The Artist’s Pact

sub-desdamona-1-articleInline“‘Desdemona’ Talks Back to ‘Othello’” is an article that happened to catch my eye as I was reading the Times this week because I’m currently doing a scene from Othello in Shakespeare. I wasn’t sure, specifically, what kind of reference to Othello this would be, but the article is called went on to describe a production called ‘Desdemona’ by Nobel Prize winning novelist Toni Morrison. “Part play, part concert, it is an interactive narrative of words, music and song about Shakespeare’s doomed heroine, who speaks to the audience from the grave about the traumas of race, class, gender, war — and the transformative power of love.” Read more about the production in the article, it sounds pretty awesome.

While the production itself sounds really interesting and evocative, it’s what sprung the event to life that interested me most. Peter Sellars, the opera director, and Toni Morrison got into an argument about Othello. Sellars said he hated it and that it made absolutely no sense, while Morrison argued in favor of Shakespeare’s classic. The two then had a face off. Both said they would encounter Othello from different angles and try to learn from one another something new about this piece. In 2009, Sellars directed a high-tech version of Othello starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and John Ortiz. Now, Morrison has allowed Sellars to direct her conversational response back to Othello, which is her piece ‘Desdemona’.

These artists made a pact to challenge each other and renew their faith in a classic tale. Regardless of how they feel about the play now, they both took the initiative to learn something new and inspire each other through art. I wish I could see Morrison’s ‘Desdemona’, so that it could inspire my Desdemona in the same way these two incredible artists inspire each other.

Snowbound, frostbitten, Hopeless Antarctic… Puppets

Ever since I was little and saw the A&E movie "Shakelton" starring Kenneth Branagh I've been fascinated by the story of Ernest Shakelton. For those of you who are not up on this historical tidbit, a very brief summary: Ernest Shakelton, an Englishmen, commanded an expedition to Antarctica just before the outbreak of WWI. He and his crew sail the ship, Endurance, from Cape Horn South Africa, to just inside the Arctic circle before the ship was surrounded and trapped by an ice flow. Due to abnormalities in the ship's hull the pressure of the ice caused the ship to sink leaving Shakelton and his crew stranded in the Antarctic. For two years they survived until they managed to make it to a whaling port where they found rescue. Not a man was lost on the entire expedition.

I've always found this story to be such a powerful demonstration of hope and leadership in the face of incredible odds and now this story is being told with puppets. Yup! Puppets! BAM's New Wave Festival is featuring "69 degrees South" (the latitude at which Shakelton's ship sank) the show is carried out entirely by 3 foot tall marionettes created and operated by puppeteers from Phantom Limb. Much of the set is puppetry, the actors are marionettes, the ship, which sinks, is a puppet. The puppeteers stand high above the stage on stilts and are covered in swaths of white cloth making them look almost like snowbanks. I've always had some reservations when it comes to puppets and puppet shows but Phantom Limb puppets on ice, conquering the Antarctic snows and staving off impending death... now this is something I could get behind!

Sports and the Theatre

While I've been in many theatrical settings in which sports have been looked down upon and belittled, not to mention the people who watch them, I strongly believe, as an avid basketball and football fan and theatre practitioner, that there is a strong crossover between the disciplines, stemming from their common ground in, among other things, ritual and tradition, as well as heightened physicality and the intense drama that comes with rooting for your protagonist.

Unsurprisingly, the recent spate of sports-related theatre in New York has caused me great cheer in this regard. Beginning with Eric Simonson's Lombardi, the story of the famed Green Bay Packers coach, which opened a little over a year ago, and ran for 244 performances at the Circle in the Square Theatre, the field has now opened further to include a new play, by the same author called Magic/Bird, which examines the friendship and rivalry between Lakers' point guard Magic Johnson and Celtics' forward Larry Bird - from their college days to NBA championship battles to the 1992 Olympic Dream Team. The show, not yet cast, has a projected opening date of March 21, 2012. While the 95-minute play only calls for 6 actors, and as a result, will unfortunately not feature any onstage 5-on-5 action, the casting notice does mention that one actor will portray the infamous Celtics' coach Red Auerbach, complete with celebratory cigar. I'm incredibly excited that the story of these two fascinating players and individuals is being told in this medium, hopefully in a refreshing and theatrical manner that will break down some of the formulaity and triteness that has become endemic in Hollywood sports films. And, given the current state of the lockout negotiations, I'll take basketball wherever I can get it.

