I found out recently that I was indeed cast in Anything Goes at the Old Opera House. I will be one of the sailors.
To be truthful, this was the closest I have come to turning down a part in a long time. The reason being my lack of dancing skills.
The initial impression about the sailors that I got from the director was of a group that sang danced quite a bit in various numbers. Singing I have no problem with, never have. Dancing on the other hand... I wanted to learn more about the role. (As I mentioned previously I have not yet read the script. )
I have gotten away with some small amounts of dancing in some shows. In others I had small dance numbers removed from my responsibility two weeks before opening, because of a total lack of progress on my part. So I set out to discover just what kind of dancing sailor I was going to be.
I could not find specific mention of the sailors in any of the online summaries. So I took to looking for pictures and videos of the production on the internet. What I found in many cases was very intricate dances being performed by dozens of sailors in unison. This frightened me to no end.
You see, dear readers, my dancing has not ever been stellar. Honestly, my rhythm is usually quite good. It would be more accurate to say that my ability to follow choreographed routines has, thus far, not been proven to exist. When I saw those pictures and home videos of sailors galore on the stage in other productions of this play, my imagination went into overdrive. I suddenly had nightmarish flashes of elaborate show stopping dance routines by the entire company, with all attention focused on one sailor going the wrong way or possibly falling. I was, of course, said clumsy sailor.
I would be lying if I said a bit of cold sweat was not involved as I pondered the prospect.
I talked to the director though, and he seems to think that the dancing will not as bad as all of that. Read, it will not be as hopelessly complicated as all that. Those are the famous last words of many a people who have attempted to show me how "easy" a dance is to learn. Yet I opted for taking the role, in the end. I figure this can be a sort of do or die type of thing. I either learn, under the gun how to get dancing down properly, or I can let the entire experience serve as a warning to never again try out for a musical.
Either way, the theatre going public wins. Mostly.
First read through is in a few days. May there be mercy upon me as I undertake a whole different type of theatre adventure. Man, am I nervous about dancing.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
A Much Belated Movie Review
I saw a used VHS copy of Mel Gibson's Hamlet on sale for 2 dollars at the local library. Like a beacon in the "used videos" shelf it stuck out above anything else there. I did not even look at the rest of the stuff on the shelf. I had to do it. This version has always been one of my favorites.
It is certainly not without its critics. In fact it has a great deal of criticism attached to it. Scenes are juggled around in different orders. Dialogue is shifted to other characters when convenient. The plot definitely unfolds along a somewhat different linear plane than does the actual play. This version is not one for the purists among us.
This does not offend me. If I want more pure Shakespeare, I will take a trip down to D.C. and see some at the Folger. Yet even on stage the possibilities are often endless with a work of Shakespeare, particularly Hamlet. It is even more true on film.
The medium demands such open mindedness, I think. While some Shakespeare films are more purist than this one, it is in its own right, excellent. Director Franco Zefferilli (it is never referred to as his version) creates a gritty, spartan, yet civilized Elsinore. It is this sort of closed off, barebones approach to the setting that gives it a very Shakespearean feel, despite the editorial choices made. (Contrasting greatly to the distracting opulence of the Kenneth Branagh version of Elsinore on film.)
Despite the ideal setting, this version succeeds by it's focus on the performances.
Shakespearean stories are, above all, stories about characters; about people. Indeed they are not just about people, but humanity itself. Humanity must therefore be present in each individual. Not sympathy necessarily, but humanity. Often times when doing Shakespeare actors get lost in the iconic status of the people they are portraying. There is either no attempt, or no ability to make them alive. Such is not the problem here. Despite some of the controversial choices made by the director in regards to the plot, individual moments and scenes are dead on in regards to motivations and interactions between individuals.
Gibson himself, thus far, has come closest to the Hamlet I conjure in my mind when I read the play. This may be why it is one of my favorite versions, despite overall differences from the source material. The man's the thing.
People and on stage have tended to portray Hamlet in one of two ways; majestic to the point of Christ like, or indecisive to the point of parody. Both of these extremes haunt those who play Hamlet in worse ways than the ghost haunts Hamlet himself. Yet Gibson truly does pull off a near perfect balance. He is the kind of prince I could personally relate to, if I were among the "distracted multitude" of a kingdom.
