Maybe one of the differences between a blog entry and an essay is that an essay should be a shapely, elegant composition.  With, you know, a structure, a build. The final sentence should give the reader a sense of arriving at a destination. A blog–as I see it–can be jottings of things that occur to you without much development or elaboration.

So here are a couple of things that occur to me about this season:

Shakespeare. In Be More Chill, a high school is putting on a post-apocalyptic adaptation of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. In Tootsie, the project Dorothy Michaels is cast in is a sequel to Romeo and Juliet. Gary is a sequel to Titus Andronicus. I have still to see Tootsie and Gary (I’ve heard good things about both), but do you think maybe, after this season, we can give the fucking around with Shakespeare joke a rest for a little while?  (Notice that I’m not mentioning Kiss Me, Kate because it’s a revival.)

Lanford Wilson’s Burn This and Terrence McNally’s Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune. An emotionally-withdrawn woman finds herself besieged by a volcanically emotional guy who can cook and they have great sex while the woman tries to figure out what she really wants. Both plays. They both premiered in 1987, they both were revived in 2002, and now both are playing on Broadway. I must say I was especially moved by the note in the Burn This program by McNally.

If this were an essay I would go on. It’s not an essay.

Posted in Broadway, off-Broadway, playwriting, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bad Behavior

Richard in Richard III is intended to be a villain. Shakespeare paints him as evil on legs. And yet, we get impatient when he’s off the stage. Clarence has a long speech filled with poetry. Yes, yes, beautiful, but could you wrap it up and bring the monstrous brother on again? Richard’s treatment of the women in the play? Appalling. And clearly Shakespeare expected the perverse members of the audience to enjoy it. Richard seduces Anne, the widow of a man he has killed. Once she is gone, he marvels at how credulous she is. “Was ever woman in this humor wooed?/Was ever woman in this humor won?” The audience usually laughs.

The audience frequently laughs with Iago, too. I remember seeing a production of Othello with Christopher Walken in the role. Walken quickly made common cause with the audience as if to say, “The rules these others are playing by are so square. We’re hipper than that, aren’t we? We’re modern.” On some level, he suggested that Othello and Desdemona deserve what they get because they believe in such dated crap as fidelity and honor. Again appalling. But how many times have you see a production in which Iago hasn’t run off with the evening?

One of my favorite Restoration comedies is William Congreve’s The Double-Dealer, which begins (like Richard III) with the villain, the well-named Maskwell, addressing the audience with a frank confession of his villainy and his intention to screw over everybody in the play. Ultimately he is thwarted, but he has a long run of doing damage to the more virtuous people onstage, and his hypocrisy and cynicism are both horrifyng and funny. And appalling yet again.

Taking this to modern drama, we have Stanley in Tennessee Williams’s A Streetcar Named Desire. One of the things that reportedly dismayed Marlon Brando and Jessica Tandy was that some in the audience quite evidently were on Stanley’s side in taking down Blanche. John Osborne took it a step farther. When he wrote what I believe is his response to Streetcar, Look Back in Anger, he clearly meant for our sympathies to be with the abusive Jimmy Porter. Yes, he behaves badly, but underneath he is honest, sensitive, and that makes up for so many petty failings.  Right?

A few dramatists took early shots at these guys.  The Wheelhouse Theater company recently revived Kurt Vonnegut’s play, Happy Birthday, Wanda June, which was an attack on the Hemingway model of masculinity. The original production in 1970 did well enough (well enough to be made into an obscure film starring Rod Steiger) but the play itself was largely forgotten until Wheelhouse gave it an efficient staging. I have always found the script to be a little too self-conscious, but there’s no denying that Vonnegut was early to arrive at laughing at this kind of guy rather than with him. Another notable critique of the rogue male came a year later c/o Jules Feiffer’s script for the 1971 film Carnal Knowledge (it was originally written as a play; director Mike Nichols decided to take it straight to the screen), in which that cinematic personification of the rogue male, Jack Nicholson, ultimately can only get it up in the last scene if the hooker played by Rita Moreno engages him in fantasy games.

