Confessions of a Cranky Critic

Time sure does fly when you're having fun. So much so that it's hard to believe that this weekend's openings are the last shows to be considered for a 2008 Wilde Award nomination.

Yes, the season officially closes this weekend - at least from OUR perspective. And what a year it's been.

So we'll be busy this coming week comparing notes and determining who the nominees are.  And then we'll announce them at the end of the month.

But be forewarned: We'll be doing a few things differently this year - starting with how and when we'll announce the nominations. And since this is the 15th anniversary of Between The Lines  and The Wilde Awards are the final major event of the newspaper's birthday celebration, expect the unexpected there, as well. 

More details will be announced soon - here, in BTL and on EncoreMichigan.com.

I've been asked numerous times about how I think the state's new incentives to the film industry will impact both our state and our professional theater community. To be honest, my overall reaction is this: Cool! Anything that can bring jobs to the state is fine with me.

But will it be a panacea? Probably not for the acting community. Sure, they'll get day jobs and maybe some small parts, but don't expect any major film roles to be cast locally - at least not for a while (if ever).

Why? Because we 're still an unknown quantity here; Hollywood isn't familiar with the excellent talent that live and work here. (They only seem to recognize our acting talent AFTER they move away and establish themselves elsewhere.) So they'll be prone to work with established professionals and marquee names to fill the major roles.

Then there's this - something I've heard more than one insider voice privately: Let one of our actors screw up - by not showing up on time to a call, for example, or by adopting an "I'm a star" attitude - and EVERY LOCAL ACTOR will suffer for it; roles that WOULD have been cast here will suddenly go to actors elsewhere.

The big winners will be the service community - the hotels and the caterers, for example. The technical folks - the set designers and builders - should get plenty of work, too. And  a lot of the support crew - grips, to name one - will be local. (As an aside, I was in a restaurant this past Tuesday night when two guys were seated in the booth behind me. What drew my attention to them was their discussion: One is starting classes soon at Specs Howard to learn skills that can get him a job working on some of the upcoming local film projects. I suspect a LOT of folks will be doing the same thing, too!)

But what do I know.

Someone who DOES have some insight, though, is Barbara Coven-Ellis. With a resume that includes voice-over work, commercials, industrials, film and stage roles - and my editorial assistant on EncoreMichigan.com - Barb's concerns relate to potential conflicts that she predicts WILL occur when local actors and theater executives are faced with some pretty tough decisions to make. You can find her comments here in her weekly column, Bab's Babblings: http://www.encoremichigan.com/features.html.

Your thoughts?

I just found out that there's yet another DOUBT on this year's schedule! The Hope Summer Repertory Theatre in Holland has scheduled it for July 18-Aug. 7. So NOW the question is: Do I go check THAT one out, too?

And how will THEY handle that troublesome ending?

The last couple of weeks have been a bit crazier than most. Why? Because I've had to go to "Plan B" (and in one case "Plan C") a lot more often than usual - and I'm not sure why that is.

For last week's edition of Between The Lines, for example, a long-planned interview fell apart at the last minute when the person I was to interview didn't answer the phone at the pre-arranged time - nor did they return my call. (Okay, they DID finally call back - two days later at 1:40 a.m. (yes, you read that correctly) - but by then I had already "killed" the story.) Luckily, however, I had spotted an item in the BTL calendar announcing a new professional theater company in Grand Rapids, so I called the phone number in the listing and woke up Jay Harnish who anxiously agreed to do an interview about his new Dog Story Theater.

Problem solved - until THIS week's paper.

Three stories were planned for the April 24 issue, but only one made it in to the paper. One interview was scrapped after multiple attempts by both sides to arrange interviews failed. And after much thought I decided to hold my one review until a later edition. (My decision had nothing to do with the show's quality; I just have a better idea on how to cover it!)

That meant that I now had about a page and a half to fill - and only one story in the pipeline as of late Sunday night. So I "gave back" space to BTL's entertainment editor to fill - something I really don't like to do, but what the heck - and the remaining story was given the entire Curtain Calls page.

But this got me thinking:

Having to juggle stories at the last minute has become far more common this season than it has in the past. (Two other stories were also cancelled recently.) And that surprises and mystifies me, since most theaters are BEGGING for coverage these days.

Are we having these problems because so many of our theaters now have people doing publicity who aren't TRAINED in that field - and because of that, they don't know the ins and outs of their job and what's required of them? Have our theaters cut their staffs so severely that too few people are doing the work of far too many? Or do some simply don't care? (I have my opinions, of course, but I'll keep them quiet for now.)

Then I always wonder if - because we're not a major daily - some people think it's okay to treat US differently than they would a Jenn McKee or a Marty Kohn?

I wonder...

I DO have a possible solution, however. And what I decide MIGHT be influenced by the responses this blog entry receives over the next few days.

For the past handful of years, I've considered offering a half-day seminar in theater publicity - mainly, how to effectively work with the media to get coverage.  I'd open it up to all levels of theater: professional, community, collegiate. And I'd even consider inviting my peers to join me in this effort.

What do YOU think?

 As I mentioned in my previous entry, it's never easy deciding what to trim when a review runs a little longer than it should. So what you're about to read is a secret tour through a critic's mind when he's faced with having to make a tough call:

The first draft of my recent review of Improv at the Point at Northville's Tipping Point Theatre came in at around 575 words, which was 75 words longer than the space allowed. (Although that might not SOUND like a lot of extra words, it actually amounts to about 10 lines of copy in the newspaper.) So I immediately went about trimming out any colorful verbiage and witticisms that didn't particular add anything insightful to the review. But it was still running long.

