The Red Violin

Tonight we're going to be going to the John Corigliano concert at MSU's Wharton Center. I've been most excited about hearing Circus Maximus as it is one of those symphonies that must be experienced live in order to get the full effect.

Another highlight will likely be performances of his work from The Red Violin. Here is an MSU student giving a preview performance:

Weekend in Chicago

Hey! Dancin!

Cherry Poppins: A New Musical (an improv musical)

Billy Elliott

Awesome food, even better company. It was a good weekend.

Comparing apples to apples

Seeing the same play done by multiple companies is simply part of the job description for a theater critic. Moreso than any other art except ballet and classical music, live theater is a medium that explores different approaches to the same script. By its very nature it is dynamic and subject to many interpretations. While movies will have the occasional remake, it won't be done a thousand different ways by ten thousand different actors.

So when attending a show, a critic must try to approach each version of each play with an open mind. After all, it's not about whether a particular production was similar to another. What's more important is whether the production is living up to its own internal interpretation. What is the vision of a particular director? What does each new actor bring to his or her role? That said, outside of the structure of a review, it is highly enjoyable to compare shows and part of the essential discussion about what makes theater vibrant and dynamic.

Seeing Double: Canterbury and April

Several weekends ago, I had my weekend of seeing double. The two Canterbury Tales performances I saw were actually quite similar--which was to be expected. They had the same director and about a third of the cast was the same for each show. There were individual variations in character interpretations between the two different casts, but it was basically the same show.

The other show I saw twice was "Enchanted April." Knowing that I was going to review the Meadowbrook show while judging the Riverwalk version for the Thespies, it seemed only fair to see the Riverwalk version first. After all, Meadowbrook had access to greater resources, better trained artists, and the ability to rehearse as a full-time job rather than an after getting out of other work rehearsal schedule.

Enchanted April

What surprised me was how genuinely close the two shows were in overall quality--both in artistic performance and in production values. Both shows had their strengths and both had their weaknesses.

The Meadowbrook actors were far superior in their vocal quality, consistency of accents, and overall development of characters. Yet, while their Lotty was easier to understand, she also changed less. Nor could the Meadowbrook Rose hold a candle to the sensitivity and passion that the Riverwalk Rose showed. Likewise the marital relationship between Rose and "Florian" in the Riverwalk production was far more layered and complex. I could believe in Florian's change at the end far more than I could in the Meadowbrook production.

The Riverwalk production was also the more daring of the two, willing to commit to more intense choices. The men, while having very little to work with in the script, were also much more convincing and real in the Riverwalk production whereas they came across as too much of just backdrop in the Meadowbrook version.

The set, which is very much a part of the show--both in the grim grayness of the first act and the floral airiness of the second act--also had different strengths, even while looking extraordinarly similar. Both used the same color schemes with similar looking set dressing. For the first act, the Meadowbrook set was far more interesting with its constantly changing backgrounds and the ability to change lighting to a far greater degree. For the second act, the Riverwalk set had a much fuller, brighter feel to it. There was more depth and character to the castle. Also, the set change at the top of Act II at Riverwalk was one of those memorable moments that got its own applause. The audience was able to witness the transformation which once more underlined the theme of the show.

Proscenium vs. Thrust

The difference in sets could primarily be attributed to the two very different spaces. Meadowbrook is a large theater with a proscenium stage. Riverwalk is much more intimate and is a thrust stage. For the first act, the flatness added to the play's story while allowing the technical team far greater flexibility in swiftly creating many different rooms and settings. For the second act, the intimacy with the audience and the ability to emphasize dimension made for a stronger second act.

Both were shows well worth seeing for the beauty of the play and the fascinating differences in choices made by each cast.

Picking nits

When I write a review that is restricted to 300 words or less, I rarely include much except the main points of the production. What most worked? What didn't? What was the overall impression of the show?

I often think this is a disservice because there are many things about a production that can be worth talking about even though they are not the main thrust of the show and even when they don't effect the overall quality of a show.

Sometimes I think some of the more interesting moments in a show are the small ones that go by quickly. They can be great moments, or they can be horrible ones. When they're bad, mentioning them seems like an exercise in picking nits. They can be interesting to discuss, but really shouldn't effect whether someone goes to see a show or not. Sometimes the little things are matters of interpretation--one person wondering whether a slightly different choice might have been more effective. In the latter instance, the overall performance may have been quite good and it can be demoralizing to raise a question in a review.

At other times, the nits do matter. Sometimes the lack of attention to a small detail can take the audience out of a production and make the overall show suffer. Sometimes the jarring detail or moment can indicate a sloppiness on the part of the actor, crew, or director (depending on what it is).

I've been bothered lately by one of those small details I saw at a show--a detail that would likely go unremarked upon in a review because there were so many more important things to comment on. And yet, that detail told me a lot about the show and about the actor. In the play, the actor is complaining about how cold it is and how frozen he feels with a lack of proper heating during a winter month. He's wearing a scarf and a sweater and would rub his hands to keep warm. Yet he had his sleeves pushed up to his elbow. It immediately told me that as an actor, he wasn't paying much attention to what he was saying. He wasn't feeling the cold. He wasn't thinking. I couldn't believe what he was saying because if he were really cold and shivering, he'd pull his sleeves down rather than leave his bare arms exposed to the frozen air.