The supporting cast also rarely misses. Alan Bates, Glenn Close, Sir Ian Holm. All of them present Shakespearean characters in such a way that you are convinced you have met people like them in your daily life. Every performance rings true.
Two supporting roles that particularly stand out for me are Stephen Dillane's Horatio and the great Paul Scofield's Ghost.
Horatio is often an under used presence in Hamlet. Yet like the Prince, when I first read the play I had a very specific notion as to what Horatio was; the friend who is both concerned with the state of affairs in Denmark, but who clearly loves his Prince and friend. Dillane does well in projecting this, despite the fact that many of the best Horatio moments are cut from this script. It is not perfect, but he certainly is not the Horatio-5000 cyborg I often see in renditions of the play, and that alone is worthy of praise.
As for Scofield's ghost; again talk about humanity! This ghost has it in abundance. The lines of the ghost were also greatly edited. However, if the entire appearance of the ghost consisted only of Scofield's face (especially his eyes) and his rendering of the line "Remember me", the performance would be memorable.
If you are a Shakespeare purist than indeed this movie would probably give you ulcers. Yet I am willing to say that even half the purists out there who see it would be able to say "It's not pure, but I don't care...its just plain good."
There you have it. A movie review 16 yeas after the film's release.
It is certainly not without its critics. In fact it has a great deal of criticism attached to it. Scenes are juggled around in different orders. Dialogue is shifted to other characters when convenient. The plot definitely unfolds along a somewhat different linear plane than does the actual play. This version is not one for the purists among us.
This does not offend me. If I want more pure Shakespeare, I will take a trip down to D.C. and see some at the Folger. Yet even on stage the possibilities are often endless with a work of Shakespeare, particularly Hamlet. It is even more true on film.
The medium demands such open mindedness, I think. While some Shakespeare films are more purist than this one, it is in its own right, excellent. Director Franco Zefferilli (it is never referred to as his version) creates a gritty, spartan, yet civilized Elsinore. It is this sort of closed off, barebones approach to the setting that gives it a very Shakespearean feel, despite the editorial choices made. (Contrasting greatly to the distracting opulence of the Kenneth Branagh version of Elsinore on film.)
Despite the ideal setting, this version succeeds by it's focus on the performances.
Shakespearean stories are, above all, stories about characters; about people. Indeed they are not just about people, but humanity itself. Humanity must therefore be present in each individual. Not sympathy necessarily, but humanity. Often times when doing Shakespeare actors get lost in the iconic status of the people they are portraying. There is either no attempt, or no ability to make them alive. Such is not the problem here. Despite some of the controversial choices made by the director in regards to the plot, individual moments and scenes are dead on in regards to motivations and interactions between individuals.
Gibson himself, thus far, has come closest to the Hamlet I conjure in my mind when I read the play. This may be why it is one of my favorite versions, despite overall differences from the source material. The man's the thing.
People and on stage have tended to portray Hamlet in one of two ways; majestic to the point of Christ like, or indecisive to the point of parody. Both of these extremes haunt those who play Hamlet in worse ways than the ghost haunts Hamlet himself. Yet Gibson truly does pull off a near perfect balance. He is the kind of prince I could personally relate to, if I were among the "distracted multitude" of a kingdom.
The supporting cast also rarely misses. Alan Bates, Glenn Close, Sir Ian Holm. All of them present Shakespearean characters in such a way that you are convinced you have met people like them in your daily life. Every performance rings true.
Two supporting roles that particularly stand out for me are Stephen Dillane's Horatio and the great Paul Scofield's Ghost.
Horatio is often an under used presence in Hamlet. Yet like the Prince, when I first read the play I had a very specific notion as to what Horatio was; the friend who is both concerned with the state of affairs in Denmark, but who clearly loves his Prince and friend. Dillane does well in projecting this, despite the fact that many of the best Horatio moments are cut from this script. It is not perfect, but he certainly is not the Horatio-5000 cyborg I often see in renditions of the play, and that alone is worthy of praise.
As for Scofield's ghost; again talk about humanity! This ghost has it in abundance. The lines of the ghost were also greatly edited. However, if the entire appearance of the ghost consisted only of Scofield's face (especially his eyes) and his rendering of the line "Remember me", the performance would be memorable.
