AWK-waaaaard

Well, now that my car has been thoroughly waxed,
I should warn readers that I reserve the right to forgo any and all future substantive posts in lieu of puppies and kitties.



ME-OUCH!

Roundup and Structure

So far we've had some nice attention from various reviewing outlets for our production of "Colorful World", and I'd like to thank those writing for the kind attention. It's still kind of startling to me that people take time out, not only to come see our work, but to actually sit down and think about what we're doing. I hope that never becomes something I take for granted.

Over at Broadway World we got our first review, which was mixed -- they seemed to enjoy many of the elements of the show, but ultimately had a problem with the script. And of course in talking with Phil, our lighting designer who just so happens to also be my brother, we still can't quite fathom what it means when the reviewer says that the lighting design "is perhaps better than it really needs to be." If anyone can parse that for me, I'd appreciate it.

NYTheatre has been more-than-kind to us, not only with this show, but by generally supporting us over the years. We can almost always count on the reviewers from NYTE to give us a fair shake, and to really engage with the theatrical dialogue.

Aaron Riccio over at "That Sounds Cool" (as well as usually being cross-posted at "Theater Talk's New Theatre Corps") is also really interested in engaging with the material, and tries to see a play for what it is, rather than what it should be. He's written an honest account of his reactions on seeing the show that I think makes some valid points.

I've spoken off-handedly with Zack, Abe and Qui about the structure of "Colorful World" since we're all involved in the process of bringing it to life, as well as being comic/graphic novel enthusiasts (and because they aren't Pete and James. It's always informative to get the outlook of those not at the very, very center of the maelstrom.) The structure of the show is admittedly weird. James has really internalized the comic book structure, and hewn pretty damn closely to the original structure of "Watchmen" in that you're thrown into this world and bombarded with a lot of information about a world that's extensively different from the world we know, but which -- on the surface -- bears a striking resemblance to our own world. It can be a bit confusing -- and admittedly off-putting -- to some. But it's the immersion into this kind of world that many of us who read comics revel in.

But even in the insular world of comic book fans, some prefer the Claremont X-Men, while others don't. Some prefer the Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age comics to the de-constructionism of the late 80's/early 90's comics scene. Some love Frank Miller, and some hate him for his perceived misogyny and obsession with violence. Some think that "The Killing Joke" was a blaspheme on the Batman corpus, and some get all twitterpated by it. But all of these different sub-classes have their own ways to tell the story, their tropes, their obsessions, their themes, and their eccentricities.

And James has (accurately, I think) appropriated the feel of the de-constructionist comics of that era when many of us who are involved in the show really discovered the joys of superhero comics. The big question, though, is: is that structure translatable to the stage? Or does it just gum up the works of the dramatic engine?

Well, I don't rightly know, ma'am. That's the experimental element to this script, and to this production.

I don't want this in any way to turn into a point-by-point reply to Aaron's review -- or to give the impression that I think it was unfair, or even "bad". His review did exactly what I think a review SHOULD do -- it's made me look at the show in more depth, to see it from the point of view of a specific audience member, to look at its pieces as they add up to the whole, and it's made me want to continue the conversation. And again, if you haven't seen the show yet, THERE ARE SPOILERS AHEAD

In his review, Aaron says:

"... it isn't until the end of the first act, when Overman begins to shed his dispassionate mask, that we start to get interested in this world."

He's absolutely right on with that. He's nailed it. I would like to hope that people ARE interested in the world and the characters prior to this, but the structure is designed, I believe, to give that exact reaction. The audience gets (A LOT of) information doled out in snippets and bits throughout the first act, but they don't get a full view of the world until the Overman monologue which should -- if done properly -- give them that feel of, "A-ha! NOW I understand where we are, what's at stake, where we're going, and I want to come back from intermission to see what happens." By not having all the information up front, or even half-way through the first act, we hope that it will spark people's interest and attention from scene to scene so that they will be actively working to put the pieces together. Unfortunately, the risk is that people will give up trying before the end of the first act because they aren't getting as much as they're giving. But it's a risk we were willing to take.

