Brighton Beach Memoirs - Civic Theater

I've seen this movie, the one from the late 80's/90's a few times. It's a new school american classic.  But i've never seen the stage play. Set in the late 1930's, it seemed to be a long time ago, like things were different. Trade the plasma tv/ xbox for a radio but actually not much else. 

Then and now, siblings have complicated relationships. In tough times parents have to work many jobs. There is worry about war and peace in the world.  Everyone has a drunk uncle and an odd neighbor. And all a nearly-15-year-old boy really wants to do is to see a girl naked.

The boy, also wants to be a writer, is really smart, quick witted, and really can be a pain in the ass. The play is seen through his writing from his "memoirs".  It's reality television before it's time, showing all of the family's business through first person narrative.

The set was convincing and looked really sparse with the various time specific props.
It's packed neatly into a realistic house on the theater stage.

Throughout it becomes clear that everyone has some growing up to do around the interactions and the politics behind them in the family.

God of Carnage - Famers Alley Theatre

God of Carnage seems really to be about whether adults and children are really that different.

One kid whacks another in the face with a stick, knocking out a couple of teeth. The parents decide to meet and from the beginning, there’s the awkward conflict of the obvious differences in parenting styles. Things quickly spiral out of control. The characters align and then realign with one another as parts of their stories unfold. The audience is given glimpses of why the characters are who they are. I all of the carnage they bring upon each other, it seems that there may not be much of a difference between roving gangs of kids or homes stocked with high end espresso and imported rum.  To insult and question how a person raises their kids is asking for strong responses.  The script is tight and the run time felt short. The cast is very strong and they committed fully, making this an explosive passionate production.The vomiting scene was way too believable; 'Veronica' was well played as an arrogant snob; the set design was hip/cosmopolitan and haunting. Go see it!!

In the end I walked away thinking... those people were miserable. They think their intentions are good and are to be rewarded for wanting the 'right' and 'civil' process to work things out... as an example for the children.  Epic fail.

Let Slip the Dogs of Community Theatre

Adam Command
So, as I was begining to write yesterday about my last play, I decided to stop and wait becasue See How They Run is a very confusing, fast comedy that is extremely entertaining and funny but relies heavily on physical effects; therefore, it is hard to blog coherantly about. I decided instead, bieng in Grand Rapids, to go see the Circle Theatre's production of Julius Caesar. It is part of a string of 6 plays by the Bard. Although this is merely the second string of productions in community theatre, next to the actors studio, the acting was better than I expected. In fact, Michael Rissier's performance as Marc Antony was down-right brilliant. This was the second time I have seen this play(last time 8 years) and if there is one area that needs to be really good, it would be the acting. The play relies on gigantic monologues and fierce confrontations and is the most political play Shakespeare has written, in my mind. J.C. is hard to produce because the members of the audience who are not extreme Shakespeare fans are in danger of falling asleep if the long monologues are not passionate. Good thing for this production, it was very passionate. There was so much enthusiasm by the cast and along with Rissier, Hales and Forrester who play Cassius and Brutus were fantastic in their deliveries. Brian Spaulding, who played Caesar was not great but he is only a part for less than half the play. The staging was modest and did not charm the audience with the traditional tricks of staging a Shakespeare play, no doubt because of the budget. But the diction and clarity the Circle Theatre provides suits the structure od J.C. There are two huge speaches and they bring the croud into it. When Antony comes out to speak to his people after Caesar is murdered was awesome. He used the audience and he was really trying to convince us and pumped us up in different ways, including screams and "heys"! "Here lies Caesar, when such comes another!" Honestly, I am a pretty descent judge of the Bard's work, especially on the lower level of community theatre, and I can say this was one of the best performed play I have seen. The back-stabbing, metaphorical and literal was so intriguing and the play moved with a lightning pace, never allowing a dull moment. The actaul murder of Caesar was cool as the senators cirlced him, plotting with each other and trying to manipulate the crowd, again, which we participated in. It was just flat out fun. The political agendas and struggles for power in J.C. was interesting. There are many twists and turns. For instance, Brutus does not original want to go along with the killing of Caesar but goes along with it for the sake of Rome, so he says. But really, he is after power just like anyone else. He and Cassius consistantly get out-smarted by Antony, starting with the debate about the death of Caesar where Antotny sways the crowd (us) back to belief that Caesar was a great man. It was cool how we made the decisions. All and all, I am glad I got a chance to watch Julius Caesar because it had a nice irony to it, especially during election season. All this talk about Romney and Obama lately, it seemed appropriate to put this play on. I had fun! Directed by Andy Vankampen

Wizards of Facebook

Fancy Pants Theatre is doing a production of a new play by local playwright, John Thierwechter, called The Wizards of Facebook.

