Confessions of a Cranky Critic

SO: WHAT ABOUT THAT NUDITY...

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:45:50 GMT

In my last post, I discussed a controversy that was sparked in Chicago earlier this year when the About Face Theatre decided - for whatever reason - to ignore a very specific direction from the playwright that requires two male actors in a particular scene to be nude. Douglas Carter Beane, the author of "The Little Dog Laughed," was none too happy about the change, and the production was nearly shut down because of it.

The question I posed in my last post was theoretical: Was the director within his rights to make the change, given that Beane's stage direction is quite clear on the matter?

Guy Sanville, artistic director of The Purple Rose Theatre Company, posted a very insightful reply - check it out below if you haven't read it - in which he concluded with a very important question: "Do they actually have to be naked, or does the audience have to believe they are?"

So rather than answer with yet another theoretical response, I waited until after I reviewed "The Little Dog Laughed" at Ann Arbor's Performance Network Theatre. And now that I've seen the show, here's my real-world reply:

Yes, they have to be naked in this particular scene - and here's why.

In "Little Dog," Mitchell Green is a closeted, up-and-coming actor who's up for a major role in a new movie in which he'd "play gay." His public persona is that of a handsome, suave and very heterosexual young man - which is what the moviegoing public seems to want in such roles - but what he hides from public view is his taste for male prostitutes. Along comes Alex into his life - a young and adorable hustler who arrives at Mitchell's hotel room expecting nothing more than a night of paid sex. But that doesn't happen; Mitchell is too drunk to stay awake, so Alex collects his fee without having to earn it - and lifts from the sleeping actor's pockets a few extra "goodies" as his tip.

However, there's a strong attraction between the two from the moment they meet. And while neither man identifies himself as gay - Alex has a girlfriend and says he works in the field simply to pay his bills - a relationship quickly develops between them.

As written by Beane - and exceptionally well-staged by Ray Schultz and perfectly executed by actors Barton Bund and Jacob Hodgson - the budding relationship is at first sex-free, but the electricity and tension between them builds quickly. Finally, they toss caution to the wind and give in to their passion.

Now think about it: You're young, you're horny, and you've got a major league case of the hots for someone. The pent-up emotions have been building over the past couple of get-togethers, and when they finally erupt into a physical coupling, do YOU keep your underwear on?

Nope. I didn't think so.

But that's not all.

Here we have two men who profess to be straight - who are now face-to-face, filled with lust and love for one another. To keep their undies on at such a pivotal, life-changing moment is to cheat the playwright, the actors and the audience out of a very powerful moment when the two strip away not only their clothes, but their pretenses. Their nakedness not only reveals their private parts, but also their willingness to stand before each other and admit to themselves and to one another that they are indeed gay men. Their secrets stand revealed as their shame drops away.

So keeping their underwear on robs them - and us - of the scene's important lesson. Its significance gets lost - which means it then becomes simply about the sex.

If you were the author whose work was screwed with in this way, wouldn't YOU wage war over it, too?

I would.

DECISIONS, DECISIONS - AND THEIR ARTISTIC & MORAL RAMIFICATIONS

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:27:33 GMT

As I was doing some research for my preview of The Little Dog Laughed at Performance Network Theatre yesterday, I came across a discussion that merits further exploration. Which means this: I'd like to know what YOU would do if you found yourself in a similar situation.

First, the background:

Earlier this year, the About Face Theatre in Chicago staged the area premiere of The Little Dog Laughed, but director Eric Rosen chose to ignore playwright Douglas Carter Beane's very specific stage direction that the two male characters are to be nude at a certain point in the story. Instead, he had them in their underwear. When Beane attended the opening night performance at the theater's request, he was so upset about what he viewed as a significant altering of his work that he threatened to pull the rights to the show. (Beane also claimed a few lines of dialogue were altered to reflect the lack of nudity, which Rosen neither confirms nor denies.) Dramatists Play Service and attorneys intervened - and the play continued, with the actors still in their undies and a note from the director sent to the media that explains the dust-up.

Each side in the dispute has its own version of the facts, of course - and my goal here is not to take sides in this particular case. Or to debate the facts. Rather, I'd like to have a philosophical debate - one which I'm sure actors, directors and playwrights struggle with all the time, but not in public.

Until now.

Personally, I find it odd that a celebrated LGBT (gay) theater would choose to produce a play that requires male nudity - and then opt to ignore the nudity.

Director Rosen DID have a point, however, when he (supposedly) explained why he chose to have the two men in their underwear rather than naked in the disputed love-making scene: If these two guys were really so in to each other, wouldn't they be sexually aroused (which would, in many places, be against the law to show)? Hence, two flaccid penises would take the audience "out of the moment." Therefore, leaving them in their underwear would allow audience members to visualize for themselves what was happening underneath the BVDs.

But was that within his rights to change - given that Beane's stage direction is quite clear on the matter?

Or, as Barton Bund (who plays one of the two men in the Network production) says in my preview, "Pick another play if you don't want to do (the nudity)."

So: What do YOU think?

