Reviews: Love, NY @ The Capital Fringe

Love, NY @ The Capital Fringe Festival on July 26, 2013

             

          “The Fringe Festival” is an event that goes on in major cities all over the Western World each year. Well… at least three major cities to my knowledge. From my understanding, the ‘fringe festival’ started in Scotland on the outskirts of a world-wide theatre festival: companies couldn’t get slots in the original festival so they created their own venues on the ‘fringes’. And then it grew and morphed, became too incredibly famous, too incredibly crowded, and actors are poor – how can you expect ten actors who are struggling just to make rent, let alone eat, to go to Scotland for a month? So then New York started a “Fringe Festival” which popped up around the ‘Off-Off Broadway’ scene. Then DC caught on in 2005, and now The Capital Fringe is in the near-end of its eighth summer festival. As they proudly boast on their site, they offer “18 days, 130 shows, 745 performances, 18 venues, 8 bar taps, 8^th Summer Festival.” It was on day 13 of The Capital Fringe, that I saw Love, NY by Robert Ricicki & Michael Ruby.

            When walking out of the strange church/ theatre in the middle of Washington, DC, the one word that came to mind was “relatable.” Love, NY is a 70-minute one-act musical about 20-somethings exploring and experiencing love in New York today. In reality, the show could be set in any city, in any town really, just switch out the obligatory references to Madison Avenue, Columbia and Broadway, and it would work just as well.

At its core, Love, NY is about a confused generation of in-betweens who want to be adults, but at the same time don’t actually want to leave the simplicity of childhood either. The two leading males within the show are Dan, a ‘young professional’ in advertising who’d rather be in film school, and Benji, a recent college graduate, just started off in the city and experiencing the thrills and ills of a girlfriend in the city. There are also three female leads fitting all your average city ‘types’, the over-sexed, grad student proudly still living off mommy and daddy, the optimistic young teacher unlucky in love, and the selfish and bitter struggling actress. The characters are all people you either know or have met at some point in your early-20’s, and for most of us, you will see yourself on that stage, because you are “A Nice Young Man” who was “Waiting for Laura,” but is now just “Freakin’ Out” and you “Want To Go Back” because real-life is “Not What I Thought It Would Be.” Which is why I came out of the theatre with the word ‘relatable’ in my mind.

While it may not be a show that changes lives, or even stirs deep thought, beyond our growing problem of 20-somethings who rely on their parents, it is an entertaining show that anyone in or past their 20’s can relate to.

As for this production, this was the first staged production of the show, with a cast of eight, 5 females and 3 males. It was entertaining, clearly presented, and with great direction and understandable casting. The actor’s did well, they embodied the characters but I found myself constantly wondering if they should continue singing. The man who play Benji, Christopher Rios, was a swing, to be fair, and at times his words were rushed, muddled and confused, but as far as I was concerned, it fit the character perfectly. Perfectly up until the line ‘I though you were an arrogant prick,’ by Daniel, because Mr. Rios just comes across as awkward, uncertain, nerdy and adorably confused with life.

The other male lead in this production, Daniel played by Lou Steele, was a fine actor who might want take some refresher voice lessons. He was a very good vocalist, I’m not trying insult, but it did seem like he was trying to mimic a certain vocal style to a point that some of the integrity of the vowels was lost. The difference between ‘poppy’ and ‘whiney’ is such a fine line. Other than the occasional spread vowel, Lou delivered a wonderfully confused young man, confused to the point of being an asshole to those around him.

The women of this show, oh the women of this show… All three fulfilled some stereotype, and yes, while stereotypes are based on true people, maybe I don’t want to see it in theatre. Or rather, not every female needs to encapsulate a different stereotype. Surprise me, people! I found myself only caring about Emily, because through-out the show, she was the only character willing to see beyond her own selfish wants and actually had real interactions with people. The other two characters were very self-oriented and caused their own unhappiness through their unwillingness to see beyond their own opinions.            

The Ensemble, though it be but little, is mighty – made up of two women and one man brought a lovely flare of fun to this show. The two women were a sort of back-up dancers for a number of the characters solo numbers, and the one man had one of the greatest cameo parts in the entire show as the old tyrannical German woman from Emily’s apartment complex. With a simple headscarf and hot pink walking cane, Mr. Carter embodied a tough, old German woman, both defiant and protective of Emily.

If I hadn’t seen Love, NY on its last night on stage, I would encourage anyone looking for some cute, fun moderately light-hearted romantic comedy in 70-minutes of songs and laughter to check this show out. I had a great time, enjoyed connecting with the actors only a few feet away. Because I am a 20-something living (sort of) in a city, my views and ability to relate to it might be biased, but I think anyone who’s gone through or is going through the never-ending process of ‘growing up’ would enjoy this show.

