Its as if Meyerhold had Stanislavsky's great actors in his productions or as if Meyerhold was directing as Stanislavsky worked with the actors. Both sides of the coin of real theatre were onstage when one usually only gets heads or tails in the name of some director's personal "style". It is truly living psychophysical theatre seamlessly imagined as a theatrical form. This is multi-dimensional living on stage and a perfection of direction, conception and execution unknown in American theatre. One actor plays a scene with a mixture of lust, longing, anger, love, amusement and bewilderment that I did not think possible for any actor to achieve as living breathing emotional truth on stage. Something so simple as a character turning a chair on its side and sitting on that side becomes immensely expressive of the moment and the character. Truthful feeling flows everywhere and the explosive nature of emotion is given free reign in a way American theatre lost long ago. Actors use an old Meyerholdian trick of writing certain lines on the walls of the set and Dodin makes this completely natural, justified and theatrical all at once -- true theatre. The ease and relaxation of the actors on stage is terrifying -- not to mention their concentration and imaginative action plus an interpersonal emotional freedom and flow. As if all this was not enough, Dodin fashions a masterpiece out of Chekhov's early and unfinished play. I had read the play as left by Chekhov years ago and found it a tangled mess. Dodin drops around 10 characters and several lines of action in the text; adds 10 waiters/servants for the gentry class in the play (they form the jazz band and serve as kind of stage hands in tuxedos moving furniture pieces on and off, albeit justified within the play's action and set a magnificent table full of real food that is eaten on stage, especially by one piggish character) and in the process Dodin shapes a literary masterpiece as well as its theatrical embodiment out of Chekhov's messy play. I left thinking this is the most brilliant Chekhov play of all. After finally seeing what the Stanislavsky's, Meyerhold's, Vakhtangov's, Brecht's and Strasberg's dreamed of theatre being it will be hard to stomach anything less. When the art of theatre is finally achieved it is like nothing else. Too bad its as rare as a unicorn.