I find it intriguing that 48 years later, Feiffer’s daughter, Halley, has created her own spin on the rogue male and why a smart woman (one who writes for The New Yorker!) would fall for him in a play called The Pain of My Own Belligerence. (I note that Halley’s gifted mother, Jenny Allen, actually does write for The New Yorker.) The character Hamish Linklater plays, Guy, is even more radioactively alarming than the one Nicholson played, openly copping to his own sociopathology. Halley stars as Cat, the target of Guy’s attentions. The first of the play’s three scenes is a marvel of writing and playing, a dance of advances, retreats, mock punches and real bites. Clearly, Halley doesn’t think much progress has been made in the half century since her father first explored the topic. (The rest of the play is also strong, if a shade less intense.)

There are a few non-toxic men onstage this season. Atticus Finch, for one (in Aaron Sorkin’s adaptation of Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird). Give me a few minutes and I probably can come up with a few others. OK, I liked some of the guys in Jez Butterworth’s The Ferryman (though the villain is a nasty piece of work). As for the two leading sort-of sympathetic male figures in the stage adaptation of Paddy Chayefsky’s Network, one is a raving lunatic and the other is pathetically chasing his fading youth in an adulterous affair.

The truth is, we seem to be at a point when figures of masculine virtue in serious drama are pretty rare. The husband of the character Tyne Daly played in Theresa Rebeck’s Downstairs is a menacing brute. The head of the halfway house in which Marin Ireland’s character takes shelter in Abby Rosebrock’s Blue Ridge is a hypocrite abusing his position of authority. The rich art collector played by Alan Cumming in Jeremy O. Harris’s Daddy is a charming predator. And the people responsible for the faltering organizing document of our country, as described in Heidi Schreck’s What the Constitution Means to Me, were a batch of propertied white guys who owned slaves. (I have still to see the stage versions of Rupert Murdoch and Bill Clinton in Ink and Hillary and Clinton.)

Hell, even the title character in Tim Blake Nelson’s Socrates–a classic heroic figure if there ever was one–is oblivious to the needs of his wife and family.

But maybe all of this isn’t surprising given the unappetizing lump in the Oval Office. Ya think?

Posted in Broadway, drama, film adaptation, New York, off-Broadway, playwriting, theater, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Wandering Through History

Sometimes I think of the past as a huge black box, and any time you read a book of history or a biography or a historical novel it’s like shining a concentrated beam of light through that darkness, briefly bringing to light what is in its path. Other beams may come from a movie or play or TV series.

Lately I have been having fun reading simultaneously two books that take place within years of each other. Meyer Levin’s novel, The Old Bunch, concerns a group of Jewish kids growing up on Chicago’s west side in the Twenties and facing early adulthood in the Thirties. I’ve also been reading Upton Sinclair’s Lanny Budd stories, a series of 11 novels concerning the illegitimate son of a New England munitions manufacturer who is raised in Europe by his free-spirited mother and, because he becomes an art dealer, has access to many of the leading political and cultural figures of the time. In the book I’m reading now, A World to Win, Lanny is continuing to pretend to vaguely right-wing sympathies so that he can report back to FDR what is going on in those circles. In The Old Bunch, the characters talk about what an anti-Semitic bastard Henry Ford is (Ford was still very much alive when the book came out); in World, Lanny meets Ford to take his measure for FDR. In The Old Bunch, the gang deals with the effects of the Depression on their personal lives and businesses. In the Lanny Budd books, Sinclair offers a view of how the Depression disrupts Europe and hastens WWII.

These books can’t help but bounce off my memory of Voices of Protest, Alan Brinkley’s double portrait of Father Coughlin and Huey Long. (Lanny meets Coughlin in one of Sinclair’s novels.) And, of course, reading about Coughlin and Long can’t help but remind me of the thug in the White House, who similarly used populism to accrue power. (Long may have ultimately been something of a gangster, but you have to credit him with having built schools, hospitals and roads that brought Louisiana into the twentieth century. A crook, yes, but he left a legacy of having done more of value than most of the other southern governors.)