Is there enough of a crossover audience to sustain this trend of sports-related drama? (I would be remiss if I didn't mention Lysistrata Jones, which takes place on a college basketball court, but, as a musical comedy centering around a sex strike, it doesn't really count.) While Lombardi was not overwhelmingly successful, it drew enough interest and audience members to make it a feasible option for Simonson, the producing team, and director Thomas Kail (In the Heights) to try their hand at another similar project. Theatrical treatment of athletic endeavors is nothing new. The Great White Hope (1967), a boxing drama starring James Earl Jones was hugely successful. Itamar Moses keenly probed the steroid scandal in the Off-Broadway Manhattan Theatre Club production of Back, Back, Back, which featured thinly veiled stand-ins for Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, and Walt Weiss. Richard Greenberg's Tony-winning Take Me Out is a spectacular examination of homophobia in the world of baseball. Sports drama has been very successful here and there in the past, but often succeeding in spite of, instead of because of its subject matter. Might this change? Might it come more unabashedly front and center, bringing tons of new audience members to the theatre? Most likely not. But who knows?

(Here is some more info about the play.)

The Phantom Tollbooth

phantomtollbooth-cover

I've surprised myself by not yet posting anything about theatre specifically geared towards children. I am usually (as I mentioned earlier in the whale post) deeply disturbed by the lack of intellect and imagination in children's theatre that I have experienced. During the summer I run a theatre camp for children in my town, and thus have gotten to experience some of this horror first-hand. I think that part of this disaster comes from many parents' expectations about children's theatre. If their children are watching it, it should be simple, joyful and easy to understand. If their children are performing in it, it should be simple, joyful and their child should be featured. As if we do not put enough limitations on theatre and children individually, I am concerned that the introduction of theatre to children will be transformed into some horrific formal mainstream monstrosity. In other words, flattening out the world of theatre before children can ever begin to explore it or use it to express themselves.

ANYWAY-

As I was chugging barium in a Boston hospital this past week, I opened the only thing there was to read -- Boston Parents Paper -- and discovered a kindred spirit...

Norton Juster is the author of the children's classic The Phantom Tollbooth which has just premiered in its theatrical form at the Wheelock Family Theatre of Boston. The author was the one with the idea to do a stage/musical adaptation of his work, and pitched it to the theatre which accepted the project. I am a supporter of Juster's work because of his philosophy about entertainment (specifically textual) for children. He recounts publishing The Phantom Tollbooth:

"It was given to an editor who wasn't a children's editor, and it had a vocabulary that horrified most people involved with children's literature because it was "too difficult." It did everything wrong...When it first came out, they said it was only for bright children, but that's not the case. I think we sometimes do a disservice to our kids when we try to steer them into the things we think they will understand. Kids understand a lot more than we have any idea, and we tend to short circuit that by trying to sensor. Let them run amok."

Here, Juster reminds us that contrary to what we may want to believe, children possess the same complicated emotional capacity  as adults. Thus, I believe (as it seems does Juster) that we should present them with the opportunity to enjoy entertainment that is a real exploration of these complexities (If not The Phantom Tollbooth, think A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, etc.).

I can only hope that the Wheelock Theatre does firm justice to Norton Juster's philosophy, and does not deprive its young but complex audience with a show it deserves to see.

Visual Therapy (it is indeed!)

Working on the Antigone project, I found this wonderful art-sharing website called "Visual Therapy."  Starting in 2009, the website was launched in Kuwait  to use "aesthetics to provide relief for the soul."  The web source is described as this:

"Visual Therapy is an amalgamation of projects, which come together to create an aesthetic platform for innovative work and ideas in all creative fields."

