What ‘Cha Want To Get Married For?

Getting out of your comfort zone. This is something I’ve been discussing with my daughter of late, as she (a History major) has been taking an Astronomy class. This is also something most of us do in life when we get into a relationship and take a leap of faith when we commit to a lifetime relationship when we get married. Getting our of his comfort zone is the question ultimately faced by the lead character, Robert, in that classic Stephen Sondheim / George Furth musical-comedy “Company“, which we saw last night at the Crown City Theatre in North Hollywood. In short, this is an excellent production of the musical, and is well worth going to.

Before I go on, I’d like to note that this is a write-up, it is not a review. I am not a trained theatre critic, and I pay to attend every show I go to, just like most other audience members. I share my opinions on the shows I see with my friends, because I believe the best way to grow live theatre is to spread the word. This is in response to an editorial by Peter Finlayson on Footlights that was in our program, lambasting the “hacks” (untrained critics) who post their opinions about shows in blogs. I’ll have a separate post on that later, but that editorial served to insult this “hack”.

Luckily, the show more than made up for that insult. For those not familiar with it, “Company” is one of those seminal musicals (Sondheim has a lot of those). When it premiered in 1970, it was a flop. Critics and audiences at the time did not appreciate or connect with its music and found its books confusing. The music was Sondheim at his best: a mix of dissonance, clever patter numbers, tender numbers, and exceedingly complex numbers that served to illuminate the characters, as opposed to being an integral part of the plot or moving story forward. George Furth’s book was not necessarily linear, presenting a series of vignettes about marriage and relationships. It also made a point that did not necessarily sit well.

Given this structure for the story, describing it is difficult. “Company” is really the story of Robert (Bobby). Bobby is turning 35, and all of his married friends want him to get married. These friends — Joanne and Larry, Peter and Susan, Harry and Sarah, David and Jenny, and Paul and Amy — all believe that being married is the desirable state, and that by 35 one should be married. As for Bobby… well, he wants to get married, but not really, well he’s unsure. Through a series of scenes we see how Bobby views the marriages of his friends, as well as Bobby’s relationships with the single girls in his life. All of these propel Bobby into a deeper understanding of why he might want to get married, and what marriage really is. Sondheim has indicated this is one of those musicals where he had trouble getting just the right song for the ending, and the one he chose, “Being Alive”, worked well to capture the final point being made.

The director, Albert Alarr (FB), updated the story slightly, incorporating modern communication devices and modern dances. These updates worked very well, especially during the opening where Bobby is simultaneously playing a video game while dealing with email, messages, phone calls, texts, and chats from his married friends. Alarr also did an excellent job in bringing out the characters from the actors — one of the things I was impressed with in this production is how well performed it was. That’s a sign of a director in synergy with his acting ensemble. This was just a well well performed performance.

It was also great to see this musical up-close in a small venue. I’ve begun to realize that many “Broadway” musicals shine when given the small treatment — when the creative energy is used to make the big show up close and personal. I’ve seen this in the under-99 seat version of Gypsy, and it truly shows in this small theatre production of Company. The performances amplify — you get a close-up sense of the people and the couples, and the small space makes the show even more New-York-ish than a large gigantic stage would do.

Let’s now look at the cast and the couples, and in doing so, I’ll highlight two of my favorite performances; the rest I’ll hit as I go through the cast. [* indicates members of Actors Equity or one of the other 4A unions for actors]

In the lead position was Ben Rovner* (FB) as Robert. Rovner’s Robert was comfortable and accessible, and just seemed like the type of person you would like to be around — a good friend always there when you need him. You could see why these couples liked him and wanted him to be what they perceived as happy. Rovner’s signing voice was delightful, shining in numerous numbers such as “Marry Me a Little” and “Being Alive”, and he danced wonderfully.