That's when the tough call had to be made.

Now, I'll be honest: I generally don't struggle more than a few seconds over what to cut from any story I write. (I'd end up with an ulcer if I did! Plus, I'm not THAT much in love with my work that I can't decide what needs to be axed when the situation demands it.)

THIS particular review WAS different, however. I did INDEED struggle with what to remove from the review, and my ultimate decision earned a passionate letter from one of the nicest guys in Metro Detroit's theater community (who also happens to be in the show).  Here's part of what Dave Davies wrote:

One thing I would also like to mention and I certainly hope I'm not out of line in doing so.  It's always such a pleasure to work with Geff Phillips who has been accompanying us since the beginning.  I feel Geff always goes up and beyond what most musicians CAN do.  Geff himself is an amazing musical improviser which is an extremely rare find!  I thought it was brilliant how he handled 'hip-hop' by beating the travel trunk near the back of the stage.  Completely improvised and nicely executed!

Geff is an extremely humble guy and I doubt he would even bring it up to anyone.  I just feel he is a strong part of our cast and often the trick to making things work.  Especially when it comes to making up a musical.

Again, I hope I'm not out of line in saying these things.

Nope: Dave wasn't out of line at all. In fact, his letter struck a chord, since my original review did indeed contain a two-sentence acknowledgement of Geff's fine contributions to the show - and those were the last words that I regretfully removed from it.

So why did I delete all references to Geff rather than something else?
 
Since it's far more likely that my readers would be familiar with the improvisers in the show (since fans often DO follow them from venue to venue) than with its accompanist, Geff got deleted. (There was little else to cut to get down to the 500-word limit.)

That's it. That's the entire explanation. And it was an action I wish I didn't HAVE to take, since Geff's contributions ARE importent to the show's success.

So I guess the moral of the story is this: Just because we critics fail to acknowledge someone in our reviews doesn't mean their performance wasn't noteworthy enough to EARN that acknowledgement. Sometimes its simply because we've run out of space to do so!

Space.

While it might have been the final frontier for Captain James T. Kirk, it's the bane of existence for journalists. And here's why: There's never enough of it.

One of the realities of newspaper publishing is that the number of pages produced each issue is determined by the number of ads that are sold. More ads, more pages. And more pages means more stories. (Fewer ads, though, mean fewer pages and even fewer stories.)

But there's more: Because there are dozens of stories fighting for space each issue, the folks in charge editorial scream and holler at the folks in the layout and design department to work out just how many stories can fit into each issue - and what the size of each will be. Whatever gets decided during those debates, however, is always subject to change. (I've had stories pulled only minutes before the paper was put to bed safely at the printers. Luckily that doesn't happen very often!)

For our theater coverage each week in Between The Lines, we settled on a formula many years back: As the theater editor, I get one whole page to do with whatever I see fit - and what works best are two stories per issue, each running 500 words. If there are more than two stories or reviews each week, then I have to negotiate with "the powers that be" for additional space. Sometimes I get it; other times I don't - and then we move to "Plan B," which can vary. (Sometimes we'll squeeze three reviews on to a single page at 300 words each, or we'll start the review in the print edition and finish it online. Recently we had our critics submit two versions of their reviews: one at 500 words that we ran on EncoreMichigan.com, and an edited version at 300 words that appeared in Curtain Calls. I haven't decided which of those "Plan Bs" will be our regular "Plan B" in the future.)

So when I write my reviews, I always try to be mindful of that "500 word" wall that always looms ahead. But sometimes, it's just not possible to fit everything that needs to be said into 500 words. That's when the tough decisions have to be made: What do I cut? What piece of information does the reader NEED to know; which is NICE for them to know; and what's not necessary to know in a review?

From MY perspective, what often gets dropped when space is tight is acknowledgement of the technical people - unless some aspect of the production is especially noteworthy (good or bad). And if the production has a large cast, only the leads or the noteworthy performances are mentioned.

It's never an easy call, trust me. But I - and my fellow critics, I'm sure - struggle to try and write the most useful, informative and helpful reviews as we possibly can. And usually, I think, we're right on target.

Why am I telling you this?  Find out in tomorrow's blog...

This past Friday, Bridgette Redman and I had our "live chat" about DOUBT, and joining us were Kristine Thatcher, BoarsHead Theater's artistic director, and Jonathan Courtemanche, who directed the BoarsHead's production of DOUBT.

The conversation lasted more than an hour, which means the transcript is way too long to post  here.

So I've put it on the EncoreMichigan server, and you can read it by clicking here:  http://www.encoremichigan.com/article.html?article=218

Both Bridgette and I had a blast with our cross-blogging, and we hope you enjoyed it, too.

And we're already discussing our NEXT discussion. So be forewarned!

That's the question I heard over and over again as I left all three performances of DOUBT. And it's a question I asked several audience members as well, trying to slyly gauge how my fellow theatergoers had absorbed what they had just experienced.

 

Not so surprisingly, EVERYONE had an opinion - and there was plenty of disagreement.

 

To me, that's a sign of great theater: That although all of us sat in the same audience and watched the same play unfold before us, each of us took away something different from it.

 

WHY that happened can be easily explained: All of us entered the theater with vastly different life experiences, which will ALWAYS color how we view the world around us.

 

But to be honest, I expected a lot more “guilties” than I actually encountered. Since the sexual abuse of children is one of the last taboos still in place in our ever-changing culture, I really expected the priest to be found guilty by a majority of people with whom I discussed the play – especially given all the bad press the Catholic Church received over the past several years for priestly improprieties. But that wasn’t the case. Both men AND women seemed more than willing to give the priest the benefit of the doubt.