Although theatre and performance are not represented in this mix, I'm still highly supportive of this initiative.  Once I found this site, I immediately bookmarked it and have referred to it everyday since.  The website is consistently updated to provide new inspiration.  Thus far, here are the links that have intrigued me most (all of which are very different from one another!):

1. Steve McCurry Photography

2. Isaac Cordal's "Cement Eclipses"

3. "The Evolution Will Be Fabulous" by Peter Gronquist

4. "Mourir Auprès de Toi" by Spike Jonze (This is a great short film!!!)

5. PressPausePlay (I ended up watching the whole documentary...ask me questions about it if you like. I'm still not sure how I feel about it...)

Although these are the things that have interested me, I'm sure you will all find different things that interest you.

At the end of the "About" section, this is written:

"I encourage everyone who shares my passion to submit their work, as I would be happy to promote and sell your work through my website, exhibitions, and store. I also welcome all ideas, thoughts, or comments. Spread the word."

With that...the word is spread.

second star to the right and straight on till morning

Screen shot 2011-10-31 at 6.54.08 PM

PETER PAN IS HERE IN BOSTON!!!

Peter Pan is one of my favorite stories of all time.      One of my friends from home told me about  threesixty's production of peter pan when it first  appeared in London.  The production is in the round  and the audience is surrounded by a sort of omnimax  CGI screen above and around them.   When Peter,  Mary, John, and Michael fly through the skies of  London, the audience and actors become engulfed in  the landscape of the city.  The images are projected  360 degrees all around the tent.  They also use puppetry in their show, from what I know of, Nana their pet dog is a puppet and so is the crocodile.  I didn't even know the production was coming to  Boston until I saw it being advertised in downtown last week.

Peter Pan has always been such a magically experience for me.  No matter what the production quality is like, the story is so beautiful and amazing that I fall in love with it every time.  I have to see this production.  Hands down I have to.  Because the story is so magical on its own that I'm so extremely interested to see how the role of puppetry, music and CGI conjure up new magic in this production.  This innovative theatrical experience sounds thrilling to me.

I started looking at the cast in the show, and it shocked me that all of the people in the show were either still in school or recently graduated from some schools like Roosevelt, Boston Conservatory, or Northwestern.  I feel like I always forget that most of the actors in these huge outrageous shows that I could never in a million years dream of being involved with, were in the same position I'm in right now.  That they were aspiring theatre artists, that they went to school, they studied the craft and they went after what they wanted.  It made me realize how much closer I am to theatre now and that its not such an abstract idea.  That where I am now is different from when I was 12 years old going to see "Little Shop of Horrors" on the Playhouse stage in Cleveland Ohio and dreaming about being on the stage.  I'm starting to recognize that i can do things like this, like this Peter Pan now, or I can really start to take action towards the theatre I want to be involved in.  I'm discovering a completely different state of mind and it is so exciting.

Some thoughts on stakes…

I just wanted to reinforce for myself and my fellow actors, directors, budding dramaturgs, playwrights, etc., that the characters' need to communicate can make or break the show. This has come up multiple times in Theatre Ensemble and my Directing I class with David Gram. This notion of need, objectives, communication, action, etc., is one we've all heard in rehearsals or classes, so why does this question of stakes or need come up so often nowadays? If an actor as a character doesn't need their lines, or care about what they're saying, I could care less. Lydia Diamond said something similar to me when I had a first reading of my play in her office a few weeks ago. She said: "People go to the theatre to see characters make bigger mistakes or better choices than we do."

I'm saying this all knowing that I am suffering from the same affliction of "casualness."  I feel like I shouldn't be saying this, but I feel like "natural" and "believable" acting have somehow crept back into our psyches, and are preventing actors from making truly bold and risky choices. We've been working on Sarah Ruhl plays in Theatre Ensemble for about two months now, and I am shocked to notice that it took the magical qualities of the final scene of Dead Man's Cell Phone to remind me that I SHOULD NOT and CANNOT assume that the world of a play parallels my own. I'm struggling in my own work with this: Why have I been so afraid to throw myself into a character recently? Why wouldn't anyone jump at the chance to love as greatly, grieve as fully, berate as violently, laugh as heartily, sob as passionately, as a character they had the opportunity to play? I think in the past years I've been so concerned with bringing myself to the character that I've forgotten to immerse myself into the world of the play.

