Showing posts with label Bad Hamlet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bad Hamlet. Show all posts

November 4, 2010

Theatre Review: I AM HAMLET

"Never eat at a place called Mom's. Never play cards with a man named Doc. And never sleep with a woman whose troubles are worse than your own." - Nelson Algren.
Very sound advice, that. I would add a codicil: never go to plays (especially Shakespearean adaptations) written and directed by someone who bills himself as "The Shakespeare Guy." Would that I had heeded that advice this evening. Having seen the list of Joe "Shakespeare Guy" Siracusa's other Shakespearean adaptations, including "A Midsummer Knight's Ice Cream" and "The Bard and the Bear," a creeping sense of dread set in as I awaited the curtain.

A wise man once said, "The play's the thing." It's a quote that both writer/director Siracusa and actor Brian Morey should know well, and it's a pity that they put the focus elsewhere, on a self-indulgent production that puts the focus on the actor, the performance, and a grab-bag of gimmickry rather than on the play itself. I found it to be a rather intolerable display of ego, both of the writer and performer. What does it add to our understanding of the play, or of its title character? Nothing.

This is a one-man show; and no, it's not a re-telling of Hamlet from the perspective of a single character. Morey plays everybody, so inevitably the show won't be about Hamlet (the play), or Hamlet (the character), or for that matter Shakespeare. It's all about Morey's bag of actor tricks, and not a single one goes unused. His entire vocal range is utilized, as are a dozen distinct stereotypical characters and physicalities, he dons all manner of costumes, masks, and wigs, and he sings his heart out in a variety of styles and pitch ranges. He makes sure he shows us the length and breadth of his substantial talent and training, and won't let us go until we know just how hard he's working. And that's the problem here; this show is not built for the audience to appreciate the psychological profundity of Shakespeare's humanist masterpiece, it's built for us to marvel at the efforts of a single actor.

The strength of an actor, we're told, is his or her ability to lose one's sense of ego, and go boldly and fearlessly into situations of emotional vulnerability or extreme ridiculousness. And Morey certainly finds himself in such situations. As the Ghost, wearing a giant horned helmet, wearing platform shoes and bearing an enormous shield, I'm sure he felt fearsome indeed, but it was all I could do to suppress the urge to shout "NI!!"

And as Ophelia, which he performs in a white dress and blond wig, I really wish the burly brunette actor had shaved his full beard, especially when he launched into an earnest falsetto (and self-composed) love ballad. High camp? Apparently not. If he was daring us to laugh, it was a dare I only resisted by biting the inside of my cheek to the point of bloodletting.

Siracusa's adaptation doesn't do Morey any favors either. Shakespeare's text has been re-assembled in order for Morey to only have to play one character at a time, turning dialogue into monologue, but in some places Siracusa cops out and has Morey shout to offstage characters and converse with a pre-recorded voice (also Morey). The Players sequence is done as a pre-filmed silent movie - quite cleverly, actually - in which Morey of course plays every character (and provides, thankfully, a beardless Ophelia), including the watching courtiers, while the actual solid flesh actor gets to take an early intermission. This is a solo show, so I call "cheat."

Siracusa also takes some liberties with the wording, adding in his own original contributions which jar. Really, why does Ophelia say "Oh, my lord, I have been so scared of Hamlet's madness!" Does he think we wouldn't know what "affrighted" means? And we really don't need the updates: "I am Hamlet. I am being watched. People are trying to kill me." And when Morey namedrops both himself and the BCA in the "What A Rogue And Peasant Slave Am I" speech, it's Brechtian in the worst sense of the word, and to no apparent purpose.

A scene most telling in its absence is Act Three, Scene Two, Hamlet's advice to the players. It's sound advice that Siracusa and Morey seem to have deliberately chosen to avoid, to their peril: "Oh, it offends me to the soul to hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise". And later on, he famously counsels "for anything so o'erdone is from the purpose of playing, whose end both at the first and now, was and is, to hold as 'twere, the mirror up to nature."

Would that they had.

PS - A recurring line, both spoken and sung, is "Something's Rotten in Denmark. Something Stinks." Although they open the door for me, I won't take the bait. It's just too easy.

July 19, 2010

A Tale of Two Fringe Shows

Dear readers: I've been lax lately in my postings. I blame Twitter and Facebook. Why post a blog when a tweet or status update will suffice, says my ever-dwindling attention span. I note that I have as many draft postings as I do live posts. I'm great at starting, and need to work on getting to the end.

