Equity Superlatives for 2K13 (so far)

Growing-up in a time of reality competition TV shows and being an Oscars aficionado, my brain automatically categorizes things into superlatives. As you may know, I am an avid theatregoer so naturally I tend to compare/contrast different productions. In the past six months I’ve seen 30+ productions in Chicago and wanted to take a look back and see what left a lasting impression upon me.

So I originally started listing my Chicago theatre superlatives from the past six months without taking into account Equity status for the shows. I’d originally chosen five in each category, but decided to split it up separate the Equity and non-Equity productions and select only three in each category. Below are my choices in the Equity division (which I see much less of because, oh, you know, ticket prices and such). The * signifies my favorite.

 

BEST PRODUCTION

 

columbinus @ American Theatre Company

 

The Pride @ About Face Theatre

 

The Whale @ Victory Gardens*

While columbinus and The Pride were two of the productions I most eagerly anticipated, The Whale was the surprise knockout. Samuel D. Hunter’s searing dialogue and painfully real characters laid the foundation for an unforgettable production. I am surprised his script wasn’t at least a finalist for the Pulitzer this past year as it dealt with many contemporary American concerns with skill and honesty.

BEST DIRECTION

Bonnie Metzgar (The Pride @ About Face Theatre)*

 

PJ Paparelli (columbinus @ American Theatre Company)

 

Joanie Schultz (The Whale @ Victory Gardens)

The Whale’s hyper reality and columbinus’ docudrama theatricality both showcased their directors within their respective styles. Yet, Metzgar’s stark grip on the 50’s period decorum versus the much more liberated late-2000’s allows The Pride to successfully communicate the different characters and story lines with grace and fluidity.

BEST INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE

Patrick Andrews (The Pride @ About Face Theatre)*

 

Adam Poss (Teddy Ferrara @ Goodman Theatre)

 

Sadieh Rifai (Speech & Debate @ American Theatre Company)

In Speech & Debate, Sadieh Rifai easily gave the best comedic performance I’ve seen in Chicago since J. Nicole Brooks’ outstanding firecracker turn in Immediate Family at the Goodman. Adam Poss was perfectly bitchy while simultaneously irresistible in Teddy Ferrara. However, Patrick Andrews’ soulful handling of two emotional roles in The Pride stands out as the best performance of the past six months.

 

BEST ENSEMBLE PERFORMANCE

Beaten @ The Artistic Home

 

columbinus @ American Theater Company

 

Teddy Ferrara @ Goodman Theatre*

Obviously, I appreciate an ensemble that tackles a tricky, dramatic script successfully.  Although the casts of Barnum at Mercury Theatre and Goodman’s The Jungle Book delivered memorable performances, they felt more like individual powerhouses autonomously operating instead of relying on each other.

BEST INDIVIDUAL DESIGN

Mara Blumenfeld (Costume Design for The Jungle Book @ Goodman Theatre)

 

Janice Pytel (Prosthetic Design for The Whale @ Victory Gardens)

 

Mieka van der Ploeg (Costume Design for The Pride @ About Face Theatre)*

Although Thad Hallstein’s sleek set for Profiles’ In the Company of Men and Keith Parham’s appropriately moody lighting in Goodman’s Teddy Ferrara were very impressive alongside the other two recognized designs, no production element stood out quite like van der Ploeg’s costumes which gorgeously aided About Face’s The Pride to slide from two time periods separated by 50 years.

BEST NEW WORK

Beaten (by Scott Woldman @ The Artistic Home)*

With an unpredictable and more believable LaBute-like-surprise, Woldman’s family drama harrows with distressing recognition as effortlessly as it delights with comic levity. The unique character relationships are the foundation for a difficult trek through the cycles of abuse, secrets, and misguided love on which many families build their households.

some dialogue

just couldn't get this fictitious conversation out of my head the other night... 



- do you like art?

- like the Mona Lisa and stuff or...

- like exhibits? in museums?

- I guess.

- do you wanna go to the Institute with me?

- ...

- they have a Wayne Thiebaud exhib-

- Wayne Tea-who?

- Wayne Thiebaud. he's a pop artist. predated Andy Warhol. my friend put something about it on Facebook.

- okay...

- did paintings of food and stuff. snow cones. lollipops. pies. you know. 

- okay...

- his stuff feels like summer. I thought it'd be nice to feel like summer. 

- with me?

- with you.

- okay.

- okay. Friday? after work? 

thoughts? wanna see these two go on a date? 

