Being in the Room Together (or: theatre criticism!)

Last night and tonight were my first Wednesday and Thursday nights off since before Vanya opened... so what, six or maybe seven weeks? And I have to be honest, it feels good. In between missing the production and everyone involved... aside from those feelings, having my evenings back does feel good. But doesn't it always?

I could write more about that experience but instead I feel compelled to write some other experiences, specifically two great shows I saw this week that were great for completely different but maybe sort fundamentally philosophically similar reasons!

On the bus ride over to our last show, my friend, comrade and cast mate Ron and I were discussing (philosophizing as it were) as we often do on the nature of theatre! Somehow or another, the topic came around to how contemporary audiences' perception of theatre is inevitably influenced by their experiences with film and cinema, related but very fundamentally different mediums. Ron went on to decry theatre that attempts somehow to replicate cinema in spite of these differences or because the way we experience stories as acted out by people ala theatre is so affected by our experience of cinema... This is a long winded way of bringing around the point that the most successful  theatre fundamentally acknowledges you, the audience and us the performers are in a room... together! And what makes live theatre especially compelling to us audiences in the age of cinema is the texture of that experience and how it is so much missing in our lives. I think ultimately acknowledging that is a big part of what made Vanya so successful.

And the same could be said of the two productions I'm reviewing in this blog post, Project: Project's "What Are You Doing Here?" and Whistler in the Dark's Tales From Ovid.

And it is my earnest hope to sincerely well, review them! Which is something I don't often do. Well, I sort of do, have you read many of my blog posts? I often react to the pieces I see. But I tend to avoid out and out reviewing things because as an acting member of the theatre community I can't be critically objective both because I know and have worked with or my opinions are somehow affected by my relationship to so many people making theatre and also because well, I want to work them and for that to happen I have to be hired by them and reviews can be touchy things, right? So if I were setting out or felt compelled to write a Thomas Garvey-esque scorching criticism of something or somebody (and in the past I've had to restrain myself) I couldn't bring myself to write anything like that about anyway. So I'm not really a true critic, and that's fine. But in the case of Whistler in the Dark and Project: Project I feel like I also know the people behind those companies well enough that I don't foresee them taking anything I have personally and perhaps even welcoming my criticism and commentary as part of a broader discussion, so here it goes! Critical response review a-ma-gigs!

Let me start by saying that Project: Project's "What Are You Doing Here?" is definitely the kind of show I could stand to have more of in my life. Conveniently located in the Democracy Center which is a fifteen minute walk away from my apartment, for a suggested donation of $5 a piece and under an hour long oh and I forgot to mention phenomenally entertaining, original, engaging and energetic. Basically like, the perfect way to spend a Sunday afternoon, which is when I happened to be seeing it, which happened to be their last performance. Talking to people afterwards and from the product I experienced it was clear I was therefore seeing the show in it's best possible light, all the mechanics of the piece hummed along beautifully while also incorporating the numerous discoveries the performers had made from bringing their devised, largely improvisational work before an audience four times previously.

Oh, so what exactly is Project: Project and what do they do? What an excellent question! It's a site specific, interactive, immersive... performance piece? For vague reasons, there are Boy Scouts but also Roller Derby Girls and the Boyscouts have crushes on the Roller Derby Girls and vice versa except when they have crushes on each other or not at all. It was delightfully convoluted, or maybe just a little convoluted if you weren't totally on board with being broken up into groups of five or six and being lead between the Democracy Center's different rooms, including the kitchen, bathroom, library and a room with arts and crafts. Meanwhile, the action unfolds around you as characters run back and forth falling in and out love and commonly asking audience members for pick up lines or relationship advice when not flirting or courting one another. In the end, the majority of the characters get paired off, and not always in ways you expect! All of this was structured around the very clever conceit of starting and ending in the so called "Ball Room", the biggest room and sort of main hall of the Democracy Center (and probably where you've seen anything there like a reading if you been to Interim Writers or what have you, a group that shares membership with Project: Project). While in the ball room, most of the plates and pieces which constitutes the plot begin spinning starting with the Roller Derby Girls crashing the Boy Scouts trial orientation for new Cub Scouts which the audience is supposed to be a part of.

Did you follow all that? Did I mention it was interactive? Which generally is something that I'm into! I like being a participant in my theatre pieces, I mean as I previously stated by being in the room I am already so I don't mind taking an extra step. But then again I am an actor and I crave attention. And this is a tricky tight rope to walk and thing to pull off. The pieces of "audience interaction" in Lily's Revenge were frankly... not great, mainly consisting of reading off pieces of paper a few times during the show. It didn't really add too much (and also chatting with performers between acts, which I'll admit was more effective). In the case of Project: Project, I wasn't completely sure what our role was supposed to be. Over the course of the bathroom segment (which was maybe my favorite part of the piece) audience members were explicitly polled for pick up lines, and throughout the piece there was no fourth wall so actors constantly referred to or addressed the audience. But at other times it wasn't clear if actors were talking mostly to the other actors on "stage" with them, or to the audience or a little bit of both and when should we be contributing? One guy for example hooted and hollered and added his own asides to the content of the second ground scene, which although, you know, not appropriate, I can't really blame him. And luckily it didn't detract from the overall experience, but I do believe for future endeavors from the company it could be better incorporated, that's all!

Overall I thought it was a super fun show and an awesome use of the Democracy Center space. The main thing that made it work for me along with the clever staging, was the sheer energy and commitment to their characters of the ensemble of performers which included some very, very talented local vets of the fringe scene. For me as an actor, seeing all of their choices and picking out what was scripted, what was spontaneous and what must had developed from the run about their interactions was a big part of the fun and that aspect was so well incorporated, it was hard to tell! And I also can't say how much I enjoyed moving from room to room watching the story unfold as the actors scurried around us in a well oiled hum of choreography and placement... man it was just so cool!

And you know what else was super cool? Tales From Ovid... I mean, holy shit, melted my fucking face. Over the summer (man I guess it was still summer when I took it, or early fall) I took an intensive in Lecoq Technique with Whistler in the Dark, with several members of the Ovid ensemble and the core of that work really shone through for me, enhanced and informing my experience of watching their performance. There are so many little, really beautiful moments I could highlight... the way the actors thrummed and moved as one when Danny Bryck was personifying the sun comes to mind... the way they incorporated the music, for another. The amazing and beautiful silk work. Their sheer physical presences together as a singular unit...

So yeah, all that just incredible shit. My only possible critique is the show's length and the absence of an intermission made it difficult to be completely and fully engaged throughout the entirety of the performance, I mean two hours is a long time to sit in one place and never think "oh and what should I do for dinner?" but anytime I drifted off I was inevitably pulled back in by another awe inspiring moment.

To be honest, I'm still a little too overwhelmed by the experience to write more than "it was really awesome" but it was really awesome! And it was really exciting seeing a show from my peers on the fringe elevated and brought to a new level of exposure by an organization like Arts Emerson and my one time professor Rob Orchard, who I took a class with many years ago when he was still at ART and who I said hi to on the way to the show. Hi Rob! I know Rob Orchard has better things to do than read this... but still. Also hi Meg Taintor! And Max! And Jeff! And anyone else involved with either Whistler or Project: Project who stumbles across this, my message to you, keep doing what you do!

*Editor's Note: I also interviewed Jeff Mosser, co founder of Project Project for my podcast and talked to him about the project (project) on that show. And like I said I took that intensive with Whistler. So I really can't be critically objective! But those are my thoughts on these shows, enjoy!