I just closed my second production of the Capital Fringe Festival, Steven Dietz's The Nina Variations. I was hoping to repeat (and thereby build upon) the success of last year's Bad Hamlet, which was an award-winning sleeper hit that sold out its last two performances and was an arguable profile-raiser both for me and my producing banner, the Adequate Players.

Well, Nina didn't quite capture the same lightning in a bottle.

It was a very solid and successful production from an artistic standpoint (Melissa and Kevin, you were marvellous, and Bob, you rock), but otherwise? We played to less than 40% capacity, and after Fringe Pass discounts and press and producer comps, even with a smaller cast (2 vs 6), a director working for free, no stage manager or designers, no set or costume expenses, minimal prop purchases, etc., this is one Fringe producer who is taking a bath. My percentage of ticket revenue might just cover my two actors' and one techie's stipends. No luck in recouping the participation fee, insurance fee, script royalties, or publicity expenses. Oh well.

It occurred to me just how fortunate I was with Bad Hamlet; above and beyond the quality of the show and the people working on it, we caught a favorable confluence of circumstances that set the stage for a success above and beyond my most optimistic expectations. (As a producer, it's fine enough to have a great show, but better still to have a great show that gets great press, sells out and wins awards.)

To say that Nina didn't catch that same confluence is not to declare it a failure, nor to point the finger of blame at anyone. Both shows were great. We got lucky last year. We weren't as lucky this year.

Let's compare:

Venue:
The Bedroom (Nina), versus the Bodega (Hamlet). Both are 'found spaces'. The Bodega was larger, the Bedroom was slightly cooler (better AC). Neither venue had bathrooms, neither was ADA compliant, both had significant sound bleed between neighboring venues.
Result: a wash... to get the sweat smell off.

Timeslot:
Bad Hamlet - Twelve days passed between our opening and closing shows. We opened with back-to-back shows Saturday night and Sunday afternoon, were off until the following Friday, then another Sunday afternoon show, and a Wednesday evening close. Between show 2 and 3, we had a full workweek for our good reviews to come out and generate buzz, and then a good solid 5 days afterwards on which to capitalize. And we did; show 3 was nearly full and the final two shows were sellouts.

Nina Variations - Our five performances were compressed over an eight-day period, opening on a late Friday (11:30pm) and closing the late Saturday (11:15). Our most favorable reviews came out the day before our closing show, leaving hardly any time to capitalize. I recognize in saying this that other Fringe productions had as brief a run as mine, and did just as well if not better. I present the two cases merely as comparison.
Winner: Bad Hamlet coasts the final length

Pre-Show Publicity:
Bad Hamlet: Apart from one blog interview from a colleague, none.

Nina Variations: Seeing the level of other shows' pre-Fringe media blitzes last year taught me the value of generating early buzz. I sent two rounds of press releases, had postcards ready before Source Fest, and Bob took a fabulous promo pic (see above) that appeared in the Post and its daily digest, The Express.
Winner: Nina, by a flock of (dead stuffed) seagulls.

Reviews:
Bad Hamlet: Although I did little to actually encourage them to do so, practically all the local media covering Fringe came, and came early. As a result their reviews, almost all of them positive, all came in a big mid-week cluster a week or so before the end of our run. Our ticket sales for our latter three shows exploded. And either through luck or by design, practically all the reviews contained perfect quote nuggets that I could capitalize upon for future marketing. "A Fringe Must-See"... "Fascinating and wonderful to watch"... etc.

Nina Variations: Only one critic at opening, so until the day of our penultimate performance the only review was DCTC's decidedly mixed assessment; not exactly a buzz-generator. The Post followed Wednesday with warmer but similar sentiments. DCist apparently skipped over us this year, and we got exactly the review I expected on Allartsreview4u; no link is warranted or merited. For what it was worth, Rich Massabny of Arlington Weekly News came on Tuesday and gave us a brief but glowing online review (skip to the end) that came Friday. The City Paper's Fringe & Purge "Hip Shot" that came late Friday was by its own admission a cop-out. Having run out of time to write a thorough review, this picture served as the critical evaluation in lieu of a deeper study that I hope will follow, either posted publicly or shared privately.
Oh, and our quote nuggets? Read on.
"An interesting approach, but only a partial success." - DCTC
"The novelty started to wear off..." - WaPo
"When are people going to realize that Chekhov's plays are already perfect
and don't require any deconstruction or re-imagining?" - Express (that was
supposed to be a joke, right?)
"It appears that I may not be able to produce an actual Hip Shot before its
final performance" - Fringe & Purge (City Paper)
Winner: Do I even need to tell you?

