weebelly.com

Wanted to quickly throw up some mock-ups that Michael Roesch, CPT’s designer, created using Google Sketch-up for Patterns. These are pretty much spot on for what you would have seen had you been in the space (for those of you who were not). I thought Roesch did a fantastic job, even staying one day for 14 hours to get the lights correct–using myself, Jarod, and Beth Wood as the cast had gotten antsy and left hours before.

 

There are slight differences, of course. Looking at the slightly elevated view below: there were four chairs upstage on either side.

These were for the cast members who were inactive at any given moment; or the chairs were moved down center when a scene required. Up left there was an additional clothing rack which held the costumes for the women actors, while the men used the up right rack. The dress form or figure was down left and, of course, had a dress that was being constructed on it. There were three cameras on tripods at left, up-center, and right which were displayed on the TVs at right (there were three).

 

The use of the cyc for silhouettes was the solution used given that the triptych called for in the script was not constructed, but it was yet highly effective to the same purpose and Michael did some fantastic lighting at the back which added a certain something to the overall effect. The pictures painted against the cyc were those of the king/queen and Frau Holda as well as those of the Mom/Ed characters, and used by the “model” when Harry Collins was on stage. That is to say, they weren’t quite as ‘disco’ as portrayed in the sketches. I’m also including Michael’s ground plan for the set as well.

 

Earlier today I was asked by Gilbert Doho to come and talk with his theater class. That was a first for me. Doho is teaching a course on Theater and Identity and wanted me to speak to my identity in theater and in this particular play. I was quite surprised by how much I could speak to that topic, having not quite considered the play in that way. For instance, the main character Aisa, who is, throughout, constructing or reconstructing, her identity: with the dress and play aspects serving as a metaphor for that process. Throughout she is resistant to the past that she has been dealt: alcoholics, dysfunctionals, etc. So, besides actively resisting on the one hand, she is actively constructing on the other.

 

I talked quite a bit about my own family background, which, interestingly, I have not explicitly explored in theater. It was curious to listen to the students in the class who understood my conundrum and articulated it clearly themselves: that as an x # of generations in American the ethnic and cultural identity that we possess is American and not anything else. I framed this against possibilities, for instance, my father’s side of the family came over from Ireland in the late 1800’s. It would be easy for me to be a Catholic who joins the Ancient Order of Hibernians and insists that my children learn to dance and speak Gaelic. Yet I have avoided that path as being something that, to my mind, is “put on” and not an organic extension of my own true American identity. I also explored the well-publicized tiff that occurred several years ago between August Wilson and Robert Brustein. This was used to frame the conversation, as Wilson was very entrenched in his opinions regarding his own ethnicity, race, and identity; something that I don’t share. To what extent this is because I represent the “dominant” culture and race in this country (for now) I do not know, but assume that this has something to do with it.

A very interesting day that has lent itself to some possible routes for new play creation.

Just went to see The Heidi Chronicles at the Eldred Theater at Case.  I enjoyed the show, though it continued a recent pattern for me of finding myself strangely at odds with shows that are “realistic” in nature.

This was the first time I’d been to the Eldred despite my desire to go to many of the performances that the Department of Theater and Dance puts up—some of them very good shows (How I Learned to Drive, Rhinoceros, etc).  It was a pleasant little theater with a proscenium stage.  The set was very plainly done with the whole cast formally and stiffly moving things about.  The plain backdrop hid the ability to light from behind various actors and actresses in silhouetted poses and period dress.

After the first scene or two I found myself saying (to myself) I’m going to hate this play.  But by the time Heidi’s meltdown speech at her former girl’s school I found myself very much enjoying it as I think Wasserstein does an excellent job handling the nuanced pain of her character and the sacrifices that she has made to earn her success.

The play is episodic as it skips through time highlighting trends in American culture as they impact or relate to women, with Heidi as the litmus test or case study of the intelligent, successful woman dealing with a still male-directed and dominated society. The production did a good job using costume (Cleveland Play House — which reminds me of the moving job that they’ve got coming for them) and crashing sound score montages of music and the speeches of key political and cultural figures.  Wasserstein deftly handles her characters, though, so the episodes don’t feel episodic and the pacing and flow of the play works—I contrast this with, say, Freakshow, which I saw at convergence, which despite very competent direction, still seemed choppy and seems that way even in the reading.  Kathryn Metzger did an outstanding job as Heidi.  Metzger had poise and her facial expressions alone carried a complexity of emotion that was impressive.  She was supported very well by both Andrew Lund (Peter) and Logan Stetzer (Scoop).

Despite the episodic nature: the mix of time, the mashed-up sound score, and some interesting scene changes and set dynamics, the play seemed too much in the realm of realism for my taste.  Having just read both Joe Turner’s Come and Gone and Fences, I’m about full-up with realism in the theater.  I’m also working on two pieces now (and thinking about a third) that have the potential for realistic tendencies, which I’m trying like hell to avoid.  LBL opened up for me a new way of writing and thinking spatially and I don’t want to lose that to habits.  But moreso, I don’t want to lose that thing that is most vital to theater—its three dimensional, special, transgressive ability—and by that I mean the penetration of the fourth wall and the involvement of audience, not the passive recliner based approach to theater.

Ionesco writes,

“Why could I not accept theatrical reality? Why did its truth appear false to me? And why did the false seem to want to parade as true, substitute for truth?…[The actor’s] material presence destroyed the fiction. It was as though there were present two levels of reality, the concrete reality, impoverished, empty, limited, of these banal living men, moving and speaking upon the stage, and the reality of the imagination. And these two realities faced each other, unmasked, irreconcilable: two antagonistic universes which could not succeed in unifying and blending.” (Ionesco and Pronko 4)

I think I have finally come to understand what so upset Ionesco and am coming to understand what makes metatheatricality so important and a hyperreal or absurd or fantastic approach to theater equally important: the alternative is “impoverished, empty, and limited.”  There is something about the “two realities” facing each other that just shows the staged reality to be a thin grey thing…or, as Sylvia Plath might say, "They are always with us, the thin people / Meager of dimension as the gray people / on a movie screen. They / are unreal, we say."  As I read August Wilson it became almost unbearable, imaging these scenes playing out on stage; the unbearable unreal reality of it, like a scab that you mustn’t pick, and yet your fingers keep on sidling over to it.

Regardless, despite my conflicted feelings about realistic plays right now, I found Heidi to be enjoyable and the Case actors did a wonderful job.