Netflix has also been offering some unconventional views of history. I am a big fan of Babylon Berlin, a German series set in Berlin in 1929 which throws together Stalinists, Trotskyites, gangsters and the early stirrings of the Nazis to make an intoxicatingly toxic brew. Since most of Berlin was destroyed during WWII, the show is a recreation of the city that had to be researched in old books, newsreels and photos. (I wrote a play at the end of the war called Berlin ‘45. When I thought vaguely of flying over to look around, a friend familiar with the town said, “Why? You won’t see anything there left of the world you’re writing about.”) It’s a world Lanny would have known well. In fact, when in Berlin Lanny usually stays in the Hotel Adlon, which I could picture with some specificity having seen a very good German 2016 miniseries (available on Amazon streaming) called, yes, Hotel Adlon.

Another Netflix offering I’ve started watching is a new British series called Traitors. It is about a young woman with Tory sympathies (played by Emma Appleton) who is manipulated into spying on the British government for a rogue American agent (Michael Stuhlbarg). The story has its share of intrigue and murders, but I’m most taken with the vivid picture of post-war Britain, particularly the split between the Tories–shocked that Winston Churchill was thrown out of office as the war was ending–and Labour supporters, the non-aristocratic people who hope postwar politics will actually do something by way of housing, education and health. These impressions in turn link up with the comedies Ealing Studios put up which focused on how a lot of the common people copes with scarcity and change.

And then I start thinking about John Osborne and Jimmy Porter and Suez and the arrival of the Beyond the Fringe gang and John le Carré and the Beatles and … The associations don’t end.  The various stories insist on chattering in an endless dialogue in my head.

Posted in film adaptation, movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Icons of the Fifties–Bruce and Holliday

On successive nights I saw shows about two entertainment icons of the 1950s. Neither quite worked, but seeing them in succession triggered a few thoughts.

I’m Not a Comedian…I’m Lenny Bruce is by Ronnie Marmo and features him as the groundbreaking comic, and Smart Blonde by Willy Holtzman is a 90-minute survey of the life of Judy Holliday. What struck me about them is they were both Jewish entertainers who changed their names (from Schneider and Tuvim, respectively), came into conflict with toxic aspects of American society and died young. (Bruce died at 41 in 1966; Holliday died at 43 in 1965.) Bruce had famous battles with law enforcement who kept tossing him into jail for his use of what were then deemed obscenities in his act. Holliday had a scary run-in with the House Committee on Un-America Activities (HUAC) that threatened to damage her career.

Smart Blonde is a bit more effective because, though sketchy, the script makes some attempt to provide a context for her political troubles. I have a hunch, though, that someone not already familiar with Bruce’s story would be puzzled by I’m Not a Comedian and would wonder why this guy was supposed to be a big deal. Marmo does a solid job performing some of the better-known routines, but the society he was rebelling against is barely characterized. Julian Berry’s play Lenny and the film Bob Fosse derived from it surrounded Bruce with representations of the people and the institutions he was challenging. Without something to dramatize the repression he battled, Bruce in Marmo’s play is turned into a shadow-boxer, throwing punches but not connecting with much.

The best part about Smart Blonde is watching Andréa Burns evoke something of the spirit of Judy Holliday. It’s not exactly an impersonation, but it is close enough to provide some of the pleasures those of us who grew with Holliday remember. My Google search offered news that a film version is in the works that would star Annaleigh Ashford, and I bet she’ll be swell, too. Onstage, all the supporting characters are played by three people calling themselves but rarely having the time or material to evoke figures like Harry Cohn, Betty Comden, Adolph Green, Leonard Bernstein and Gerry Mulligan. Presumably the screen will handle this better.

Posted in off-Broadway, theater, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Life Sucks

Once upon a time, when a musical opened on Broadway, it was common for a combo to release an LP (everybody remember what an LP is?) of jazz impressions of the score. Shelley Manne released Jazz Performances of Songs from Li’l Abner. Bobby Hackett released The Swingin’est Gals in Town featuring his takes on songs from Sweet Charity and Mame. And there were uncounted jazz explorations of West Side Story. The songs on these albums were recognizable – the basic tunes and the chords were there – but the tracks offered hip, colloquial transformations garnished with improvisations.