Now, in the mean time there are emotional arcs, small journeys that characters go through (Jeffrey's descent into madness; the nuts and bolts of Karen and Guy's relationship; the "Where is Overman?" question, etc) that I think entertain, build the larger story that continues in the second act, and pay off in their own way. But it is, without question, a slow burn. And it's paramount to what I think James and Pete are aiming for -- that being an exploration of what OUR world would look like if tomorrow we suddenly discovered that there was an actual, honest-to-God superhero among us. In some ways the show is ultimately NOT about superheroes, even if it is subtitled "A Superhero Play". It's about all the rest of us caught up in the backlash of what that means. How does it affect OUR lives, OUR economics and social structures and politics?

At the same time, the audience -- cast, themselves, as surrogates for the society at large -- are going to be fascinated by the superhero, and the subsequent wannabes, and want to see what they're up to. So doing a show where all you saw was ordinary people talking about being caught in that backlash, would seem something like a swindle. In the same way that our culture is caught up in the minutiae of celebrities' lives, the audience should -- to some extent, at least -- feel that they're caught up in the obsession with the superhero-celebrities of this alternate universe. If you simply removed the celebrities from the picture then that obsession wouldn't make any sense. We hope that the audience becomes the everyman, waiting for word of what's going on with the Overman. Why has he gone "on vacation", and has he really? Is he dead? Has he quit? Are we being lied to by our government and our media? Inquiring minds want to know!

Also, I believe it's absolutely necessary for the point of the show that we see certain scenes in a very realistic (and perhaps, mundane) tone. We are messing with tonal shifts from scene to scene, and both Aaron's review and the review from Broadway World mention it in passing. BW says:

"The focus keeps shifting, and the show doesn't keep to a consistent style or tone, going from reverence for superheroes to mockery of them."

I take issue with the idea that we mock superheroes -- to be more exact, I think we mock specific heroes in the world of the play, like Zeus (Zack Calhoon) and the Void (Marc Landers), because they both deserve to be mocked, and because we're hearing their stories from the point-of-view of Guy, who himself feels derision toward them. I also believe "reverence" is a little strong for simply treating these characters as if they were actually people. But I will gladly agree that the focus and tone both keep shifting. It's something that's been kinda intrinsic to James's scripts, and hence our work as a company, since the very beginning. That also includes alternating scenes with monologues. Some audience members are jarred by that, and would prefer that we simply tell the story straight through in a consistent manner. I personally like the shifting a lot. I think it's exciting and keeps people on their toes, but you can take it up with Jimmy if you like (good luck, there, sailor.)

Now, having said all of this, I think I need to add two addenda. The first being: I had problems with the expository nature of the script (especially the first act) myself in reading it. So I feel like I understand where people are coming from when they cite it as perhaps being a weak element to the script, although I'd be happier if it were considered a "foreign" element rather than a "weak" one. It was obvious when I first read the Overman monologue that, if this were a work of prose, this would be Tom's one chapter. This is where we get his point-of-view, his backstory, and it's told through the -- perhaps, untrustworthy -- narration by the man himself. He's the only one in the world with all the info to this particular story. What would read well on the page may not work dramatically on the stage. And again, it's up to you who come and see the show to make your decision on how well it works, or if it does at all. Again, that's part of the experiment. Can the audience stand a certain pause in the "action" to listen to me talk, and does it reveal more to hear it from my lips rather than if you'd seen it in scene form?

I think the rest of the exposition that's put out in the form of projections and voice-overs works because it's another way to ground the play in some sort of realism. The decision was made early on that if it was a device we were going to use, it needed to continue throughout the show in order to maintain consistency. And I gotta say, this is the first time anyone's ever commented about our scene changes being too short (way to go Stage Manager Steph!) If only we could get that comment every time.