Does that minor point of costuming matter compared to the other elements of the show? Only in that it informed my thinking about the other problems that show had and what might have contributed to them.

In the Blood review

Here is my review of MSU's "In the Blood." It's posted at Michigan Entertainment.

It was a powerful show and I hope to be back to talk about it some more--after talking about Enchanted April.

What a weekend!

Theater has the power to move, the power to change lives, the power to challenge us to re-examine our ways of thinking.

This weekend the theater I took in left me almost out of breath by the end of it with plenty of themes chasing themselves around in my head during today's car trip to the west-side of the state for a family birthday.

Friday night, Richard and I went to see Romeo et Juliette, the opera put on by the MSU College of Music. It is the operatic version of Shakespeare's play, sung in French, then set in Miami, Florida during the 1980s.

On Saturday, I went straight from MSU's "In the Blood" to Everett's "Rent." I'll be writing more about the MSU show as it was strong, powerful stuff. Speaking of that, I need to go finish my review of it for Michigan Entertainment. So I'll write more later.

Balance of appropriateness

Earlier this month I attended a production of the musical Spelling Bee at the Ruhala Performing Arts Center. As with most productions there, the performances were superior and the young performers did an excellent job. Not only are they talented, but more importantly, they have put in a lot of hard work.

While their production was charming and wonderful, there were several times I found myself distinctly uncomfortable. Discomfort during a theatrical performance isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a sign that there is something to think more about.

When I first saw The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee, all of the characters were played by adults--including the kids. This added a certain humor factor to it. It also gave us even more of a feeling of looking at the kids through adult eyes.

Spelling Bee is a fun musical that takes a very authentic look at the real struggles of junior high kids--especially those who are outcasts for one reason or another. If stage shows were rated, this would would probably get a PG-13, with one song about the young man's "unfortunate erection" making it push the edge of an R rating. There is also a fair amount of language which is both vulgar and profane.

If I acknowledge that nothing in the show is outside of the language, thoughts, or conversations of junior high aged students, is it hypocrisy to be uncomfortable when I see actors as young as age 12 performing it?

After much thought, I've concluded that the answer to that is no. Ultimately, it is a parental choice whether it is appropriate for their child to participate in musical or dramatic pieces with adult content. For myself, I would not have my child perform in a musical like The Spelling Bee. There is a difference between knowing that children use certain language and joke about certain subjects and having an adult demand that they do so and having them perform it in front of audiences.

When you teach math, you don't ask students to attempt trig before they've learned how to multiply and divide. So it is with other subjects. Students of life shouldn't have everything thrown on them at once. When we respect the learner, we allow the learner to take things in stages and steps without dumping things on them before they are ready. So it is with issues of sex. I'm all in favor of open, honest discussions with children about sexual topics--and in letting them lead the way when determining what they are ready for and what they are not. However, we already live in an over-sexualized society in which messages about sexuality are far from healthy. I'm not eager to push my child to explore topics of physical desire when he is still working out more basic social and decision-making skills.

A full weekend

It was a good weekend for theater and I thoroughly enjoyed my weekend of seeing double. Everything went off as planned--I saw Waverly High School's "The Canterbury Tales" with Cast Canterbury on Thursday and Cast Southwark this afternoon. On Friday, I saw "Enchanted April" at Riverwalk and on Saturday night I saw the same show at Meadowbrook. The review of the latter show is posted at Encore Michigan.

We then topped it all off by a family night out at the movies with our friends the Thompsons. We splurged and saw Alice in Wonderland at the iMax.

Tonight, I am tired, but in the next couple days, I hope to write the following blog entries:

• A review of "The Watch List"
• A comparison of the two Enchanted Aprils
• A discussion on the delicate balance of what we ask children to do in theater

Meanwhile, I wish for all of you a wonderful week.

Seeing Double

I'll be seeing double this weekend.

Tonight I went to see the Canterbury cast perform "Canterbury Tales" at Waverly High School. I'll see the play again on Sunday with the Southwark cast. (The show has only eight characters and they were double-cast to give more people the opportunity to perform.)

Then Friday night, I'll be going to Riverwalk to see "Enchanted April." On Saturday night, I'll be going to Meadowbrook to see "Enchanted April."

A weekend full of seeing double.

Good weekend for theater

I may have to break my usual rule and write a review for "The Watch List" in my blog. It's a new work and it deserves to get attention. So I'm going to put some thought into it and once I get my other assignments done for the week, I'll turn back to "The Watch List" and write about it.

I also saw "Opal's Husband" with Jane and Mark Zussman, Winifred Olds, Dan Pappas, and Jan Ross in it on Saturday night. I sat at a table with the director's parents who were quite proud of the cute show that their daughter directed.

Earlier tonight I saw a wonderful production of "The Ingham County Spelling Bee" at the Ruhala Center. It was a cast of exceedingly talented performers.