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!)