I'm trying to see things from the broader perspective, but really it comes down to being rubbed the wrong way by certain writers/artists and feeling that at least part (perhaps a large part) of this comes from being on the wrong side of the generational gap.
In general, I can read older works of fiction and while bemoaning the state of women (practically chattel if you go back far enough, or if you are reading Egyptian authors such as Naguib Mafouz). Where I really struggle is with female writers from the early 20th Century writing about sometimes sudden and almost always badly-matched marriages of the lead female characters to much older men. This is rarely seen in U.S. fiction, but seemed to be a big staple in British and European literature. In some cases, this simply caused deeper problems down the road (Emma Bovary, Anna Karenina, Harriet from Taylor's A Game of Hide and Seek, etc.). With Elizabeth Bowen, we sometimes see the characters knowing better but still getting into bad marriages for reasons that are not always that clear to the leading ladies (primal fears of becoming spinsters most likely), but then the action ends before we see the inevitable disappointments that stem from such marriages. This marrying much older men was never quite as much of a staple of U.S. fiction, though there are still plenty of women who marry for money not for love.
What I am getting at is that, while this is fairly alien to my own experience, I can still understand what is driving these novels and generally enjoy them. But the newest generation of artists seems unbelievably shallow and uninteresting. Nearly all of them are about children who have been cocooned and are not really capable of running their own lives. They also are pretty entitled, given how they are not as special as they think they are. Obviously I am projecting a lot here, but I just find contemporary work that focuses on Millennials to be really annoying, particularly as it seems to be coming from people who are high enough in the social strata that it is more about their emotional neediness and not really about the fact that their job prospects are so bad that they are still living with their parents. At any rate, anything that Lena Dunham touches is completely horrid, as far as I am concerned. One of the few movies that I have given up on is Tiny Furniture, and I had suppressed the fact that she was the writer, director and star of it.
Another terrible Millennial writer is Amy Herzog. (I've read two of her plays and am so glad I didn't pay to see them; I will steer far away from her work.) It is hard to put into words just what I hate about her characters and her plays (aside from the absolute snobbery of ending a play with an entire scene in untranslated French -- or having one senior character constantly say "whaddayacallit" almost as a verbal tick while waiting for her mental synapses to start firing again) but they seem populated by unrooted characters that are shallow and act in ways that I find unbelievable. They seem to be characters that have been raised by TV and computer screens and have no idea how people really behave (or should behave, which means not blocking doors and escalators while texting). I guess there are all types in the world, but I don't want to interact with any of the characters that Amy Herzog dreams up (or steals from her family). I mostly blame the generation gap for that horrid quasi-play All Our Happy Days are Stupid by Sheila Heti.
I can just sort of understand writers and playwrights that (to me) seem to straddle Gen X and Gen Y, which is where I would put David Lindsay-Abaire and Sarah Ruhl (though it turns out David is my age, so the tail end of Gen X). Ruhl's characters are shallow to some extent, though I think the biggest knock against her by theatre types is that she writes these elaborate stage directions which are impossible to put on stage. Thus she is almost a novelist, writing for that tiny fraction of people who read plays, rather than a playwright. She is also a bit of a dilettante in terms of grabbing interesting myths and legends to add weight to her scripts (Eurydice and even Dead Man's Cell Phone to some extent). I don't mind the borrowing and the mash-up that much, though I do agree there is not always that much actual depth to her scripts. Still I enjoyed Eurydice and may go see it again some day. We just saw Lindsay-Abaire's Wonder of the World, and it was quite manic (so that was a big plus over some of the Gen Y scripts where people just sit around talking and texting). There was a weird mash-up of pop culture references (Marilyn Monroe, the Newlywed Game, Costco and of course Barbie) and a sense that most of the characters really didn't know what to do with their lives to find happiness. I think my favorite characters were the odd couple that were hired as detectives (they reminded me just a bit of the twin detectives Thomson and Thompson from Tintin).
As I think more about it, Gen X authors have more than their share of annoying tendencies as well (the mote in one's one eye and all that...). Aside from narcissism (basically a problem of all artists), there is a general snarkiness and cynicism that does get old fast. And while we aren't quite as nostalgic for the 80s the way the Boomers are about the 60s, there does seem to be a complete lack of originality in Hollywood now that Gen X is nominally in charge (nothing but sequels and remakes and reboots). I still can't get over how they ruined the Muppets in the terrible reboot that crawled onto the telly this season. I wasn't about to let the kids watch it, and apparently most people felt the same.