Life Sucks strikes me as the jazz album version of Uncle Vanya. Again, the basic tunes and structure are there, but playwright Aaron Posner has updated and reshaped the material to include meta-theatrical flourishes and contemporary riffs on themes that Chekhov dealt with in the original.

Generally, I get cranky with post-modern messing with the classics. Classics are classic for a reason, and they usually don’t need lesser contemporary talents to attempt to improve them. (Almost any contemporary talent compared to Chekhov is lesser.) But Posner isn’t trying to displace Uncle Vanya (which his actors addressing the audience in a prologue acknowledge is the better play), but engage many of the same concerns Chekhov did embracing contemporary language, which alternates between the frequent use of “fucking” as a modifier with genuinely expressive passages.

The best-known actor here is Austin Pendleton, playing the aging professor. Coming on the heels of his performance in Broadway’s Choir Boy, his off-Broadway direction of A Lovely Sunday for Creve Coeur and an adaptation of Shakespeare’s history plays, I can’t help but wonder if he ever has a moment to himself to draw breath. At any rate, as someone who has watched Pendleton since his days with ACT and the original production of Fiddler on the Roof,  this strikes me as a high point in an astonishing career.

Also striking is Nadia Bowers as Ella, the professor’s wife, and the object of interest by much of the rest of the dramatis personae. At one point, breaking the fourth wall, she attempts to take a poll of how many in the audience would want to sleep with her. This reads more as an expression of her sense of exasperation than a desire to provoke. I prefer Posner’s version of this character to Chekhov’s. Certainly Ella is more assertive and funnier than Yelena, who has always tried my patience a little.

The rest of the cast (mostly people I can’t remember encountering before) is on the very high level Pendleton and Bowers set. Jeff Wise’s direction is among the season’s best.

Life Sucks is produced by the Wheelhouse Theater Company and is running at the Wild Project at 193 East 3rd St.





Posted in Broadway, Chekhov, improvisation, off-Broadway, playwriting, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thoughts on Rosie’s Theater Kids

I accepted an invitation to attend a performance on Sunday of Rosie’s Theater Kids. Rosie is Rosie O’Donnell, who started the organization to introduce theater to kids in the New York area who might otherwise not be exposed to it (many of them children of color). I haven’t researched this in detail, but what started as a program to take a lot of kids to Broadway shows seems to have evolved into a program that brings a lot of kids into rooms with theater-makers to learn about acting, dancing, singing, etc. Some of those who performed and spoke at the Danny and Sylvia Kaye Theater talked about being involved for as much as seven years. Apparently some kids begin in grade school and continue with RT Kids (as it was sometimes referred to) until they graduate high school.

The presentation itself combined kids who clearly were of a professional caliber with kids who were less proficient but no less game. There were a fair number of up-tempo inspirational songs that broke into dance sequences. There were also a monologue, a tap dance for a group to music written in 10/4, and a novelty number – two young women started singing “He’s a Tramp” from Lady and the Tramp and were joined onstage by a large, well-trained dog who made well-timed contributions.

The part of the presentation that impressed me most? Members of the 2019 graduating class stepped forward and spoke of the colleges by which they were accepted and what they hoped to study. One of the commentators said that just about everybody who participates in Rosie’s program graduates high school and goes on to college. If true, it speaks to the value of studying theater in school, and supports the argument that all young people should have some experience collaborating with fellow students in putting on shows.

I am a good target for this kind of thinking since my experience in a high school where theater was important (Evanston Township High School in a Chicago suburb) had a lot to do with my 1) getting through high school with sanity intact and 2) having the confidence to quickly find my way into the professional world. (My first professional production was of a musical for which I wrote book, music and lyrics called Winging It!, a very free adaptation of Aristophanes’ The Birds. I was twenty and still in college when it was given as a special project by the Milwaukee Rep. And you’d have to threaten me with bodily harm to get me to show you the script and the score today.)

