Quick Sunday evening post

Sorry for the lack of writing lately.

I've been enjoying the start of the comment exchange on the Flowers for Algernon post and I'm hoping I'll be able to return to that this week. This whole month has been a series of low-level health issues that I'm hoping to shed.

I haven't made it to too many shows, though there was certainly a lot to see this weekend. Avenue Q was also wonderful.

With any luck, I'll be back this week with more posts--even if they are a series of short ones.

Bad writing

One of the things that has stuck with me from an arts journalist and instructor was this advice: If you're way too pleased with the way something sounds that you've written--delete it. Don't be in love with your own voice. It's a great warning against writing for oneself and engaging in self-indulgence.

I'm always pleased when I can catch myself at pretentiousness BEFORE it appears in print. It saves on the embarrassment later. However, I'm not above poking fun at myself, so I'll share the bit of pretentious writing that came from my fingers tonight. It's a paragraph you won't be seeing in my review of Avenue Q--much to the relief, I'm sure, of my readers:

It's easy to let this musical lull you into thinking it is mere comic satire looking for the quick laugh, but for a generation too saturated with marketing messages to appreciate sentimentality, the over-the-top shock humor with its nihilistic philosophy has its own way of delivering an authentic, ultimately optimistic message.

How's that for a single sentence that takes up too many words to say not enough?

Flowers for Algernon

It's been a busy week so far, but I wanted to drop a note here.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the recent production of Flowers for Algernon at Lansing Civic Players. It was one of those shows where I left thinking, "This is what community theater should be doing."

It was a thought that had less to do with the actual play and more to do with the inclusiveness of the casting and the willingness to take real risks. See, I think it is far more risky to put someone up on the stage with little to no experience than it is to take great actors and give them a meaty script.

But more on that when I have the time to write coherently and at slightly more length.

Chatting about Doubt

The lunchtime chat we had on Friday was wonderful and we were fortunate enough to be joined by Kristine Thatcher and Jonathan Courtmanche from BoarsHead. Those of you who dropped by over the weekend saw that I had the entire transcript posted here--but it's terribly long. It doesn't take that long to read, but it did take up a lot of space.

Thankfully, Don Calamia was kind enough to clean it up, add Web formatting and post it on Encore Michigan server.

The transcript of is available here for you to read.

Doubt: Did he do it?

The question that everyone asks after a production of Doubt is: "Did he do it? Was Father Flynn guilty of abusing a child in his care?"

It's a fascinating question in no small part because playwright Patrick Shanley doesn't provide easy answers. In fact, he's never given an answer as to whether he thinks the priest is guilty or not. Instead, he leaves it in the hands of audience, directors, and actors.

Today, Don Calamia of Between the Lines and I are going to reveal whether we thought the priest was guilty in each of the productions.

I came back with three verdicts: Guilty, deadlocked jury, and not guilty.

The BoarsHead Father Flynn was guilty. Nancy Elizabeth Kammer's Sister Aloysius wasn't at all likeable, but it was clear that neither did she tolerate sentimentality in anyone--including herself. She was unlikeable and intolerant, but she had a sharp eye and she didn't indulge in the redress of wrongs for her own personal agendas. Likewise, Michael Joseph Mitchell's Father Flynn had something sly about him. He did not have the candor or honesty that you would expect from someone in his position. He was eager to please and needed validation--whether that be from a young nun or a young boy. His reaction to the news that Sister Aloysius had called his previous parish was as much of a confession as was needed.

As for the Detroit Repertory's Father Flynn, I still have doubts. Were I judge, I would probably accept a plea bargain on a lesser charge. I do think his relationship with Donald went beyond what he claimed, but I'm not convinced that it crossed the line into abuse. Rather, I might argue that he was doing something that was not morally wrong, but would have been condemned by the church he was working for. Mrs. Muller tells us that Donald is gay. Ray Schultz' Father Flynn also appeared to be gay. The subtext of the play sometimes seemed to be that Father Flynn had taken on a mentoring role to the student that he would have had difficulty defending to his superiors, even though it was beneficial to the child.