I'm not really sure there is that much of a point to this rambling half-rant other than to say one's enjoyment of a particular piece of art or artist is inevitably bound up in one's likes, dislikes and prejudices, which follow to some extent from one's generation* and in particular from the popular culture one absorbed growing up. I am resigning myself to not liking or caring much about work by the newest generation of artists, based on my experiences to date, though I am sure there will always be some exceptions, particularly if said artist reaches back to older, more classic references. There is actually a character (Nina) in Christopher Durang's Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike who embodies the Gen Y'er who finds her contemporaries vapid. One might even look at the character played by Kristen Stewart in the film Clouds of Sils Maria as a person who wishes she was born earlier, as she feels somewhat out of place in her own time. (I sometimes feel this -- that I probably would have been better off being 15-20 years older than I actually am, so that I would not have to deal with the extreme economic uncertainty that is facing today's young adults.) I think I've meandered enough for now. I would provide a link to Wonder of the World, which was enjoyable, but last night was the last night of the run, so if you didn't pick up on it from this post and put it in your calendar, you missed your window of opportunity. Sorry about that.
* As well as one's social class (as Pierre Bourdieu explains at length in Distinction), though class is somewhat less important in setting one's tastes in North America, as it is more culturally homogenized here than in Europe.
Sunday, November 8, 2015
Friday, November 6, 2015
Straying South -- the outline
I've been rolling this around in my head for a while and decided to put it down on paper. The general outline for the novel (Northern Latitudes) has been in my mind for decades now, but only recently did I decide that the scenes set in the apartment(s) where Jonathan and April and Shelly live could have a life of their own as a stand-alone play. Now some scenes that would more naturally take place somewhere else need to be shoehorned in, just to advance the plot, but there are quite a few things that would be off-stage in the play but would be fleshed out in the novel. At least that's how I think things would work.
In any case, it should be obvious there are going to be SPOILERS all over the place, but in my limited experience so far, if I stick a progress bar on this post and keep track of how many of these scenes I've actually written, I am going to be far more motivated into finishing this. If this actually works (and I think it will), then I'll do the same thing for the chapters of the novel. (Needless to say, many chapters will simply be reworked from the scenes from the play, but there will be more detail in the novel, and numerous settings.) It also seems that naturally this would be close to 2 hour play, but I have to edit it down to make it 90 minutes or ideally closer to 80. That might be tough, since most of these are going to naturally be close to 10 minutes, though I suppose they don't have to be. It's just that most scenes do work out about that long.
Act I - Scene I: the wedding. One of Jonathan's co-worker's is best man (torn between Julien and Daniel -- maybe save Julien for the somewhat skeevy employer that pops up later?). The immigration officer (Helen?) pops up and makes it clear she has an eye on Jonathan and Shelly.
Scene II: Jonathan tries to put the moves on his girlfriend, after the honeymoon. I guess she breaks up with him since he has no real character. Need to make sure this scene works, or if it gets merged into Scene III in a somewhat confusing scene with people working and talking at cross-purposes.
Scene III: Daniel comes over with bad news slightly later: Jonathan has been fired. Helen should probably pop up towards the end, almost catching Jonathan in what she thinks is compromising position.
Scene IV: Focus on April and Shelly. Mention that Jonathan is off on a trip to BC. Read a postcard from him.
Scene V: Jonathan's return. Agrees to watch apartment (and cat? -- maybe just in novel).
Scene VI: the Straying South fragment
Scene VII: one more transition scene? (where Helen starts to figure things out and nearly gets April to spill the beans)
Scene VIII: the Job Seekers fragment
Scene IX: Jonathan has a new love interest, but a fragile one. Helen comes over and scares her off, then basically kidnaps Jonathan to end the play.
The main thing would be if I want to discuss that Shelly decides she wants a baby. In the novel, that would probably fit best between VIII and IX. Actually I could have Shelly blurt it out in Scene VII to throw Helen off track (and definitely upsetting April) but Shelly realizes that this is actually something she wants. Then she could bring it up after VIII (a natural transition since Jonathan is totally chafed from the job he gets as a consequence of Scene VIII). What I probably wouldn't do would be to go all the way in Scene IX where Helen actually makes him provide a semen sample (while watching). That could be reserved for the novel. Some things are just a bit much, even for the Fringe.
So assuming I go with that short scene about telling Jonathan that she does want a baby (and he thinks she means doing it the natural way...), that is essentially10 8 scenes with 2 already written. That is a pretty solid show (I think so anyway).
Here is my progress bar:
Straying South: scenes written
For some crazy reason I am reminded of the Blues Brothers:
Elwood: It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Jake: Hit it.