In the Company of Men

Profiles Theatre is currently staging the World Premiere of In the Company of Men by Neil LaBute. As a fan of both Profiles’ and LaBute’s works, I was enthusiastic about attending the production. I viewed the film version many years ago; I found the film hateful and inhabited by unsympathetic characters. I entered the theatre with hopes that the staged version would find the heart and humanity absent from the screenplay. My hopes were not fulfilled despite strong performances (especially Brennan Roche) from the cast and a stylish set design by Thad Hallstein.

In the Company of Men has the recognizable attributes that I have come to appreciate from LaBute; he employs witty, naturalistic dialogue brimming with humor which eases the audience into recognizing the distasteful characters as extreme replicas of themselves. LaBute seduces the audience into empathizing and rooting for his protagonists quite well by making them flawed, but charismatic, and undeniably human. LaBute then proceeds to have these identifiable, likable people commit atrocious and often amoral acts. The audience is left questioning whether they are capable of similar behavior under the circumstances presented in the script. It’s a fascinating template, which he has arguably exhausted through his many plays. LaBute never cowers from sensitive, topical subject matter from racism, misogyny, homophobia, bullying, religion, national tragedies, body politics, etc. Therefore, his work is often controversial and received with a mixture of accolades and disdain. However, his voice as an American observer cannot be ignored especially as a playwright.

So why does In the Company of Men – one of his earliest works – misfire as the astute social commentary to which it seemingly aims? LaBute attempts to make commentary on corporate America and misogyny in his script. He portrays the two misogynistic lead male characters as ruthless and emotionally barbaric. However, he does not give the audience a character with which to identify. In the opening scene of the play, the two men plot a detestable scheme to hurt a woman because they have both apparently been recently injured by ended relationships. Therefore, one can assume that the woman chosen to be ill-treated will be the character with which to connect. LaBute in turn gives us an under-developed character which is hearing-impaired, and instantly a victim. Seems broad, right? That’s because it is. We understand that this character has a good sense of humor about her surdity and that she struggles to date because of her unique voice stemming from her handicap. However, that’s all the information we are allowed. We can sympathize with her pain in being hurt by them men, but without finer detail in characterization from the playwright the impact lacks strength.

This is where LaBute’s commentary on misogyny becomes misogynistic. We know more about the two male characters’ pasts, relationship-history, education, and friendship. They are more fully-fleshed than the female character (named Christine). Despite LaBute’s attempt to reverse expected nudity on stage – two men expose their genitalia while no women appear top or bottomless – one of the male characters, Howard, was given explanatory motivation for his actions. He is also given a softer side by genuinely falling in love with Christine. While it doesn't excuse him, he comes across as equally victimized as she does. This occurs because both Howard and Christine were part of a scheme concocted by the second male character, Chad. They are both sufferers of Chad’s jealousy towards Howard and his successes. In the end, Chad is left unscathed and promoted in corporate America, Christine finds internal peace and self-empowerment, while Howard is left emotionally distraught, demoted, and alone.  So who is the true victim?

So is this a cautionary tale? Is it a character study? Or is it a reflection of our merciless society?

There are other arbitrary, less-significant issues with the script: unnecessary atmospheric-characters and direct-address which makes the piece stylistically incoherent while contributing very little to the development of the characters and story line  Yet, the idea with which the audience leaves is compelling: “I can be whoever I want to be.” There is a lot of power in that statement and it rings true for each of the central characters. However, the faulty execution of the idea makes for a disagreeable play, albeit for inadvertent reasons. 

Also, check out my review of American Theatre Company's Speech & Debate!

http://chicagostagestandard.com/2013/05/14/speech-debate-american-theater-company/

More Stuff I Made Up

I shared some of my quatrains many weeks ago. I ended-up having thirty. Here's four more from that same series. 

Quatrain I:

he can be in skinny jeans

as long as his kiss ain't mean;

we can text and tweet and skype

just as long as he's my type

Quatrain V:

out for brunch in his 'hood;

want to kiss him, maybe I should;

we stayed in bed kinda late;

I wonder if this is a date

Quatrain XVII:

do you remember the gazelles?

before we said our last farewells,

they’d run the plain up to your pits;

you'd laugh so hard you were in fits

Quatrain XXV:

upgraded me to youporngay,

put Logan Square up on display,

Paris is Burning, that was you;

did you learn something from me too?

The Pride

I just finished reading a wonderful play called THE PRIDE by Alexi Kay Campbell (published in 2008) which About Face is producing the Chicago premiere of this summer with some of my favorite actors. In the script, there are two characters that recount mystical experiences in which they hear voices; these two characters are both gay Londoners, share the name Oliver, and are meant to be portrayed by the same actor.