* * * * * *

You can read more of the debate by following these links:

http://www.timeout.com/chicago/articles/theater/26368/nude-descending-a-copyright-case

http://www.playbill.com/news/article/114892.html

http://leisureblogs.chicagotribune.com/the_theater_loop/2008/02/no-new-nudity-a.html

http://www26.learn-japan.org/kk/aHR0cDovL3N0b3JlZnJvbnRyZWJlbGxpb24udHlwZXBhZC5jb20vYmxvZy8yMDA4LzAyL2Fib3V0LWFib3V0LWZhYy5odG1s.html

THE TWINS HAVE ARRIVED

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 19:28:25 GMT

Former Oakland Press theater critic Judith Cookis Rubens and her husband Brandon aren't getting much sleep these days, as they've welcomed into their hearts and home twin sons Zachary Hayden and Nicholas Henry. The boys were born May 29. Zachary made his debut first at 6 pounds, 10 ounces; Nicholas followed a minute later at 6 pounds, 6 ounces. Both are healthy and happy.

Congratulations to Judith and Brandon. May you each get an hour of shut-eye sometime in the next 18 years! ;)

A THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION ON THEATER CRITICISM

Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:41:03 GMT

Actor/playwright Jake Christensen has written a very interesting commentary on theater criticism that was posted today on EncoreMichigan.com. Check it out at http://www.encoremichigan.com/article.html?article=358.

And then please add YOUR comments either there or here.

Jake's subject has actually been a topic of conversation between and among a few of my peers in recent months, but I'll add my two-cents worth to the discussion later. Except for this: He couldn't have been more on target with the statement: "Critics often want feedback and are disappointed if they don't get any."

Actually, it's rare to get ANY feedback whatsover, so most of my peers and I got over being disappointed a long time ago. We simply don't expect any, except for the occasional rant from a disgruntled spouse or family member of a supposedly aggrieved actor who was mentioned unfavorably in a review. (Another rare, but common missive usually comes from someone peripherally connected to a play that's received a less-than-stellar review, the contents of which could never be printed in a family newspaper.) Then there's the occasional threats to pull ads from the offending publication that producers sometimes try. But thoughtful comments about our work - positive or negative? Those are very rare indeed.

(However, I DO get the occasional e-mail notifying me when there's the occasional error in my [or my team's] work, and those I really appreciate. It least it proves that SOMEONE is reading our stuff - and cares enough to call our attention to our mistakes!)

SO...WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THAT FRINGE IDEA?

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:04:54 GMT

Back in late 2006 and into 2007, a movement began to investigate the possibility of staging a theater festival in Metro Detroit. What started out as a gay and lesbian theater festival quickly morphed into establishing the region's first official fringe festival along the lines of the world's great fringe festivals, and plans were put into place to affiliate with the Canadian Association of Fringe Festivals for a spectacular event that would take place in June 2008.

A new non-profit corporation was created to manage the event, and a small board of directors began to do whatever boards do to grow their organization.

And the project imploded almost immediately thereafter.

Why that happened isn't important. But two later attempts to resurrect the concept have now suffered the same fate.

Meanwhile, the first Windsor International Fringe Festival is scheduled for mid July 2008. (Watch www.EncoreMichigan.com for complete details.)

Personally, I think it would be really cool if NEXT summer, SOMEONE could pull off a cross-border International fringe festival.

But is that possible? (Windsor's producer has offered to assist in the development of a Michigan fringe.)

And is there an existing non-profit that would step up and assume responsibility for such a venture? (That's what happened in Windsor: The producing organization is the Actors Theatre of Windsor, a professional theater founded in January 2006. And I suspect that might be the best route for Michigan to pull this off, as well.)

Any thoughts?

MEA CULPA: ONLINE CONFUSION WITH THE WILDE AWARDS

Thu, 29 May 2008 14:54:30 GMT

It took awhile to get the 2008 Wilde Awards nominations online yesterday, but they're there. So if you haven't already checked them out, click here and you'll be directed to EncoreMichigan.com where they can be found: http://www.encoremichigan.com/

One reason it took so long was that after spending quite a while HTML tagging the list for use on the Web, we discovered that the Firefox browser interpreted every single quotation mark and dash as a question mark. So I had to go back and change hundreds of items - and that drove me nuts!

But in the process, I also made an error that prompted some confusion in the theater industry.

During the tagging process I cut and pasted some HTML commands related to formatting the category titles, and then forgot to remove the word COMEDY from the Best Supporting Actor category. So bright and early this morning I found several e-mails asking where the category was for DRAMA.

At first, I didn't understand the question, since the PDF version of the nominations I looked at doesn't duplicate the title error. But after thinking about how I tagged the document, I thought I'd better check the Web version of the list - and there it was! OOPS!

So the error's been fixed. And a big thanks to all those who sent me a quick note that prompted the correction! That's team work!

But...that leads me to a question that I'd like get your opinion on.

The original categories we planned to use for this year's Wilde Awards were somewhat different, and we went back to last year's (with a couple of exceptions) only a few weeks back when we encountered some difficulties in making them work.