At Performance Network, I believed the priest. I've since questioned why I believed him. Is it because he was the most blatantly heterosexual? Or was it because of the way he defended himself, fighting back by pulling rank on the sister and keeping thorough notes that he could use to defend himself. The thing is, both of those elements could also point to his guilt. After all, the abuse of children is rarely about sex, it's about power, and Jon Bennett's Father Flynn did not hesitate to wield his masculine power, reminding Sister Aloysius that she--a nun--had no right to question him--a priest. Likewise, the speed at which he began building a defense for himself might show that he recognized the need to defend what he knew he did wrong.

However, he also managed to convince me that he wanted what was truly best for the boy and for the school. His breakdown at the end seemed to be not just because of the personal loss, but because of the loss of his work.

All right, so the more I write about this, the more I'm convincing myself that my gut reaction is wrong and that Bennett's Flynn was indeed guilty. It's the wonderful thing about blog writing--that it can be a process of discovery.

So, Performance Network: guilty or not guilty? I'm now leaning toward guilty.

What did Don think? You can find out by clicking on the linky thing here and reading his Confessions of a Cranky Critic.

Would you care to join the two of us for a live chat about Doubt tomorrow during lunch? If so, drop us an e-mail or leave a comment and we'll send you a link.

Comparing Doubts

One of the challenges of being a theater reviewer is to resist engaging in too many comparisons. Yes, a review needs to be written within a cultural context, but not necessarily the context of the reviewer’s world.

For example, how meaningful is it to most readers to compare the production of one show with the production of the same show at another theater? The very nature of theater is that once something is performed, it is gone forever. There is no going back and renting the production to see it again.

Yet as a critic, it is often impossible to not mentally compare shows, especially those that have been particularly iconic or memorable. It is even more challenging, when the shows occur near each other in time.

While printed reviews may not be an inappropriate venue for comparing a show, in today’s electronic world, we have a highly appropriate venue for doing comparisons in the blogosphere. Here the conversation can extend to: what made one show work and not another? How did different interpretations affect the overall presentation of the show?

So that's exactly what Don Calamia from Between the Lines and I are doing. Each of us went to see Doubt performed at BoarsHead, Detroit Rep, and Performance Network between November and March. In both of our blogs this week, we're comparing those productions.

Yesterday, we each named our personal all-star cast, drawn from those three performances only. Today, we're going to discuss which show we liked best--not an easy task because all of them were so good.

On a large scale, the three productions of Doubt at BoarsHead, Detroit Rep, and Performance Network were very similar. There were differences in details and some in tone, but they consistently delivered strong shows posing the same central question.

Some Variations

Interestingly enough, the blocking for the three shows was incredibly similar, despite having three different directors (Jonathan Courtmanche made his professional mainstage directing debut with this show at BoarsHead, Charlotte Leisinger directed at Detroit Rep, and John Seibert directed for Performance Network). Leisinger's was probably the most different as her actor movements were often done to set up power plays between them.

The BoarsHead show had the greatest amount of humor in it. Lines were delivered in such a way to produce the maximum amount of laughter in what is mostly a pretty serious, intense script. This was seen to the greatest degree in the interactions between the two sisters, but it was present even in the scene with Mrs. Muller where she comes upon Sister Aloysius listening to a confiscated radio. The show also had the greatest amount of energy, in no small part because of Amy Fitts' portrayal of Sister James.

While BoarsHead and Performance Network used a lot of heavy shadows and minimal lighting, the Detroit Rep’s production had the brightest lighting. It made much of the action more immediate. While shadowing can be very artistic, it can also be distracting. The Detroit Rep show had a feeling of immediacy and realism that was impossible to escape from.