Moving from the lead to one of the smaller roles, equally impressive was Julia Black*’s Marta. Marta is one of the girlfriends of Bobby, and is the lead singer for  “Another Hundred People”. Black impressed me in two ways. First, she had a wonderfully powerful singing voice that you could hear in the background of a number of songs, and which shone in “Another Hundred People”. Further, she had a wonderfully expressive face that reacted to the story going on around her — again, this was seen in “Another Hundred People”, as well as in the interplay with Peter and Susan, the married couple who divorced but are still living together for the children. She was also a standout in “You Could Drive a Person Crazy”.

In the Broadway original, one of the standouts was Elaine Stritch as Joanne. In the production, Joanne was played by Sonja Alarr* (FB), playing off of her stage husband Larry (Mike Hagiwara* (FB)). Both were excellent. Alarr’s Joanne wasn’t quite as hard and cynical as the original, but came across as a lovely older lady with a sardonic view of life and an incredible capacity for alcohol. Her two main numbers — “The Little Things You Do Together” and the “Ladies Who Lunch” were just great. Hagiwara was one of the best male performers on the stage, with a great voice and wonderful movement.

During Joanne’s first number, we meet the couple of Harry (James Calvert* (FB)) and Sarah (Libby Baker* (FB)). The two worked well together, and Baker had a very lovely singing voice.

The couple of Amy and Paul were portrayed by Amy Albert* (FB) and Christopher Davis Carlisle* (FB). Albert’s Amy was spectacular, and I was blown away by her comic timing, expressions, and vocal capacity during “Not Getting Married”. Carlisle shown less in the singing and more in the reactions during the same number.

Peter (Zeffin Quinn Hollis* (FB)) and Susan (Lena Gwendolyn Hill* (FB)) were mentioned earlier — they are a married couple who decided the best way to preserve their relationship was divorce.  I was unsure about Hill’s Southern portrayal at the beginning, but it ended up working quite well and both performers were fun to watch.

The last couple is David (Jon Hand* (FB)) and Jenny (Beatrice Crosbie* (FB)). Both were a delight to watch, especially in the pot scene where seeing Jenny high was a treat.

Rounding out the cast were Robert’s other two girlfriends — and the remaining parts of the trio for “You Could Drive a Person Crazy”. April, the flight attendant, was played by Emma Degerstedt* (FB). She was spectacular in “Barcelona” and “Drive a Person Crazy”, with a delightful look and wonderful comic timing. The other remaining girlfriend was Kathy (Katy O’Donnell* (FB)).

As I indicated at the beginning, the entire cast was fun to watch, and the large number of people conveyed the New York feel quite well. Also working well was the set design by Jack Forrestel (FB), which integrated well with the props from Joanne McGee (FB) and the projections by Zeffin Quinn Hollis*(FB) to turn the long black-box Crown City space into an effective New York apartment. It is this creativity that shows small theatre at its best — these things are easy to do when you have lots of fly and wing space, but when you are limited and you make it work it is just remarkable. The lighting design by Anna Cecelia Martin worked well to convey the mood, and the sound design by Mark Duggar/FB worked well to provide that ambient noise of New York well. The costumes by Tanya Apuya (FB) worked very well, especially the lovely outfits for all the female characters.  Serving as music director (and on the piano) was William A. Reilly/FB, and the delightful choreography was by John Todd/FB. Gary Lamb/FB was the Technical Director, and Kimberly Bullock/FB was the production stage manager.

“Company” continues at Crown City Theatre at least through the end of March. Tickets are available through Brown Paper Tickets, and note that shows seem to be selling out.