 

I went in, I believe, with an open mind. As if sitting on a jury, I wanted to listen to the facts before I made my decision. And in each of the three “cases” – since the “testimony” was identical – I relied primarily on the body language of the priest to help me make up my mind. (Line delivery helped, too.)

 

So: Did he do it?

 

In the case of the Theater Critic vs. the BoarsHead Theater’s Father Flynn: The jury (of one) finds him guilty as sin. There was no doubt about it.

 

There was something about Michael Joseph Mitchell’s portrayal that set off alarms almost from the start. It was as if there was always something that he was hiding – and he was doing his best to make sure it remained secret. (Part of that COULD have been his homosexuality, which the actor telegraphed a handful of times in almost undetectable ways.) And in the final confrontation with Sister Aloysius – when she left him alone in the office – he couldn’t get to the phone fast enough to get the hell out of town. His guilt was written all over his face.

 

In the case of the Theater Critic vs. the Detroit Repertory Theatre’s Father Flynn: The jury (of one) finds him not guilty – at least not of sexually abusing the boy.

 

Ray Schultz’s Father Flynn didn’t seem shocked by Sister’s accusation; instead, he was offended. And he took it as a personal insult. So his reaction, to me, was one of damage control, since he knew what would happen if word of her suspicions got out into the public.

 

Ray’s Flynn was guilty of making bad choices, however. As a gay man himself, I think this Flynn identified with the youngster (who we learn is gay from his mother) and tried to shepherd him safely through the harsh world of eighth grade. But did anything inappropriate happen between them? Not sexually. (But did the priest give the boy the wine that ultimately got him kicked off the altar boy squad? I’m not sure. In THIS production, I doubt that, too.)

 

In the case of the Theater Critic vs. Performance Network Theatre’s Father Flynn: The jury (of one) finds him not guilty – I think.

 

Jon Bennett’s Father Flynn reminded me of several young, energetic priests I knew in the immediate post-Vatican II era. They were totally straight, but of the touchie-feelie variety; they’d rather us young folk sit in a circle and sing “Kumbaya” than kneel in a quiet church and ponder our navels. He was the “cool” priest that everyone loved to hang out with: The girls thought he was cute, and the boys thought he was one of the guys. So when Sister A. accused him of molesting young Donald, Bennett’s reaction was one of hurt and pain. How COULD she THINK that, he telegraphed?

 

And he carried that off quite well.

 

Except for one brief moment when Sister James revealed that she believed him. Bennett’s reaction was one of obvious glee; his eyes lit up, he got a great big smile, he pulled out his notebook and wrote something in it.

 

But there was something about that smile I didn’t like. Did it mean: “Cool! I really fooled her!” Or was he simply glad that SOMEONE was in his corner?

 

I’m not sure. Although evil DOES come in pretty packages, I’m inclined to believe Bennett’s Flynn was innocent. But I STILL have a nagging doubt about it in the darkest corners of my mind. (Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if Bennett's "cool Father Flynn" gave Donald the wine. That's the kind of thing I'd expect of a young priest of that era and mindset.)

 

To me, Bennett's interpretation was - from both a dramatic and theatrical perspective - the best: It left us thinking; it gave us doubts. It left us unsettled. And it sure gave us plenty to talk and think about - which, a month or so later, we're STILL doing.

Drama can't get much better than that!  

 

So now I have to ask Bridgette Redman: Did he do it?  Find out by checking her blog at http://frontrowlansing.blogspot.com/.

 

Then come back tomorrow at noon for a live, interactive chat with the two of us. If you’d like to participate, send either of us a note and we’ll provide you with the necessary information. A transcript of our chat will be posted on both our blogs later in the afternoon.

 

 

 

After naming our "all-star" casts of DOUBT in our respective blogs yesterday, Bridgette Redman of the Lansing State Journal and I will today identify which of the three DOUBTs we liked best.

And the nominees are, in order of appearance:

BoarsHead Theater, Lansing

Jonathan Courtemanche, director

 

Detroit Repertory Theatre, Detroit

Charlotte Leisinger, director

 

Performance Network Theatre, Ann Arbor

John Seibert, director

 

Before I get into the specifics of each production, I must once again reiterate that all three are among this season's finest efforts, and the artists involved in each should be extremely proud of their work. And because of that, to choose which was “best” is much more difficult than you can imagine. It all came down to ‘the little things” that made one production stand out just a little higher and stronger than the others.

 

THE BOARSHEAD:

 

This was the first of the three productions to launch, and it set the bar quite high for the other two.

 

This is the production I often called “The Black and White DOUBT” or “The No Doubt About It DOUBT” because everything about its tone was either black or white – there was no waffling in its point of view, no middle ground, no shades of gray. In other words, there WERE no doubts in this DOUBT.

 

That was especially true of Nancy-Elizabeth Kammer’s Sister Aloysius. She was a woman on a sacred mission – possessed, almost – and nothing or no one was going to stop her. And for the first 88 and a half minutes of the play, she had us totally convinced that she knew she was right; at no time did the audience ever see the slightest crack in her tough exterior.

 

Likewise, once Michael Joseph Mitchell’s Father Flynn discovered what the nun’s mission was, he was bound and determined to defeat her. There was no doubt about that, either.

 

Their confrontations were especially well executed.