The second addendum is that we may very well be trying to have our cake and eat it, too. The show is pretty epic in scope. After all, it's looking at an entire world affected by this one man's existence. At the same time it tries to incorporate elements of the purer superhero story -- fight scenes, focusing on the superheroes and wannabes, using the story structures from comics and films -- while messing with them in subversive ways. We may be trying to just do TOO much, and are actually doing no single thing quite well enough. Again, that's for you to decide independently.

And of course, because this is live theatre, it will be more or less successful from performance to performance. But I will warn people that if you're coming to see an issue of X-Men onstage, then you're surely going to be disappointed. Movies do that a whole better than we ever could.

I think the biggest hint to what this show is about is summed up in the last line of the play. When the NASA Space Shuttle Persephone, helmed by a group of normal people with no superhuman abilities, send back their communique after landing on Mars, the Captain says:

"Words fail me. This is…this is astounding. I wish I could describe how beautiful it is. We’re having dinner on Mars. Dinner on Mars! It’s amazing what we can do. It’s…it’s absolutely amazing what we can do.

Again, thanks to Aaron for engaging and being a part of the conversation. I've actually learned a lot about this show just by putting these words down.

If you haven't gotten your tickets yet, we're half-through with our run. Book em now!!!

**UPDATE:**BroadwayWorld reviewer Duncan Pflaster chimes in in the comments. (Thanks for stopping by, and for the clarification, Duncan!)

Becoming A Superhero: The Minefield

Originally begun 3/31/08 -- now, more relevant than it was then:

It's notoriously difficult to talk about the creative process, especially when you're in the middle of it, and only slightly easier to illuminate after-the-fact. (Unfortunately, that kind of post-mortem can also be revisionist due to the inadequacy of memory.)

First, there's the fear that putting the process into words will somehow drain the necessary tension from the initial creative impulse. At the beginning of the process, all you've got is that impulse to pull you forward, until enough momentum has been built up to carry you through to completion.

This has certainly been the case for me when I write. There seems to be a period of time during which talking too much (or even at all) to others about an idea will kill any excitement or clarity of vision I might have initially had, rendering the impulse to tell that particular story moot. After all, if you can sum up a story that quickly, it isn't always worth fleshing out.

I understand this isn't the case for some writers who are actually able to bounce ideas off of other people as they write, creating a chain reaction that actually strengthens the final draft.

I envy that. For me, it's unfortunately the opposite.

Still, that doesn't seem to be the case when Pete and I start working on The Blood Brothers Present... series. With that, we throw as many ideas at each other as possible, good and bad, and before we know it the show has simply taken shape around us. Which leads to:

The second reason why it's tough to talk about the creative process, (theatrical edition): theatre is such a collaborative effort, and being honest in the moment is fine in the rehearsal room, having built up the trust and honesty between collaborators. But in the case of blogging about a show you're rehearsing, a lot of times you don't want that stuff going out on the airwaves half-baked. So much changes during rehearsal, and good ideas from the previous rehearsal may actually be a load of crap in the light of another day.

All of this is preface to the fact that I'm going to try to take down some thoughts about the process of playing this character in Nosedive's (now-open) production of "Colorful World". I figure since I've already gone down Narcissism Lane with my series of "Becoming a Superhero" posts about diet, exercise and weight loss, the next logical step is to deal with my acting process in inhabiting this character. Though I suspect talking about "my process" is about as appealing as talking about "my prostate".

I don't know why I feel that way. I'm fascinated when other people blog about their process. I have no problem trying to put my directing work into words as it's happening. But I think there's just something about being an actor -- the intense self-involvement that's an absolutely necessary part of the process -- that's always made me uncomfortable.

Since this is a character unlike any I've ever been asked to play, it might be interesting for others to see the challenges of bringing this guy into 4-dimensions. For those planning on coming to see the show, you should probably be warned: there be spoilers ahead.