By the way, if Rosie O’Donnell herself was in attendance at Sunday’s performance, she kept a low profile. She didn’t take stage during the presentation, and I didn’t see her either in the audience or at a post-show reception. Too bad. I would have liked to have applauded what she’s built.

Posted in Broadway, drama, New York, theater | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

After by Michael McKeever

At first, After, a play by Michael McKeever, is reminiscent of God of Carnage, the Yasmina Reza play about two sets of parents meeting to sort out a conflict involving their sons. Carnage, however, plays out in one act in real time, and the mostly comic play deals with how the parents are reduced to behavior not much more mature than that of their kids. After is built in three scenes, labeled “Before,” “During” and “After,” and the event to which those labels refer is a tragic act, an act of violence.

Under the direction of Joe Brancato and with an expert cast of five (in addition to the parents, the sister of one character is there in an attempt to act as mediator), the production is a precise piece of work. But it is a frustrating play because the script should have been better. I admire McKeever’s play, Daniel’s Husband (also directed by Brancato). It has a specificity of language that is lacking at key moments in After.

Let me speak to the larger issue.  The job of a playwright isn’t to be real.  It isn’t to write what characters would actually say in a given situation.  Most people in normal conversation commonly resort to stock phrases and reasoning you can see unfolding from a mile off.  After is filled with this kind  of real conversation.  It all sounds plausible, but too much of it is built on familiar tropes.  Dialogue shouldn’t sound real, it should sound realistic.  It should sound persuasively colloquial, but it should employ newly-minted language.  The audience shouldn’t be able to anticipate the next line (as I found myself doing successfully again and again during After).  It should be delighted by new insights, new imagery.

And it should not be subjected to characters explaining their feelings. My opinion: the audience is meant to figure out from the behavior of the characters what they are feeling. When you have characters label their emotions, you make the audience passive. If the scene is correctly written, no character ever needs to say, “I feel you have betrayed me” or the like.

After is a pretty good play that I wish it had gone through another draft to be the play I think it could be.

Posted in drama, New York, off-Broadway, playwriting, theater | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Voices From the Past

To do the new edition of Something Wonderful Right Away, I had to have the text scanned and OCR’ed because I wrote the book before computers. So now I’m working my way, chapter-by-chapter, through the text to make corrections. It’s the closest reading of these chapters I’ve done since I was preparing the material for publication back in the Seventies.

This can’t help but excite a lot of feelings in me. For one thing, most of these people ended up staying in my life as friends, so the conversations are recordings of the beginnings of those friendships. They capture the connections made as we sparked each other to new thoughts and often made each other laugh. Occasionally, I find that I was acting in almost a therapist’s role because, as they talked to me, some of them began to articulate for the first time feelings about that part of their lives they had never really examined before. I can’t remember offhand who told me that he had never actually reflected much on his involvement in the early days of Second City, but the fact that it was going to be a book gave it a new value. “Wow, I was part of something significant enough that it’s the subject of a book!”

As part of the revision, at the end of each chapter (for anyone who doesn’t know the book, each chapter is an interview), I’m adding material about their life or work after the book came out. So far, each of those addenda includes the date of death. So I’m not only experiencing the illusion of them alive again, at the end of each conversation, I’m having to confront having lost someone. This is taking a toll I hadn’t anticipated.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Second City and the President