If you are a Shakespeare purist than indeed this movie would probably give you ulcers. Yet I am willing to say that even half the purists out there who see it would be able to say "It's not pure, but I don't care...its just plain good."
There you have it. A movie review 16 yeas after the film's release.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Jukebox Dichotomy
I stumbled across this article about jukebox( aka catalog) musicals, and how they have nearly become ubiquitous in theatre these days.
I am not totally sure where I stand on the issue of jukeboxes. Their exponential proliferation does bother me somewhat, for various reasons. One is the copy cat syndrome. As the artilce states, they had been around in one form or another for a while. Yet once Mamma Mia! and a few others became certifiable mega-hits, everyone and their cousin suddenly wanted a piece of the action. The theatre landscape became, (and in some ways still is) flooded with musicals based on the hits of fill in the blank. It would seem many of them turned out to be trash.
Honestly, though, I get annoyed and fed up with any trend. The reality trend on television is one example. The boy band trend of the late 1990's is another. The concept of people, particularly in the entertainment industry, doing exactly what everyone else is doing always reeks in my opinion. People fear originality. Particularly in American musical theatre, so it would seem.
That aversion to originality is another reason I am somewhat reluctant to embrace the jukebox productions wholesale. It seems possible to me, that the more we spoon-feed this kind of fan service in our live theatres, the less potential for artistry there is.
Yet it cannot be denied that several of these shows make good money. It is show business after all, and producers have the right to make money, I suppose. I furthermore admit that seeing some of the jukebox shows, would be quite fun for me. (Though as of yet I have not.) Actually being in some of them myself would be even more fun. So they do have their place, even if I do not think they should dominate the way they do. Like french fries. They are still food, and in the right portions are fine. I just would not want every meal to be mostly a plate of fries.
Maybe if these musicals could thrive elsewhere other than Broadway itself, I would be less conflicted. I suppose there is a part of me that wishes that the Great White Way would opt out of the genre, and leave it to the folks downtown. Just for the sake of making a point. That is unrealistic, I understand. Yet I would venture to say I am not the only person who holds that view somewhere deep inside.
In the interest of full disclosure, however, I should admit that if some theatre somewhere decides to produce an REO Speedwagon catalog musical and offered me a chance to be in it, I would be there before you could say "Take It On the Run".
I am not totally sure where I stand on the issue of jukeboxes. Their exponential proliferation does bother me somewhat, for various reasons. One is the copy cat syndrome. As the artilce states, they had been around in one form or another for a while. Yet once Mamma Mia! and a few others became certifiable mega-hits, everyone and their cousin suddenly wanted a piece of the action. The theatre landscape became, (and in some ways still is) flooded with musicals based on the hits of fill in the blank. It would seem many of them turned out to be trash.
Honestly, though, I get annoyed and fed up with any trend. The reality trend on television is one example. The boy band trend of the late 1990's is another. The concept of people, particularly in the entertainment industry, doing exactly what everyone else is doing always reeks in my opinion. People fear originality. Particularly in American musical theatre, so it would seem.
That aversion to originality is another reason I am somewhat reluctant to embrace the jukebox productions wholesale. It seems possible to me, that the more we spoon-feed this kind of fan service in our live theatres, the less potential for artistry there is.
Yet it cannot be denied that several of these shows make good money. It is show business after all, and producers have the right to make money, I suppose. I furthermore admit that seeing some of the jukebox shows, would be quite fun for me. (Though as of yet I have not.) Actually being in some of them myself would be even more fun. So they do have their place, even if I do not think they should dominate the way they do. Like french fries. They are still food, and in the right portions are fine. I just would not want every meal to be mostly a plate of fries.
Maybe if these musicals could thrive elsewhere other than Broadway itself, I would be less conflicted. I suppose there is a part of me that wishes that the Great White Way would opt out of the genre, and leave it to the folks downtown. Just for the sake of making a point. That is unrealistic, I understand. Yet I would venture to say I am not the only person who holds that view somewhere deep inside.
In the interest of full disclosure, however, I should admit that if some theatre somewhere decides to produce an REO Speedwagon catalog musical and offered me a chance to be in it, I would be there before you could say "Take It On the Run".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