Follow the yellow bus line with Dot and Frank while they quest after the witch Linda's email address for the Wizard of Facebook. Together with their three new friends, they will repair to Wizard in hopes of restoring Dot's Facebook, getting naked stuff for Frank and something about brains, heart & courage.---From The Wizards of Facebook's Facebook Event Page

What:The Wizards of Facebook
Where: Fancy Pants Theatre, 246 Kalamazoo Mall
When: April 11, 12, 13, 14 8pm and April 15 3pm
$$$: $10
 

Tony N' Tina's Wedding

EVERYONE, I REPEAT - EVERYONE, GO SEE TONY N' TINA'S WEDDING!!!

What a wonderful dinner comedy. You participate in a wedding ceremony and reception - and you get food. A great night of laughs - and, not to mention, a great time. I'm SO going again, if anyone wants to join!!!

The Invisible Hand

I was lucky enough to see the world premier of The Invisible Hand at the St Louis Rep Theatre! What a wonderful show - from the writing and acting to the sets and stagecraft. This show featured John Hickok - whom also originated 3 Broadway rolls. Hickok played Nick, a man who was very skilled in investment banking and was captured and held hostage by an Islamic militant group. He grew close with one of his guards, Dar, who ends up killing himself in a suicide bombing. Another guard, Bashir, forces Nick to make $3million grow to $10million by doing what he does best, investment banking. The two become close, just as Nick and Dar did, although their relationship is, of course, questionable. Throughout the entirety of The Invisible Hand, we examine morality and just how far we will go to get what we want.

What a wonderful play. Ayad Akhtar wrote this play phenomenally, always showing the needs of each character throughout every scene and using dialogue beautifully. I was shocked when 1 hour and 15 minutes flew by before my eyes. The text was portrayed wonderfully by this four person cast, as well. Their believability factor amazed me; believability is something that I look for in a performance, and I never once stopped to question what I was watching. (Funny fact: The man who played Bashir wrote in his bio that he is a physician "in his spare time." A) What actor has "spare time"? And B) What physician has "spare time"? I found that HILARIOUS!)

The Cure for Love

For me this play started out a little slow, as french farses are not quite what I normally go and see.  The jokes here and there through-out the begining were about all that kept me going.  Then about a third of the way into this two act play I started to get into the plot.  I began to realize more of what was going on, what are some of the characters motivations, and where the tensions lie within the story.  Then the jokes became more humorous and play in all just really picked up.  At first I thought that I would have wished they started the play more in the middle of this developing action.  Yet, I soon realized that the bit of lead in at the begining was neccessary and the play was in fact started in the middle of the developing action.  In the end I would definitly say that I liked the play and would enjoy seeing it again, but part of me thinks that it was mainly the actors that really won me over rather than the play itself.  That may just be my taste in play style though, as I said, I don't normally watch french farses.

Superior Donuts: after reading the script

I like how the physical descriptions of the characters within the script matched the actors that were cast in the play at the Farmer's Alley Theater.  When I first saw the play, I immediately thought that the physical casting for the parts matched the characters really well.  I do think acting in some spots could have been better, but it was still pretty decent for local theater.  Then I read the script and well the actors definitely knew thier lines.  I tried to read with the play going on in my head at the same time and I don't think any of the lines that I remember were improved, which I thought was pretty impressive.  Also, I thought it was interesting how some of the dialog was formatted within the play.  Whenever there were two conversations going on at the same time, the lines were just lined up right next to each other like two columns of dialog.  I don't think I've seen this in any play I have read before, so I thought that was interesting and new to see.  Normally a play with something like that in it, just uses the typical format for stichomythia when lines are to be said that closely together.  I think I like the formatting style the way it was in the play, in relation to having two conversations going on at once.