All that being posed/said, I would like to applaud the recent Q1 productions for truly making me care as an audience member, and inspire me as a director. Every single play DEMANDS attention to its world, and within that, the present needs and actions of its characters. I guess this is more of a "call to arms" for all of us with the opportunity to be theatre artists in this program. PLEASE throw yourself into the work, the world, and allow and ask for me to do the same. I know we're all tired, stressed, or sick, or all of the above, but I know that my desire to embody the work can trump all that. I have to keep reminding myself that the reason I love theatre is because it gives me the chance to love, hate, laugh, scream, and cry, deeper and louder than I ever have or will in my life off-stage. So keep finding the need, the love, and the stakes, and people will keep caring.

A Young Shakespearean’s Response to “Anonymous,” Outstanding Cinematic “Travesty” of 2011

Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare in "Anonymous," looking as shocked as I was in the movie theatre.

Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare in "Anonymous," looking as shocked as I was in the movie theatre.

And now for the surprise of the century: I paid eleven dollars and fifty cents this past Saturday to see Roland Emmerich's new film "Anonymous," the film about how the-artist-possibly-known-as William Shakespeare was anything but. I know, I know, shocking. I've been waiting for it to hit the silver screen for about half a year. It is, admittedly, an actor-nerd fantasy of mine brought to life: a film about the man to whom I've given my work and life. And pretty period costumes. And prettier Englishmen. In other words, serious, serious business. And being the serious eminent Shakespearean that I fancy myself to be, I feel it's my duty to edify you readers on the film and the "Oxfordian theory of authorship" that it purports. You can read more about the theory itself HERE and HERE, WHICH YOU DEFINITELY SHOULD, but I'll give you a quick primer: Stratfordians believe that William Shakespeare, whoever he was, wrote everything that bears his name - plays, sonnets, etc. Oxfordians believe that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, landed aristocrat, courtier and itellectual, wrote the plays in stead.

Let us dispense with the niceties and get straight to the heart of the matter, shall we? Because the film is sh*t. Really, though! I realize that's my opinion, and that that's rather harsh, but I have a feeling it's no skin off of Roland Emmerich's back. That being said, it gets my vote for the Best Worst Movie of 2011. "Anonymous," with it's pouty Edward de Vere and caddish Shakespeare and passive agressive and closeted Kit Marlowe (he isn't the only character in the film that gives off those vibes, believe me), is so bad it's almost good. In fact, it's one big sexually repressed Elizabethan stereotype! Which is...nice?

To be honest, the cast should be applauded for their remarkable efforts to try and make Emmerich and John Orloff's script better than it is. The script is, to be frank, awful, and the worst thing (among many, many, many bad things) about the film. It's laughable at it's most enjoyable - and that's not because you're laughing WITH it, that's for sure. But again, the cast makes a Herculean effort with what they've been given, and it shows. Most enchanting is the Bard himself, played by Rafe Spall, who in his performance has embraced all the vitriol of the Anti-Stratfordian theorists and turned his Shakespeare into just the man they've always wanted him to be: a complete and total asshole.

So it's not to say that the film isn't fun. But that very well may be the problem with it: the reaction of playfulness it induces in its audience. Because it's clear that the film takes itself terribly seriously, just as the current supporters of the Oxfordian theory take their beliefs in the former Earl of Oxford himself. The fact that the script is a mess ruins any hope that Oxfordians have of convincing people of their argument. For those who would debate my calling the film a serious representation of the theory, I call their attention to Mark Rylance and Sir Derek Jacobi - intellectual and legendary heavyweights of the classical theatre, actors in "Anonymous," and boisterous supporters of the Oxfordian theory. Both have gone on record in recent years as anti-Stratfordians, and have even gone so far as to sign the "Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare," which is exactly what it sounds like it is. Why would the two of them involve themselves with this film - a film with a script that ANYONE could read and be confident in its atrocity - if they were not gravely serious in their support of its message? Answer: they wouldn't.