However, we DO plan on changing the categories a bit for NEXT year. And here's what I'm proposing:

Rather than have separate categories for LEAD and SUPPORTING roles, how about just having an "OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE" category?

Why, you might be asking yourself? Because oftentimes it's difficult to determine just who's the lead and who's supporting. (That's especially true of the improv comedies.)

But here's the real reason: Why not just honor the BEST performances - whether you're on stage for five minutes or five hours? Some performances simply stand out "just because" - and not because of whether or not they are the play's main focus. (Let's be honest: Sometimes the best performances ARE given by the supporting actors.)

Won't this cutback on the number of awards, you're probably thinking? Sure - at least as far as the "published " awards are concerned. That leaves us room to move some of the un-trophied Wilde(r) Awards up to the status of surprise "trophied" awards, for example.

Plus, we plan to make a major announcement at this year's awards that will result in MORE acknowledgements, not less. (I can be such a tease, can't I!)

For now, however, this is what we're thinking for next year's official performance-based categories:

Outstanding Performance by an Actor - COMEDY
Outstanding Performance by an Actor - DRAMA
Outstanding Performance by an Actor - MUSICAL / OPERA
Outstanding Performance by an Actor - ORIGINAL / IMPROV
Outstanding Performance by an Actor - LGBT THEMES

Outstanding Performance by an Actress - COMEDY
Outstanding Performance by an Actress - DRAMA
Outstanding Performance by an Actress - MUSICAL / OPERA
Outstanding Performance by an Actress - ORIGINAL / IMPROV
Outstanding Performance by an Actress - LGBT THEMES

Best Duo or Team in a Local Professional Production

Your reaction?

OH, THOSE RASCALLY IMPROVISERS...

Thu, 22 May 2008 18:25:36 GMT

As I was sitting in front of my computer this afternoon working on next week's Curtain Calls column, an e-mail popped in to my mailbox that attracted my attention. It was from local improviser Kathryn Thomas, and she talked about a short film that she and John Hartman shot last summer.

John had mentioned it to me before he moved to Chicago recently, but to be honest, I'd forgotten all about it. The completed film has been submitted to various festivals around the country, and the preview is currently posted on the LA Shorts Fest "Top Films" page. Whether its actually IN the festival isn't known yet, but Katie is asking everyone to go to the site, view their preview and give it a rating. (It could help sway the festival to schedule the film if it hasn't already done so.)

I checked it out and laughed - although I'm not sure whether it was because of the many other local improvisers who appear in it or the material itself. But Nancy Hayden gets plenty of camera time along with Katie and John, and her performance and theirs make we want to see it.

So check it out. Give it a rating if you're so inspired. And maybe we'll see the entire film at this year's Planet Ant Film Festival. (It has been submitted there, I hope!)

Here's the link: http://lashortsfest.com/video_player.asp?videoid=371

ONLY ONE WEEK LEFT UNTIL...

Wed, 21 May 2008 19:17:28 GMT

It hardly seems possible, but next week we'll be announcing nominations for The 2008 Wilde Awards. I assembled the comments we wrote on the scorecards we prepare after each performance we review, and then Bob, Dave and I got together last week via e-mails, phone calls and an excellent lunch at the Milford House to work out this year's list. Undoubtedly, it was a tough call to make in many instances - but we did it.

Since this year is Between The Lines' 15th anniversary - and The Wilde Awards is the last major event of the paper's year-long celebration - we're hoping to make the 2008 ceremony even more memorable. And more fun - if that's possible.

So watch BTL, pridesource.com and www.EncoreMichigan.com for both the nominations and all the details about this year's event.

CONGRATS!

Sat, 17 May 2008 22:32:30 GMT

Congratulations to Ann Arbor News theater critic Jenn McKee and her husband Joe Grekin on the birth of their daughter Lily Alexa. She made her grand entrance this past Wednesday at 7 lbs., 13 ounces, and 21.3 inches long.

Both mom and daughter are doing fine - despite the fact that the baby waited an extra week for her cue. Dad is okay, too!

Jenn will be staying out of the Washtenaw County theaters for the next few months, but she'll be back just in time for the fall season to begin. Her timing couldn't have been any better!

IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR AGAIN!

Fri, 09 May 2008 17:50:45 GMT

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.

FILM PERKS

Thu, 08 May 2008 15:22:43 GMT

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?

TO DOUBT OR NOT TO DOUBT...

Mon, 05 May 2008 00:46:58 GMT

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?

WHY EDITORS GO BALD

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:04:11 GMT

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?

GETTING TO THE POINT

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:58:57 GMT

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!

SPACED OUT

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:38:50 GMT

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...

TRANSCRIPT OF LIVE CHAT: THREE DOUBTS ARE BETTER THAN ONE

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:22:47 GMT

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!

SO: DID HE DO IT?

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:54:33 GMT

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.

MY FAVORITE DOUBT

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:29:01 GMT

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/.

THREE DOUBTS ARE BETTER THAN ONE

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:56:11 GMT

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!

UNDOUBTEDLY: IT'S TUESDAY...

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:57:02 GMT

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/.