Let's start at the beginning. We meet the character of Tom Shanley at the tip-top of the show. This is how he's immediately described in James's script upon his entrance:

TOM SHANLEY, a.k.a. “Overman,” enters. He is completely bald and has blank white eyes. Note: Tom is what you’d call a…let’s be kind…“cold fish,” for reasons we’ll find out later. He’s not the warmest — or relaxed — person you’ve met, offers almost no facial expression and seems to have no sense of humor. Despite his heroic status, he almost always manages to creep out whomever he’s with.

So that's the immediate impression I have to go on, as an actor -- that's what I have to nail within the first 30 seconds of my entrance. All of this is reinforced during the show itself (after an incredibly awkward moment, Tigress calls him "intense"; Mick Catton, a.k.a. The Peacekeeper calls him "stiff" and "a damned robot". You can see where this is going,) but the audience should understand it immediately.

The other, most important thing, to keep in mind is that Tom Shanley ends the first act of the show with a 12 minute monologue, having essentially gone AWOL from the U.S. government and is now awaiting their retribution camped out in a remote part of Central Africa. 12 minutes of straight talk from a cold fish alone on-stage while still making sure that the audience is going to want to come back after the intermission. No pressure, though. (I love Jimmy's challenges.) Suffice it to say it was the most problematic thing about the script for me, partly because I was the one who was going to have to make it work every night. That's not to say I didn't think it could be done, simply that I didn't know how I was going to do it.

Tom is the only actual superhero in this world, and it's his presence that inspires others to dress up in capes and beat up criminals in back-alleys. He can crush a humvee with his mind. In fact, here's a list of what he can do:

Can't fly, but:
Is impervious to pain.
Skin can deflect bullets.
Can withstand extreme temperatures.
Doesn't need to breathe.
Can manipulate solid objects with his mind.

WHO WANTS "COLD FISH"?
When James and I discussed it during rehearsals, his reasoning was in part due to the intense disillusionment over the years -- both with humanity, and in particular the government -- in tandem with simply being removed from the human spectrum of experience and feeling. When you feel no physical pain, you're most likely unable to feel physical pleasure, either. (Tom even says at one point that the Pentagon has reason to believe his sperm could be toxic. Whether that's true or not -- does the Pentagon just want an Overman without any romantic attachments? -- it's still a helluva downer, ain't it?)

While I agree with James on all of that, I felt there was more to it (at least there needed to be in order for me to play this guy with any consistency whatsoever.)

That "more" has to do with Tom's psionic abilities. In the monster-logue (as I lovingly refer to it) Tom details the first experience he has in discovering his powers. He stumbles upon an arguing couple in Times Square, and tries to intervene before it turns deadly. He describes it this way:

TOM: I was so enraged that I was trembling and my hands were clenching. That's when I realized he had let go of the woman and started clutching at his chest and throat, as if being choked and having a heart-attack at the same time. I didn't know what was happening. Relieved to see that the woman had broken free and was edging away, I relaxed my muscles and unclenched my fists, and the man snapped out of his mini-seizure and caught his breath."

A fairly typical comic book style power-discovery, right?

But it opens the door to the fact that Tom's emotional temperature is inextricably linked to his psionic abilities. It's only a short step, then, between the need to control his abilities, and the need to control his emotions in order to control his abilities. And once you start down that road, it becomes fairly simple to justify his complete lack of emotion, facial expression, extraneous movement, etc. Then on top of that, you pile on the fact that he's unstoppable so he has no need for tact, for softening his remarks, or for deception of any kind, and you start understanding where I'm building from.

WHERE IS OVERMAN?
If you've come to see the show already, or if you're planning on seeing it, you're probably going to recognize at least a couple of antecedents of my performance. The main one being HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. It made sense to me, as a stylistic choice and as a ground-plan for Tom's personality (plus it's a shorthand to the audience, whether they realize it or not.) If anything, I think I even play it a little cooler than HAL. After all, HAL was built to interact with humans; Tom? Not so much.