So unfortunately for Oxfordians like themselves, "Anonymous" does nothing but make their claims seem more ridiculous than ever before. As for myself, I can't say whether or not I support or refute their claims. To put it plainly, I will never care as much as they do about who wrote the Bard's words. I will always, always care more about the words themselves.

‘Lidless’ is eye opening

Many of us have heard, at least to some extent, about the horrors of Guantanamo Bay. Famed for being the United States' answer to not being able to torture prisoners in our borders it represents a dark period of fear and mistrust in our country's history. What is often past over, however, is the sociopolitical issues present when female interrogators working with suspects from a male chauvinistic society.  Frances Ya-Chu Cowhig has made a bold attempt to chronicle the complications of life after Guantanamo. "Lidless" follows the life Alice, a former interrogator in Guantanamo, as she attempts to move beyond her past.

For myself I feel that by the time I really became aware of what was going on at Guantanamo, at least aware enough to be outraged by it, the place was being shut down. What's left to history is the impression of what happened in this place, the terrible things that were done to people who may have been innocent or guilty. We as a nation are left with this scar on our country's virtue, a virtue that we hold so dear in our  doctrine "Liberty and Justice for all!" This was not the case at Guantanamo and many Americans know what happened in that particular prison.

After the prison was closed down, however, nothing more was heard and nothing more was said. We all know the atrocities that were acted upon the prisoners but of the guards? When the prison was closed what happened to the people who carried out these acts. That's where I feel this show carries real importance and, although at times it may be "preachy" it provides a point of view that Americans didn't hear. I always assumed the interrogators of Guantanamo to be as bad as the people they were interrogating but a play such as 'Lidless' gives people a context, it humanizes them. To achieve with a topic as controversial as Guantanamo, a sense of humanity amongst the characters is not only a great feat but a frightening one. If we begin to realize that the interrogators at Guantanamo were human, then we must ask ourselves if we would have acted different, are we really as far removed as we like to think?

Why I’m Grateful I’m Getting The Education I Am

Pig Iron Theatre Company posted this article on their facebook a bit back. I think the article speaks for itself a lot but it brings back a lot of questions for me on the state of the business of theatre. The current general business model of a theatre company isn’t what works most of the time anymore for a company that wants to produce new and challenging work. The theatrical ensemble is making a push forward as one of the big possible new models. The education I’m getting at BU will give me many of the tools I need to create the work once I graduate, but only I can bring the drive and entrepreneurial spirit to actually put the toolbox to use.

I know this article doesn’t take into account the many schools that are beginning to empower their students to be not just one-title beings, but real Theatrical Collaborators with a huge repertoire of skill, but I take pride in the fact that I am part of this generation rising up to say, “We will fix this.” It reminds me of another article I read predicting that many well known regional theatre companies are soon going to need to replace their older leadership with young-people as their membership base really starts to disappear.

I think I post this just to remind everyone that when we’re done with our educations at BU there will be a place for us, but only if we really take advantage of the resources we’re given in school and utilize this knowledge through our own willpower when we enter the “real world” where nothing is required of us, except what we require of ourselves.

Variatons on the Faun

L'Apres Midi d'un Faune is considered one of the great revolutionary ballets. Choreographed by the famous and infamous Vaslav Nijinsky, it is a ten-minute piece that required more than one hundred rehearsals. A faun encounters a nymph in the woods, and they court each other briefly. She leaves him, but forgets a scarf. The faun substitutes the scarf for her and cradles it, eventually thrusting his body into it in a shocking moment of auto-eroticism. Breaking many established rules of ballet up until that point, the piece was primarily danced in parallel (as opposed to turned out), treated the stage as a purely two-dimensional picture frame, and ended with the Faun masturbated by thrusting himself against the nymph's scarf. This choreography offended the theatregoers of its time, by fiercely challenging their idea of stage propriety.

I recently stumbled on another ballet piece, set to the same music by Claude Debussy, also by a famous choreographer. Jerome Robbins, famed for West Side Story, Dances at a Gathering, and Fancy Free (among others) did a piece called Afternoon of the Faun. This piece is a slow, sensuous pas de deux that takes place not in a mythic forest, but a ballet rehearsal studio. It begins with a young ballet dancer sleeping on the floor. He wakes, stretches, and is joined by a female student. They flirt, and he offers her a kiss. She does not accept it, and exits the studio. The piece is easy to digest, pleasant.