Another thing that the Detroit Rep did very well was to constantly shift the balance of power. All of the characters had their moments of power and their moments of helplessness. (The photo at left is from the Detroit Rep production.)

The Performance Network's production had the greatest amount of vulnerability and humanity in it. All of the characters experienced uncertainty and doubt throughout the performance, even if they were trying to keep it hidden from their peers. It was also the Performance Network show that had the greatest amount of intensity.

Questions

Whether it was the directors' intent or not, I did walk away pondering different questions after each production.

After the BoarsHead show, my reflections were on the hypocrisy of people today who look back upon the abuse scandals of the priesthood and are convinced they would have acted differently. The show portrayed how difficult it is to know what actions are the right ones to take when dealing with a situation of potential abuse.

After the Detroit Rep show, I found myself deeply engaged in a discussion about whether the priest was abusing the boy or whether he was meeting with him to surreptitiously encourage Donald Muller to explore and become comfortable with his sexuality.

After the Performance Network show, I found myself contemplating the relationships in the hierarchy and how much relied on the eloquence of individuals to make things happen outside of that hierarchy. I also found myself pondering the ethical questions raised by Sister Aloysius when she said that in order to address evil, one must step away from God and that innocence is a luxury belonging only in a world without evil.

It's Not Just the Actors

Yesterday as I wrote the explanations for which of the four actors I liked best in each of the roles, I thought also about some of the technical aspects and whether I would add a costumer, set builder, lighting designer, etc. to each of my all-star casts. As I pondered that, I realized that in nearly all of the categories, the strongest showing came from the Performance Network production. (Though, once again, this is a matter of degree as all three shows had extremely high production values with very talented technicians.)

While it was at times too dark, Lighting Designer Janine Woods' projected stained glass windows on the sides of the audience and on the floor during the sermon scenes were a beautiful touch. Daniel Walker's set created a highly authentic principal's office from the 60s and an evocative garden bounded by columns.

All three shows had strong costuming--all of them putting the nuns in the traditional bonnets that sisters of their order wore. I did find myself wondering whether that order eschewed the traditional "Bride of Christ" wedding bands worn by other nuns on the right hand, but that most likely speaks more to my distractability than any shortcoming on the part of the costumers.

Some Things I Didn't Like

In all three shows, I was bothered by the ending. It seemed far too much of a break in character and felt overdone. It's a moment that would likely be far more effective had it been underplayed. Likewise, I was bothered in the Performance Network's production by a similar breakdown on the part of the priest at the end of the previous scene. It took too long and I was convinced that this previously macho priest would have such an extreme exterior reaction.

I also didn't care for the intermission that was inserted into the Detroit Rep shows. The other two were done without intermission and I much preferred seeing the show all the way through without stopping midway to begin any discussions of guilt vs. innocence.

So Which Was My Favorite?

Actually, the answer of which production was my favorite is different from which show I thought was done best. My favorite show was the BoarsHead production. I appreciated the humor that they found in it. Also, it was the one that most sparked a connection with modern-day issues. I was immediately brought back into the priest controversy and the issues that swarmed around it.

This production was less about the individuals and their private issues and more about the societal issues that we're still struggling with. It put a spotlight on modern society's desire to have easy answers that are black and white rather than acknowledging that there are complexities that might belie the simple answer.

Which Production Would I Call The Best?

Now, having said that BoarsHead's show was my personal favorite because of the issues that it raised for me, I also have to say that stepping back from my private preferences, I wouldn't rank it as the best of the three shows.

Once I look at all the relationships, the technical aspects, and the choices made in how the characters were played, I'd have to rank Performance Network's production as the best of the three. If all three were playing at once, it is likely the one that I would recommend first.

Now that you've made it through this entry, I strongly encourage you to go read what Don has to say in his blog, Confessions of a Cranky Critic.

Come back tomorrow to read in each of our blogs whether we thought the priest was guilty or not guilty in each production.

