Friday, December 31, 2010
2010: A Year in Review
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
"Woody Guthrie's American Song" Review
Review of ATC’s Production of Woody Guthrie’s American Song
by Marc Hansen
If you’re the kind of person who loves traditional folk/country music, then I’m sure you would LOVE ATC’s production of Woody Guthrie’s American Song, as most of the production consists of pretty much just that. As someone who loves modern folk music, but isn’t particularly a fan of this style, I admire the play for its strengths, but overall it just isn’t the play for me.
Woody Guthrie’s American Song brings to mind last season’s Ain’t Misbehavin’, which coincidentally had the time slot as Woody Guthrie’s American Song this year. Like Ain’t Misbehavin’, Woody Guthrie takes a famous, defining musical artist in a given genre (Woody Guthrie of Depression-era folk, like Fats Waller of 1920s jazz) and performs a wide collection of their songs over the course of the play. The productions consists of mostly just that, though you also get a great atmosphere for the time period they’re trying to project.
The main difference with Woody Guthrie however, is that Ain’t Misbehavin’ was just Fats Waller songs, while Woody Guthrie actually tries to provide a plot within the play. That’s not exactly a bad thing, in theory; I was expecting the production to be a story about Woody Guthrie’s life, but as the play goes on, you become increasingly aware that it’s more about the music, with an underdeveloped story thrown in occasionally between songs. In addition, the story that’s there, maybe because it is so underdeveloped, isn’t captivating in the slightest. It’s dull and just plain confusing. I think you could certainly make at least a semi-interesting story about Woody Guthrie’s life, but this isn’t it. It’s especially brought down by the fact that the five actors in the cast constantly switch characters, which isn’t unusual for secondary characters, but even the main character of Woody Guthrie was juggled between the three male stars, all at various points in the play. This convoluted approach, I’m assuming trying to be unique or creative, just made me bewildered as to who was who and what was happening.
On the positive side, as I said earlier, the play really is more concerned with the music than the plot, and the music is great. Even for someone like me, whose particular taste doesn’t lean towards this style of music (I actually prefer the 1920s jazz of Ain’t Misbehavin’), I can’t deny that the music is great and is the production’s greatest strength. There is a reason Woody Guthrie was a defining artist of this genre, and by the time his magnum opus “This Land Is Your Land” closed the show, everyone in the audience was singing along. The three band members (Mark Baczynski, David P. Jackson, and David Miles Keenan) are all excellent multi-instrumentalists and I loved the opening number “Hard Travelin’” in which every cast member overlaps a monologue about their characters’ backstory.
The set was also fantastic, extravagantly large and vast, just like the Old West, (heightened by our balcony seating) and perfectly setting the tone and mood for the music that accompanies it. You truly have a sense of the time and place of Depression-era America. When it comes down to it, even with its pros and cons, how much you like Woody Guthrie’s American Song will be directly related to how much you like his music. If you despise it, you may not be able to appreciate the set’s beauty or the instrumentalists’ skill. And if you’re head over heels in love with old time country/folk music, you may be able to look past that horrendous attempt at a story. As for me, I found myself somewhere in the middle.
Overall Grade: B-
Saturday, November 6, 2010
"Ma Rainey's Black Bottom" Review
Review of ATC’s Production of Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom
by Marc Hansen
In his career, prestigious playwright and legend August Wilson wrote, in addition to others, a series of ten plays, each detailing the African-American experience of one of the decades in the 20th century. These were called his “Century Cycle” or his “Pittsburgh Cycle,” as all ten of these plays were set in Pittsburgh’s Hill District, with the exception of one: Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, which takes place in Chicago and has now come to Tucson, Arizona at the ATC. This time the ATC keeps it light on the elaborate sets (though the one set they do have is still well done), and mostly relies on Wilson’s fabulous script and a superb cast to make for another enjoyable experience.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom takes place over the course of one day in 1927, in a recording studio in Chicago, Illinois. The four struggling band members, the stubborn old record producer (Michael Tezla), and Ma Rainey’s peace keeping manager (Phil Kilbourne) are waiting for legendary singer Ma Rainey to arrive and record her new jazz record. After coming an hour late, major pop diva Ma Rainey (Jevetta Steele) refuses to sing until she has her Coca Cola and demands that her stuttering nephew (Ahanti Young) speak a line in the title song (“Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”). Meanwhile, back in the rehearsal room, feuds between the cocky, young trumpet player Levee (James T. Alfred) and the other three goofball musicians arise, ultimately leading to dire consequences and expressing the hardships of black Americans in the 1920s.