And so I shall.
Edit: 10 scenes is just too many, both in terms of audience engagement, but especially with the lights down/lights up and resetting the actors. That really won't work in a 90 minute time frame (the very longest a show can run at the Fringe). But I also agree that working within limits can actually make plays (or other literary forms) stronger. No question I have often thought plays should be edited down, and here's my own chance. Since this is primarily a comedy (with bits of crunchy seriousness included), it will only gain comic power through pushing incongruous events and characters together, leading to close calls where people who are supposed to stay apart just miss meeting. On the other hand, it isn't a farce, so I don't want to push this too far. Still, I think Scenes II and III can be combined, and really Scenes IV and V. They can be reading the postcard while he walks in the door. That means I am actually 25% done. Woo-hoo!
In any case, it should be obvious there are going to be SPOILERS all over the place, but in my limited experience so far, if I stick a progress bar on this post and keep track of how many of these scenes I've actually written, I am going to be far more motivated into finishing this. If this actually works (and I think it will), then I'll do the same thing for the chapters of the novel. (Needless to say, many chapters will simply be reworked from the scenes from the play, but there will be more detail in the novel, and numerous settings.) It also seems that naturally this would be close to 2 hour play, but I have to edit it down to make it 90 minutes or ideally closer to 80. That might be tough, since most of these are going to naturally be close to 10 minutes, though I suppose they don't have to be. It's just that most scenes do work out about that long.
Act I - Scene I: the wedding. One of Jonathan's co-worker's is best man (torn between Julien and Daniel -- maybe save Julien for the somewhat skeevy employer that pops up later?). The immigration officer (Helen?) pops up and makes it clear she has an eye on Jonathan and Shelly.
Scene II: Jonathan tries to put the moves on his girlfriend, after the honeymoon. I guess she breaks up with him since he has no real character. Need to make sure this scene works, or if it gets merged into Scene III in a somewhat confusing scene with people working and talking at cross-purposes.
Scene III: Daniel comes over with bad news slightly later: Jonathan has been fired. Helen should probably pop up towards the end, almost catching Jonathan in what she thinks is compromising position.
Scene IV: Focus on April and Shelly. Mention that Jonathan is off on a trip to BC. Read a postcard from him.
Scene V: Jonathan's return. Agrees to watch apartment (and cat? -- maybe just in novel).
Scene VI: the Straying South fragment
Scene VII: one more transition scene? (where Helen starts to figure things out and nearly gets April to spill the beans)
Scene VIII: the Job Seekers fragment
Scene IX: Jonathan has a new love interest, but a fragile one. Helen comes over and scares her off, then basically kidnaps Jonathan to end the play.
The main thing would be if I want to discuss that Shelly decides she wants a baby. In the novel, that would probably fit best between VIII and IX. Actually I could have Shelly blurt it out in Scene VII to throw Helen off track (and definitely upsetting April) but Shelly realizes that this is actually something she wants. Then she could bring it up after VIII (a natural transition since Jonathan is totally chafed from the job he gets as a consequence of Scene VIII). What I probably wouldn't do would be to go all the way in Scene IX where Helen actually makes him provide a semen sample (while watching). That could be reserved for the novel. Some things are just a bit much, even for the Fringe.
So assuming I go with that short scene about telling Jonathan that she does want a baby (and he thinks she means doing it the natural way...), that is essentially
Here is my progress bar:
Straying South: scenes written
45%
For some crazy reason I am reminded of the Blues Brothers:
Elwood: It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Jake: Hit it.
And so I shall.
Edit: 10 scenes is just too many, both in terms of audience engagement, but especially with the lights down/lights up and resetting the actors. That really won't work in a 90 minute time frame (the very longest a show can run at the Fringe). But I also agree that working within limits can actually make plays (or other literary forms) stronger. No question I have often thought plays should be edited down, and here's my own chance. Since this is primarily a comedy (with bits of crunchy seriousness included), it will only gain comic power through pushing incongruous events and characters together, leading to close calls where people who are supposed to stay apart just miss meeting. On the other hand, it isn't a farce, so I don't want to push this too far. Still, I think Scenes II and III can be combined, and really Scenes IV and V. They can be reading the postcard while he walks in the door. That means I am actually 25% done. Woo-hoo!
F**k Ryerson
This has just not been a good week for me, both at work and more specifically in my relationship to Toronto theatre. I had the mix-up Monday, but even more upsetting was tonight. I had to work until nearly the last minute, hop in the subway and half run over to Ryerson, only to find out they had sold out the show and the wait list was way too long. So I will not get to see two of the Suburban Motel plays, since this was the last weekend of their run.