Upcoming Theatre and Concerts:   Next weekend takes us to the Pantages and Hollywood for  “Catch Me If You Can”on March 16. The fourth week of March brings “Boeing Boeing” at REP East on March 23, and March ends with “End of the Rainbow” at the Ahmanson on March 30. April has less theatre — so far, only one show is scheduled. The first weekend of April is open. The next weekend brings with the Southern California Renaissance Faire.  Following that is “Grease” at Cabrillo Music Theatre, and April concludes with a winetasting at Temple Ahavat Shalom. May is busy in a different sense, with two concerts — Elton John in Las Vegas on May 4, and (tentative) Michael Feinstein at VPAC on May 11. May also brings “Falling for Make Believe” at The Colony Theatre and “To Kill a Mockingbird” at REP East. Lastly, continuing the look ahead, June will bring (tenative) “The Scottsboro Boys” at the Ahmanson Theatre, “Priscilla – Queen of the Desert” at the Pantages, and (tentative) Sweet Charity“ at DOMA. We were originally planning on the Western Corps Connection at the end of the month, but their collection of corps this year is poor. I’m also keeping my eyes open as the various theatres start making their 2013 season announcements. Lastly, what few dates we do have open may be filled by productions I see on Goldstar, LA Stage Tix, Plays411, or discussed in the various LA Stage Blogs I read (I particularly recommend Musicals in LA and LA Stage Times).

Music: NEO: New, Emerging…Outstanding! (Concert Cast) (Darius De Haas): “Field Flowers (Based On Text By Thomas Campbell)”

 

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)

What is a Theatre Critic, and What is “IT” Good For?

Last night when we went to the theatre, the latest Footlights had an article by Peter Finlayson, their editor-in-chief, on theatre critics, and what they are good for (despite the grammatically and acronym-ally incorrect title). In this article he talks about the impacts of critics on the theatre, and notes their importance for the artistic community. He talks about the education of critics — “At the height of the professions, critics were persons of significant background and understanding on the topic of their specialties. Much education and a lot of practice gave weight to their ponderings…”. He notes that a good critic will “give us insight into whether the creative energies of a show were effective in presenting the final product.”

I have no disagreement on the role of a good critic. I think good theatre critics are vital to the artistic landscape, and they should be providing criticism throughout the region they serve.

He then, however, decides to go on a rant against those who talk about theatre on the Internet:

With the advent of the internet, the opportunity for self-publishing via blogs or other posts give virtually every Tom, Dick, Harry and Sally the opportunity to claim the right of posting an opinion. Simply because someone has this new forum to post their opinion does not necessarily give credence to that opinion.

Sadly, much of what is now being written about shows is done out of self-interest. In some cases some reviews are nothing but self-promotion. In other cases, a self styled writer will create a blog, call themselves a critic, and hence get complimentary admission to shows in the hopes, or in some cases the assurance, of a good review.

While some consider this a democratization of the arts, and support the idea with the argument that we are more interested in peer review than in an expert’s opinion, the fact of the matter is that we may be influenced by friends assuming we have similar tastes. But a true critic offers us insights that prompt us to come to a personal reflective choice, which is the fundamental core of theatre.

In Los Angeles, with more than 1500 plays opening every year, the odds of getting a review for a production are often very low. Hence the opportunity for amateurs, or to be blunt, hacks, is heightened. The want of publicity overrides the common sense of credentials.

Say what?!?! Everyone who is not a credentialed critic is a “hack” and their opinion should be dismissed. Thems are fightin’ words, mister.

I do my blog for me, to improve my writing skills, and to share my observations with the world. I don’t charge people to read what I write; I don’t have advertising because I don’t do this to make money. I happen to love theatre, and enjoy sharing that love with the world. For this I’m labelled a “hack” and told I offer no insight, that there is no value in my words. I disagree.

First, let me make something clear. I never label what I write as “theatre criticism” or even “reviews” (although I do have a review tag, solely to separate them from other forms of observations). They are write-ups of shows that I attend with my observations on the show. My blog is not a theatre blog; it is a blog of observations. Further, I pay for every ticket of every show I attend (except for one show where a friend gave me a ticket because she couldn’t attend). Some are at theatres to which I subscribe; some are tickets I get through Goldstar, Hottix, and other similar programs. But there is no “pay for play” here. Just as with where I work, my integrity and independent opinion is vitally important to me. So please, Mr. Finlasyon, do not lump all bloggers who write about theatre together.