I also was reminded of a piece I encountered in my first year at BU called Diagnosis of a Faun . This piece, by Tamar Rogoff, features Gregg Mozgala, a BU graduate. He has suffered from cerebral palsy his whole life, which has caused him to walk with massively turned in legs. Through the work on this piece, he gained the ability to walk to the point that he would not be stopped on the street as having cerebral palsy. The dance piece created centers around a 5,000 year-old faun transported through time to a modern hospital.

Gregg Mozgala, BU graduate, in Diagnosis of A Faun

These three examples, drawn from on beginning idea, demostrate to me the power and necessity of adaptation and, therefore, dramaturgy. Realizing that all stories are connected makes it possible to at once identify with a known quantity, while also diverging from it in a meaningful way. Rogoff's and Robbins pieces gain a deeper resonance through their reference to the original, ground-breaking work of Nijinsky.

Christianity vs. Theatre!

I just stumbled upon this boston.com article about a new play, "Sur le Concept du Visage du fils de Dieu" ("On the Concept of the Son of God's Face") playing in Paris right now.

The play, written by the internationally known experimental director Romeo Castellucci, follows the provocative story of a young man caring for his aged and uncontrollable father. Here's some more articles about Castellucci as an artist and innovator of experimental theatre.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/theater/03sell.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/apr/19/romeo-castellucci-concept-face-son

Anyways, in the play, there is this giant face of Jesus on the back wall, and at certain points in the play, Jesus cries giant tears of human excrement. At least that's what I can gather from the descriptions I've read. And since this production opened in Paris at the Theatre de la Ville on Oct. 20th, there have been fundamentalist Christians protesting the play each night. And to be honest, I think I find this story so interesting because for once, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S RIGHT IN THIS SITUATION!!! I believe in the experimentation of theatre and not creating boundaries for ourselves in art, but I also don't believe in the slandering of religious figures (Do we all remember the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy?!?) Two things I truly believe in, going tete-a-tete against each other. Hmmm. Anyway, I think it's fascinating and kind of wonderful that this kind of theatre is drawing a crowd, even if it is in protest. Glad to know people still care. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts about what they think is right/wrong/ok/whatever in this situation.

The Rediscovered Works of Pinter and O’Neill

I recently came across a couple of articles with a common theme: the rediscovery of works by renowned playwrights which were considered lost for many decades. "Umbrellas," a short comic sketch by Harold Pinter, and "Exorcism," a one-act by Eugene O'Neill, were both recently uncovered and published; both of these pieces were thought to have disappeared completely, and only discovered accidentally this year. The text of the former piece is available online at the bottom of the provided article, and the latter can be viewed in the latest edition of The New Yorker, either in print or online.

There's two things I find intriguing about discoveries like these. First is the excitement that comes with new work being published by deceased individuals whose writings were thought to have been cataloged in their entirety. Such discoveries breathe new life into established canons, and have the potential to challenge expectations and expand our perceptions of a particular playwright. I was touched by Pinter's widow's reaction to the finding; it was as if she was paid a visit by her late husband through his forgotten words. Secondly, the opportunity to re-examine a well-produced playwright in a fresh and exciting way. I'd like to give the script for "Umbrellas" to several groups of people for a day and just see what comes out of it. Reading through the script alone made me want to get up and perform it with someone else, out of pure curiosity. And O'Neill's play...wow. It almost feels wrong to want to read a play he worked so hard to destroy, but there's something in that motivation he had to demolish his work that makes me want to reconstruct it! It would be an incredible opportunity to learn about O'Neill to perform a work that was so deeply personal to him. There's no precedent for the interpretation of either of these works, and I find a sense of freedom in that knowledge. I'm excited to see if either of these plays will be professionally produced at some point in the near future (if so, they'd likely be a part of a revue, as they are rather short in comparison to other works by Pinter and O'Neill).

