Thursday, September 11, 2008

Follies... finally


Let's face it, as theatre aficionados, we all have them. Those guilty-pleasure cast albums that we spent hours listening to in our bedrooms or basements imagining the sets and costumes and what the hell the story was really about between all those songs. For me, one of the biggest guilty pleasures was Stephen Sondheim's Follies. I can't believe I've lived a life in theatre this long without ever actually seeing a production of the show. However, this desire was finally satiated by Lyric Stage of Boston's consistently uneven, but mostly palatable production running now through October 11.

On the surface, there is a lot to criticize in this production: the proscenium blocking and choreography for a thrust stage, the uneven performances that produce wonderful songs or great acting but rarely both, the unfortunate designs of both costumes and set. If this were a for-profit Broadway show, I would rip these aspects of the production to shreds. But it's not, and what remains in this conscientious regional production is the heart of the show. The story centers on a reunion of faded follies girls upon the destruction of the theatre in which they used to perform. Set in 1971, the demolition of the theatre in favor of a parking lot is culturally symptomatic of urban planning of the time. However, the theme of urban renewal serves as a metaphor for the lives of the characters who compromised their dreams and are forced to live with the repercussions. In pop culture terminology, Follies is the "Golden Girls" of musical theatre. In theatrical parlance, it is a contemplation of the glorification of youth in our industry and an homage to those who have committed to a life in the theatre. The latter are presented with all their war stories and bruises presenting a realistic portrayal of life in the theatre as few shows dare to do.

As I mentioned, this production is largely uneven with the exception of the divas. Kerry Dowling as Stella, Bobbie Steinbach as Carlotta, and Kathy St. George as Solange deliver some of the most heartfelt, honest, and funny performances that you are likely to see on Boston (or the American) stages this year. Leigh Barrett as Sally Durant delivers her usual operatic performance nailing the nuance of every song but faltering in her dramatic work. Her delivery of "In Buddy's Eyes" is truly extraordinary, although, the 2nd act show-stopper "Losing My Mind" could have been taken up a step or two to accommodate her vocal range. Likewise, Maryann Zschau delivers a mostly solid comedic performance and simply nails "Could I Leave You," but leaves much to be desired in many of the dramatic scenes.

For the men, Peter Carey delivers a reasonably strong performance from the loosely drawn character of Buddy. The casting of Larry Daggett as Ben Stone is the single biggest mistake of the production. His acting, singing, and presence were simply soap operatic, unfit, and unskilled for this otherwise sufficient cast. Although, the older actors certainly earned their deserved place in the spotlight with this show many of the younger cast members also deserve mention such as Phil Crumrine as the younger Buddy, Aimee Doherty as young Stella, and April Pressel whose glorious soprano delivering "One More Kiss" is a highlight of the evening.

The choice to present Follies in the difficult Lyric Stage space was either an inspired or hubris decision of artistic director Spiro Veloudos, who is also director of this show. In terms of space and story, I can't say that Follies succeeds. However, he has managed to cast a significant number of top-notch talent who rarely have the opportunity to perform such luscious characters and music on the stage. I think the production is best summed up by the production number "Mirror, Mirror" which includes tap choreography by Ilyse Robbins and all of the Follies women dancing in step with the Follies girls. This magical number brings together the heart, the energy, and the sheer love of performance that is so rare in professional productions. With all the criticisms one could attribute to the performance, this number brings out the sheer joy of performing that brings us all to the theatre. In an age when theatres and Americans are financially struggling, Follies delivers a potent message sealed in a package of frivolity and amusement that is likely to please both the theatre snobs and the populace.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Dario Fo's "We Won't Pay"... Lost in Translation?


Dario Fo is one of only a handful of dramatists to be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature, among other luminaries as Pinter, Beckett, Sartre, and Camus. His work, however, is less often seen on American stages save for the occasional academic production. The Nora Theatre Company's bold choice to open their 21st season with Fo's We Won't Pay! We Won't Pay! demonstrates why his work rarely jumps the pond. Whereas the Nora delivers as fine of a production as imaginable, the utter "Italianess" of the play simply doesn't translate to the American stage.

We Won't Pay! quite simply plays like an episode of The Honeymooners with an Italian accent and a political message. The story begins with Antonia and her friend Margherita carrying in bags of groceries that were looted from the local market. In a lengthy monologue, Antonia explains how the women of the village banded together and refused to pay the rising prices for food. However, she explains, her well-mannered, law-loving husband, Giovanni, would never approve of her actions which sets into motion their extensive plot to conceal the groceries from him. Their machinations extend into the ridiculous encompassing a fake pregnancy, a police sergeant and state trooper, and feeding her husband beef-flavored dog food and bird seed soup with rabbit head. As the patron sitting behind me most adeptly noted, "This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen."

Whether this statement was a compliment or a critique, I am unsure. However, ridicule is the very basis of satire and as the Nobel judges lauded, Dario Fo was granted the prize for "emulating the jesters of the Middle Ages in scourging authority and upholding the dignity of the downtrodden." On the surface, I was willing to dismiss the play as a comedic political satire with slapstick humor and pedantic speeches. But as I thought of Italy’s legacy of theatre, I began to see a historical and aesthetic connection with commedia del arte (arguably Italy’s greatest contribution to theatre). This genre, much like the repertory companies of yore, relied upon stock characters portrayed by actors who spent years developing their Lassi. I wonder if this play doesn’t suffer from the American LORT model of producing theatre and, like Charles Ludlum’s Ridiculous Theatre Company, depends upon stock actors portraying stock characters.