Side note: Also, most of the songs from the original New York off-off-Broadway sing-through of this show are on youtube, if you are interested. It’s not the same cast that I saw, but the music is fun, catchy and may occasionally make you melt a little on the inside. 

Books: Tynan on Theatre: Part IV

Tynan on European Theatre

           

I fear as I go longer and longer without writing, and further and further from the original read, these writings will become less and less thorough. When my professor told me to write the moment you return home from the theatre – I should have done well to apply that to my readings as well. For I found today as I sat down to write this, that while I knew the basics of his writings in this section, I had lost a majority of the content in my memory. So – that prompted a nice (hour-long) re-read-through.

The section reads thusly: French Theatre, German Theatre, and why the Russians can out-act our English any day. I shall discuss it in that order.

Tynan on French Theatre:

            We begin with the plays of Giraudoux and Ionesco – and we learn about not only the plots of the plays, but more importantly, the styles of these writers. How one writes often supersedes the importance of the actual plot – at least this is what I gathered from what I was reading. How Giraudoux and Ionesco are examples of this idea, comes across in Tynan’s emphasis on their beautiful prose and the duality in their writing of both the playwright and the poet. Shakespeare had this duality – his speeches are famous for it. It is nice to be reminded now and then, though, that it still exits in contemporary playwrights of the 20^th Century.

            While not every playwright is met with total praise, there is clear respect and admiration for Ionesco and Giraudoux. While I once thought that Moliere was the heart of French theatre, it seems I have now been redirected and educated to look towards these contemporary writers. A whole article is dedicated to Ionesco, who I admit, is hailed as one of the great 20^th Century writers – but I think it becomes even more poignant when it is told to you by one of the original viewers, instead of a second-hand scholar. No offense to second-hand sources, mind!

            In the end, the section sums up with an account of the great political turmoil (regarding government funding) that the French theatre found itself involved in the late 1950’s with the interference of the Minister of State in charge of Cultural Affairs, Andre Malraux. A time when funding for the Comédie-Française was reduced so as to allow for more funding to other types of theatre and more contemporary works. There was also an increase in control of the government in theatre and theatre content. In fact, from my point of view, if not Tynan’s, it looked as if the French theatre was heading down the same path as the English. But while it was a difficult time for the French theatrical of the time, I don’t believe it hurt them too dearly in the long run.

Tynan on German Theatre:

            Or rather – Tynan on Brecht. I am a fan of Brecht, even before reading Tynan’s thoughts on the sly and clever little German man. With his wonderful reviews and summaries of both Mother Courage and The Good Woman of Setzuan, Tynan’s great admiration for Brecht comes across in glowing respect short yet poignant critiques. Then after that delightful discussion of Brecht, we get a lovely article on West Berlin theatre on the whole. Tynan is more professor and educator in his articles, he disperses information over opinion and the result is thought-provoking to say the least. I find when reading his articles, I have to think about my own opinion and draw my own conclusions – like reading a text book (imagine! One of my required readings for graduate school reading like a textbook), rather than a collection.

            After reading his thoughts on Berlin and the Berliner Ensemble, I just feel a little disgruntled at the lateness of my birth. I also feel a renewed interest in Bertolt Brecht beyond Galileo, a play I actually rather enjoyed thanks to an inspiring Professor of Theatrical History and Texts. Tynan has such an evident and entrancing love for Brecht’s style and writings that it’s hard not to get swept up with him while reading his thoughts. He is so interested and invested in his love that he spends 20 pages summing up 1959 in Germany and Brecht’s genius, influence and innovations in German theatre and theatre in general.

Then, finally we move on to Russia

Tynan on Theatre in Moscow:

            When reading Tynan’s thoughts on theatre in Moscow and how audiences in Moscow received theatre, I felt almost ashamed for my adopted British theatre. In Moscow, it appears, plays are bigger, sets much grander, and the acting – larger in scale, and filled with multi-faceted characters. While Chekov is the only writer truly explored here – one get’s the sense that the style and capacity of the Russian actors is what truly makes their theatre great.

            Tynan speaks about the obvious choice in England to make Chekov plays into tragedies, whereas the Russian take Chekov at his word and allow the comedy to take over. Personally, I had the good fortune of learning first about Chekov as a dry wit before reading his plays. This allowed me to read and enjoy them for that, though I find I did not respect Konstantine Gavrilovich as much as I probably should have…

            From what I can tell from Tynan’s view and admiration of Russian actors and their style, they are more involved, more intellectual and just truer than many of their contemporaries from other nations. It no longer seems odd to me that Drama Centre London sends their student to Moscow for 4 months. Instead, I find myself thinking that it is actually practical and even essential.