Also, here is a link to a play being perfomed next week at WMU.  $5 tickets for students. http://www.wmich.edu/wmu/news/2012/02/038.html

Superior Donuts

Personally, I would like to applaud Mr. Tracey Letts on his brilliant depiction of a business on it's way out. The characters included in this script all have different stories to tell, but the one thing they have in common is their relationship with the donut shop. The leading role, Arthur, is a complex role to play. The actor cast to portray Arthur made a decent attempt, but it is kind of hard to ignore that these are all volunteer actors (a group in which I find myself a very proud member... when my schedule allows it), so it would be unfair to base my opinion of the show from the one performance I've attended. After reading the script, I didn't find myself much more fond of the play than I was before. 
There are moments in the show of comic perfection, and moments where I found myself in genuine sorrow for the characters. However, for all of the time in between I can't help but say that I got bored. It's a very, very long show. Very long. Very. 
My biggest criticism with the script are the monologues provided by Arthur. Each monologue is packed with information on Arthur's history and details that explain his motivations... but they're poorly located in the script and nearly painful to sit through.
My favorite aspect of the story is the relationship between all of the characters. Each character has a different motivation for being there, but there is an undeniable sense of kinship and interest in keeping the store alive. These people are all there, because they have no where else to go. Something about that common interest is just such a beautiful concept, that I can't entirely dislike the play. 


Also, "Lady" was by far my favorite character and the most effectively portrayed at the Farmers Alley. That woman kicked some major ass Saturday night.

Play to Script

I felt like when I read it I didn't enjoy it as much. Something about how the play performed felt more real than how I saw it in a play. Perhaps it was my current state of mind when reading it but some of the jokes that the actors did fine came of as corny when I read through it. I think that the director of the play had a good vision from what he saw and took it in a realistic but very true the script direction. I think that my major issues with the script was that it read kind of dry for Arthur. Sense he was already trying to hide himself from others he is adopting this emotional facade the entire play. This makes his lines often sound dry and rehearsed.

Superior Donuts

I want to start off by saying that Tracy Letts is an amazing playwright. I have been a fan of his plays for a while now. However, when you have below-par actors acting out a well-written play, it can make you think that the play is written poorly.

Right off the bat, I found myself criticizing the acting and not paying attention to the content of the play itself. After I realized this was happening, I began to force myself to pay attention to the writing of the play. Superior Donuts had its moments. I really enjoyed Linda's witty character to add humor to places that needed to be lighter. (It helped that the actor playing Linda was actually a good actor.) Other than that, and it may have been the acting, but Arthur's character had way too many monologues that the play could have done without. Every time he had a monologue, I sighed and complained - silently, of course. However, with another, better actor, maybe that could have been better. Also, there was one monologue that the bad guy (can't remember his name) performed about the ulcer in his stomach that was totally unnecessary and irrelevant. He went off on this long tangent that the play could have done without.

With all of the bad acting aside, I did like the play. It had a great message, and it was cute. I am interested in seeing it again at a different theatre...with different actors.

(I apologize, guys. I'm definitely the biggest critic!)

Superior Doughnuts

I saw this play a couple weeks ago, so forgive me if my memory of it is a bit rusty. I liked the characters, Arthur was a sad, ex-hippy who's life was wrapped up in his doughnut shop, even despite neglecting it greatly. Even the one thing he cares about, he treats like dirt, which speaks greatly of his self-respect. He's got a daughter he hasn't seen in a long time, and just lives from day to day dealing with his problems by smoking pot and trying to put them all out of his head by any means necessary.

Franco is a good foil character for Arthur. While Arthur is sad and meek, Franco is loud and bold. Franco applies his personality onto everyone he meets. He acts before he thinks, he makes money by any means necessary, he has dreams of writing the next great American novel. Franco has dreams far bigger than he is, and seeing him and Arthur play off each other is highly amusing, from when he's trying to give Arthur a makeover to when he's giving Arthur business ideas, the two work together extremely well, and even the smallest of interactions between the two are a lot of fun to watch.

The characters were all there, they all felt real, down to the two cops, one woman with a crush on Arthur and a man with a family and a sci-fi obsession. They were completely there. However, story-wise, the play became very predictable, particularly in the second half.