 

In fact, of all three DOUBTs, this was by far the slickest; it was the smoothest-running production of any play I’ve seen in a long time. And what made that somewhat of a surprise was the show’s pedigree: It was the first major play ever directed by Jonathan Courtemanche. Everything clicked and ran like clockwork from the moment the show began until it ended; so much so, that I’d nominate Jonathan to run the nation’s airlines, rail system and Detroit’s public transportation system, because I suspect he’d get them back on schedule in no time. It was an impressive debut, to be sure. (I suspect stage manager Katie Doyle was a big help in keeping things running smoothly.)

 

Also impressive was the set by Fred Engelgay, which was compliment quite nicely by the lighting design by Jeremy Winchester.

 

Where the show failed, however, was at its conclusion – a common problem with all three productions, and it’s partly the “fault” of the playwright. John Patrick Shanley has given directors and actors a tough, near-impossible assignment: to make us believe that Sister Aloysious – who, for 88 and a half minutes has thoroughly convinced us that she harbors no doubts – does indeed question her actions. But that’s not all: the playwright drops the bomb, and then quickly ends the show with no time for that revelation to be explored. It’s a powerful blast that requires deft handling, but none of the three productions got it quite right.

 

In the BoarsHead production, the chew-‘em-up-and-spit-‘em-out nun broke down and admitted her doubts amidst sobbing tears that, quite frankly, were not very convincing on opening night. But – in all fairness – it totally fit with the production’s black-and-white, one extreme or the other point of view. But ultimately, its “unbelievability factor” yanked me right out of the moment; and listening to others after the performance, I wasn’t the only one that happened to. (I overheard a handful of patrons say they laughed at that climactic moment because they found it so ludicrous.)

I doubt that was the reaction ANYONE was looking for!

 

 

THE DETROIT REP:

 

This was the production I often referred to it as the “It’s All About the Doubts DOUBT.”

 

Everything about Charlotte Leisinger’s production screamed “doubt” – there were no absolutes to be found in this production; everything was gray.

 

In this interpretation, Barb Busby’s Sister Aloysius was by far the most reflective of the three Sisters; she allowed us to watch as she worked through her thought processes, which made us aware early on that maybe, possibly, she wasn’t totally convinced that she had the facts correct. But that didn’t stop her from pursuing the course she knew she had to take. And Ray Schultz made us privy to Father Flynn’s thoughts, as well.

 

Where Charlotte's production overshadowed the others, I thought, was how she blocked (staged) the battles between Sister A. and Father Flynn. She made excellent use of levels: when Father Flynn was winning, he was positioned higher up and looked more menacing; and when the good Sister was in control, she towered over him. Plus, watching the power shift between them was quite intriguing.

 

As with the BoarsHead production, the concluding minutes also failed to work – but for a different reason. Since we were already aware that Barbara’s Sister A. had her doubts, the revealing moment was slightly more believable, but it lost its punch. It became an ending in search of a conclusion.

 

 

PERFORMANCE NETWORK:

 

John Seibert’s interpretation of DOUBT fell somewhere in-between the other two.

 

His was the production that had both a heart AND a soul to it. His characters were neither good nor bad, black nor white; nor were they caught somewhere in the middle. Rather, they were complex human beings that spanned the full range of human emotions and frailties. And that’s what his actors successfully explored: the many levels of their humanity.

 

Therefore, this was a production filled with “the little things” that communicate a lot: a quick gesture here, a glance there and a subtle change to the vocal qualities; each is designed to convey an important message. Or deliver a clue. And they did!

 

Jan Radcliffe, for example, presented Sister A’s gentler side by softening her voice whenever she talked about the aged nun who keeps falling down. (Her facial expressions changled somewhat, too.) Plus, Jon Bennett’s Father Flynn had some rather interesting moments, too – but I’ll address that tomorrow.

 

And the emotions emanating from Flynn and Sister A. - especially during their final confrontation - were stunning.

 

From a technical perspective, Daniel C. Walker’s magnificent set rivaled that of the BoarsHead’s, as did the lighting design by Janine Woods.

 

But where the Network’s show was significantly better was with Will Myers’ sound design. Sound is often the forgotten technical function, but here it plays an important role, and it was designed and executed almost flawlessly.

 

However, once again the ending didn’t work; Sister’s breakdown didn’t flow naturally or convincingly from what had been established earlier. And just like at the BoarsHead, a few in the audience found it funny.

 

 

SO WHICH OF THE THREE IS MY FAVORITE PRODUCTION OF DOUBT?

 

By a hair – and primarily because of “the little things” that added to the show’s depth – my favorite DOUBT this year was staged by Performance Network Theatre.

 

 

ABOUT THAT ENDING:

I've had several discussions over the last several months with area directors, artistic directors, actors and theater critics about that damn ending - and no one seems to have THE answer about how those final few minutes SHOULD be staged.

Because Sister's revelation comes out of the blue, it appears to some that the playwright inserted it as a "deus ex machina" - an unexpected, unanticipated and artificial plot device - to simply end the show with a bang, despite whether or not it makes sense.

I don't believe that, quite frankly - despite its appearance and my objection to it.

I've been told by more than a few that the Broadway production ended with no tears, no angst, and no organ-swelling, soap opera histrionics. Sister A. simply paused, quietly and thoughtfully revealed that she had doubts, and that was it.

Maybe less IS more...


CONCLUSION:

 

I have no doubts about my decision. But do YOU? Let me know what YOU think.

 

And in the meantime, find out which DOUBT Bridgette liked best by checking out her blog at http://frontrowlansing.blogspot.com/.