The best thing about the play was Wilson’s extraordinary and well-thought out dialogue, which had a poetic rhythm to it and reveled in the possibilities of the English language. It’s one of those screenplays that I would love to read on its own and get the full nuances of the arrangements of the words. I loved the banter back and forth between the back up band members, which is only heightened by all four actor’s extremely natural, yet completely convincing, performances (Abdul Salaam Razzac as Toledo is the most lovable of the three misfits, though all three are equally hilarious). Although, at some points, Ma Rainey does get a little too talky for its own good. Consisting of almost all dialogue, it’s easy to get lost and lose focus, and overall the play could use some more action to balance out the important themes the actors do express in their lines.
The play definitely picks up in the second half, after Ma Rainey has entered the picture and we get to watch a performance or two of some of the songs. (Warning to some members of the audience: Though this is a play very much about music and musicians, it’s not a musical; Don’t go in expecting Dreamgirls or lots of bluesy songs, as many members seemed to be disappointed by a lack of this - it is instead an intense and powerful portrait of African-Americans in the ‘20s). Jevetta Steele, in particular, is stellar and has a very commanding stage presence. She nails the arrogant, pop diva act and when she’s on stage, you can’t take your eyes off her. The MVP of the cast though is by far James T. Alfred as Levee, which is truly saying something as I actually admired every performance. However Alfred won me over when at the end of the first act, after having his character play the role of the arrogant and ambitious up-and-comer, Alfred reveals Levee’s true self when erupting into a towering monologue, truly showing how troubled, damaged and hot-tempered Levee really is.
Once again, the production isn’t perfect, as it does get a little slow and too long at various points, but all in all through Wilson’s mostly tight script, and the even better realized performances from this production of Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom, ATC certainly creates an emotional experience in which you empathize and understand the actions of these fascinating characters.
Overall Grade: B+
Monday, October 11, 2010
"Backwards in High Heels" Review - Way Late, Sorry
Review of ATC’s Production of Backwards in High Heels
by Marc Hansen
Just like the career of the famous 30’s Hollywood starlet Ginger Rogers, ATC’s production of season opener Backwards In High Heels, detailing the life of said actress/tap dancer, has its ups and downs. Certain aspects, such as the dancing and tap dancing, are beyond excellent, though the musical lacks purpose as a whole. Still, Backwards In High Heels should appeal to the older crowd, who were alive to experience the trajectory of Ginger Roger’s fifteen minutes of fame.
As previously stated, Backwards in High Heels is the life story of famous actress and tap dancer Ginger Rogers (Anna Aimee White), from a hopeful teenager in suburban Texas to a serious, accomplished professional on the Oscar-winning stage. The play hits all the major events in her life, including her famous legacy and union with fellow master tap dancer/actor Fred Astaire (Matthew LaBanca) and her five failed marriages (hilariously sped through in the song “Fine Romance”).
As always, the production values were excellent and I loved the set of the film set (but I’m a sucker for those kinds of things, being a film aficionado myself). There were also some really neat tricks being done with only two spotlights for lighting during “Baby Face“. And while there were no standouts in the cast, White’s voice was surprisingly powerful in “But... When?” after not having shown as much potential earlier. The music was hit-or-miss, like the play; sometimes it was standard and mundane, but there were some really catchy, standout numbers and productions, including the ridiculously fun “We’re in the Money.”
The main problem with Backwards in High Heels though is that it’s more just a series of events than a story. There seems to be no purpose or theme to the writing; at least I have no idea what it could possibly be trying to say, and suspect that its creation was purely on the basis of making a biopic (in stage format) of Ginger Rogers. And on that front, it’s the same old stuff you’ve seen before - typical ambitious young adult with big dreams in the 1920’s making it in the business, beyond all the odds and doubt. We already know the story, so when Jack Culpepper (James Patterson) tells Ginger Rogers she needs a plan B in case she doesn’t make it, we know she doesn’t, because we already know she does. And when Ginger’s mother (Heather Lee) tells her she’s making a huge mistake marrying Jack and that she’ll be back, we know she will. You could make this argument about any true story/biopic, but the problem in Backwards in High Heels is we don’t get inside Roger’s head or understand her better. We simply watch her life play out, making the play less interesting when we already know all the beats.