I argued that they were supposed to have my name on the list from before, and I was even looking at the person from Wed. who was supposed to add my name to the list for Friday. But she pretended she had never seen me before.
I find this so completely inexcusable that I am boycotting Ryerson from here on out. Absolutely no more theatre shows, which I am sure has them quaking in their boots. But if I do start a company or become a producer, and that is increasingly likely, whatever happens on the 20th with the Fringe, then I will not hire any Ryerson grads.
I guess to be consistent I can't send in any material to White Wall Review (Ryerson's literary magazine) either, but I guess a boycott isn't really a boycott unless you give up something that actually means something to you.
In any case, I am pissed off beyond belief. I need to take a break for now and then use this time (where I am not watching the Walker plays as planned) somewhat productively, probably to finish outlining Straying South.
I argued that they were supposed to have my name on the list from before, and I was even looking at the person from Wed. who was supposed to add my name to the list for Friday. But she pretended she had never seen me before.
I find this so completely inexcusable that I am boycotting Ryerson from here on out. Absolutely no more theatre shows, which I am sure has them quaking in their boots. But if I do start a company or become a producer, and that is increasingly likely, whatever happens on the 20th with the Fringe, then I will not hire any Ryerson grads.
I guess to be consistent I can't send in any material to White Wall Review (Ryerson's literary magazine) either, but I guess a boycott isn't really a boycott unless you give up something that actually means something to you.
In any case, I am pissed off beyond belief. I need to take a break for now and then use this time (where I am not watching the Walker plays as planned) somewhat productively, probably to finish outlining Straying South.
Suburban Motel - first impressions
Edit: I am withdrawing this recommendation and boycotting Ryerson. I will explain in a follow-up post.
I mentioned this on a previous post, but it is worth its own post. Ryerson is doing 5/6 of the Suburban Motel plays, plus Filthy Rich, which is sort of a spoof on The Big Sleep, but here the "detective" is working out of run-down motel. If you go tonight through Sunday, you can still make the whole series. I am going tonight, and I think is should be quite a bit of fun.Details here. Somehow they didn't have my name down on the list Wed., but I managed to pay the rush ticket price ($5), so that was an extra bonus for an entertaining evening.
I tend to forget just how outlandish most of Walker's plots are, particularly when you start paying attention to what the semi-incompetent criminals are up to. (It is a good reminder that, with some exceptions, most criminals are in fact pretty thick or they would find a path through life less likely to end with jail time.) Risk Everything is no exception. Now there is one major change to this play, which I assume Walker approved -- the gambler is not Denise's older sister, it is Denise's mom (since the actors are all at about the same age). This switch makes some of the action in the original much creepier, like when Denise's husband R.J. is quasi-seduced by the mom character. On the other hand, it would have tied together a bit better with Problem Child, where Denise lays much of the blame on her inadequacies as a mother on her own mother. I'm not going to see Problem Child again, but it is an interesting book end where Denise is by far the most "together" person in Risk Everything, whereas she is totally losing it throughout Problem Child, even at the end.
I thought all the actors were quite good, with a bit of haminess in Filthy Rich, though that seemed to be called for in the script. I'm looking forward to tonight, which is Adult Entertainment & Criminal Genius.
After this, I will have seenX 2 of the 6. I am still secretly hoping that Triple Bypass remounts The End of Civilization, though I don't see why they would. In general, I am hoping that some Toronto company in 2 or 3 years will tackle the whole sequence, and I will see it straight through again.
What I am taking from Walker is that I can be a bit more audacious and outrageous in my plots. I tend to write such genteel things and that just doesn't translate all that well to the stage. It is probably because I am also tied to realism (with some exceptions in my shorter pieces), and in my life I would shun those too-large characters who are always veering between hilarity and violence. Still, I think the immigration inspector might serve that kind of role. I'm imagining her as a slightly overdone Inspector Javert character, who hounds Jonathan, partly out of duty, but really out of a sense that she has not had her fair share of sexual conquests that seem to fall to her male colleagues. (Yeah, she is more than a little "bent" -- not that I think this is actually representative of Canada's immigration officer!) The biggest problem is arranging for her to keep showing up in the apartment, whereas it would be easier in the novel for her to keep following Jonathan. Still, I have basically conceptualized how I can cover the key themes in the novel all while keeping it to one set. I just have to finish writing it...
