My Photo

Chemical Imbalance

  • Ci9
    This is a show I did in the summer of 2002 with a company called cofounder, headed by my good friend with whom I share no family, Oliver Butler. Anyway, the idea was we'd throw together some live music, some one act plays, some free beer and see what happened. Enjoy the photos! --Isaac

First You're Born

  • Fyb7
    This is a photo gallery of photos from my production of First You're Born, produced by Studio-42 and In Medias Res and performed at the Peter Jay Sharp theater in Spring of 2004. The play was the US premier of a hit comedy by Danish playwright Line Knutzon. In this gallery, you'll find assorted photos with commentary. Think of it as my DVD extras section. Or something.

The Amulet

  • Twenty
    This play, translated from Peretz Hirschbein's hundred-year-old Yiddish drama, performed at the 78th St. Theatre Lab in April of 2006. The photos feature the wonderful light design of Sabrina Braswell, the incredible set design of David Birn, and the talented acting styles of Hanna Cheek, Anita Keal, David Little and Daryl Lathon. Enoy!

« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

January 31, 2008

Realism

UPDATE: lightly rewritten for clarity throughout.

Ghost Light posts a quote about realism on the same day that I was planning a post on realism!  Arg!  The Zeitgeist! It Burns! It Burns!

My relationship to realism has changed a lot over the years.  I was trained as an actor in a realism based program. The classes I took were title Principles of Realism and Character and Emotion and they taught me more about theatre than any outside-of-the-rehearsal room experience I've had since I had had (whoops!). Somehow along the way, I became deeply involved in what for lack of a less-pretentious term might be dubbed The Ideological Struggle Over Theatrical Genre.  In other words, other than the classics, realism became if not the only valid theatrical choice, the primary theatrical choice.
 
Of course, "realism" had a pretty broad definition in my book. Marshall Mason in The Directors Voice says that realism is something like "real people in recognizable situations".  I took out the latter half.  Thus, plays like Nicky Silver's Pterodactyls (which features real people in unrecognizable situations behaving according to the rules of farce) at least sort-of counted, because there will still objectives, obstacles and tactics.  What this really was was rebellion against an experimental theatre-based acting teacher I didn't care for in College and my growing perception that there was a lot of hollow work out there excusing itself by calling itself "experimental" (I still believe this).  I got recruited into the ongoing behind-the-scenes civil war over what genres are appropriate to put on stage and badmouthed Anne Bogart a lot even though I had never seen her work.  "I was in College," is just about the only excuse I can offer, given how influential Anne Bogart's books have been to me, how much I've enjoyed her work, and how nice a person she was when I met her at the Clambake a few years back.

Then I got to New York, and I figured out that the stuff I had been doing wasn't "realism" at all.  True, it was based in some of the tenants of realism and the acting methods that have sprung up to deal with it, but the "unrecognizable situations" part, along with a lot of the formal play that excites me and the lyrical language that attracts me to scripts made me realize that while the work I was doing wasn't necessarily "Experimental" or heavily deconstructed, it still wasn't *quite* realism.  So I switched sides again. I said that realism was better left to television and film, who could do it better than we could and we should focus on the things that theater can do well.

Except... realism is one of the things that theatre can do really really well provided that theatre doesn't try to do realism the way television and film do it.  The conventions for "realistic" story telling on stage and on film are completely different.  What really was bugging me all along were plays that didn't realize that. There's a difference between a beautiful, truthful, powerful piece of realism on stage like Burn This and tired cliched made-for-HBO movies on stage.

Ultimately, the quality of the piece transcends the form it is put into.  I resent the hegemony of realism on stage, but if I were living in Germany I'd resent the hegemony of arbitrary director-driven spectacles.  It's the hegemony part that's problematic-- that one genre is seen as superior to others inherently-- rather than the particular merits of this or that genre.