The moment we learned more about Franco, I knew he was going to owe someone money, or was going to fall in with a tough crowd, or was going to get beaten up by an ex-tough crowd he used to hang around with. All three happened in this play. The characters succeeded in changing through each other, and the focus of the story stayed on just that, which was a good thing. The story itself, was cliched and tired. We've seen this, the curmudgeon and the young, wide-eyed kid, coming together. However, because these characters were done so well, it worked. I just wish the story had that kind of variety and "funness" that the characters did.

Superior Donuts

First off I wanted to say that I thought this was a very entertaining well written play. One thing I especially liked about this play is that it had so many layers. Between Franco Wicks critiquing/helping Arthur Przybyszewski adapt his store to the "New Era," business world, to Arthur's pursuit of Officer Bandy, all the way to Franco's gambling debt to Luther Flynn. I was amazed at how much conflict/resolution and content Tracy Letts was able to incorporate into this play and still didn't effect the flow of it. Having said that I thought there were positives and negatives to both seeing the play and reading the play. The positive of seeing the play was that the actors that performed it were very good and added to the vision aspect of the play. To elaborate, the actor who played Max Tarasov did a great portrayal of the Russian business owner which I think is better than just reading Max's character yourself on the playwrite. A negative aspect to seeing the play is if you miss a line or two because of the speed in which they say it or if you miss a minor detail you can't go back and see what you missed like you can while reading it. But the negative to reading the play and not seeing it is the idea that you are seeing the play the way the writer/director intended you to see it. Whether it be the emotions displayed or the tones/accents, when you are reading it yourself you don't always get to incorporate that into the reading process. Overall I thought this was a entertaining play with some very funny dialog in it. (Especially Max's character, he was my favorite.)

Superior Donuts ticket for tonight

Hey,

I have one ticket remaining for Superior Donuts tonight! Nick took the other ticket... To claim the ticket, just go to the will call /box office and the ticket is under 'Anderson'.  It's $23, happy to collect anytime before the end of the semester.

Hope someone can use it!

Angels in America

Through the first act, I was confused as to what was going on until about the fourth scene, realizing that the play was introducing the major characters. I didn't enjoy reading this play. That said, I think I would enjoy SEEING this play, especially if the production is tight. There's a lot going on in the stage directions as well as the dialogue. It's very fast paced, very in-your-face and very unapologetic in concerns to the breaking AIDS awareness in the 1980s. I began to appreciate, in the second act, the amount of conflict Joe was experiencing with his sexuality as it ran against the grain of his religious upbringing. The play feels like it is more focused on Joe and Prior as our emotionally turbulent characters, as everyone else floats in and out of view, especially Joe's wife. I'm a little disappointed that there isn't a local opportunity to see this play, since reading all the split scenes boggled my mind and confused me to the point where I had to reread the scene three times before I actually grasped what was actually happening in the plot.

Angels in America

SPOILER ALERTS

The play was at times difficult for me to read. I found that it probably would have been clearer to see on stage. The pacing of sentences begins picking up but it becomes a back and forth between two situations. There are four characters having parallel arguments in pairs at times and it becomes a task to make sure you are reading the right line for the right person.

I found the staging of this to be really interesting to think about. I never would have thought of such unconventional things to happen on a stage. I think that it affords a lot of opportunity for a director but at the same time has its challenges. The first dream sequence made me think it would be difficult. That idea of both a dream and a hallucination going on at the same time to two different people comes across in dialogue, but could be jarring for people to see on stage. I think the director is going to have to meet the playwright somewhere in the middle to make sure that the audience can understand what is going on.

Probably my favorite scene is with the three Priors. Something about the implications and the idea of how to cast that scene really struck me as excting.

Angels in America

I like the character of Roy, mostly because he is the most unchanged character by the end. Yes, he is an asshole, but he represents the bad guy and needs to be the kind of over-the-top guy he is. He is money hungry and ruthless, especially his treatment of Belize and his endorsment and joy that Ethel was executed. He also has the most pride, which can be a fascinating trait in a character. He never admits he's homosexual becasue he considers himself a guy who just messes around with guys and should never be lumped into the same category as the the "homo". I love the scene where he learns about his A.I.D.S. and insists to the doctor that it is liver cancer. It shows the most serious tone of denial and represents the ongoling theme in the play of identity. Joe obviously struggles with his sexuality, further emphasizing the theme of identity. The play was interesting with its symbolism and supernatural events, mainly the angels and dreams of the main characters. I think Louis is most representing the tragic figure in the play, yet Roy and Harper could be seen that way as well. Roy's death is either applauded or pittied and I loved the way he was presented as a sympathetic charcter as well as a vilain. I did think at times, the play was disorganized and I folund myself getting confused, especially when there was multiple stories going on on stage at the same time.