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Longtime readers of this blog will recall that I was a bit cranky after the 2007-08 theater seasons were announced and three different productions of DOUBT were among them.

 

It's not that I had anything against the show; my concern was more towards the impact three productions would have on the box office numbers at each individual theater. Because despite conventional wisdom, a recent theater survey proved that there IS audience crossover among the BoarsHead, Detroit Repertory and Performance Network Theatres, and I didn’t want any of them to suffer because of the rather unusual scheduling. (None of them can afford to lose money these days.)

 

And to be totally honest, I wasn’t sure how much I’d have to say once I got to the second and third productions. (It’s tough enough to be fresh and creative when reviewing the same show multiple times across several seasons, but three times in ONE season? YIKES!)

 

So my first thought was to have all three of my critics review one production each. But after giving it some more thought – and after talking with Bridgette Redman at the Lansing State Journal – I decided it COULD be fun reviewing all three productions.

 

And what an understatement that proved to be!

 

Reviewing three DOUBTs this season became an exciting game of “compare and contrast” – and it opened up far more discussions with the theatergoing public, the theater community and my fellow critics than I ever experienced before. Not everyone totally agreed with me, of course – and you probably won’t either. But the exercise sure did give all of us plenty to think about, which I expect is what the playwright was hoping his play would accomplish.

 

Today, Bridgette and I are going to talk about our “all star cast” – that is, if we were mounting a production of DOUBT ourselves using only actors from these three productions, which four would we use.

 

Trust me: That’s not as easy a decision as it seems. And here’s why: All three productions are among the best this season had to offer, not only at the BoarsHead, Detroit Repertory and Performance Network Theatres, but throughout the local industry. So to narrow it down to a “dream team” wasn’t easy, as all 12 actors did a fine job.

 

But certain things each actor did during the course of the opening night performances I reviewed stood out – which either made them a member of the “all star Team” or excluded them from it. And I’ll explain why as I go along. (It should also be noted that Bridgette and I saw only the BoarsHead’s production on the same night, so different performances COULD effect our individual results.)

 

So here goes...

 

MRS MULLER:

 

The nominees are:

Tiffany Denise Mitchenor, BoarsHead Theatre

Janee Ann Smith, Detroit Repertory Theatre

Tammie Harris, Performance Network Theatre

 

I’m starting with this role for a couple of reasons: It was the toughest decision of the four. And I’m STILL conflicted as to which of two actresses I’d cast.

 

Tiffany set the standard right away; the others had to live up to her performance. While most people were afraid to go head-to-head with a Catholic school principal back in the 1960s – especially a stern nun like Sr. Aloysius – Tiffany’s Mrs. Muller was not; she was only looking out for her son’s best interest, and that came through loud and clear.

 

Tammie, I thought, did a very nice job, but it was a little TOO controlled. She wasn’t quite the protective mother bear that Tiffany was.

 

Janee’s performance stood out because of the dynamic between Janee and Barbara Busby (Sr. A.).

 

So which do I choose?

 

I’m torn between Tiffany and Janee, but I’m leaning towards Janee because of an external factor that I observed at the Detroit Rep: the audience. Janee’s performance brought out a very loud response from the audience that surprised me. At first, the audience was audibly stunned – and not in a positive way – by the mother’s lack of outrage to the news that her son was probably molested by Father Flynn. But when they discovered WHY, the audience quickly, vocally and totally supported her position – which ALSO surprised me. And the comments I heard after the show only reinforced what an impact her performance had on so many people in the audience that night. And it was that observation that tipped the scales in a specific direction.

 

SO IN MY ALL-CAST, THE ROLE OF MRS. MULLER WILL BE PLAYED BY: Janee Ann Smith.

 

 

SISTER JAMES:

 

The nominees are:

Amy Fitts, BoarsHead Theatre

Jenny Burleson, Detroit Repertory Theatre

Molly Thomas, Performance Network Theatre

 

This is actually another tough call. And I’ve flip-flopped several times on this one, too.

 

I was leaning towards Molly, as her performance was freshest in my mind. I recall quite vividly how well crafted her performance was; watching her character’s spirit get crushed by Sister A’s vendetta was heart-wrenching.

 

But then I reviewed my notes and recalled the wonderful performance given by Amy. And that did it. It all came flooding back to me.

 

SO IN MY ALL-CAST, THE ROLE OF SISTER JAMES WILL BE PLAYED BY: Amy Fitts.

 

 

SISTER ALOYSIOUS:

 

The nominees are:

Nancy-Elizabeth Kammer, BoarsHead Theatre

Barbara Busby, Detroit Repertory Theatre

Jan Radcliff, Performance Network Theatre

 

Anyone who saw all three DOUBTs had to have been totally blown away by all three actresses playing Sister A. But more importantly, they also observed an important lesson: There’s no one, single way to interpret a role. And what we saw were three very different – and very fine – interpretations that were driven in part by how their directors envisioned the show.

 

Anyone casting the show would be lucky to cast any of these three actresses.

 

BUT IN MY ALL-STAR CAST, THE ROLE OF SISTER ALOYSIOUS WILL BE PLAYED BY: Jan Radcliffe.

 

And here’s why:

 

Nancy, I thought, was a little TOO hard-nosed. As a product of 15 – yes, 15 – years of Catholic school education throughout all of the 1960s and into the ‘70s (12 years plus three in college; I went “public” my freshman year of college), I encountered many a Religious administrator. And while all of them had a tough exterior they used to maintain control and discipline, I also saw their kinder, gentler sides. And even in her private moments, Nancy’s Sister A. never revealed ANY of that.