I mentioned this on a previous post, but it is worth its own post. Ryerson is doing 5/6 of the Suburban Motel plays, plus Filthy Rich, which is sort of a spoof on The Big Sleep, but here the "detective" is working out of run-down motel. If you go tonight through Sunday, you can still make the whole series. I am going tonight, and I think is should be quite a bit of fun.
I tend to forget just how outlandish most of Walker's plots are, particularly when you start paying attention to what the semi-incompetent criminals are up to. (It is a good reminder that, with some exceptions, most criminals are in fact pretty thick or they would find a path through life less likely to end with jail time.) Risk Everything is no exception. Now there is one major change to this play, which I assume Walker approved -- the gambler is not Denise's older sister, it is Denise's mom (since the actors are all at about the same age). This switch makes some of the action in the original much creepier, like when Denise's husband R.J. is quasi-seduced by the mom character. On the other hand, it would have tied together a bit better with Problem Child, where Denise lays much of the blame on her inadequacies as a mother on her own mother. I'm not going to see Problem Child again, but it is an interesting book end where Denise is by far the most "together" person in Risk Everything, whereas she is totally losing it throughout Problem Child, even at the end.
I thought all the actors were quite good, with a bit of haminess in Filthy Rich, though that seemed to be called for in the script. I'm looking forward to tonight, which is Adult Entertainment & Criminal Genius.
After this, I will have seen
What I am taking from Walker is that I can be a bit more audacious and outrageous in my plots. I tend to write such genteel things and that just doesn't translate all that well to the stage. It is probably because I am also tied to realism (with some exceptions in my shorter pieces), and in my life I would shun those too-large characters who are always veering between hilarity and violence. Still, I think the immigration inspector might serve that kind of role. I'm imagining her as a slightly overdone Inspector Javert character, who hounds Jonathan, partly out of duty, but really out of a sense that she has not had her fair share of sexual conquests that seem to fall to her male colleagues. (Yeah, she is more than a little "bent" -- not that I think this is actually representative of Canada's immigration officer!) The biggest problem is arranging for her to keep showing up in the apartment, whereas it would be easier in the novel for her to keep following Jonathan. Still, I have basically conceptualized how I can cover the key themes in the novel all while keeping it to one set. I just have to finish writing it...
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Soulpepper 2016
Soulpepper has finally gotten around to announcing their 2016 season. Hopefully this link will work (for now at any rate). Quite a few of the shows are little more than comfort food: The 39 Steps, The Odd Couple and even Twelve Angry Men. I'm really a bit surprised that they would bother, though I suppose they need some shows that will put people in the seats. Somewhere in the middle of the pack,* they are doing Ibsen's A Doll's House and Garcia Lorca's Blood Wedding. I saw Blood Wedding just a little while ago at Buddies in Bad Times, and I've seen A Doll's House relatively recently (within the past 5 years).
Unless I am misunderstanding something, they have only cast 4 actors for 7 parts in A Doll's House, so this may be an annoying modern version where they are doing some odd doubling (like that completely bizarre Peter Sellars's A Midsummer's Night's Dream). I'm not opposed to doubling in general, only when it becomes distracting. Frankly, there is far too much doubling in Terrence McNally's A Perfect Ganesh.
I'm on the fence about David French's Jitters, which is surely amusing, but I've seen so many meta-plays about backstage antics or putting on a play in general (David Henry Hwang's Yellow Face is one of the few that truly "justifies its existence"). I'm leaning against going, but I may change my mind.
I'll probably go to Wasserstein's The Heidi Chronicles -- I've never actually seen it.
The most ambitious is Suzan Lori-Parks's Father Comes Home From the Wars, Parts I, II, III. I'll go to support such risk-taking.
As expected, Video Cabaret is doing The Great War, and then in 2017 they are supposed to explode onto the stage, doing 4 or more productions. (I'm just a bit surprised that they didn't try to build on Trudeau-mania II by remounting the productions from last year. Definitely glad I went.)
The other play I am most excited about is Arthur Miller's Incident at Vichy. I've never managed to see it. (I think I missed out on seeing a production in Chicago by a month or so.) This is just not staged that often. A View from the Bridge (the other major Miller play I've not seen) is performed infrequently but still far more often than Vichy, so I should get to see it in the next few years.
I should probably just get a 4 show subscription and call it a day.
* I suppose both of these shows are indeed challenging, depending on how they are staged, but they seem overly familiar to me. Strindberg is produced far less than Ibsen for example. Because the plot of Blood Wedding is so predictable, you really need to make it resonate with the force of Greek tragedy. I've probably already mentioned that I focus extensively, though not exclusively, on plot, so it is very rare for me to see a play a second time around. I'm definitely going to pass on Blood Wedding this season.