All-Star Doubt

Last week, as Don and I discussed how we were going to compare the three performances of Doubt that we saw at BoarsHead, Detroit Repertory Theatre, and Performance Network, we decided to try to come up with an all-star cast. We’d arbitrarily pick our favorites from each show and put them together in a mish-mashed cast.

The difficulty in this is that all of the performances were so good in so many different ways. There wasn’t a single bad performance in any of the three theaters, so trying to pick out the best is a little like choosing between Death by Chocolate ice cream or a caramel chocolate brownie a la mode—it’s impossible to lose with any choice.

That said, here is the cast I would put together:

Father Flynn: Jon Bennett from Performance Network

Sister Aloysius: Nancy Elizabeth Kammer from BoarsHead

Sister James: Amy Fitts from BoarsHead

Mrs. Muller: Tammie Harris from Performance Network


Now, it would be a cop-out to just leave it at that, so I'll try to explain why for each one.

Father Flynn

Each of the Father Flynns were very different and very strong.

BoarsHead’s Michael Joseph Mitchell (see picture at right) was one of the most likeable of the priests. At the same time, there was something about his priest that was squirrelly. He was passionate, but not quite trustworthy. Often his compassion came across as weakness, perhaps because Nancy Elizabeth Kammer’s Sister Aloysius made such a convincing case that the children could be protected only by someone who kept their distance from them.

Detroit Repertory Theatre’s Ray Schultz created a Father Flynn who was the most ambiguous of the three. It was his priest that I found to be the biggest cipher. His is also the priest that I found to the least memorable of the three. After the performance, which was admittedly on the Sunday of a holiday weekend, I remember thinking that the whole show had a general lack of energy and wondered whether I caught the performance on an off-day.

Despite the two solid performances by Mitchell and Schultz, Performance Network’s Jon Bennett (see photo, right) came across as the strongest of the three—despite one moment which I thought was overplayed and caused me to break out of the story. However, that was but a single moment and throughout the rest of the play is performance was so strong, that I was mesmerized. He created a deeply layered priest who was easily sympathetic, yet had a sly side to him. It was this congeniality that made it so shocking in his confrontations with Sister Aloysius when his authoritarianism struck like lightning, physically affecting both the sisters and the audience. It was a tightly controlled performance where every glance and move was pregnant with meaning.

Sister Aloysius

I’ll confess, as I started to write the reasons behind my pick, I changed my choice. My first choice was Barbara Busby from Detroit Repertory, but the more I thought about it and the more I started to explain why, the more I realized that if I were really putting together a cast, it is BoarsHead’s Nancy Elizabeth Kammer that I would pick.

Barbara Busby put in a stellar performance as Sister Aloysius. She was cranky, she was stern, and she was deeply committed to her school and her students. In the performance I saw, there was a moment when I thought she was going to come out into the audience and wrap someone’s knuckles with a ruler when their cell phone went off for the second time.

As strong as her sister was, as I began to write, I realized that Kammer’s Sister Aloysius (see picture above) did several things that swung me in her favor. For starters, even though much of what she said ran strongly counter to my ideas about education and the attitude adults should have toward children, she was absolutely convincing that she believed she was doing what was best. While her actions were cold, she believed the explanations she was giving and truly believed that what she was doing was in the child’s best interest. There was nothing mean about even the cruelest actions. Rather, she was a woman of great moral fortitude and courage. Her actions sprang from the conviction that one is required to do that which is right, not that which is easy. Hers was not a personal vindictiveness, but rather an iron-clad faith that she must do her duty, no matter how painful. Also, I realized that since my choice for Sister James was clearly Amy Fitts, that I did not want to break up that duo. Their energy and chemistry was so perfect that they both made each other better. They were perfect mirrors and foils for one another.

