A Pre-Birthday Treat

I've long been a lover of all-things-British, most especially their original television programming.  I, Claudius, Upstairs Downstairs, The Forstye Saga are all favorites of mine.  And of course I got into the phenomenon that was Downton Abbey.  I was excited to check out the first episode in 2010 because I was a huge fan of Gosford Park, written by the same screenwriter, Julian Fellowes.  (Side note: Gosford Park was on cable over the weekend and I watched it yet again.  Gosh, it is still simply fabulous!)

So I followed all the ups and downs of the Crawley family, swooned over Cousin Matthew, ugly cried over Lady Sybil, hissed at O'Brien and Thomas, giggled at poor Molesley, and despaired over the trials and tribulations of Anna and Mr. Bates.  I was really sad when the show ended, though actually also relieved.  I couldn't imagine how they could keep the quality up indefinitely, so six seasons seemed like plenty to me.  Now that I think of it, it may be the last scripted show I watched during its broadcast time (as opposed to DVRing it and watching it later).  I'll have to ruminate on why that is...

Downton Abbey has only been gone for about a year, but it still occupies a happy place in my heart (and Roku viewing - when depressed, I will run an episode to cheer myself) and I was excited to hear that they would be bringing an exhibition of the show's costumes and sets to NYC for a brief visit.  Thankfully, they extended the brief visit and I finally got to check it out last weekend (I considered it the first in my pre-birthday treats).

You had to buy a timed ticket to see the exhibition and I picked an afternoon time that would make it possible for me to get to a friend's new play reading afterwards.  When I arrived on Saturday, I was disappointed to see how long the line was for my entry time.  According to the security guard, there were so many walk-ups that day, that it made every timed ticket late.  Well, that didn't seem right to me - if you walk up, shouldn't you have to stand in line behind the people who bought tickets in advance?  I don't know.  All I know is it was chilly in line and we had to wait over 45 minutes after our scheduled time to even get into the exhibit.  Plus, they had told us to arrive early in our confirmation emails, so the wait was actually longer than 45 minutes! I hoped I wouldn't have to cut my visit short to be able to make it to my friend's reading.

You walk in to the exhibit (which is housed in the old Lee's Art Store building - does anyone else miss Lee's?  I used to shop there for my nephew, who used to love to draw and paint) and you get another small line before hearing a spiel from one of the docents.  You then walk into a small anteroom, where you hear Carson describe how the house is set up.  It's rather like a Disney video, or going to the Freedom Tower, with all the video interaction that's throughout the space.  Once you've heard Carson's piece, you're free to roam around the building.  The bottom floor is the servant's area, the next floor is the Crawley family area, then the top floor is a costume display.

Each floor is filled with interactive programming, costumes, set pieces, placards describing both the show and the real-life time period.  There are videos playing everywhere, so you can see clips from the show; the theme music also plays throughout.  I remembered a lot of the clothes, which was fun.  I guess it took me about an hour and a half to walk through, plus I got out in time to make it to my friend's reading, thankfully.  So I found the exhibit a very interesting place and I'm awfully glad I went.  I probably could've spent more time there, had I not felt a little pressured because of the time.  After you're done touring at your own speed, you then head down a back staircase and end up in the gift shop.  Very Disneyesque.  There were some cute things in the gift shop and I did pick up a few souvenirs.  I also entered my mom into a contest to win a trip to the real Downton Abbey (aka Highclere Castle).  I hope she wins!  Maybe she'll take me!  I'll put a lot of photos below - I hope you enjoy them.  I know I enjoyed taking them, and I'll probably be increasing my repeat viewings of the show, just to get back into the spirit...

Snow Day!

We're having our third snowstorm in as many weeks - my feet are tired of wearing boots!  I can only hope the weather clears up for my birthday week and my work trip scheduled for next week.  Until then, stay safe and warm!  And enjoy some snow day photos!  😃

these footprints are strangely sized, right??

HUGE snowflakes!

thanks, Google, for the fancy photo!