Angels in America: What I Hope You Gained From This Play

This play more than any of the other plays we've read so far really pushes the limits of what can and cannot be done on stage.  There's such a thin line between what can and can't be done on stage.  I've had people tell me that you can do anything with an ambitious director.  Kushner's comment at the beginning of the play about his stage directions is a really good one.  He says, "The moments of magic--the appearance and disappearance of Mr. Lies and the ghosts, the Book Hallucination, and the ending--are to be fully realized, as bits of wonderful theatrical illusion--which means it's OK if the wires show, and maybe it's good that they do, but the magic should at the same time be thoroughly amazing."  The wonderful thing about theater is that your audience signs an unwritten, unspoken contract when they attend your production to believe whatever your production puts on the stage.  If you tell them this metal folding chair is a throne, it's a throne.  If two people carry in a person and they tell you that person is flying, they're flying.  One of the great things about theatre is the ability to see different interpretations of the same piece.  The one way one theatre stages the ending of Angels in America may differ from how another theatre does it and both can be equally exciting.

The characters in this piece are so painfully human.  All of them do despicable things to themselves and to others but you don't dislike any of them.   Even the most villainous character, Roy Cohn, garners sympathy (especially in the second half).  I want you see how this play is full of political ideals but they never overpower the story that is being told.  Kushner is able to send his message about how he feels about America's politics without sacrificing his characters.  In fact he does a good job of making those ideals a part of each character or a part of the scene.  Roy Cohn embodies exactly what Kushner felt about Reaganism.  Some of you may aim in your plays to send political or moral messages but make sure that you do them in a manner that still tells a story.

Also note the use of simultaneity in this play, where there are several things happening at once.  This can be very theatrical when done right and while it may have been a little confusing reading it, it works really well on stage.  

Angels in America

Angels in America is really striking to me because of its political commentary. I saw this play a long time ago and it was really breathtaking in its direct assault of the Reagan administration and its seemingly ineffectual systems. Systems that valued capital gains over people and forced people to hide, lie and make choices that were clearly detrimental to themselves and others. There is a lot of humor in the dialogue which I appreciate given what the characters are facing. The dialogue is very tight in that it is very 'in your face' a lot of the time. I definitely think there is a a lot about movement, abandonment, right & wrong and forgiveness woven throughout. I liked that we see a few of the 'worst'characters in positions of both oppressed and oppressor (Cohn and Pitt). I love the characters 'Belize' and 'Harper' and the notion that San Francisco is the place where God's angels are living and the juxtaposition that at the time the play was written, and maybe still, there was a strong conservative discourse that held that San Fransisco was the seat of 'hell' and nothing but immoral freaks went there.

M'Bwende Anderson

Angels in America

First off, I read the preliminary material for the play as well as the play itself.  As in I read how the parts in the play break down and who acts them.  Afterward, I just thought that this play seems to put a pretty heavy load onto the actors within it.  Most of the actors would be doing at least 2 if not three or four different characters all with different speech patterns and dialects.  This is not neccessarily a bad thing.  It would just mean that you would need a whole cast of some decently versatile and experienced actors.  Other than that, I really liked the humor throughout the play, but I was hoping that the humor amount would continue throughout it.  I understand why it didn't, given that the play tackles a lot of serious issues with AIDS, death, sexual identification, love, heart break, etc.  I was also confused as to whether or not one of the messages in this play was that all males are inheritely homosexual. Over all I really did like the play.  Though some of the scenes between Joe and Harper did seem less interesting than most of the others to me, but I think thats just because some of their dialog seemed more conventional when compared to the tone of the rest of the play (the parts I'm refering to are of course the ones that don't include Mr. Liar or Harpers seemingly random topic changes, both of which I loved).  It was also hard for me to visualize the scene where Louis and Prior were talking in the hospital and Joe and Harper were talking in their home, but both conversations were happening at exactly the same time with a lot of dialog jumping around.  But on the other hand, I think it would be great to see that performed properly.