 

Barb’s Sister A. was tough when she was with other people, but when alone and in her private thoughts, she revealed plenty of doubts. But that caused problems at the end of the show, when the “big reveal” turned out not to be much of a surprise after all.

 

Jan’s performance, however, found the right mix. Yes, she was a pit bull, but every now and then she showed SOME shred of humanity, albeit briefly. In fact, it was a portrayal that reminded me of my grade school principal, who was not-so lovingly called “Bull Dog” by the students. She was a tough old bird, but her personal kindnesses towards me will never be forgotten. And it’s that careful and subtle mix that won her the role in my all-star cast!

 

 

FATHER FLYNN:

 

The nominees are:

 

Michael Joseph Mitchell, BoarsHead Theatre

Ray Schultz, Detroit Repertory Theatre

Jon Bennett, Performance Network

 

This was both the easiest decision of the four, as well as the most difficult (and lengthy, probably) to explain. (And the politically correct among us might try to fry me for it.)

 

Again, all three men are to be applauded for amazing performances. But the differences in their portrayals are even MORE pronounced than for Sister A.

 

Michael’s Flynn was the most carefully shaded. While his character was SEEMINGLY heterosexual, there were a few instances where he “flamed on” – that is, gave a gay slant to some piece of business that he was doing. (That was especially noticeable every time he appeared in church vestments. Most “obviously gay” priests I’ve known over the years LOVED to swirl around in that chasuble.) Not knowing the actor whatsoever, it’s tough to know whether that’s just HIM or his character, but to me it was tell-tale clue that was given us to help determine the priest’s guilt or innocence.

 

Ray, God love him, is one of the finest actors to grace the local stage – but it was clear to probably everyone in the audience that his Flynn was gay. (Watching him with the basketball SHOULD have been the giveaway, if nothing else.)

 

And Jon’s priest was totally, 100% straight. (Plus, he was the only one who was believable as a basketball coach!)

 

So what does the priest’s sexual orientation have to do with my decision on which actor to cast? Everything, quite frankly. Because that directly affects how the audience might view his guilt or innocence at the end of the play.

 

Some people - despite the facts - believe that the majority of child sexual abusers are gay, so to have a gay priest – or even a hint that he’s gay – is enough to make SOME theatergoers automatically believe the priest is guilty of such a deed. But experts know that abusers cover the gamut of sexual orientations. In fact, literature I’ve seen in recent years posit the theory that male molesters of prepubescent boys are primarily men who identify sexually as straight, whereas male molesters of pubescent or post-pubescent boys are primarily men who identify sexually as gay.

 

Therefore, one of the smartest decisions playwright John Patrick Shanley made when crafting his amazing script was to leave the boy, Donald, sight unseen. Although we know he was 12 years old and in eighth grade, we don’t know if he had started puberty yet. And that scrap of missing information makes all the difference in the world; it leaves the priest's sexual orientation pointless with regard to his guilt or innocence. Or at least it SHOULD. (But there's always those haters out there...)

 

So which interpretation do I prefer? Playing the priest totally straight, so as to avoid any possible stereotyping by ignorant audience members.

 

There were other aspects of the performances that I considered, as well, but I’ll leave it at this for now.

 

THEREFORE: IN MY ALL-STAR CAST, THE ROLE OF FATHER FLYNN WILL BE PLAYED BY: Jon Bennett.

 

 

So how did I do? Am I right? Am I an idiot? What do YOU think?

 

To see what Bridgette’s all-star cast looks like, check out her blog at http://frontrowlansing.blogspot.com/.

 

And be back tomorrow when we discuss which overall production we liked best – and why!

 

Today, it begins. Bridgette Redman of the Lansing State Journal and I 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.

So I'll be back later today with Part 1 of our discussion.

And to see what Bridgette has to say, check out her blog at http://frontrowlansing.blogspot.com/.

 

Beginning Tuesday, Bridgette Redman from the Lansing State Journal and I are going to do what we've been threatening to do for months now: blog about the three productions of DOUBT that stormed the state this season.

Both of us have now seen all three shows, and we've been bursting at the seams to start comparing notes.

So we will - both here and on her blog, Front Row at Lansing's Theaters.

It should be a lot of fun, and I hope that you'll not only read us, but you'll JOIN us, too.

See ya Tuesday!

The theater community recently participated in a survey that tried to determine who is attending the theater and where, but I don't recall anyone ever trying to figure out who all the artists are and in what disciplines they participate.

Until now, that is.

Beginning April 1, Ann Arbor-based Arts Alliance will launch an Artists' Census that will try to figure out how many artists there are living and working in Washtenaw County. The survey includes ALL disciplines - performing arts, visual arts and literary arts. And there's nothing that limits the survey-taker's age, training or experience. Professionals and amateurs alike are encouraged to participate.

The only criteria is this: You must either LIVE in Washtenaw County or PRACTICE YOUR ART in Washtenaw County to complete the survey. That's it.

I met with Arts Alliance marketing director Angela Martin-Barcelona a few weeks back to discuss the survey (among a whole laundry list of topics) and we talked  about why artists should participate. For one thing, it will help identify the number of artists within the county by discipline. And it will allow Arts Alliance to create new and innovative - and probably much needed - programs and services to help these artists succeed in their work.

But Arts Alliance can't do that if it don't know who the artists are, in what disciplines they work and how to reach them.

Which is ANOTHER important aspect of the survey. Artists often are solo creatures who toil away at their craft with little interaction with others.  The survey, Arts Alliance hopes, will help bring together artists from around the county who can then share their experiences with one another. (It's called networking, something that could prove very useful to artists who don't know many other like-minded souls in the community.)