A Monday in March Flashback

Howdy, all!  I'm trying to get my energy back after seeing so many big messy plays, so I've slowed down a bit.  I am seeing something on Thursday, and then I have some birthday treats coming up, but I didn't want you to forget about me.  So here is a throwback/flashback review from 2007.  I'm not quite sure why I chose this one, maybe just because I loved the experience of seeing this show so much.  Or maybe because I'm terrified we're headed back to war, thanks to the horrible person currently living in the White House.  Who knows?  On a lighter note, you'll notice that my long-windedness is a relatively new development...

2/21/07:  Last night I went with a co-worker to see Journey’s End, the 1920’s play about Brits in a bunker during WW1.  I loved it.  I really loved everything about it—the acting, the writing, the set, everything.  Thumbs WAY up.

The set is a bunker, seemingly only lit by a few candles.  I will admit the set is dark, but that only forces you to pay attention.  I don’t know how it would play in the balcony, though.  I can see how it might be too dark from up there, but you never know.  I loved the realism and the hush the lighting forced on everything.

photo credit: Sara Krulwich

The play is written in such a way that it’s not didactic at all.  It’s very conversational, yet you get to know all of these characters pretty intimately.  There’s a lot of humor to break the tension, but it never seems forced.  You really get a sense of the honor of these men, with both their faults and their dignity.  How men respond in times of war, that kind of thing.  

All of the actors are spot on.  Boyd Gaines is giving a gorgeous performance, as usual.  I really marvel at his range.  He’s wonderful here and the heart of the play.  Hugh Dancy is quite good, but perhaps a little one-note, as the tortured captain of this company.  Plus, shallowly, he's just beautiful.  In the context of the play, watching this beauty possibly be destroyed is very moving.  Jefferson Mays, in a tiny role, is superb.  It’s the type of role that you probably wouldn’t even remember at the end of the evening if it wasn’t played by such a fabulous actor.  Stark Sands, much to my surprise, is a really grand stage actor!  He was the flake son in the Charles Busch movie, Die Mommy Die, and he was fine in the movie, but it really didn’t prepare me for the depth he brings to this role of a young idealistic soldier.  And his accent was on the money.  All of the accents were good—whoever was their dialect coach should be commended.  There were some older actors in the cast who were also quite good—John Ahlin as the heavyset soldier is excellent.  This is a seriously wonderful company of performers and it's a treat to see them all work as a unit, just like the band of soldiers they're portraying.

The last four minutes or so of the show are devastating.  I couldn’t breathe, tears were running down my face and I literally couldn’t applaud at the end of the show.  I was just too stunned.  It’s quite a coup de theatre.  I found it incredibly powerful and moving and I don't think I'll ever forget it.  Even my co-worker seemed moved and he’s become awfully blasé after seeing his hundreds of shows.

I do have one tiny quibble:  there is an awkward scene break for the intermission.  The play itself is in three acts, and where they have to take the break (to avoid having two intermissions, which I would've preferred) becomes awkward in the second act for a scene break (there’s a huge change in tone that’s a little hard to hang with), but that’s a minor complaint for such a grand night out at the theater.  Yet another strong revival of a little-performed play starring real theater actors, not just stars, that reminds you what a statement a good play can make.  I'm so glad I saw it.

Review - The Low Road

Even though I'm no longer a subscriber at the Public Theater, they still send me emails about their shows before they open.  I don't know why I didn't have Bruce Norris' new play, The Low Road, on my radar this season, but when I got the email listing all the fabulous actors in it, I jumped on board.  I knew next to nothing about it, only that I have previously enjoyed some of the actors and I've previously enjoyed Norris' work.  I have to admit it's been really interesting, going back and reading the reviews and other press after finally seeing the show...  




Actually, The Low Road technically isn't new.  It was written in 2013 and premiered in London.  Norris wrote it in response to the U.S. economic collapse and the election of 2012, but it's kind of amazing how completely on-the-nose this play is about the problems of RIGHT NOW in America.  The first act is sort of a Tom Jones/Candide sort-of-thing, with a penniless orphan making his way in the world.  But the sensibility is totally 21-century American.

photo credit: Joan Marcus

I was rather bemused during the first act, finding the travails pretty funny and the acting quite good, but I didn't find myself especially engaged or feeling like this play was anything particularly special.  And then came the first scene of the second act.  Good gravy!  All of a sudden, I completely understood what Norris was up to, excoriating capitalism and wealthy Americans for their hypocrisy and shortsighted world view!  And I started shouting (in my brain), oh my gosh, he is a GENIUS!  And so I was then completely on board with the completion of the story he started in the first act.  But then there was more!  The batty, wacky deus ex-machina came in and totally blew my mind!!!  Seriously.  I just laughed delightedly at the sheer audaciousness of it, and of the truth-telling that went along with it.

photo credit: Joan Marcus

I'll just share a few tidbits, since seeing The Low Road unfold without really knowing anything about it, was such a treat.  Daniel Davis, long one of my favorites, is our narrator, playing the real-life eighteenth-century philosopher and economist Adam Smith, author of Wealth of Nations.  It's a running joke throughout the play that the protagonist, young Jim Trewitt, just happened to read an early draft of that work and he keeps quoting it back to people, especially the part about the "invisible hand."  Reading just one paragraph turns Jim into a self-advancing capitalist monster and so our story unfolds.  

Other fantastic characters were escaped slave and would-be-aristocrat John Blanke, played by Chukwudi Iwuji, who is now another of my favorites, as was Brother Pugh, played by Max Baker.  Oh, and Harriet Harris is always a treat.  Most actors played more than one character and all were terrifically delineated and individualized.  Although most characters in the play are rather unsympathetic, they're all so wonderfully acted and interestingly written, that I was engaged throughout.  There's a terrific cliffhanger at the end of the first act and I've already mentioned that I found the first scene of the second act (which takes you out of the plot of the first act for a few minutes, but comments on it brilliantly) to be utterly genius.  In the interest of full disclosure, though, the play is pretty talky, rather long, and I wasn't happy with the treatment of a character with a developmental disability, but I took the not-as-good with the good.  The whole was greater than the sum of its parts, or some such thing.  I had a great time.

There was a talkback after the performance and it was a treat, too.  Bruce Norris is a really terrific conversationalist and he was quite open and honest about his pessimism about life and how it seeps into his writing.  He also was quite a good sport and funny when people asked questions that seemed to indicate they didn't quite understand what he was going for.  I laughed out loud when one of the other actors said that he was now a pessimist, thanks to working with Bruce, and then Bruce raised his arms in triumph!  It was kind of adorable.  I just love talkbacks, I have to admit, and this was definitely one of my favorites.

I only have a report of two seat neighbors - I found them rather horrible in the extreme.  In fact, I had to confront one, which I never do.  Anyway, one gal spent the time before the show started absolutely excoriating Angels in America.  About how interminable it is and how anyone who says they like it is lying.  And she was stating all of this at the top of her lungs, ostensibly because she was talking to her friend, who was seated a few seats away.  I guess that just set my teeth on edge and I never got over it.  I just thought, 'well, I hate you,' and tried not to listen.  Thankfully(ish), she moved right next to her friend right before the show started, so I wouldn't be able to hear them if they needed to continue talking.  When the lights came up for intermission, the gal stood up and said "Oh my god, I'm bored out of my mind, I hate preachy shows!  This is one of the worst things I've ever seen!  I have to get out of here!"  And then she stood there.  At which point, I turned around and asked "Have you ever heard of the five-block rule?"  She said, "What?"  I said, "The five-block rule, where you wait to complain about a show until you're five blocks away.  Because you just never know who you'll be seated near..."  She looked at me, narrowed her eyes and said, "You're not Bruce Norris."  I said, "True, but how do you know I'm not his SISTER?!"  Pause.  Then she stalked out.  Which was great.  One of my nearer seat neighbors whispered "Awesome."  I probably should've let it go, as I usually do, but I guess I snapped.

But the story isn't over.  Her friend, who did come back for the second act, decided to FILE HER NAILS during practically the entire second act.  I tried to death stare.  No help.  I whispered "Shhhhh."  Didn't work.  Another woman turning around and loudly whispering "PLEASE STOP" finally got her to put her nail file away.  Ugh.  People.  I need to start a theater company where I can be the only person in the room.

Actually, those two ladies were the exception.  Everyone else seemed to have a good time and behaved themselves at the show and a good portion of the audience stayed for the talkback and it was a lively discussion.  So the evening ended on a happy note.  But I seriously don't get some people.  I guess I should be grateful they weren't eating soup out of a Tupperware container or something.  But don't let people like that bother you like I let them bother me - go see The Low Road for some smart, funny, high-brow and low-brow entertainment.  And you won't soon see a deus-ex-machina like this one again, I think I can state with confidence... 😃

Preview Thoughts on Angels in America

Over the years, I've repeatedly chatted here about my love of big messy plays.  The bigger and messier, the better.  I love the reach and ambition and huge ideas.  And for some reason, I never really thought about WHY I love big messy plays.  But the answer slapped me in the face last week, when I went to see Angels in America.

Hello, OF COURSE Angels in America is the reason I love big messy plays!  It's the first one I ever saw - I saw the original production during a brief visit to the city (it ran during my hiatus from NYC) and I was simply gobsmacked, like everyone else.  I've carried those images in my brain for all of these years.  I saw the HBO version, which I enjoyed, but it wasn't the same as seeing this work of art on the stage.  I did not go to see the Off-Broadway production a few years ago and I have regrets about that - two of the actors are on my 'do not see' list, so I couldn't make myself go.  But two of the actors are usually on my 'must see' list, so I probably should've compromised with myself a little more.  Oh well.  I think waiting so long to see these plays again just made my return last week even better.

my view

As theater is so frigging expensive nowadays, I only went onto the Angels in America website as a lark, because I figured I wouldn't be able to afford to see it, especially since (at least at the beginning of ticket sales) they were forcing people to buy tickets to both parts, you couldn't pick and choose.  But when I looked at the seating charts, I discovered I could see both parts at a cost that seemed monumentally worth it to me, so I pulled out my credit card and bought on the spot.

I guess I didn't really notice on the seating chart that my seat was practically in the last row.  But it actually didn't especially matter.  A big messy play is large enough to be seen from anywhere.  The staging and the performances are all completely filling the stage and I didn't have a bit of trouble seeing or hearing anything.  I will admit to taking my binoculars along for part two, though, so I could sneak a close-up look at faces once or twice.

Enough blah blah blah, right?  Sometimes I wonder about my habit of providing backstory.  But I usually enjoy remembering my own memories, so I guess you'll just to skim through backstory, sorry.  To cut to the chase (finally):  I LOVED Angels in America!  I am ever so grateful that the production transferred here from London.  I loved seeing parts one and two on successive evenings.  I am so grateful I got to experience Tony Kushner's genius again.  I highly recommend everyone go see it.  Thank you.

As I was watching, I could hardly believe this play came out of someone's brain.  It's just so enormous, yet intimate, and says so much.  It says EVERYTHING.  You might think that because it was a response to the horrors of the Reagan administration and the beginnings of the AIDS crisis, that the play would be somehow dated, or a period piece.  IT'S NOT.  It is so current about the decay of our society and how we all need some kind of faith to lift each other up - we're all in this together and that's the only way the world can work.  We all have to be prepared to change and grow, or else we'll all be in trouble.  I was frankly surprised at how prescient the play seemed.  And not really in an 'everything old is new again' kind of way.  I don't really know how to describe what I mean, sorry, but I just thought this Angels in America is the play we need right now.  

These productions are still in previews, and although they've transferred from London, I gather they're still working on some things.  In part two, they actually stopped the show and dropped the curtain for a few minutes during the Mormon diorama scene.  So I'll only offer a few thoughts on the productions, since they haven't officially opened yet.

photo credit: Helen Maybanks

The acting, for the most part, was fantastic.  If there were a couple of actors whose choices bothered me a bit, that's ok.  They were all excellent storytellers, so I didn't feel as if what Kushner was trying to do with the play was marred in any way, I just didn't love all interpretations.  Nathan Lane is fantastic as the evil Roy Cohn, though he does carry some unfortunate baggage with him.  The audience is so used to laughing at him, and with him, that the laughter lasts a little bit too long for Roy.  But that's not Nathan's fault, it's the audience's.  I found him to be terrifically terrifying, as that character should be.  His scenes with the ghost of Ethel Rosenberg have some of the best acting I've seen in years  (I am a little prejudiced here, though, because I absolutely adore that character).  

photo credit: Helen Maybanks

Andrew Garfield, who I found far too callow in Death of a Salesman, was quite good here.  His arc was very nicely portrayed throughout and I found him to be moving, sassy, scared and very funny.  He also had wonderful chemistry with James McArdle as Louis.  Sidebar:  interestingly, the only performance that kept swimming over my eyes throughout both productions was Joe Mantello's Louis.  All of the other actors in this production moved front and center eventually, but Mantello's performance just stayed with me.  Not that McArdle was bad, he wasn't, but I don't know.  I seriously had Mantello on my brain the entire time.  Take that how you will, I did find it interesting.  I enjoyed Lee Pace as Joe Pitt quite a lot, but I'm predisposed to enjoy him, I found him to be terrific in both tv's Pushing Daisies and the Broadway production of The Normal Heart.  But I did think he captured Joe's struggle very well.

The way the Angel was staged was completely different from the original production and I really loved it - it had a very different kind of 'oomph,' but my heart was still racing and that ending of Millennium Approaches is still the most amazing triumph.  The audience truly leapt to their feat as one.  Oh, and going back for a moment, I did enjoy the actress who played the Angel and other characters in Millennium, but I was also pretty excited to see the understudy in Perestroika, Beth Malone, who I adored in Fun Home a few years ago.  So I feel as if I got the best of all possible worlds, to see both wonderful actresses take on this amazing character (well, several characters actually).

I didn't love some of the physical production, at least at the top of part one.  I thought the music was over the top and the set rather bothered me (especially the neon), but as the play progressed and opened up to the divine, I did appreciate where we ended up, if not how we got there.  If that even makes sense. :)  But all in all, I had just the best time and I highly recommend you get yourself over to the Neil Simon Theatre.  Yeah, it's a show in two parts that lasts about eight hours; yeah, it's a tad overwritten in places, but I say so what?!  Tony Kushner is a frigging genius and this is a piece of art that is always worth the viewings.  In my humble opinion, of course...

And since you've been so patient reading my 'thoughts' that probably last as long as the play itself, I present my seat neighbor reports: interestingly, I rather bonded with some of my seat neighbors.  I mean, we experienced nearly eight hours of wonderfulness together.  We all greeted each other very heartily when we reconvened for part two.  Gary, the usher in my section of the house, welcomed everyone back, which was sweet.  But I did make a few observations (of course I did):  I was a little puzzled by the couple who sat two rows apart from each other, each on an aisle, and the gent would leave his seat to walk down two steps to talk to his companion, then walk back up and sit down.  It was very strange, though they weren't as distracting as you might expect.  The couple sitting in front of me were putting on their own show - they were two of those people who speak really loudly and gesticulate really broadly to gain everyone's attention.  You know what I mean.  They weren't that excited, or oblivious to anyone but each other, they were just putting on their own show.  And they were a tad annoying.  The couple on my right was very pleasant, though the gal had a really loud and distracting laugh, sort of like the girl in Sleepless in Seattle.  So I wonder if this was an early date for the couple.  He would casually put his hand on hers when her response to a funny line was a little too loud, so...I don't know.  But mainly it was a wonderfully respectful audience - quiet, phones turned off, laughing, gasping and engaged.  And we truly did jump to our feet as one, to applaud not only the cast but also Tony Kushner's amazing work.  I'm so glad I was there.

Preview Thoughts on queens and Amy and the Orphans

I've been fortunate to recently see two new plays by two much-talked about women playwrights!  Happily, it's becoming the tiniest bit easier to be able to see plays by women in big-name theaters.  I hope this trend increases exponentially over time and that artistic directors aren't thinking of women playwrights as a 'fad' that they can let drop away soon. Anyway, I thought both plays were terrifically done and I highly recommend you go see them.  Since they're both still in previews (oops, update, one opened already), I'll only offer a few thoughts...

Last season, one of my favorite plays was Martyna Majok's Cost of Living (remind yourself of my review HERE).  So I've been looking forward to seeing another of her plays and was excited when LCT3 announced they would produce her next work, queens.  This new piece takes place in the borough of Queens and deals with the lives of immigrant women who pass through there, mainly through one basement apartment.

So much of queens is incredibly powerful, with women making the hard choices and terrible sacrifices, seemingly for a better life for others, but also trying to make better lives for themselves.  Majok's characterizations and dialogue are first-rate, I could've heard conversations between these women go on all night.  They were all so true, so humane, and so fascinating to me.  It's always a breath of fresh air to see plays about working women, and working CLASS women, for whom just getting by is a struggle.  Majok gives them all the dignity they deserve and a voice that we need to hear.

photo credit: Erin Baiano

The bond these many women shared, and then fractured, was beautifully portrayed by all seven actresses, some of whom play more than one role.  And it seemed to me that all of their accents were spot on.  The play shifts in time, with 2001 the earliest time frame, and 2017 the most recent.  But as each era flits around, we see how memories shift and people change and how no person is any one thing.  It's quite ingenious the way the play has been put together.  I admit I wasn't fully on board for the penultimate scene, but I thought the rest of the play worked like absolute gangbusters.  It runs nearly three hours, with two intermissions, but as I said earlier, I could've listened to these women talk all night.  Oh, and along with being incredibly humane and moving?  queens is really funny throughout, with the humor that's automatically built into real life.  I really loved it.

The woman to the right of me, however, did not.  She left before the first intermission.  The woman to the left of me was more engrossed in her bag of M&Ms, but she stayed.  But the group of, uh, mature audience members behind me LOVED it.  Seriously loved it.  I didn't have the heart to turn around and ask them to observe the five-block rule, they loved it so much.  They just couldn't keep track of who was who, bless their hearts.  Each intermission was like a study session for a pop quiz, with them trying to figure out which actress was which character who was from which country.  (It's not that hard in the play, honest; these people were just not getting it.)  But it was nice to hear men and women of a certain age even older than mine really enjoying the play.  I highly recommend you go see it.

If you read my review of Majok's previous play, Cost of Living, or if you've read my blog before, you'll remember that I'm extremely interested in issues of disability.  When I read the NY Times article about the putting together of Roundabout's current Off-Broadway offering, Amy and the Orphans, I knew I wanted to see it.  Plus, friends of mine have waxed rhapsodically about the playwright, Lindsey Ferrentino for a long time.  I'm sad to have missed her Ugly Lies the Bone, so I didn't want to make the same mistake twice.

Amy and the Orphans deals with three siblings, two of whom are afraid to break the news about their father's death to their sister, who has Down syndrome.  Their sister, Amy, has lived in a group home her entire life and has never lived with the family.  Her two older siblings, played by the wonderful Mark Blum and Debra Monk, have vastly different memories of their childhood and their visits with Amy.  Amy, who is played by Jamie Brewer, has memories of her own.  Alternating with the scenes between the siblings are scenes with a couple at a couples retreat, undergoing a crisis in their marriage.  Exactly who they are, and how they fit into the story, is slowly revealed.

photo credit: Sara Krulwich

I thought the play was terrific, very funny and sad and real, with sibling squabbles, shorthand and miscommunication.  The acting was fantastic, all across the board, with a special shoutout to Jamie Brewer.  She also has Down syndrome, and she is simply spectacular.  She gives Amy such heart and humor, with a twinge of pain underneath.  Amy frequently quotes from movies (she has a job at a movie theater) and she has a monologue made up entirely of movie quotes that goes from hysterically funny to heartbreakingly sad in about an instant.  You can see a lifetime of being taken for granted in her performance, with no self-pity, and she is wonderful.  I was also taken with Vanessa Aspillaga, as Amy's no-nonsense caregiver.  And I always love Debra Monk and Mark Blum, they are just so effortlessly real, whoever they play.

Reading about the impulse for writing this play, I discovered the playwright had an aunt with Down syndrome, who recently passed away (HERE is that great NY Times article I mentioned above).  I thought Ferrentino captured the balance of trying to understand how her grandparents could abandon their disabled daughter, and how any decision affects the rest of the family.  How any decision in the abstract is the right decision, but how your reasons crumble away in the face of the realities.  How everyone's heart can be in the right place, but the right place isn't always RIGHT.  There was a lot of really terrific stuff in Amy and the Orphans and I highly recommend you go see it.  Not only because it's a good play, but because the lives of the disabled are so rarely on stage, and disabled performers are almost never telling their own stories, so this piece deserves all of its attention and we should stand behind it.