Summation:

            All in all, this section reads as a sort of love-letter to international theatre, and reminds me of the importance of seeing and taking in as much art as humanly possible. I know from professors and my own experiences, that is important to broaden ones horizons not only to be educated but to also come to logical conclusions. But this seems important also for the reason of bettering one’s self through identification and exploration of the cultural practices and theatrical styles of other nations.

Books: Tynan on Theatre: Part III

Tynan on American Theatre           

Here I was expecting harsh criticisms of the cut-throat commercialism of American theatre. Some sort of diatribe against America’s theatre culture and how it compares when held up against English Theatre. But I didn’t take into account when Tynan was writing.

            The 1950’s was a golden age in American Theatre, when playwrights such as Tennessee Williams and Arthur Miller were hitting their stride and hitting it big. Once again, I was transported and mesmerized by these glimpses into the past, the first looks at today’s classics. And even a few musicals made it into the mix: Guys and Dolls, West Side Story, and even My Fair Lady (though he wasn’t too fond of that one).

            Aside from reviews, there is a piece of writing from 1954 entitled American Blues: The Plays of Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams. Miller is referred ‘a man of action’ and ‘of the past,’ while Tennessee Williams is more ‘lyrical’ and ‘looking to the future’. By this comparison, it might appear that Williams is being held as the better, more advanced playwright, but I don’t think that is what Tynan is saying at all. He speaks about the similarities between the playwrights structure, but also the plays themselves. Each playwright has his own style of story, his own archetype and favorite themes that many of their plays seem to center around. I don’t often remember that these two were writing in the same era, so different their plays have always seemed to me. But in reading this detailed breakdown and comparison set before me by Tynan, suddenly my eyes feel opened in a new way to this lovely era of American Theatre.

            A comment that made laugh within this section was actually when Tynan quoted a friend of his, an American actress who, when seeing your average drawing room comedy set in the country remarked that (and I quote loosely) that ‘in American drama, the actors on stage are drinking tea meant to be whiskey, while the English actors are drinking tea on stage that in reality is whiskey.’ Make of it what you will, I found the remark rather brazen and all too funny, because at the time, it was probably true.

Then, in another comment, Tynan stole my heart once more, commenting on once cause that is particularly close to my heart: the very poor public funding of theatre that limits the American people from ready access to live theatre. In his preface to his writings on American Theatre, Tynan grieves from the starving talents, so full of life and vitality, being drained by the unsubsidized theatre. I am a firm believer in the necessity of the arts, and in particular, the theatre for cultural growth and a healthy quality of life for a nation’s citizens. But alas, this blog is not my soap-box, so I shall step down now.

All in all, I continue to learn how important it is to be informed about not just the subject matter, but the author behind it before one goes to see a play. Tynan seems to reveal to us so many amazing layers to each play he sees, because he can relate the playwright directly to the material and peal it back to reveal the playwright in a sharper light. It seems I will have a good deal of reading to do before the shows I see in the West End in the upcoming twelve months.

This is a shorter entry, yes, and I do apologize, but it isn’t a terribly long section, I did finish it in one sitting after all.

Next time in ‘Books,’ I shall discuss Tynan on European Theatre. 

Reviews: Othello @ Shakespeare's Globe, 2007

Othello

The Globe Theatre – 2007

            It may be a surprise for some reading this that Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London films their productions and then sells them on DVD. For most, this probably isn’t a surprise at all, but what did surprise me was their availability on Netflix. So about two weeks ago, in my quest to see and/or read all of Shakespeare’s plays, I found Othello at Shakespeare's Globe, clicked ‘add to queue’ and happily awaited its arrival in my mailbox.

            Prior to watching the production, my familiarity with Othello was slim. I had studied one of the speeches in school and seen Desdemona's death scene many times over in films like Stage Beauty amongst others, as well as playing Othello, myself, in my Advanced Acting Shakespeare course in London (Act III, sc iii). I knew the story and a hair of the text, but I hesitated to read it. I have this firm belief, instilled in me by my education I’m sure, that Shakespeare is only truly understood when seen and heard, the sounds are too important to be uttered silently in the mind while one reads quietly. Therefore, I waited to familiarize myself entirely with the story until I could find a suitable film version. What I found was even better, a stage production from Shakespeare’s Globe.