Some directors work towards specialization (i.e. Michael Kahn, Anne Bogart etc.) and other directors work towards versatility (i.e. Davis McCallum, Les Waters etc.).  I see my skills and sensibilities pushing me towards the latter model.  I can't do that if I am also saying that certain ways of writing are fundamentally inferior to others. There are some that are more likely to get the juices flowing than others. But every form a play might take has something to offer to those who want to learn from it. 

(Of course then there's the side issue that all categories are of course somewhat arbitrary and flawed. And there's also the issue that realism isn't realistic at all but rather obeys conventions that we are trained to see as realistic. And then there's the third issue that calling a script "Realism" ignores the variety of ways that it may be executed. But those are each their own post, which someday i will hopefully write)
 

What Would You Recommend?

    What theatre should we be seeing in your area?

January 30, 2008

Last Chance to See Widows

I haven't seen Ariel Dorfman's Widows yet, but I did interview the director awhile back, and I've read (and greatly liked) the script. This week's your last chance to see it! I'm seeing it this weekend!

Throughly Snowed-In

   This week is proving to be a lot more work than I anticipated.  Between various applications and producing Rapid Response Team i'm pretty snowed in.  So... probably more short posts with links or minor points than anything else.

Edwards Out, Giuliani Too

The conventional wisdom is that Edwards dropping out-- particularly since he isn't endorsing anyone-- is a boost for Hillary Clinton.  Basically, the idea is that Edwards was splitting the demographic that isn't going to Obama (lower middle and working class whites) and so with him out, they have no non-Obama alternative to go to. Certainly should make things more interesting. I wonder if the CW-- which has been wrong about so many things this primary season-- will be right in this case.

In other news... the world has dodged a major bullet with the truly mind-bendingly fall of Rudolph Giuliani.  To quote Billy Bob Thorton in <i>Bad Santa</i>..."Thank the fuck christ".

Just Fucking Inexcusable

   Forgive the profanity, but please read this and then contact the editors (their addresses are listed at the bottom of the post) and protest. I'm not going to quote it here on the blog, because it is really, really hateful, but suffice it to say it's a "humorous" column from an East Hampton newspaper. And it's about Barack Obama.  I'm pretty sure you can figure it out from there.

Oh, and thanks to reader StefZad for the tip.

January 29, 2008

HELP WANTED

The Rapid Response Team needs a stage manager for its first show. Stage management for the RRT is not the same as SMing a regular show-- the space provides the technician and there is no tech rehearsal. Also, the show is created the week of, so much of the SM's job entails keeping track of what the show is. Also, since it's a live radio event, there's no "blocking" per se.

We're a lot of fun to work with, and I think what we're doing is pretty friggin' sweet. Interested parties should e-mail rapidresponseteam at gmail dot com.

Thanks!
isaac

Does this happen to you too?

(1) When I see a play and don't like it, I tend to despair about the art form.

(2) When I see a play and like it, I like it, but I do not therefore rejoice for the art form.

Does this happen to you too? What's it about?!

State of the Union

I didn't watch it... did you?

January 28, 2008

The Primary Season

For a contrarian view on this primary season read one of Digby's folks here. I'm not sure. There are ways in which this primary season is a lot nicer-- not a lot of negative ads-- and ways in which it's a lot meaner-- thinly veiled racist attacks on one of its participants. And, some Clinton people are swift to argue, a few thinly veiled sexist attacks against Clinton from Obama's camp.

I think it is This that makes it feel nastier. That at the end of the day, the standard bearers of a party that's supposed to be about empowerment and justice will resort to the language of hatred and discrimination to win votes. That makes it nastier to me. I think John Kerry and Dick Gephardt's campaign against Howard Dean was rough, meanspirited and uncalled for. I think the angry black man stuff being used against Obama is inexcusable. As was the treatment Clinton got from the media in New Hampshire. Just really beyond the pale.

Blog powered by TypePad

# of Visitors Since 11/22/05


  • eXTReMe Tracker