So if you're a poet, a technical writer, a comic book artist, a lighting designer, an actor, a short story writer, a playwright - Joe Z, are you reading this? - a filmmaker, a dancer, a sculptor, a banjo player or someone who participates in any of the other hundreds or thousands of arts-related disciplines  who live or work in Washtenaw County, please participate in the survey.

And if you do, you just might win a prize if you answer the bonus question correctly!

The survey begins April 1 and runs through May 17 - and it won't take more than two or three minutes to complete. (It contains only 10 questions, plus the bonus question.)

The survey will be available online beginning April 1 at www.artscount.org.  Hard-copy versions will be located at libraries and other creative venues throughout the county.

If you meet the criteria, please fill out the survey - and here's MY reason why you should: The creative community is often scoffed at by politicians and business leaders who don't understand the financial impact we have on our state and local communities. And worse, they seem to think we're nothing but drains on the public coffers who want "free money" for all sorts of fanciful things that no one wants or needs except for the privileged few.

But consider this, as revealed in a recent study released by Arts Alliance: In Washtenaw County alone, arts and cultural organizations generated over 2,600 jobs and almost $57 million in household income in 2002, with a TOTAL economic  impact of $165 million, resulting in $2.8 million in local government revenue and $5.2 million in state revenue. (In other words, taxes!)

That's not chump change.

So it's about time we stand up and be counted.  And we'll have only ourselves to blame if we don't. (Remember, it's the squeaky wheel that our government leaders respond to. And the more of us they know exist, the more likely they are to listen to us.

One night several days ago as I watching Detroit's Fox 2 News at 10 p.m., one of those "breaking news stories" came on. I don't recall WHAT the story was about other than I THINK it was some act of violence within the city, and one of the reporters was on the scene. ( I'm not even sure which reporter it was: Andrea Isom? Taryn Asher?)

No, what I recall quite vividly is what was directly BEHIND the reporter throughout the entire news segment: one of the Hilberry Theatre's new billboards!

The segment began with a live "chat," followed by a pre-recorded cut-away, followed again by a live "chat" that included some back-and-forth with the anchor in the studio.  But for the entire live segment, boldly displayed in big white-ish letters directly above the reporter's head was hilberry.com. 

Only a very tiny fraction of the billboard was visible; mostly just the Web address.

Did many OTHER viewers notice this?  Were they curious about it? Did they RECOGNIZE it?

And I wonder if ANYONE logged on to their Web site as a result of seeing it during that broadcast (and possible re-broadcasts)?

I guess it's one of those things we'll never know...

For some reason, March seems to be a month of very few openings at our professional theaters. I suspect that's because pretty much EVERYONE opened a show in February, and those shows are continuing through at least a part of March. April, however, will see another explosion in the number of openings.

But then I got thinking: As I was updating my calendar that I use to track upcoming shows for my Theater Events column, March as a whole - when you include community theater and collegiate shows - seemed a little sparse this year for some reason. So I went back a few years to compare. And here's what I discovered:

MARCH 2006: Total # of show openings: 57; # of shows to review: 14 (two of which were actually reviewed in April)
MARCH 2007: Total # of show openings: 56; # of shows to review: 8 (two of which were actually reviewed in April)
MARCH 2008: Total # of show openings: 46; # of shows to review: 7 (one of which will be reviewed in April)

As you can see, there is indeed an approximate 18% drop in shows this year - which is rather significant.

So I took a look at last year's calendar to see if I could figure out the cause. Okay, one theater - Buckham Alley in Flint - lost its space and is on somewhat of a hiatus at the moment, and Heartlande isn't producing shows right now.  But everyone else on the calendar last year is STILL producing shows THIS year. Therefore, theater closures aren't the problem.

Have SOME theaters reduced the number of productions they stage? Or is it just a scheduling oddity this year?

Does anyone have an answer?

Something rather unusual was happening over the past two weeks: Theater professionals all over the Detroit/Ann Arbor area were talking about one particular show, and they had nothing but positive things to say about it. In fact, since I hadn't reviewed it - Bob Bethune got that particular assignment - several area professionals encouraged me to make time to see it. (That doesn't happen very often, I might add.)

So I did, last night. (Yes, my butt was parked in yet another theater on my night off. But mine wasn't the only one, as Kate Peckham of Detroit's Mosaic Theatre and actor Kevin Young, who will soon be seen starring opposite Robert Grossman in Exits and Entrances at Performance Network, were also in attendance.)

And I'm glad I did. Because BUG at The Ringwald Theatre in fabulous Ferndale was one heck of a night of theater!

One aspect of the show that I kept hearing about was how impressed industry professionals were with Joe Plambeck's direction.  And I concur. It's a very intense script populated by some very troubled people, and Joe2 (as he's called, since his partner Joe Bailey serves as the theater's artistic director) has pulled some amazing performances out of his actors. Plus, he's found ALL of the script's emotional beats and develops them quite well. The end result will make you glad YOUR life isn't as buggy as these characters' lives are. (And the show's bloodiness made one of my friends remark afterward that he probably wouldn't be ordering spaghetti at Maria's Front Room where we went for a late-night dinner.)

Another comment I heard a handful of times from area thespians was how well Joe2 utilized the small, intimate space. (Don't expect big or fancy sets. The show's power and focus will keep you riveted where it should be: on the actors.) 

So if you're inclined to check out BUG, you'd better hurry: It closes this Monday night (March 10).