            From my experience with Othello, 'slim' though it may be, and from what I have read by Kenneth Tynan, I had Othello in my mind as a calm and gentle man until the seed of doubt planted by Iago begins to fester and grow. When I watched Eamonn Walker as the moor, I felt that he was a man tortured by his dark past, but keeping it locked up and tempered with the help of Desdemona and her gentle nature. In act I, we see flashes of a temper in Eamonn, after all, from the direction of the program, it is a no-holds barred, intensely emotional and intensely violent production where flashes of anger are not wholly uncommon in any character (save the impetuous Roderigo who is all bark with very little bite). This portrayal of Othello is appropriate, it fits the world on stage as well as the text on paper. However, for my tastes, Othelo was all anger and pain while much of the love was stripped away from Act III – Act IV, only returning with the remorse and sorrow of learning the truth of Desdemona’s innocence. I would like to think that he means what he says in Act III, sc iii,

Nor from mine own weak merits will I draw

The smallest fear or doubt of her revolt,

For she had eyes and chose me. No, Iago,

I’ll see before I doubt, when I doubt, prove,

And on the proof there is no more but this:

Away at once with love or jealousy!

(Act III, scene iii)

However, in the voice of Mr. Walker, these words drip with self-doubt, fear and a decision to condemn Desdemona for a crime yet unproven. It seems to me a very confused portrayal of Othello, muddled by self-doubt, viable based on his past, but too quick and too rash for my taste. Give me a calm, somewhat hopeful Othello up until the end any day.

            Do not think that I am saying that Mr. Walker did not give the audience a strong and formidable Othello. All I am saying, is that perhaps it was he was so strong and formidable, so military (which does make sense), that the softer speeches and moments of tenderness that Othello bestows on Desdemona, especially before the murder, may have seemed a tad muddled. In reading, and in studying, to me, the speech that begins “It is the cause, it is the cause my soul” begins soft and quiet, takes a journey from resolve to pain and doubt back to a bitter and terrified resolve once more that is all pain and heart ache to witness. Mr. Walker came at the speech with harsher tones, louder pain and an anger that, while justified, gave me a feeling of distance with Othello. I no longer felt pain for both Desdemona and, but was now purely sympathetic to Desdemona, both innocent and ignorant of the charges laid at her feet.

            Enough talk of Othello; for I find I cannot go on without mentioning Tim McInnerny’s ingenious, inglorious and all too cunning Iago. This is a smart character, a genius of men and manipulation; he could lead the world to do great things, but embittered by fate and misfortune, leads men into terrible downward spirals of self-destruction. We should not like him. By all our human instincts and feelings of pity and heartache that we feel for Othello, Desdemona, Cassio and even poor little Roderigo, we should not like Iago. Yet… I find I must admit he is terribly funny and horribly clever in a way that stuns an audience and any man into a sort of horrible fascination. I can believe the smoke and mirrors that he sets before his targets. Were it not for his confidence in the audience, I might find myself fooled right along with all the rest. Tim McInnery explores every angle of manipulation within this production, from simple camaraderie, to terrible sadness, there is no route he will not explore. And again I say, we should not like him so much, but he is far too clever and charismatic, that it seems impossible not to be enthralled by him. This. This is what makes the ending so faultlessly plausible. For if Iago were not so, as I have stressed, enrapturing, the credibility of the plot and the play would crumble into a light melodrama of gullible fools, instead of a tragedy of honest men.

            The women of this production are not characters that I would usually give great credit to. While they are not without merit, I would not compare Desdemona with a role like Queen Margaret of Richard III (hell, I wouldn’t even compare Ophelia to Queen Margaret), it is a sparse part with perhaps two truly great scenes. And in these two scene, Zoe Tapper gives a fantastic performance. But I almost feel that her sweetness against Mr. Walker’s harsh anger is almost too opposite for me to believe their attraction to one another. This odd contrast is matched in the paring of Mr. McInnerny’s Iago and his wife, Emilia, who while feisty, is too in love with a man who mistreats her so extremely that I find myself disbelieving that there could be any love on either end. In moments like this, I find I must believe that the actors were hired on the basis of their personal merit (for each is extremely talented in their own right) and not on their chemistry with one another.

            Despite these somewhat harsh criticisms, it is a very fine production of a rather intricate study of human nature focusing on the fear and self-doubt inside all of us. Roderigo and Cassio alone will bring a smile to any audience member for at least the first two acts. And Nick Barber is a handsome enough Cassio that I can’t imagine any female with a healthy interest in attractive men could not enjoy watching him. It is a fine show, with a young, talented and attractive cast of characters, full of life, energy and vitality that shines and animates the lengthy speeches set before them. Whether you are well versed in Shakespeare, Othello, or none of the above, this play and production provide a glimpse into human life that is relatable and understandable to all.