Angels in America

Right off the bat, I was very intrigued with seeing where this play would go. We learn so much about each character in the first act.

We learn about Roy's life and about his attitude. His life is hectic, and that bothers him and gets him worked up quite a bit. (What a great scene to open up with. It really caught my attention right away, which is something that I look for in a play - if I'm not pulled in right away, then I don't really want to read the play.)

We learn about Harper's life and her attitude. She is somewhat crazy and wants to get away.

I really enjoyed the beginning of scene 5. It was written very well. We learn a lot about Harper's character from the way her lines are written. We also learn a lot about Joe's character, as well. He is running from something by wanting to move away. Unlike Roadkill, the Joe/Harper scenes were my favorite. I feel that they were the better scenes in the play because they taught us the most about their characters - more so than the other scenes did with other characters.

As we are all aware, homosexuality is something that comes up in this play. It shows up in regards to a homosexual's reputation and their decisions to life situations.

I really would like to see this play performed live. It was phenomenally written, and the

Angels in America

Upon reading Angels in America I noticed a few things but was also a little confused at what the overall play is driving at. The few things I got out of the play was a view on homosexuality in comparison to real life decisions and reputations. To elaborate, I understood what the play was getting at in describing the character Roy and how he doesn't want to address his sexual orientation and this is partly based on his lack of ethics and corruption as a lawyer. Another thing I got from this play is that Joe slightly comes to terms with his homosexuality with Harper but isn't fully out of the closet and in turn he has a better sense of ethics and standards. These two perceptions are how I interpreted the message in the play. What I was unsure about was the story with Prior and Louis. I didn't really understand Prior and what was occurring between the past Priors and in the end with the Angel. I thought that story was a little more confusing. Overall I thought it was a well written play, which included a lot of serious issues and had a few comical parts between dialog and monologue of some of the characters.

Superior Donuts

WARNING: POTENTIAL SPOILERS TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SEEN THE PLAY!!

First off, I liked the theater that this play was performed at.  The seats within the theater are so close to the stage in comparison with a lot of other theaters that I've been at and it helped me feel more involved in the action of the play.  The actors did a pretty good job with the comedy throughout, and though some jokes were a bit off color (no pun intended), I still thought the delivery was done in a good enough style to not push it too far.  I also liked the use of the physicality with the actors as well.  They all looked like they fit the part, from the shop owner with the ponytail and the all white hair to the Russian kid that was extremely reminiscent of Drago (Dolph Lundgren from Rocky IV).  There was also a lot of emotion to be played out throughout the peformances and I was shocked when the lead actor was actually able to cry at the end of it.  Very powerful story delivered in an archetypal but non-cliche way.

Buried Child

The interection between characters is great through out this play.  I love how easily the dysfunctional feeling is conveyed from the first act in the dialog between Haily and Dodge.  Especially after I noticed that it was almost eight pages of them just yelling at each other from two different ends of the house.  I also liked how simple Tilden seemed as a character, as in simple minded.  I am not sure if this was what the writer wanted out of Tilden or not, but he seemed like he had the mind of a ten year old sometimes.  In fact through most of the play I couldn't help but read Tilden's lines as if he was remeniscent of Lenny from 'Of Mice And Men'.

Buried Child

I thought this play was great. One thing I thought worked especially well in this play was the building of tension throughout. I thought that with the play starting with just the interaction of the character Dodge and his wife Hailie was a great way to not fully disclose the intense family situation that later occurs with the dark secret and the dysfunctional family life. Also, I thought it was interesting how different (in my opinion) Dodge's character was in the first act and the second act when Vince arrives. It seems like he (Vince) had a negative affect of the other characters. Also, another aspect I thought worked well in this play was the relationship of the name with the plot of the play. It was a very deep metaphor. I'm not 100% sure what the metaphor completely exemplifies but, my perception of the metaphor is that the "Buried Child" is both Vincent and the murdered child of Hailie and Dodge. I believe that Tilden took to the child that was murdered so much, and this had a killing (metaphor) affect on his own son Vincent. Overall I really enjoyed this play specifically for the tension build up and the way the interactions were carried out.

Theatre Kalamazoo! New Play Festival

Theatre Kalamazoo (TK) is proud to announce that the second annual New Play Festival will be held February 11, 2012 at the Epic Theatre in downtown Kalamazoo. The event will feature new plays by all local playwrights.