Flair: Charlotte Brathwaite

There are certain rising artists you should know, Charlotte Brathwaite is one of them. She most recently graduated from Yale School of Drama with her M.F.A in directing. However most of her atheistic is inspired by her relationship with La MaMa theatre as a child, and her graduated studies abroad at Amsterdam School of the Arts.

Currently the art that has been speaking to me the most is the work that embraces technology and uses it in an integral way to tell the story. Charlotte's art melds the world of media with a highly physical score. Although I've never seen Charlotte's work in person, the way her work is depicted on the internet shows that Charlotte couples these two forms of story telling in a seem-less way.

There are a few of Brathwaite's pieces worth watching.  In her Streetcar Named Desire for example not only does she cast multiracial, but modernizes the piece through her expressionistic use of video projections. She sets this performance in Post-Katrina New Orleans, which raise the stakes and allows for the physicalization of the piece to be heightened. In an interview Brathwaite admits to never having seen a production of STREETCAR, which allows her to explode and explore the text in an entirely new way. As an artist I see the major benefits of never having seen a production of the piece, but I also ask myself how important is it to stay true the Author's vision of the piece? Is there a point that dramaturgy and re-contextualizing can go too far?

In terms of dramaturgical work, her production of A Midsummer Night's Dream is worth taking a glance at.

The work the Brathwaite is producing is work that I undoubtedly want to be apart of. She is creating theatre that I want. It comes as no surprise that she has worked with Radha Blank, a playwright, whose work I am profoundly interested in as well.

Freedom

I wanted to create a sculpture almost anyone, regardless of their background, could look at and instantly recognize that it is about the idea of struggling to break free. This sculpture is about the struggle for achievement of freedom through the creative process.

~ Zenos Frudakis

What’s more important: the music or the acting?

Rosalind Elias is an opera singer who spent her time singing some of the more difficult roles. At the age of 85, she is now transitioning to Broadway to be inFollies, which raises the question of what is more important: the singing or the acting? For opera, the focus is on the music. The music gets, at the very least, the same priority as the staging, often more. Now, Elias has had a bit of musical experience, playing Mrs. Lovett in Sweeny Todd and Madame Armfeldt in A Little Night of Music, but it is not the same. Those shows are ones that opera companies do, for example, the fact that Sweeny Todd was done by the New York City Opera.  It is with Follies that Elias is doing something different, and I wonder about what her focus will be on.

In musicals, the music, staging, and acting are all of equal importance. When planning the schedule, there is always the attempt at making sure each gets as much time as it needs. With opera, if the music and staging both need work, the priority goes to the music. Here, she gets to experience something different that makes me think about how we view different productions. Each type has their own version of what is more significant than anything else, but when you cross two varieties where all of the things are important, how to choose what gets priority when push comes to shove? The article also makes me think about how the mentality has to change between acting, singing, dancing, etc. What does this mean for actors, especially those who are transitioning to a new world after spending their career doing something else?

Jules Fisher

I haven't really posted on anything design and production-y since we started this blog, so I thought I'd write about a technical aspect that really gets me going. Jules Fisher, a lighting designer that has been working for around 50 years, is a person who's work I am super interested in. He's won a great deal of tonys (about 10) and been nominated for all sorts of things, but I kind of really like that out of the things that I've seen that he's done, I haven't really noticed the lighting. Jules talks about how an audience doesn't really notice lighting, or SHOULDN'T notice lighting -- if it's good, it should just roll with the story. It is something that happens below the level of consciousness. It is visceral. Which is why I think he has been so successful in his field. And then it dawned on me -- the job of the lighting designer is almost the exact same job of the actor, or the director, or the playwright. As Jules says,

“The magician sets out to entertain and awe by essentially fooling you with an effect, a trick or an illusion that belies common sense, reason, logic or the dynamics of the physical world. But there is a different kind of magic in the theatre. The theatrical lighting designer has a different intention: to penetrate the mind, heart and soul of the audience, to make them feel joy, love, danger, fear, conflict, excitement, dawn to dusk, heat to cold.’ If the magician wants you to witness the impossible, the theatre magician wants you to believe the possible. This is the magic of theatrical lighting.”