Unless I am misunderstanding something, they have only cast 4 actors for 7 parts in A Doll's House, so this may be an annoying modern version where they are doing some odd doubling (like that completely bizarre Peter Sellars's A Midsummer's Night's Dream). I'm not opposed to doubling in general, only when it becomes distracting. Frankly, there is far too much doubling in Terrence McNally's A Perfect Ganesh.
I'm on the fence about David French's Jitters, which is surely amusing, but I've seen so many meta-plays about backstage antics or putting on a play in general (David Henry Hwang's Yellow Face is one of the few that truly "justifies its existence"). I'm leaning against going, but I may change my mind.
I'll probably go to Wasserstein's The Heidi Chronicles -- I've never actually seen it.
The most ambitious is Suzan Lori-Parks's Father Comes Home From the Wars, Parts I, II, III. I'll go to support such risk-taking.
As expected, Video Cabaret is doing The Great War, and then in 2017 they are supposed to explode onto the stage, doing 4 or more productions. (I'm just a bit surprised that they didn't try to build on Trudeau-mania II by remounting the productions from last year. Definitely glad I went.)
The other play I am most excited about is Arthur Miller's Incident at Vichy. I've never managed to see it. (I think I missed out on seeing a production in Chicago by a month or so.) This is just not staged that often. A View from the Bridge (the other major Miller play I've not seen) is performed infrequently but still far more often than Vichy, so I should get to see it in the next few years.
I should probably just get a 4 show subscription and call it a day.
* I suppose both of these shows are indeed challenging, depending on how they are staged, but they seem overly familiar to me. Strindberg is produced far less than Ibsen for example. Because the plot of Blood Wedding is so predictable, you really need to make it resonate with the force of Greek tragedy. I've probably already mentioned that I focus extensively, though not exclusively, on plot, so it is very rare for me to see a play a second time around. I'm definitely going to pass on Blood Wedding this season.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Change of plans
Well, I am so incredibly frustrated tonight that I am very close to breaking my no flouncing rule. It turns out that Red One/Storefront only sometimes updates the Red One Facebook page and more accurate information is on their Storefront page. Also, the moderator of Sing-for-Your-Supper has shifted to a new email address, so my previous messages were not read, and thus, I was not tipped off that the date had changed to next Tuesday (obviously quite a shift from first Monday of the month!). I honestly don't know when this was announced, but I think just a few days ago, and I have plans for that Tuesday (going to see The River at Coal Mine). I try really hard to stay on top of these things. I think I'm better than anyone I know for staying up on the theatre scene, and these people have screwed me over three or four times now with their last-minute changes and sporadic news distribution systems.
Since I can't make it, there is no point in resubmitting my script, though I guess I'll leave it in just in case he finally sees it his old email in-box. I'll just try to write the piece that I wanted to write for Dec. As I said, I have no idea if I will see the actors I want to track down, but I guess I might as well wait until Dec. (after the Fringe Lottery party). That way I will know if I need to assemble a cast right away or it is more of a slow-build thing for down the road. I can't afford to completely cut ties, since I think this is where I will find the actors most willing to take a chance on putting on my work. So a couple deep breaths and I guess I can move on. (Maybe I will finally get around to watching 8 1/2 tonight...)
One super interesting thing is that it turns out Ryerson is doing Walker's Suburban Motel (or rather 5/6 of it and they have substituted Filthy Rich for The End of Civilization). Some details here, though oddly enough not the actual ticket prices. I have no idea how good or bad they will be, but I am leaning towards going to the A and B shows. If there were in fact doing all 6 shows, I would probably go to all, but I just saw Problem Child (in a solid performance that I would rather not blur). As it happens, the play paired with it on C nights is Featuring Loretta, which is apparently one of the weaker plays. Sadly, I somehow missed The End of Civilization back in March. An interesting troupe called Triple Bypass put this on. I came very close to seeing them at the Fringe doing Eric Bogosian's Skunkweed. I should have just gone, but my family was getting ready to leave for Chicago and I thought I ought to spend a bit more time with them. (I know, where were my priorities?) I do hope to see Triple Bypass one of these days, and certainly The End of Civilization as well (again, one of the "tougher" Suburban Motel plays to stage well).
Still, usually things don't come back around, which is why I do try to go when they are first announced. However, the Bennett Talking Heads show did return, and interestingly enough Three Men in a Boat, which I saw with my son not long after we moved to Toronto. It's going to be remounted at Factory Theatre in January. That's really not far from where I work, so I shall try to bring some co-workers along and my friend from my grad. school days.