This isn’t to say that the actors of the Nora’s production were sub par. Scott H. Severance displays a very Jackie Gleason-esque quality in his over-the-top humor. Likewise, Elise Audrey Manning captures a nubile comedy of Margherita worthy of comparison to Joyce Randolph’s Trixie Norton. The directing of the show mostly panders to the lowest common denominator of humor including pantomiming lines and constant prat falls. There were a few moments where I found myself guffawing, most notably the physical comedy of Margherita’s “water” breaking which turns out to be pickle juice and olives and provides a literal landslide to Giovanni. Likewise, the pantomimed fetus transplant pantomimed with silverware by Antonio Ocampo-Guzman heralded laughter and applause from the audience.

Despite the mind-numbing humor and pedantic speeches, I think We Won’t Pay! is a brilliant choice for Nora’s inaugural season in the state-of-the-art blackbox that is the Central Square Theatre. As I left the play, surrounded by the homeless and downtrodden people that fill Central Square, I couldn’t help but reflect upon the themes of the play. What if these multitudes were to revolt against the current system of price-gouging of gas prices, Starbucks coffee, and Gap jeans as did the wives and workers of Dario Fo’s opus? Could social reform begin with these people in Central Square? It is either brilliance or serendipity that planted this play here. If the measure of a play is its ability to transform one’s view of the world, the Nora Theatre has proved themselves as socially-relevant theatre with We Won’t Pay!

Thursday, September 4, 2008

How Shakespeare Won the West... and the Huntington Lost its Audience


For the first show of his inaugural season at the Huntington Theatre, rookie Artistic Director, Peter DuBois has elected to produce a world premiere by veteran playwright Richard Nelson. As someone who has read all of Mr. Nelson's ouvre, I find this former Yale playwrighting teacher to be either too academic, too historiographic, or simply too dull for most mainstream theatre. How Shakespeare Won the West is no exception. Think of it as Quilters meets The Grapes of Wrath with the melodrama of telenovellas and you have the closest description I can think of for this patchwork, ragtag show.


Mr. Nelson (author of Two Shakespearian Actors and Some Americans Abroad, see previous entry) loves to use the stage as a platform for theatre history lectures culled from his former profession. Just as in Two Shakespearian Actors where he attempts to dramatize the dual that fueled the Astor Place Riots, this play is also "based upon a true story." Like a miniseries on Lifetime television, his dramatizations are two-dimensional and melodramatic giving an unpleasant spin on the genre that has become known as documentary theatre. As we have seen, the best work of this genre (e.g. Anna Deveare Smith, currently performing at the A.R.T.) has the power to use theatre as an agent for healing, for education, for change. Mr. Nelson's work, on the other hand, seems to institutionalize and ghetto-ize theatre into the genre of theatre-for-people-who-do-it. Academics, scholars, and theatre history teachers will no doubt find the morsels of history peppering the script fascinating, but those looking for an entertaining evening of theatre will no doubt be in-line for tickets to Follies at the Lyric Stage quicker than you can say "I'm still here."





The show follows a motley band of community theatre actors in 1848 from a bar in New York (called "The Bard") into the Wild West meeting all the trials and travails that you read about in your 4th grade history lessons or learned playing the old Oregon Trail computer game. Along the way, they encounter Indians, the black hills of the Dakotas, winter climates, and drunken settlers looking for "gold in dem dere hills." The themes are so cliche, they dare need repeating, much less dramatizing. Taking a lesson from Forrest Gump, the playwright dares to extend our disbelief including an introduction to Buffalo Bill and the invention of snow-skiing. Add into this the obligatory romantic triangles, death, and gay-bashing and you have a cookie-cutter format for a third-rate Broadway musical... without the orchestra.


There is a joke about Huntington shows that when you can't think of anything nice to say, compliment the set. Unfortunately, the stunning, over-produced scenery for this show is too busy being chewed by the actors to warrant much mention except that it seems nice when you enter the theatre. An ensemble cast feels like the most unprofessional cast of actors recently assembled on the Huntington Stage. The main two exceptions are Boston-native Jeremiah Kissel, whose over-the-top role as a confirmed bachelor allow for a deserving amount of well-delivered chicanery garnering well-deserved laughs. Susannah Shulman who plays Kate, the true actress and star of the traveling band of ruffians, gives an honest and heart-rending performance beyond the limitations of the script. I also applaud the character work of ___________ whose craft in playing everyone from P.T. Barnum to Buffalo Bill deserves applause.


What disturbs me most about this production is that this is what Peter DuBois chose as his first show in his inaugural season at the Huntington. As I watched the show, I tried to assess the decision in choosing this show over so many others and weighing the politics of thie choice. First of all, it's a world premiere. I guarantee that there are better unproduced shows out there worth producing. Richard Nelson is a major playwright. However, his work has not been widely received (and for good reason) and there are better established playwrights who would love the opportunity to premiere on the Huntington Stage. It's a show about theatre. Then revive one of the many backstage plays that serve the same function such as Jeffrey Hatcher's brilliant Compleat Female Stage Beauty, Quilters, The Grapes of Wrath, Compleat Works of Shakespeare Abridged, et al. What was Mr. DuBois thinking in choosing this as his first show? To me, it seems an attempt at a safe yet daring, artsy yet popular political choice. But the fact of the matter is, it's a bad play and any artistic director worth his merit should have seen that in reading the script. The winds of change are blowing in America and at the Huntington. We'll see if Mr. DuBois is a leader into tomorrow or, as this show displays, a step backward for the Boston theatre community.