I feel disappointed that there is this divide between performance and design and production in my mind. It has gotten SO MUCH smaller since I've come to BU, and not that either one is better than the other, but I always thought they were such different things. I think this divide was created in high school, and not having any contact with production AT ALL, but God, it makes so much sense that the two sides be similar (since they are working for the same thing after all). This is kind of a half-formed post, but I just wanted to express how joyful I am that BU places such an emphasis on collaboration between Design and Performance. It really has opened me up to the possibilities that my own work can possess.

And with that, back to my point. Jules Fisher helped design the two giant light beams that come from ground zero every year. And... I guess... it is just such a wonderful example of how lighting designers can move and inspire people JUST AS MUCH AS ACTORS AND DIRECTORS AND PLAYWRIGHTS CAN. I know I am changed every time I see this picture.

port_11_Tribute

“Hollywood Dishonors the Bard”

A series of pieces worth reading on the movie "Anonymous," opening this weekend.

1) James Shapiro, in the NYT Op-Ed section, takes on director Rolan Emmerich.

This bit in particular jumps out at me as worthy of note  (especially at a contemporary moment that is witnessing the Occupy movement, protesting the sense that the privileged 1% get to make the rules):

"The case for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, dates from 1920, when J. Thomas Looney, an English writer who loathed democracy and modernity, argued that only a worldly nobleman could have created such works of genius; Shakespeare, a glover’s son and money-lender, could never have done so." (Bold face type mine.)

2) News that The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, in Stratford-upon-Avon, is protesting the film by pasting over Shakespeare's name, wherever it appears, all over town.

-- and a bit more on this from the BBC.

3) Some more background from the NYT.

4) A snarky little piece that made me laugh.

5) The great historian/thinker/critic Simon Schama takes up the pen over at the Daily Beast.

Finally...

I wish I could find these study guides for English teachers that Sony Pictures is alleged to be handing out in concert with this movie. If anyone finds them online, post 'em.

_56262112_shakespeare

Richard Schechner: Occupy Halloween

I just got this email today. Thought the readership here might be interested....

..........................................................................................

Hello!

I'm Erin, an M.A. Candidate with NYU's Performance Studies department. I amtumblr_ltemjpbSyr1r531wko1_500 currently taking a course at NYU taught by Richard Schechner who has
requested that all of his students send out invitations to our next class
meeting (Monday, October 31st) which will take place in Zucotti Park where
the Occupy Wall Street movement originated and is holding its daily general
assembly meeting. The lecture is on the subject of Ritual Efficacy, Meaning
and Theatre as part of the course Ritual, Play and Performance.

As you may have realized, this will be taking place on the evening of
Halloween, which is of course very fitting for the topic of Ritual Efficacy
and Theatre. Richard extends an invitation to all who would like to attend,
both in costume and not in costume, to come and join his class for what will
undoubtedly be an interesting evening. Occupy Wall Street holds a general
assembly meeting everyday at 7:00 pm in Zucotti Park, so the lecture will
involve adopting modes of communication used by OWS to make sure everyone
can hear the lecture and will likely involve interacting with protestors
from the Occupy movement.

If you're interested in coming, please do so! We will be meeting in Zucotti
Park in downtown Manhattan at 7:00 pm on the North East corner under the red
structure that is located there.
Hope to see some of you there!

Erin
M.A. Candidate, Performance Studies
Tisch School of the Arts
New York University

Royal Shakespeare and Marat/Sade

Royal Shakespeare Company first produced Marat/Sade in 1964, where it was widely received. In this new version, audiences have been walking out, with a record high of eighty patrons and an average of thirty. I find it incredibly interesting to see how audiences at the same theatre company have changed, how something that once was popular now has people walking out. It's a reflection of the audiences, the versions of shows produced, and how the two can conflict. Ticket holders are being warned, and yet those who take offense ignore the letters. They decide to take their own chances and end up leaving when they realize that this is not the show for them. All the playwright, Anthony Neilson, is trying to do is provide a new look at Marat/Sade, one that fits into the world we have changed and adapted into.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15428711