But part of what I wanted to convey with my HAL impression was a certain deliberate gentility to Tom. In the same way that someone playing Superman, The Hulk, or any other incredibly strong superhero would need to learn to be very deliberate and careful not to accidentally destroy things while interacting with them, I felt I needed to have the same light touch -- but mentally and emotionally -- with Tom. If he feels too hard, he might accidentally cause the world to implode.

This actually leads through the larger arc of the character from "cold fish" in the beginning, to what he becomes by the end of the show (that I won't spoil, here.) Because when you tightly reign-in emotion like Tom does, it creates a terrible pressure inside that eventually has to be released.

Part of that release the audience isn't privy to; it happens between the time-line of the first and second acts. The main portion of it we see in the penultimate scene of the play, and it's not an easy transition for me, emotionally. I'm still trying to nail it, and at least I feel like I'm getting closer all the time.

Additionally (and this one's for my friend Brian Silliman) I also pulled aspects of this portrayal from a character in a novel -- a dragon named Temeraire from the books by Naomi Novik. Temeraire is an enormous, incredibly powerful and intelligent creature who has a lot of difficulty understanding the complexities of human politics and social mores. It makes him endearing, but also sets up that he's gonna have some problems dealing with the world in which he finds himself. He's on a collision course with society, and it's inevitable that he's going to find himself opposed at some point. At the same time, if he wanted to, he could probably just wipe out any opposition to his own whims. It's that tension that I'm trying to ride as Overman.

In the end, Tom is a fairly tragic figure who is lucky enough to be able to side-step his hamartia (does everybody remember their Poetics?) Which is kinda fun, considering this is "just" a superhero play.

Having said all of this, I have no idea how successfully I'm pulling this off. Our most recent review says I'm "... flawlessly spooky as the stoic Overman himself."

If Tom's ability to creep out whomever he's with extends to the audience, then we're doing something right.

More on the Monster-logue later.

"You should drink this . . . "

First read this.

Then come see this:




It's so on . . .

Tickets here.

Boo-ya!!

A new play by James Comtois

Directed by Pete Boisvert

Featuring
Abe Goldfarb* — Jessi Gotta — Marc Landers
Jason Liebman* — Mac Rogers — Patrick Shearer
Ben VandenBoom — Christopher Yustin

*Denotes member of the Actors Equity Association

The 78th Street Theatre Lab, 236 West 78th St., 2nd Floor
May 8-10, 15-17, 22-24, 29-31
Thursday through Saturday, 8 p.m.


In 1988, the world discovered a man who was indestructible, impervious to pain, and able to destroy a tank with his mind.

In the early- to mid-nineties, a craze where vigilantes dressed up in flashy costumes and fought crime took the nation by storm.

Now it's 2005. The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are still standing. Hurricane Katrina has decimated New Orleans. The Iraq War is coming to a close. And several former costumed crimefighters realize their marks on the world are more akin to those of has-been rock stars.

This is Colorful World, Nosedive Productions' latest full-length production that takes on the superhero genre. Far from a pulpy comic book-style romp, James Comtois and Pete Boisvert (The Adventures of Nervous-Boy) envision a world radically changed by the arrival of an invincible man, and not necessarily for the better.

Tickets will be available soon.

Tonight!

Babylon, Babylon.

Sounds like an epic by Cecil B. Demille, doesn't it?

Though I'm not involved in the production, a bunch of great friends are -- including both Michael Criscuolo and Gyda Arber, both of whom were featured in last October's The Blood Brothers Present . . . Pulp

I've been very pleased to finally join the "in crowd" in discovering Piper McKenzie Productions this last year. They're a great group of people, doing some really terrific work. And this show in particular hits just the right spot of interest, for me. Temple of Ishtar? I'm there. (I think Sandman had the first reference I ever came across referring to the Temple of Ishtar.)