I’m working on a new edition of Something Wonderful Right Away.  Here’s an excerpt of a new passage:
The satiric voices that first were heard at Second City once made mock from the sidelines.  Today, satiric comment from Second City alumni is often at the center of the public dialogue.  This is particularly evident in the relationship between alumni and the presidency.
The White House Correspondents Dinner was traditionally the occasion for gentle spoofing of the sitting president, but Stephen Colbert’s performance in front of George W. Bush at the 2006 edition was decidedly ungentle.  Under the guise of praising Bush, Colbert (who trained and worked at Second City in the early nineties) meticulously deconstructed the mendacity under Bush’s public show of amiability.  As Bush was known to go to great effort to shield himself from discouraging words, the routine made headlines, including widespread criticism from conservative pundits who attacked Colbert for ridiculing the president to his face.  Playwright Christopher Durang compared the performance to Hamlet presenting The Murder of Gonzalgo in front of Claudius.  Some years later, another Second City alum, Adam McKay, made a feature film called Vice that did a thorough demolition job on Bush’s vice-president, Dick Cheney.  The movie was nominated for an Oscar for best picture and McKay was nominated for his screenplay and direction.  Alum Steve Carrell (whom Colbert had once understudied at Second City) played former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
The president who followed Bush, Barack Obama, hailed from Chicago and he and his wife, Michelle, had been part of Second City’s audience.  One Second City performer, Keegan-Michael Key, made a specialty of playing Obama in sketches onstage and on TV.  As part of the 2015 White House Correspondents Dinner, Key performed a routine with the president in which he played the Obama’s “anger translator,” articulating the irritation that Obama himself was famously too cool to express in public.  (Obama also did comic bits on TV with Colbert.)
These days, the New York Times deems Colbert’s political commentary sufficiently newsworthy as to report on it regularly.  Saturday Night Live, whose actors and writers frequently are replenished with Second City alumni, also regularly makes news with its attacks on the current administration.  Donald Trump has complained publicly about both Colbert and SNL, darkly suggesting that he might try to find some way of punishing them for being mean to him.
Posted in improvisation, Second City, television, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

On the Trail of Juano Hernandez

Since becoming a fan of Juano Hernandez through Intruder in the Dust and The Breaking Point, I have my DVR set to record anything he’s listed as appearing in. Which is how I ended up watching an oddball movie directed by Mark Robson and written by Don Mankiewicz called Trial. (No relation to The Trial or Kafka.)

It’s set in a Southern California town. A Mexican kid named Angel Sanchez is on trial for murder. A big-name attorney played by Arthur Kennedy hires a law professor with little trial experience played by Glenn Ford to take on courtroom duties while he (Kennedy) raises money to finance the defense. Ford begins to realize that Kennedy is really a Communist using the case as an excuse to bring in tons of money for the party’s purposes. He also realizes that Kennedy would rather Ford lose the case so that Angel can be a martyr to the cause to be further exploited for fund-raising.

This reminded me of the Scottsboro Boys case and the charge that was frequently leveled at the Communist Party for how that turned out. The NAACP was ready to bring Clarence Darrow in, but the Party made a successful bid to the Boys’ parents that they would be more effective, so the NAACP was sent packing. Of course, they weren’t effective at all and, after being convicted, the Boys spent years in prison for something that they didn’t do. I’m betting that this was an inspiration for the novel that Trial is based on.

Certainly, I enjoyed comparing it to the other stories about white lawyers concerned with cases involving race I’ve seen or read lately – To Kill a Mockingbird (both film and play) and Intruder in the Dust (film and book). In the film of Intruder, Juano Hernandez is the defendant. In Trial, in what was a notable piece of casting for the time, he played the judge. And much is made of him being a black judge. (I read somewhere that he was the first black judge portrayed in a studio feature.) Hernandez gets co-starring billing, but he’s certainly one of the leads. In fact, he’s the last person we see in the film. He is a commanding, articulate figure who doesn’t take any shit. One amusing scene has him in chambers with Glenn Ford’s character, referring to Ford as “boy” a couple of times. I can’t imagine this was unintentional.

Though a Communist is the villain, reference is also made to a state version of the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the head of that organization is also referred to as a charlatan and a villain. Many of the people involved in the film were very public liberals at the time, so this was evidently meant to be viewed as a statement by anti-Communist liberals: “Just because we’re one the left doesn’t mean we’re red.”

It’s a clumsy movie and some of the plot developments are unpersuasive. (Nobody would be convicted of first degree murder on the evidence presented!) But the racial politics are interesting for the mid-fifties. Also unusual is Dorothy McGuire playing a sympathetic woman who is more sexually experienced and aggressive than women were in the standard studio fare of the time.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment