Margin Notes: Aftermath

Aftermath

The cast of this is my (trigger warning). Photo by Bobby Alford.

Seen on: Friday, 11/13/15.
My grade: B-.

Plot and Background

Aftermath is two one acts presented as part of Ivy Theatre Company's 2015 Trellis Project, a page-to-stage partnership with playwrights. this is my (trigger warning), an Ivy ensemble original piece conceived and directed by Audrey Alford, presents the female experience with PTSD through physical and vocal exploration. Reach, by Ryan Sprague, takes place in New Orleans one year after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, to explore the lasting effects on one woman who refuses to leave.

Disclosure, and
What I Knew Beforehand

I've worked with and greatly admire Audrey Alford, the creator of this is my (trigger warning), the first of the two pieces, and I've contributed money to Ivy's fundraising. Beyond that, I knew only that it was an evening of two short pieces.

Thoughts:

Although the two pieces are vastly different in tone and content, their themes are (obviously) connected - an exploration of the aftermath of intense trauma - and thus work in conversation with each other. While the language of the first piece is largely breath and movement, those are the healing tools Leila lacks in the second piece. She relies on words - unread letters she faithfully composes daily, a fierce armor against all of Jordan's efforts to reach her - she is frozen, unable to breathe, unable to move from her home except for her daily pilgrimage to visit her comatose husband. What's really remarkable about the conversation of these two pieces, then, is how both resolve - in Reach, Leila begins to heal through her connection with Jordan, with her ability to finally breathe and change; in this is my (trigger warning), the women who have been having their own private crises in isolation, weeping and contorting, find strength and their center by joining in singing, "she was never crazy," and building together a creature that is equal parts silver-armored strength and a finally-chrysalized butterfly. In terms of that conversation, the evening is successful; however, individually, each piece is rather lacking on its own. this is my (trigger warning) is perhaps a bit underbaked - what language there is, is rather sparse and never particularly explicit - while it's clear each woman is dealing with the after-effects of trauma, the nature of the trauma or its lingering savagery of their psyches is never clarified. However, the seeds are there for a longer piece, for something poetic and affirming - it just needs shape. Reach, meanwhile, has definite craft in the structure of its narrative, but it's hindered by somewhat stilted dialogue and a too-repetitive pattern of tactics by its characters.

Both pieces make excellent use of the space - in tim(tw), the windows that back the playing space are uncovered, allowing the occasional passing traffic - both sound and lights - to penetrate our consciousness, the always-threatening outside world lingering outside the cocooned women. Reach, meanwhile, scatters Leila's unfurnished apartment across the space, littered with books and dying plants, and places the door to her apartment - the bridge to an outside she can't bear to see - completely behind the audience, as outside our experience as it is hers.

***

Running: Now playing at Lucid Body House (Ivy Theatre Company) - Opened: November 5, 2015. Closing: November 21, 2015
Category: two short pieces
Length: 1 hour, 40 minutes, including intermission.

Creative Team

Playwrights: Ivy Theatre Company (this is my (trigger warning)) w/additional collaboration by Diane Chen and Shoshanna Richman; and Ryan Sprague (Reach)
Directors: Audrey Alford (tim(tw)) & Andrew Block (R)
Designers:  Audrey Alford (Costume - tim(tw)), Kitty Mortland (Costume - R), Jorge Olivo (Sound).
Cast: Audrey Alford, Phoebe Allegra, Ciarah Amaani, Alexandra Moro, Jeanne Lauren Smith (tim(tw)); Katie Braden, Christopher Lee (R)

Phoebe Allegra in this is my (trigger warning). Photo by Bobby Alford

*note: no production photos for Reach were available at the time of writing this*

Margin Notes: Richard II

Richard II

Morgan Hooper as Richard II (with Kitty Mortland as
Duke of Aumerle). Photo by John Hoffman.

Seen on: Wednesday, 10/28/15.
My grade: B.

Plot and Background

Richard II, a young king given to whim and jest more than serious thought, is in the final years of his reign when an arbitrary banishment to end a dispute leads to rebellion by his cousin Bolingbroke. Although Richard abdicates his throne readily - if unhappily - it soon becomes clear that it is not so simple to merely lock away the fallen king in a prison. One of Shakespeare's histories, Richard II was probably written in 1595 and serves as the first part of the Henriad tetrology (followed by Henry IV Parts 1 and 2, and Henry V). Richard II is presented in rep with Romeo and Juliet by Hamlet Isn't Dead, the self-proclaimed "286th-best Shakespeare-related theatre troupe" in New York. Their mission is to present Shakespeare's work in chronological order.

Disclosure, and
What I Knew Beforehand

I've seen Mark Rylance play Richard II at The Globe, and Ben Whishaw play the role in The Hollow Crown series for BBC, which featured it as the first in the series. I've seen some of Hamlet Isn't Dead's work in the past, and I'm friends with the director, Emily C. A. Snyder.

Thoughts:

Play: From the first line of the play, director Snyder makes her vision clear. King Richard II strolls onstage alone and begins his famous Act V monologue:
     I have been studying how I may compare
     This prison where I live unto the world:
     And for because the world is populous
     And here is not a creature but myself,
     I cannot do it; yet I'll hammer it out.
And suddenly the stage is flooded with courtiers, and the play begins proper. Thus the narrative is framed as a sort of flashback - Richard is able to repopulate his prison and examine how he got to this point. The motif continues when his wife, Queen Isabella, trapped in her courtly life to a husband she does not fully understand, begins the same speech; and then again when Bolingbroke, at sea in the growing momentum of his rebellion against Richard, finds himself with crowd and crown in hand. This is a world of prisons where each character is his own jailer. The tragedy of Richard II is how many points along the way the audience can see a bloodless solution hiding in the characters' blind spots. So many times, were the characters able to pause and examine, perhaps swallow a bit of pride, could this all have sorted differently - no banishment, no insurrection, no murder, no abdication, no secret plotting. But in their isolation, in their individual prisons, all they can do is stumble on, heedless of the bloody barriers in their way. Snyder understands this acutely and crafts her production - staged in the challenging alley formation - cleanly and with little ornament, relying on the words and the people speaking them to convey the narrative.

Margin Notes: Daddy Long Legs

Daddy Long Legs

Megan McGinnis as Jerusha Abbott. Photo by Jeremy Daniel.

Seen on: Monday, 9/14/15.
My grade: B+

Plot and Background

Jerusha Abbott, an orphan with more energy and wit than is desired at the John Grier Home, finds herself suddenly sponsored by an unknown trustee for a full university education to help her pursue a career as a writer, with the only stipulation being that she send letters to her "Mr. John Smith" benefactor, apprising him of her progress. This two-character chamber piece, based on Jean Webster's 1912 novel of the same name, first premiered in 2009 at the Rubicon Theatre Company (starring its current lead Megan McGinnis) and has toured both regionally and internationally, leading up to its Off-Broadway debut.

What I Knew Beforehand

I loved Paul Gordon's last Broadway musical, Jane Eyre, and I knew that this show was a reunion between its two writers, Gordon and John Caird. I knew nothing about the plot, but I was so excited to see his new work.

Thoughts:

Play: Perhaps the plot itself, as summarized, isn't the most compelling story. But - I say this as someone who herself has written an epistolary play - it comes down to the storytelling, and in that the show is largely successful. It's like if you went poking in the attic of a distant relative and found a packet of letters tied with a ribbon - it's a sweet valentine, a simple clear view into a young woman's mind as her horizons expand. The narrative itself isn't as intensely shattering as that of Jane Eyre, Gordon and Caird's previous collaboration, but it is still engaging and light, as warm-hearted as its heroine. Gordon's score bubbles and trips along, and Caird's book is funny and economic. If I were to register a complaint, it's that there is a bit of a tonal inconsistency between the two characters - Jervis's songs are a bit emptier, and feel somehow more contemporary than Jerusha's. Maybe it's McGinnis's legit soprano against Nolan's pop-ier tenor. Maybe it's the sliding notes he's given, which are largely absent from her songs. Maybe it's just that his songs have far less story to tell - he reacts, while she lives. His numbers aren't necessarily bad, but they're distinctly less engaging than hers. Luckily, most of the show is hers, so you'll still leave smiling and content. (also for fellow nerds, there's a shout out to Jane Eyre that I'm sure the writers just couldn't resist!)

Margin Notes: Amazing Grace

Amazing Grace

Josh Young as John Newton, with Ensemble.
Photo by Joan Marcus.

Seen on: Thursday, 6/25/15.
My grade: D.

Plot and Background

John Newton, who would later go on to write the song "Amazing Grace," is in his youth a bit of a manchild, rebelling against his emotionally withdrawn father, drinking too much, and getting into one too many scrapes. When his ship is attacked at sea, he's taken hostage by Princess Peyai, and continues in his father's line, helping her to sell African slaves. After his father rescues him, their ship is torn apart in a storm, and Newton experiences a religious awakening when he cries out to God and the ship is spared. Meanwhile in England, his childhood sweetheart Mary risks her life by spying for the abolitionist movement. This show was originally workshopped at Goodspeed's Norma Terris Theatre in Connecticut in 2012. It had its world premiere in Chicago this past autumn, and has transferred to Broadway.

What I Knew Beforehand

I knew (or thought I knew) it was about the genesis of the popular titular song, which turned out to be incorrect. And I was excited to see Josh Young perform again, having enjoyed his voice in JCS.

Thoughts:

Play: Big ol' grain of salt - I saw the first preview performance. That being said, my issues with the show don't seem to be ones fixable before opening night. The first and possibly biggest problem is the show's chosen subject: John Newton, as portrayed in the show, is a drunkard, a dropout, a dick with daddy issues, a man unwilling to acknowledge the consequences of his actions, and by the way a man who sells and trades literally thousands of slaves in both England and Africa. The show assures us in its epilogue that, after the nearly three hours we watched of him being awful, he went on to fifty years of working for abolitionist causes. That's awesome, and I'm glad he finally learned from his actions, but where is that story? Why do we get only an epilogue acknowledgement of the show's protagonist not being a shit? The only redeeming thing about Newton as portrayed within the show's narrative is the fact that he's played by Josh Young, who has one of the most beautiful baritones on Broadway.

Other issues I had with the show include:

• Too many monologues and speechifying. Typically in a musical, when a character feels the need to speechify, he or she expresses that through song and thus sways the audience with the power of the emotion and the rhetoric and soaring melody and whatnot.
• You would think, with a show that takes its title and its advertising from the fact that Newton would go on to write the universally known song "Amazing Grace," that that would also work its way into the narrative, instead of serving as a coda to the epilogue.
• Honestly, the structure was all over the place. The villain Major Gray isn't that villainous (he's a dick, but so is Newton), the hero (as already pointed out) isn't that heroic, and Mary, the female lead and love interest, the one with the actual heroic plot of intrigue and nobility, is handled so dully that I kept tuning out.

The writing's not all bad - there is definitely an appealing bombast to a lot of the score, even if the lyrics are largely unmemorable, crutching on abstract concepts. And I don't think a single audience member could help getting chills when the entire company sings the title song in full-throated harmony, a cappella. There are bits of this show that hint at what could be a good show. Some of the bones are there. But the majority of it is so awkwardly constructed that you'd need a complete overhaul (plot, book, score) in order to actually mine the show's potential. I could see, sometimes, how to fix it, or at least part of it. But I'm afraid all we might achieve would still be a bit of a dullard.

Margin Notes: The Wild Party

The Wild Party

Brandon Victor Dixon, Steven Pasquale, and Sutton Foster
as Black, Burrs, and Queenie. Photo by Joan Marcus.

Seen on: Wednesday, 7/15/15.
My grade: C+. Not really my show, and the acoustics didn't help.

Plot and Background

Queenie and Burrs, a vaudeville couple on the rocks, throw a raucous party to distract from (or perhaps exacerbate) their quarreling. When Queenie's friend Kate brings the mysterious and attractive Black, Queenie sees a way out - and Kate sees a way in. Filled with a menagerie of personalities and showcase songs, the show is based on Joseph Moncure March's 1928 narrative poem, and was workshopped in 1997 before its Off-Broadway run at Manhattan Theatre Club in 2000 (in a weird bit of theater kismet, another adaptation of the poem, this time by Michael LaChiusa and George C. Wolfe, opened in the same season, but on Broadway). Lippa's version is presented here as part of New York City Center's Encores! Off-Center Series.

What I Knew Beforehand

I knew the strange story of two separate adaptations of The Wild Party running in the same season. I'd heard both cast albums once or twice, and had read the synopsis in the liner notes. I think I probably had a better sense of the Broadway/LaChiusa adaptation than the Off-Broadway/Lippa, going in. I also knew that the issue of which adaptation is superior is a rather divisive one among theater aficionados. Not having seen the LaChiusa adaptation, I'm not ready to weigh in on that debate.

Thoughts:

Play: I should start off by saying the acoustics were bad enough that any time the orchestra (or singers) were at full volume, I couldn't understand a word. This was obviously not a problem for some of the audience, either because they could hear fine, or because they already had the show memorized. There were clearly a lot of fans in the audience, as numerous songs were greeted with cheers before they even started. Sound issues aside ... I think this just isn't my show. Surrounded by cheering fans, I all too often felt like I was missing out on something everyone else was experiencing. What I experienced was a collection of generally unlikable characters who weren't giving me a reason to root for them, and a rather depressing conclusion (I get that that's the point, but ... why do I need to see it?). What I could hear of the score was definitely catchy, jazzy and fun, though the lyrics weren't always the most compelling.

(Also - I don't typically address design with the Encores! shows, but I want to note that Donyale Werle's set - with its clotheslines draping the back wall, strings of lights overhanging the playing space, and rugs draped everywhere - and Clint Ramos's costumes - full of flappers, fringe, and outlandish suits - were quite the treat for the eye.)