Since I can't make it, there is no point in resubmitting my script, though I guess I'll leave it in just in case he finally sees it his old email in-box. I'll just try to write the piece that I wanted to write for Dec. As I said, I have no idea if I will see the actors I want to track down, but I guess I might as well wait until Dec. (after the Fringe Lottery party). That way I will know if I need to assemble a cast right away or it is more of a slow-build thing for down the road. I can't afford to completely cut ties, since I think this is where I will find the actors most willing to take a chance on putting on my work. So a couple deep breaths and I guess I can move on. (Maybe I will finally get around to watching 8 1/2 tonight...)
One super interesting thing is that it turns out Ryerson is doing Walker's Suburban Motel (or rather 5/6 of it and they have substituted Filthy Rich for The End of Civilization). Some details here, though oddly enough not the actual ticket prices. I have no idea how good or bad they will be, but I am leaning towards going to the A and B shows. If there were in fact doing all 6 shows, I would probably go to all, but I just saw Problem Child (in a solid performance that I would rather not blur). As it happens, the play paired with it on C nights is Featuring Loretta, which is apparently one of the weaker plays. Sadly, I somehow missed The End of Civilization back in March. An interesting troupe called Triple Bypass put this on. I came very close to seeing them at the Fringe doing Eric Bogosian's Skunkweed. I should have just gone, but my family was getting ready to leave for Chicago and I thought I ought to spend a bit more time with them. (I know, where were my priorities?) I do hope to see Triple Bypass one of these days, and certainly The End of Civilization as well (again, one of the "tougher" Suburban Motel plays to stage well).
Still, usually things don't come back around, which is why I do try to go when they are first announced. However, the Bennett Talking Heads show did return, and interestingly enough Three Men in a Boat, which I saw with my son not long after we moved to Toronto. It's going to be remounted at Factory Theatre in January. That's really not far from where I work, so I shall try to bring some co-workers along and my friend from my grad. school days.
Try Your Luck (Toronto Fringe)
So it has been an extremely interesting (and busy) weekend.
It's just too late to go into details, but I saw The House of Poe at Red Sandcastle, which was pretty unsettling, I have to say. (I actually caught the special late night show on Halloween night.) It is a mash-up of The House at Pooh Corner with a few of Edgar Allen Poe's more gruesome tales with a seasoning of H.P. Lovecraft's existential dread. It runs one more weekend. A more thorough review here.
I also saw Oscar Wilde's An Ideal Husband at Alumnae Theatre today (having to bike into a massive headwind the whole way). The play is actually put on by the Toronto Irish Players, and it also runs for another week. If you decide to go, calling ahead and making reservations is highly recommended. I went as a last minute thing and was on a wait list for a while, though I ultimately made it in. (And a sold out house with essentially no advertising or reviews at all!)
Now that I have seen it, I have mixed feelings. I thought the cast did a good job overall, but some of the characters are a bit overwrought, particularly Lady Chiltern. I also thought that the play expects us to forgive too much. It is certainly one thing to wish to engage in a bit of Bunburying (that is quite forgivable) and another to want to whitewash a pretty serious scandal from one's past. Maybe if The Importance of Being Earnest hadn't been so incredibly well-wrought, then I would be a bit more forgiving of An Ideal Husband, but it just really struck me as a second-rate play (though second-rate Wilde is still quite good). I am hoping that Lady Windermere's Fan falls somewhere between the two, but closer to Earnest. I go see that in about 3 weeks.
I had really gone back and forth on whether to go see The Baby at Storefront Theatre. I knew it was basically just a campy, shlock-fest, but I am hoping at some point to cast one of the actors in a part in Straying South, and going to see them in their work is usually the best way of buttering them up. But I knew I wasn't really going to like it. I actually have a pretty low tolerance for camp, as well as plays that go for shock value, particularly when the twists are telegraphed a mile away. (Storefront has just done The House of Yes, which I considered a pretty terrible movie and had absolutely no intention of seeing a live version of this.)
Why is this so relevant all of a sudden? Because unlike a few other opportunities I just missed out on, there is one more day to enter the Toronto Fringe lottery. I pondered it for a while, but went ahead and put in my entry form.
I suppose it is completely crazy to want to do this, with a script only 20% done and three actors I would tentatively cast in parts, but no director and no stage manager. But most of all, no actual working company. But you know, these are kind of pesky details. Winning the lottery means that you suddenly find a lot of people interested in working with you, since you have a guaranteed slot...