With so many shows opening throughout the month of February, we've got only six reviews scheduled so far for the month of March - and none this weekend. So what that means is that we can switch gears a little and publish previews of upcoming events rather than reviews.

Personally, I LOVE doing previews. It's always fun to sit down and chat with people about their projects. And readers seem to respond well to them, too.

But which do they prefer? Previews or reviews?

Over the years I've surveyed local theater executives and their PR folks and asked which THEY prefer. And each time, the results are always the same: it's a 50/50 split. (And the comment I get back most often is equally as helpful: "We don't care which; just give us SOME publicity.")

So if YOU were the king or queen of the world, which would YOU prefer? Should we print more reviews? More previews? A 50/50 mix? And WHY?

Well, THAT was a fine way to end a night of theater!

Last night's drive home from Ann Arbor was a nightmare. Not just because of the snow that was rapidly falling and slickening up the pavement.  It was the idiot drivers sailing past me at high rates of speed and dodging in and out of traffic on M-14 that was the truly scary part.

For the most of my 33-mile drive, traffic was moving at about 35 miles-per-hour and in single file, since no one could figure out where the lanes were. So a long row of cars decided to leave it up to a semi driver who seemed to know the road quite well. But sure enough, flying past us were plenty of idiots in their SUVs, pick-up trucks and really old cars that you KNEW had to be riding on tread-bare tires.

And while that's nothing new, it DID surprise me - only because at one point, several cars and trucks had slipped off the road, which to ME signalled that the roads were way too treacherous to go much faster than at a turtle's pace. But no, these idiots didn't even slow down. (And I secretly wished I'd later pass THEM on the side of the road, too. And who knows: Maybe I did, because there were plenty more cars in the ditch as I continued on my way.)

So rather than  my usual 32 minute ride, it took me nearly an hour. But that's okay - because I made it home safely, white knuckles and all!

As I was uploading content onto EncoreMichigan.com this past Thursday evening I noticed a mistake on one of the show listings that had been on the calendar for a few weeks. Somehow I had misspelled the show title Mamma Mia! and never noticed it. I was surprised that SOMEONE hadn't brought it to my attention, but I quickly changed it and moved on to another project.

Then on Friday I checked my e-mail and found a short note from a local publicist asking me to correct the misspelled title.

I did, I thought. But I went back and checked to be sure, and the calendar was indeed correct. So then I figured I'd better check ALL of the spots on the site where the show appears, and sure enough, schizophrenic Don had it spelled correctly in half of the appearances and wrong in the other half. (I wasn't alone in my error. One of our freelancers did the same thing, and I never caught it. And the woman who e-mailed me admitted she's done the same thing.)

"Mama mia!" I thought - which happens to be the name of a favorite restaurant of mine, by the way, which MIGHT explain my confusion. (Yeah, right! That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!) So I immediately corrected all of the errors and vowed never to do it again.

To be honest, I was more concerned about making sure that the damn exclamation point always appeared in the title that I never thought to check the spelling of the word mamma. (It's amazing, the things we have to look out for when we're putting together listings, previews and reviews!)

So to everyone who thought we're idiots for not knowing how to spell the name of a very popular musical, we apologize. It wasn't the best way to launch EncoreMichigan.com - with a major boo-boo - but we'll work towards avoiding such errors again in the future.

(But it DID get me wondering: How many OTHER people saw it and - like me - never noticed the error?)

A few weeks back Linda Rabin Hammell invited Laura and Marty Kohn (the recently-retired theater critic for The Detroit Press) and myself to a table reading of a new script written by Ann Arbor playwright Lizzi Brent.  So last evening, the three of us joined about a dozen or so others at the A2 Downtown Library for a very enjoyable session that I hope proved fruitful for the playwright.

For those readers who don't know what a table reading is, it's when a playwright assembles a group of actors to read aloud a script-in-progress in front of an audience so that a couple of things can happen: (1) The playwright can hear it out loud, possibly for the first time, so that he or she can determine how "natural" the dialogue sounds; and (2) the playwright can get feedback from the audience that will help determine what in the script, if anything, needs more work. (For example, existing dialogue might not make it clear what the relationships are among the various characters, or a plot device in a drama might be too hokey for an audience to accept without breaking out into fits of laughter.) It's a wonderful tool for the playwright - if he or she is open to critical comments from a bunch of people who may or may not know what the heck they are talking about.

It's an event filled with tension for the playwright, who shouldn't take any of the comments as a personal attack. After all, countless hours and many sleepless nights have been spent working on the script, and chances are, the playwright is very much love with pretty much every word he or she has written. And no parent wants to hear what's wrong with their young ones!

Last night's table reading went very well, I thought. Lizzi - whom I'd never met before - seemed to take all our comments quite well, although I suspect she disagreed with a few of them. (So did I, though, too.) Many, however, I suspect we'll see in the version of the script that's ultimately produced. (A handful of local theaters are currently considering it for a future staged reading or full production.)

The script, currently titled The Strawberry & The Kaiser, details the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his youngest daughter, Anna. I won't say much more than that, but it's a fascinating subject told fairly well. Her research into the subject was extensive - something I asked at the beginning of the talk-back session - and impressive. (I've been told Lizzi has a Ph.D. in film and culture, and it shows through her thoroughness!)

All told, I'd say the script is about 80% where it needs to be for its first professional production. And as Marty said afterwards, I'd go see it again.

Especially if Marty Smith plays Sigmund. His reading of the character last night was damn good, and I hope whoever produces the show locally hires him for role. I can only imagine how good he'll be with just a little rehearsal...