So if you want to support a terrific group working on a fascinating project, details are below:

The First Ever
BABYLON BABYLON
Fundraising Fête

KUSH LOUNGE
191 Chrystie Street (in Manhattan)
www.kushlounge.com
Monday, March 31 7-9pm

A mere $10 (that's the bill with Alexander Hamilton on it) will get you:

Drink Specials!
1/2 Price Hookahs!
Little Tchotchkes!
and Performances such as:

Bellydance by our illustrious choreographer Amantha May! (www.amanthamotion.com)

Babylonian cast member Adam Swiderski's painfully earnest singer-songwritery goodness!
(myspace.com/adamswiderski)

The inimitable Cousin Hubie and that musical stuff he does!
(www.cousinhubie.com)

A Middle Eastern dance lesson from Babylonian cast member Rasha Zamamiri!

and, by special arrangement with Piper McKenzie, a musical appearance
by Bill "the Yeti" Yetison

not to mention the pre-YouTube world premiere of The Babylon Babylon Coming Attraction Promo Trailer Film Teaser!

AND MORE!!!(!)!!

All proceeds go directly to the ever-mounting production costs of maintaining a thriving mercantile/religious/political metropolitan center on the eve of its spectacular downfall. So come hang with us before we all die in a gruesome, wince-inducing manner or are enslaved into humiliating lifelong surfdom.

Check out their web home.

Also, keep up with this production at what could be the best title for a blog ever, Babylblog Blogbylon.

More to come.

Becoming a Superhero: Day 78

Casting for Nosedive's Colorful World is almost wrapped up -- just a straggler or two left to contend with. So it's time to really buckle down into the final stretch of getting into some semblance of a Superhero shape. I worry about the lack of time until opening, and what will be an increasingly-busy rehearsal schedule that will cut down the time I have at my disposal to actually work out. I feel like I'm close, but there's still a lot left to chip away/build up.

I've been focusing on the workout (cardio and strength-training) a lot recently, and at least I've gotten past the initial debilitating soreness. I feel like I can actually handle the work, now. But as most of us who work in the theatre know, once you hit rehearsals your ability to actually stick to a diet and exercise schedule diminishes. When your time is no longer your own, it's so much simpler to grab a bite to eat here and there -- and quick food almost never means healthy food.

In addition, the GF and I will be going off the NutriSystem food as of the end of this week and beginning the "lifestyle change". We feel like we have a grasp on the concepts, on the calorie counting, the portions, and believe ourselves capable of making a go at it on our own. So, that's a little scary knowing that I could botch it all up at the homestretch. But I do feel pretty confident. And it's probably going to save us at least a little bit of money.

So my main plan of attack is to get in as much exercise as possible during the rehearsal period, which unfortunately means I either have to get up earlier in the morning and force myself to work out no matter how much I may not want to, or going home to work out AFTER rehearsals around 11pm at night (suck). It's not the most optimal way of doing things, and it's a lot easier to just say "fuck it" and choose bed instead. But I don't see any other options.

I've noticed a strange side-effect recently, as well. I've been focusing a lot of energy on trying to stretch my leg muscles -- hamstrings especially, but also quads and calf muscles -- because they've always been terribly tight. I can't remember ever being able to touch my toes. Apparently this is where I tend to store my tension -- despite what anyone who's ever given me a back massage might believe. Corresponding with this releasing of tension from the lower body, I've come to discover that my (seemingly unlimited, in some people's eyes) patience has been growing thinner and thinner in equal proportion. Yogis and Vedic instructors talk about the welling up of emotions from certain asanas and stretches, and while I haven't experienced this per se I've certainly noticed this chipping away at my calm over the last two weeks or so, in direct correlation with this focus on my lower body. I've been moody, which isn't typical for me.

Oh, it has also been pointed out to me that I seem to have lost my ass. If anyone sees a blinding white set of butt-cheeks discarded by the roadside in or around Washington Heights, please let me know.

In the mean time, I'll be busy trying to build a new one.