Second, I write my observations up to share an audience members point of view. I’m a computer scientist by trade (specializing in computer security), and a highway hobbist by choice. I’ve been attending live theatre in Los Angeles since “The Rothschilds” in 1972 at the LA Civic Light Opera. I’ve learned a little bit along the way (and I’d love to learn more about theatrical criticism and the craft). I’ll share with people what I like — and what I dislike — with the ultimate goal of getting people to try live theatre and develop their own opinions.  I believe live theatre is unique — there’s something magical about seeing someone on stage, and every performance is different (unlike film).

Further, I don’t believe sharing of opinions should be restricted to trained critics, although they are certainly part of the mix. Producers such as Ken Davenport have recognized the importance of word-of-mouth in the life or death of a show, and we should be encouraging people to talk and share about the shows they are seeing. A number of theatres are recognizing this — while they ask that phones be turned off during the show, they are encouraging patrons to share their experiences during intermissions and after the show. Sites such as Goldstar are encouraging patrons to share their opinions of the show, and these opinions often help convince people to attend shows.

This is vital publicity. Often I learn about interesting shows to attend from the many Los Angeles theatre blogs I read, such as Musicals in LA, the LA Stage Blog, and blogs from theatre friends. Are these all written by professional critics? I doubt it.

What is important is transparency. We should know the credentials of those who write. I make no pretensions on my websites that I am a professional theatre critic; the people that post on Goldstar are clearly not professional critics. As for many of the people who write for the papers — who knows their credentials. Some have been doing it for years, but based on their opinions, I don’t often respect what they have to say. They might have a degree, but it might not be worth the paper it is printed on. Then there are other people out there who do have theatre websites whose writeups are treated as criticism but are clearly not critics. They appear to have a large impact — but is it worth it.

In the end, whatever you read about a show should be recognized as the opinion of the person who wrote it, and nothing more. They may be able to provide you with insights about the show, or they may just say “I liked it!”. You should read it and form your own opinion, recognizing that many shows that critics have disliked have often been embraced by audiences — or have found greater appreciation further down the road from the initial production.

I’d also like to encourage the so-called critics to broaden where they go. We attend theatre in far flung locations in Southern California — from Thousand Oaks (Cabrillo Music Theatre) to the Anaheim Hills (Chance Theatre), from Newhall/Santa Clarita (Repertory East Playhouse) to Burbank (Colony), from Woodland Hills (Valley West) to Sierra Madre (Sierra Madre Playhouse). The professional critics never seem to want to venture out of the safe zone of West Los Angeles, Hollywood, North Hollywood, Burbank/Pasadena, and DTLA. They occasionally go to Chance (Anaheim Hills) and Sierra Madre, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a criticism of a Thousand Oaks show from anything other than the VC Star, or a REP show from anything other than the Santa Clarita Signal. (In fact, usually the only far-flung shows I tend to see are those mentioned in Footlights… hmmm….). If you are a professional, you have an obligation to cover all of Southern California. Not every show from every theatre, but you should sample all the theatres attempting to put on professional productions (as opposed to the amateur regional productions).

So, in closing, Mr Finlasyon, this insulted “hack” thinks there should be a place for both professional critics and lay observers. This “hack” thinks it is important to share the love of theatre. I think you should recognize this instead of dismissing the theatre lovers who feel the urge to share that love. Your editorial makes me think a lot less of your publication, in that it doesn’t value the opinion of all of its audience. I’ll still attend Southern California theatre, because I think Southern California has the best and most vibrant theatre community in the world (and yes, I even think we’re better than that city in the east).

Music: Pops Britannia (John Williams and the Boston Pops Orchestra): “Scotland The Brave”

 

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along The Road (on cahighways.org) as this entry by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link below; you can sign in with your LJ, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. There are currently comments on the Wordpress blog. PS: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.

(Click Here to Comment)