Play Selection
I have to swallow my pride and accept that perhaps the Nina Variations just wasn't as effective of an audience draw as Bad Hamlet. Deconstructed Shakespeare is evidently more buzzworthy than deconstructed Chekhov. Even though Nina is a published script with a solid pedigree and a small core of fervent admirers, and Dietz is a solid and nationally respected playwright, it didn't gain the "must-see" patina from either the critics or general public. Maybe under a different set of circumstances it could have taken off, but ultimately there's nobody to blame except perhaps myself.
Maybe next year I'll sell out and do a play that adds zombies to a work of great literature (Don't laugh, I already wrote it).
Winner: Bad Hamlet.

But ultimately I can either obsess until I'm blue in the face about what didn't happen this year or be grateful for what did. What we did get was a tight band of friends, loved ones, colleagues and general public who came and greatly enjoyed The Nina Variations. It's still one my favorite plays, and being so easy and relatively inexpensive to produce, I can do it again whenever and wherever I want. So I'm not sorry. At all.

December 23, 2009

Brief Thoughts on the Year in DC Theatre

RIP Journeyman Theatre Ensemble and Catalyst Theatre, well before their time. JTE got a Helen Hayes nom in '06, and Catalyst took Best Ensemble for "Arturo Ui." Several factors, particularly the economy, contributed to their demises. There are likely a few similar small companies that are on life support, many of which have also done solid work in the recent past. Some other companies are resorting to safer choices, known quantities, more musicals, and jobbed-in shows. With some exceptions, innovative productions are more likely to be seen at Cap Fringe.

A few fortunate companies have managed to distinguish themselves even in this climate, most notably Constellation Theatre and Forum Theatre, graduating to the mid-to-upper echelon of the theatre scene and establishing Mr Dove and Ms Stockman as the next generation's Shalwitz and Zimmerman. Kudos also to Landless Theatre, another small company that seems to be making strides in attracting the holy 35-and-under demographic. American Century put together some solid productions this year, particularly "Seascape" which was the best thing I've seen them do.

One hopes to see Washington Stage Guild, in limbo for nearly 2 years preparing for their new home and dealing with the passing of their founder and artistic director, back in action. Similarly, Washington Shakespeare Company is preparing to move to the new space in Rosslyn next fall, although it will require a sustained fundraising effort both to move there and to stay.

Lots of theatre companies are hunkering down in the wake of the economy, focusing on their core company members. Consequently a lot of actors that could count on steady work are suddenly finding themselves rather unemployed, filling their days understudying, doing readings, producing Fringe shows, and seeing other peoples' shows. Or just me.

Best shows I saw this year: Arcadia (Folger), Crazyface (Constellation), Seascape (American Century). I'd probably include a couple Forum shows if I was actually able to see them =)

What I don't particularly like is how the Post and CityPaper, in their theatrical year-in-review articles, listed a "Worst Of" list along with their "Best Of". Really, what is gained by "Worst Of's?" Of course, I speak as a co-director of a play that was included in the Post's "Worst Of" list in '08. Considering what we went thru in getting the show together (as a last-minute replacement for another cancelled show), all the cobbling together, all the compromise, all the crap reviews, tiny audiences, sweltering conditions and the fortune we lost on it, the Worst Of listing was just another kick to the ribs, six months after the corpse had been buried. Maybe this is atypical of the other "Worst Of's", or maybe not. Still, enough already.

July 26, 2009

HOLY CRAP!! BAD HAMLET WINS AWARD!!

Bad Hamlet received the audience award for Best Experimental Production in the 2009 Capital Fringe Festival!

Thanks to Sarah, AnnaLaura, Ian, Matt V, John RK, Felipe C, Ty H, Anne N, Anne V, the Fringe organizers and staff, friends, loved ones, supporters, and of course, everyone who came to see it.

Keep your ears open about a future remount!