Steve Feffer (Professor of Playwriting at WMU) and Ed Menta (Professor & Director of Theatre at Kalamazoo College) are thrilled that Theatre Kalamazoo and the Arts Council of Greater Kalamazoo, as supported by the Irving S. Gilmore Foundation, are once again
producing the New Play Festival. Menta says, “This year's festival features 10 new plays by 8 different playwrights - including student writers from both WMU and Kalamazoo College, as well as writers from the Kalamazoo community. The process for playwrights submitting this year was even more competitive than last year, thanks to the work of an advisory selection committee. And the fact that there are even more theatres participating this year – 10 - is a testament to the Kalamazoo theatre community's commitment to producing new work. We can't wait until February 11!”

This is a FREE event. No reservations are necessary. All shows are at Epic Theatre in downtown Kalamazoo. .


The schedule for the day is as follows:

11am (Full length)

• Take-Off by Conor McShane directed by Katy Copeland(presented by University Theatre)

1pm (3 One Acts) Performance will be followed by a talkback:

• Tree House for Tom-Tom by Bonnie Grooters directed by Ada McCartney (presented by Festival Playhouse of Kalamazoo College)
• Coming Attractions by Fran Hoepfner directed by Allison Alexander (presented by Portage Summer Entertainment Series)
• Kindness of Strangers by David Landskroener directed by Kevin Dodd (presented by the Kalamazoo Civic Theatre)

4pm (5 10-Minute plays) Performance will be followed by a talkback.

• Natalie by David Landskroener directed by Kimberly Dunham (presented by The New Vic)
• And the Name of the Killer Is... by John Thierwechter directed by Janai Travis (presented by Black Arts and Cultural Center)
• Desserted Island by Jason Lenz directed by Ethan Waldron (presented by the South County Players)
• Love Bites by Alec Robbins directed by Kyle Waterman (presented by the Centre Stage)
• A Matter of Taste by Bill Zorn directed by Dann Sytsma (presented by the Farmers Alley)

8pm (Full length)

• Revisionaries by Jason Lenz directed by Robert Smith (presented by the Kalamazoo Civic Theatre)

One Act Plays showing in February

The Paw Paw Village Players are doing one act plays.  The dates and ticket fees are on the website below.  Enjoy.

http://www.ppvp.org/calendar.htm

Last Chance to see Never the Sinner by John Logan

The WMU Theatre's production of Never the Sinner by John Logan closes this weekend. It's a docudrama about the infamous Leopold and Loeb case, two students who murdered a young boy in 1924 because they wanted to commit the perfect murder.   They were defended by Clarence Darrow.  Alfred Hitchcock's Rope (a great film btw) was inspired by the crime.

It should be a pretty great production.  If you do see it, post about your experience here on the blog.

What: Never the Sinner
When: TR, F, S 8p.m Sun 2 p.m.
Where: York Theatre, Gilmore Theatre Complex (right between Brown and Miller)
$$$$: $5 for WMU students, $10 for other students, and $20 for everyone else

I don't know what the crowd has been like for this show, but I do know that York is a small theatre so you might want to buy your tickets early just in case.

2.5 Minute Ride by Lisa Kron

2.5 Minute Ride is a wonderful one person show written by Lisa Kron.  It tells the story of her family's annual trip to Cedar Point, her brother's wedding, and her and her father's trip to Auschwitz.  We're reading this play to explore what a writer can do with only one actor and to prepare you guys for writing your character monologues.

Things to think about while reading:

• What do you think of the transition from one story to the other?
• What do you think about the way it's staged?
• What is the character's need to tell?  Why is she telling this story?
• What is the dramatic action?  Meaning what does the character want and how does she attempt to achieve it?
• How do you feel about the piece's language? It's pacing? The characters? You get the point.

I also just want to hear your initial thoughts about the piece.  What did you like about the piece?  What didn't you like? Things of that sort.  Remember to post a few of your thoughts in the comment.  Looking forward to discussing this with you guys in class on Wednesday.

Welcome to Our Playwriting Blog

Here is where we will share all our thoughts about the different plays that we read and see for this class.  Here is also where you can get a brief recap of what happened in class. I'm looking forward to your comments!