Ultimately, I decided to go see Wilde rather than The Baby, but I will go off to Sing-for-Your-Supper tomorrow regardless of whether my piece is accepted. (I generally would assume it was not, though I didn't hear either way!) I'll take down a few more names and see if there are people I would want to work with in the future (whether the ball bounces my way or not).
I still didn't quite wrap up my piece set at the 7-Eleven, so I will shoot for December. I actually polished up another piece and sent in the introductory monologue and the first scene of the second act. I call this Blue-Grass Mash, mostly because the full thing (not the fragment I submitted) is a quest that leads to Kentucky. The piece is actually a bit of a homage to Kushner's Homebody-Kabul, though I don't think anyone has gotten the connection unless I told them... The video artist who kicks things off is somewhat based on my mental picture of a very crass version of Bill Viola (not that I have ever met the man). You can read the script in its truncated form here. I suppose if there is a huge outcry for more, I might eventually post the whole thing. First, I would have to see how well it stands up in the cold light of day, as they say.
Ok, it's been a long and busy weekend, and I think I've done enough for now.
It's just too late to go into details, but I saw The House of Poe at Red Sandcastle, which was pretty unsettling, I have to say. (I actually caught the special late night show on Halloween night.) It is a mash-up of The House at Pooh Corner with a few of Edgar Allen Poe's more gruesome tales with a seasoning of H.P. Lovecraft's existential dread. It runs one more weekend. A more thorough review here.
I also saw Oscar Wilde's An Ideal Husband at Alumnae Theatre today (having to bike into a massive headwind the whole way). The play is actually put on by the Toronto Irish Players, and it also runs for another week. If you decide to go, calling ahead and making reservations is highly recommended. I went as a last minute thing and was on a wait list for a while, though I ultimately made it in. (And a sold out house with essentially no advertising or reviews at all!)
Now that I have seen it, I have mixed feelings. I thought the cast did a good job overall, but some of the characters are a bit overwrought, particularly Lady Chiltern. I also thought that the play expects us to forgive too much. It is certainly one thing to wish to engage in a bit of Bunburying (that is quite forgivable) and another to want to whitewash a pretty serious scandal from one's past. Maybe if The Importance of Being Earnest hadn't been so incredibly well-wrought, then I would be a bit more forgiving of An Ideal Husband, but it just really struck me as a second-rate play (though second-rate Wilde is still quite good). I am hoping that Lady Windermere's Fan falls somewhere between the two, but closer to Earnest. I go see that in about 3 weeks.
I had really gone back and forth on whether to go see The Baby at Storefront Theatre. I knew it was basically just a campy, shlock-fest, but I am hoping at some point to cast one of the actors in a part in Straying South, and going to see them in their work is usually the best way of buttering them up. But I knew I wasn't really going to like it. I actually have a pretty low tolerance for camp, as well as plays that go for shock value, particularly when the twists are telegraphed a mile away. (Storefront has just done The House of Yes, which I considered a pretty terrible movie and had absolutely no intention of seeing a live version of this.)
Why is this so relevant all of a sudden? Because unlike a few other opportunities I just missed out on, there is one more day to enter the Toronto Fringe lottery. I pondered it for a while, but went ahead and put in my entry form.
I suppose it is completely crazy to want to do this, with a script only 20% done and three actors I would tentatively cast in parts, but no director and no stage manager. But most of all, no actual working company. But you know, these are kind of pesky details. Winning the lottery means that you suddenly find a lot of people interested in working with you, since you have a guaranteed slot...
Ultimately, I decided to go see Wilde rather than The Baby, but I will go off to Sing-for-Your-Supper tomorrow regardless of whether my piece is accepted. (I generally would assume it was not, though I didn't hear either way!) I'll take down a few more names and see if there are people I would want to work with in the future (whether the ball bounces my way or not).
I still didn't quite wrap up my piece set at the 7-Eleven, so I will shoot for December. I actually polished up another piece and sent in the introductory monologue and the first scene of the second act. I call this Blue-Grass Mash, mostly because the full thing (not the fragment I submitted) is a quest that leads to Kentucky. The piece is actually a bit of a homage to Kushner's Homebody-Kabul, though I don't think anyone has gotten the connection unless I told them... The video artist who kicks things off is somewhat based on my mental picture of a very crass version of Bill Viola (not that I have ever met the man). You can read the script in its truncated form here. I suppose if there is a huge outcry for more, I might eventually post the whole thing. First, I would have to see how well it stands up in the cold light of day, as they say.
Ok, it's been a long and busy weekend, and I think I've done enough for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)