Jan Radcliff of Performance Network also made a fascinating Sister Aloysius and her portrayal had some of the greatest vulnerability and humanity to it. It was easier to see her struggle throughout the whole play. There were times when she seemed uncertain not just about what to do, but about whether it was right to do what she was doing. She did seem somewhat young for the part, but that may have partly been because the other two I’d seen had been played much older. In some ways, Radcliff’s Sister Aloysius was almost too vulnerable, a fact which made me much earlier swing in favor of the priest.

Sister James

This was perhaps the easiest choice for me. BoarsHead’s Amy Fitts became the gold standard by which I compared all of the other Sister James. This may seem somewhat unfair given that she was also the first Sister James that I saw (she also read the part for the staged reading that I’d seen the year before), but she brought a light and energy to the role that really did put her performance on a level above anything else I saw. Her Sister James had such amazing energy and a bubbly spirit that constantly warred with its natural state and her desire to please Sister Aloysius.

Fitts brought a light-hearted humor to the part. She also did the most convincing job of playing the part of a nun who was raised to the concept of obedience and who was familiar with spiritual struggles and the importance of having them. She introduced complexity to the portrayal of Sister James. It wasn’t simply a matter of whether she could bend her will to her superior or whether she sided with Father Flynn. Rather, it really was a spiritual struggle for her and she was able to see the merits of both sides. Father Flynn was whom she wanted to believe, because that would be easiest, but it was also clear that she understood Sister Aloysius and why her superior made the choices she made.

Mrs. Muller

Electrifying” was the adjective used to describe the performance of BoarsHead’s Tiffany Mitchenor and there were audible gasps during the Detroit Repertory production when Janee Ann Smith had her confrontation with Sister Aloysius. However, it was Performance Network’s Tammie Harris that had the most profound affect on me. Hers was an understated strength, coming out of a deeply buried and controlled anger. I believed in her pain. There was a reserve about her that made her less bitter and extremely emotionally effective. It was Harris’ performance that brought me to tears even though by this time I knew exactly what she was going to say.

Now, I’m off to see how my cast matches up with Don. If you haven’t been there yet, I invite you to join me. He will have his cast up at some point today.

Tomorrow, we'll talk about which show is our favorite. On Thursday we'll discuss whether we thought the priest was guilty in each show and why, then on Friday we'll have a bit of a free-for-all with each other and anyone who wants to join in.

P.S. My apologies to those of you using Internet Explorer (which according to Google Analytics is the majority of you). Some strange coding got into the file that I wasn't able to see in Firefox. Thankfully, a reader alerted me to it and I beleive I was able to fix it. If you still see strange formatting, please let me know.

To Doubt is Human...

Today, it begins. Don Calamia of PrideSource's Between the Lines and Encore Michigan are finally going to start with the writing that we've been teasing about for several months now. We're going to start our comparisons of the three local professional productions of Doubt. Granted, I use "local" somewhat loosely as the productions were in Lansing, Detroit, and Ann Arbor, but the theater community is small enough, I'm comfortable including them all as local.

We've decided to stretch this out over a few days and provide handy links so that you can compare what we have to say.

Tuesday: Today we'll start with a presentation of what we call an all-star cast. Independently, we've each come up with our favorites from all three casts.

Wednesday: Tomorrow, we'll say which show was our favorite and why.

Thursday: On Thursday, we'll ponder the question that each show asks: "Was the priest guilty?" We've commented to each other that we came up with different answers for each show--though we haven't yet shared with each other what verdicts we came up with.

Friday: This day is still open. It's a chance for us to respond to each other and, we hope, to any one who wants to join in the conversation with their observations.\

You can read Don's observations at his blog, Confessions of a Cranky Critic.

Simplicity and complexity

"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity."

- Oliver Wendell Holmes

I've been thinking about this quote lately in many different contexts.

One context is theater. Isn't this what directors and actors try to do? Or, at least, some do? I think those who spend a lot of time analyzing a play and truly trying to understand every word in it are able to present a simple and elegant story that is the result of their journey through complexity.