The first Oliver lives in 1958 when homosexuality was considered a mental illness and grotesque lifestyle. While travelling in Greece, Oliver visits Delphi – famously known as the home of the oracle in the Oedipus Trilogy – he has a comforting “epiphany” in which a voice says "everything [is] going to be all right.”  The second Oliver lives in 2008. However, the voice that he hears knows him by name and calls him into sordid situations in which he relapses to his sexual addiction of having anonymous hook-ups. Despite his inability to successfully combat his addiction, he finds hope in the future through human connection and an internal recognition with another person, his boyfriend. In the span of 50 years, the Olivers 50 find acceptance in society and within themselves. The world is changing and “one day, maybe many, many years from now, there will be an understanding of certain things, a deeper understanding of certain aspects of our natures that would make all the difficulties we now feel, all the fears we now hold onto and the sleepless nights we now have seem almost worthwhile… And that the people who live in those times, be it fifty or five hundred years from now will be happy with that understanding and wiser for it. Better.”

I felt a deep connection to this play and especially this more supernatural element. I think whatever force that connected these characters is present in my life as well. I've always believed I would be all right if I took steps towards being true to myself. It wasn't a voice (which is a nice theatrical, magical touch for the play) that spoke to me, but it was my own thoughts and hopes of what could be - not just as a gay man, but as a human being. The fact that these two characters found internal peace and acceptance despite the turmoil comforts me. It makes me believe that I am exactly where I am supposed to be. Also, it’s nice to know that Alexi Kay Campbell recognizes (and beautifully manifests) this feeling I have never been able to fully articulate. It helps me not feel alone – and that gives me hope and peace. 

Boyfriend101

I'm brainstorming titles for my never-to-be-published (or written) guide to dating gay guys. Here's what I got so far:

Don't Be Late: And Other Ways To Make That Date Your Mate

How To Seem Mellow For A Fellow 

Your Best Bet To Get Intimate 

How To WOO and DUde


Don't Be A Bore And You Can Score

A Study So He's Not Just Your Buddy

10 Ways To Keep Your Guy From Saying 'Bye-Bye'

A Game Plan To Get A Gentleman 

How To Court So He Won't Abort 

Well, that's all I got for now, but please excuse me; these peanut butter brownies aren't going to eat themselves. 

Zero Dark Thirty

I wrote this a while back after watching Zero Dark Thirty, but never shared it. It's incomplete, but there are some thoughts on the film and the Jessica Chastain's character and performance. 

Zero Dark Thirty

It has taken me a few days to digest the film and find what my take on one of this year’s most lauded and criticized films. In the wake of its Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Original Screenplay, I had high expectations of the film although I entered knowing it’s not the kind of movie that I am drawn to. Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker was a super tense, well-crafted film that I marveled over once and then never felt compelled to watch again. I expected something similar with Zero Dark Thirty. However, what I got was a precise and very deliberate film which doesn't have room to breathe. It’s not as tense as The Hurt Locker because Bigelow has it in a choke hold. Every shot is so calculated and measured that it’s stifled. That said, some of the cinematography is thoughtful and beautiful, the central character is written well and fiercely brought to life by Jessica Chastain, and the ensemble delivers a solid supporting foundation for the film. However, Chastain’s role is so quarantined in the circumstances that we never see a full person; we only get the fraction which entails her position with the CIA. Despite the attempts at humanizing her in a few scenes, she never really completely emerges leaving the heart of the film struggling to find a pulse. Yet, if that was the intention of the screenwriter, Mark Boal, and Bigelow then they succeeded and consequently created a character in need of more development. I do not believe the film either glorifies or demonizes the hunting and killing Osama Bin Laden and all it entailed; Zero Dark Thirty depicts what occurred and condenses into a film that still feels quite long.  Despite these shortcomings, the film is compelling for the majority of its running time.

Maya, portrayed by Jessica Chastain, is an ambitious, passionate beast. Her ambitions and passion flare as she protects victims of terrorism. However, her quest comes at the cost of harming those which may lead her to finding Osama Bin Laden. It is no comfort to see that her skillful research and thoughtful investigation leads her to accurate conclusions as to those that will get her the necessary information to finalize the hunt. We witness her toughened by her profession, but really it is her own strong will and determination that transform her into someone capable of extraordinary cruelty veiled by a light voice and infectious smile. In an early scene, she is hardly capable of watching a prisoner being physically assaulted for information by a charming assailant which happens to be her colleague. She is much more comfortable to see interrogations suggesting violence as opposed to executing bodily harm. Yet, as time passes, she hardens. We see her confront her superiors, conduct forceful questionings herself, and eventually is just as blood-thirsty as those she hunts. And yet, she has to be. She has to be more resolute, more strident, and more confident than any of her counterparts to get the job done.  She allows the transformation to occur. She gets cocooned by her profession and the audience never sees her emerge from there. The final image is an unfulfilled, lost person neither understanding nor enjoying their success.