July 17, 2009

Press love for BAD HAMLET

Trey Graham (CityPaper) raves!
(Glen Weldon, also of the CityPaper, chimes in with his own capsule rave in the comments!)
"A Fringe Must-See..." "tremendous fun..."
"Bottom line? The notion that all the best writing is re-writing gets an admirably lucid, singularly entertaining proof
here." (TG)

"What could easily have come off as an intellectual exercise is given flesh — and not the too too solid kind — by a script that doesn’t merely note the differences between the text, but gets them to comment on one another. Smart, deft and fully realized." (GW)
Chris Klimek (Washington Examiner) lists us as one of the Ten Shows You Won't Want To Miss...
...and then raves in DCist!
"Pass with your best violence," Hamlet challenges Laertes in the play's climactic duel. But that line was, we learn, a replacement for one in the 1603 text that better describes Bad Hamlet: "Pass with your most cunning display." (CK)
Kaysha Gurell (DCist) also raves!
"One solid option, Bad Hamlet, ... is sure to impress you, just as
it did us." (KG)
Jessica Pearson (DCTheatreScene) more or less raves!
"Bad Hamlet is incredibly interesting...
fascinating... powerful and wonderful to watch." (JP)
The Two Hours Traffic blog says nice things!
"This is definitely a must see if you are a Shakespeare junkie like me." (2Hrs)
Nelson Pressley (Washington Post) doesn't hate it!
"The earnestly acted show [isn't] a nuanced consideration of the implications on character and theme -- but that's OK." (NP)
Karen Shod? ("Karen's FYI" posting on DCTheatre Newsgroup)
Well, you can't please everybody...
"Interesting concept marred by amateurish presentation." (KS)
(That's her entire review. She got a press comp to write six words.)

July 2, 2009

BAD HAMLET at the Capital Fringe Festival

The Adequate Players present the World Premiere production of

BAD HAMLET

Adapted and Produced by John Geoffrion
Directed by Sarah Denhardt
Stage Manager - AnnaLaura Wensel McKowen
Sound Design - Ian Armstrong
Fight Choreographer - Lorraine Ressegger

Cast:
Hamlet (1603 Quarto) - John Robert Keena
Hamlet (1623 Folio) - Matt Volner
Ofelia/Leartes/Corambis - Ty Hallmark
Ophelia/Laertes/Gertrude - Anne Veal
King/Polonius/Ghost - Felipe Cabezas
Queen/Claudius/Player - Anne Nottage

Venue:
The Bodega - at The Trading Post
1013 7th St NW, Washington DC, 20001
(Nearest Metro: Yellow or Green line to Mt Vernon Sq/Convention Ctr)
We apologize to patrons with disabilities, but the Bodega is not wheelchair accessible.

Dates:
Saturday July 11 @ 11pm
Sunday July 12 @ 1:15pm
Friday July 17 @ 10:30pm
Sunday July 19 @ 4:45pm
Wednesday July 22 @ 7pm

This production presented as a part of the 2009 Capital Fringe Festival

Tickets:
$15.00 (patrons must also purchase a Fringe Button to see any Fringe shows)
Order here or call 866.811.4111

BAD HAMLET is an experimental performance piece that explores the similarities and differences between the two published versions of Shakespeare's Hamlet: the familiar version published in the 1623 Folio, and the unauthorized "Bad" Quarto published in 1603. The latter, a shorter, leaner, less poetic version of the story, has only recently been given its due. But simply to perform the Bad Quarto isn't enough: how do the two versions compare, complement or contrast with one another? Reading only gives the merest hint; Shakespeare’s plays were written to be performed, and thus we’ll take this literary comparison to the stage.

BAD HAMLET is a condensed, stereoscopic version of Hamlet in which the two texts are performed simultaneously; sometimes overlapping, sometimes in a Shakespearean 'tennis match,' with two Hamlets, two Ophelias, two Gertrudes, two Claudii, two Polonii, two Laerteses, and the Quarto's Player and Ghost, all under an hour, performed by a cast of six in a minimalist setting.

As a stereoscope takes two nearly similar photographs and combines them to create a 3D image, our goal, by simultaneously performing two versions of the same play, is for the subtle and not-so-subtle differences in the two texts to create a meta-Hamlet that provides additional depth and dimension to the emotions, motivations, and poetry of one of the greatest works of English literature.