However, those that choose simplicity by ignoring the complexity of the text they work with end up delivering a result that is often less than satisfying and fails to move the audience.

Religious Theater

Growing up, I was very active in my teen group at church. However, since I wasn't all that interested in sports outside of the occasional recreation or going to the occasional game and didn't have a great singing voice, I had to find other ways to participate. Primarily, it was through Bible quizzing and drama.

However, the non-musical dramas in church were often highly disappointing, especially those written for teenagers. Rarely was there a character created that I could believe in. The monologues were hollow and the dialog was too often tritely moralistic. People I knew didn't talk this way--not even the devoutly religious people that I knew. There also seemed to be a fear of including conflict, and without conflict, you can't really have good drama.

I came to associate Christian drama with the mediocre at best and tedious most commonly. It lacked in authenticity while being heavy in jingoism.

This is something that bothered me for a long time. There used to be great drama with Christian themes--great drama that took advantage of all the power of theater. However, sometime during the 80s, it seemed that drama was sanitized to remove anything remotely dangerous. In fact, what happened to drama is something that also happened to Christian literature--another area where there are numerous examples of truly great work. It became bland and sanitized. Worse, some of what passes for Christian literature today is truly atrocious when it comes to good writing.

At some point, it seemed that if it was labeled Christian, then it automatically got stamped with a "good" mark. This led to mediocrity. I'd even argue this passed over into our politics. If someone calls himself a born-again Christian, then he must be "good," and no further critical thinking need be applied.

It's a trend that does disservice to God. Whatever happened to Orville Chambers clarion call to produce our utmost for His highest? Whatever happened to the idea that if you were doing work for God, it ought to be the very best possible? That He deserved only excellence, not simply a lackadaisical semi-effort shorn of careful thought and intellectual struggle?

What has inspired this line of thought?

The fact that during Easter week I saw two plays that buck the trend. They were two religious plays that were outstanding. Granted, you aren't likely to see either of them performed in a church, but both dealt with religious issues in a respectful, honest, and artistic manner.

The first was Thunder at Dawn done in Riverwalk's Black Box at the Creole Gallery. It was a highly powerful show that I wish I could have seen more than once.

In it, three soldiers meet at the Rusty Nail after getting off execution duty. While they are dressed modern, carry guns, and refer to current events, it is soon obvious that they were at the crucifixion of Christ.

It's an intense story with the youngest soldier, a boot who has just recently touched down in the desert, broken up because he believes they have just executed a holy man. Joe Quick did an excellent job of convincingly portraying a boy in despair and fear. He believes that Christ will return after three days and will want revenge upon the soldiers who killed him.

Ben Holzhausen plays the cynical sergeant to whom this was simply another execution of another terrorist insurgent. He's hardened by combat and believes only in army discipline.

Rick Dethlefsen as the senior officer provided a richly textured performance in which he pretends to treat this execution like any other while taking a journey that eventually reveals his character's vulnerabilities and fears.

Together, the three portray a pretty stark reality--not one that is designed to comfort the audience. There is strong language, drinking, and banter about prostitution. The soldiers aren't sanitized. They're real. This makes for a story that is powerful, beautiful, and ultimately challenging. There is a lot to think about when you leave the theater. There are questions presented without answers being given. The answers are what the audience must search for, and in searching, possibly find something of far greater meaning than if it were packaged in pretty paper with a bow.

The other show I saw over the weekend was Performance Network's Doubt, another intensely religious show that breaks the modern mold and hearkens back to a faith that is intellectually honest. It's a play in which there are no easy answers and nothing is given to the audience. Rather, the answers must be sought after and questioned.

However, more on that one later. While I was writing this, I received a call from Don Calamia (see photo, left) at Pride Source. He and I are going to begin discussing the three versions of Doubt: BoarsHead, Detroit Rep, and Performance Network, this coming Tuesday in this space and at his blog, Confessions of a Cranky Critic.