The play is mostly lightweight, as it has to be, because there’s no central dramatic theme, except for an overplayed subplot between Ginger and her mother, apparently thrown in to make up for a lack of conflict. In fact, the musical (which is also about half an hour too long) is at its best when it’s just lightweight and reveling in fun. Thank goodness, though, that Backwards In High Heels is on stage (and not film). If it weren’t, we would miss the musical’s ultimate high point in person - the opening number and tap filled “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off.” In this fabulous opener, White and fellow cast members LaBanca, Patterson, and Benjie Randall indulge in an amazing array of tap dance shoe harmonies, truly proving where their talents lie and how underrated this art form can be, as I’m sure Rogers would agree.
Overall Grade: C+
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
So, here are my finished projects from camp (Happy?):
Friday, June 25, 2010
No Hay Un Banda....
Alright, well, I'm back. I probably should be packing (as I haven't done that yet... and we leave early tomorrow morning) and Morgan (my friend who's coming with us) should be here any minute (he's sleeping over), but I just felt like I needed to describe Mulholland Drive.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
'Bad Line Readings' 2: Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
'Highlights from Europe Trip 2 + 3'
Saturday, June 5, 2010
'Highlights from Europe Trip 1: Italy'
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
'Bad Line Readings' 1: Tough Guys Don't Dance
Monday, May 31, 2010
'Remember This!' 1: Isaac McKillin'
'Isaac McKillin''
by
Marc Hansen
Only five more seconds, I think to myself.
Only five more seconds until he takes off my blindfold and I can see where he has taken me. Him. Isaac McKillin’.
“One...” He whispers.
I wonder where he’s taken me. I can’t see anything with this blindfold on. For some reason I have a feeling I’m in an alley. I don’t know why he would take me to an alley, if he’s planning on torturing me, but it just feels like something I would see in the movies. I don’t know. Maybe he’s not going to torture me. Oh, come on! Of course he’s going to torture me. He kidnapped me, blindfolded me, drove me in his car somewhere, probably in the middle of nowhere, and now I’m down on my knees. Besides, it’s Isaac McKillin’. No one messes with Isaac McKillin’. Could it get any worse?
“Two...” He counts down.
How did this happen to me? How in earth did I get into this god awful trouble? I think about how I had gotten here. So that’s how. I guess it’s reasonable. I deserve whatever’s coming to me, which I would feel a lot better about if I wasn’t me right now. This is gonna be bad. It is Isaac McKillin’. The infamous Isaac McKillin’.
“Three...”
I wish I was a baby. I wish I could start all over. Try it again. Redo. I wish I was just a baby again. I wish that my father and my mother could create me all over again, on some other afternoon, one where they hadn’t been so angry at each other. Maybe then I wouldn’t have been such a screw-up. I wish that I could once again be growing from a fetus into an actual human being, inside my mother’s womb, with eight more months to go. Maybe I wouldn’t have been such a screw-up if she hadn’t been drinking. I wish, that for one more time, my mother could have her water break, take the bus to the hospital, push, scream, cry, have contractions, tell my father to stop watching the game in the waiting room, get overemotional, and finally push my tiny, slimy, wonderful baby body out of her body. I think that’s the way it went. Too bad I don’t remember what actually happened that day. I was so young, naive, innocent, childish. I didn’t know what I had coming in for me. Maybe if I was born differently I wouldn’t be here now. But I am here.
“Four...” One more second. Almost there. Why does it feel like these five seconds are taking forever? How much can really even happen in five seconds? A lifetime. Maybe our whole lives just take place in five seconds? Over before you know it. How do we not know that our complete lives just go by like that in a flash? Five seconds. Time is only relative, you know. It doesn’t even mean a thing. Just a way of keeping track. Just numbers. One, two, three, four, five. Five seconds could be forever. Seconds, hours, lifetimes just depend on your scale. Time is relative. Maybe I wouldn’t be such a screw-up if my life was longer.
“Five...” The words come out as I suddenly feel the cold, black, hard, metal end of a gun touch the tiny shaved hairs on the back of my head.
“Oh god,” I cry, like a baby. I guess he’s not going to torture me after all. Now I know why they call him Isaac McKillin’.
In the sixth second he takes off my blindfold and before I know it, it’s all over too soon. Like that. In a flash. 1 second. I never even get to see where he’s taken me. He just takes off the blindfold and pulls the trigger. Isaac McKillin’. The bullet enters my brain. I wish I could just give it another go-around. I promise I wouldn’t make the same mistakes. Really, I do. But it’s too late. It’s over. It’s all over. I see a flash and blue butterflies fill any last sight I have. I don’t even live long enough to write about a seventh second. All thanks to Isaac McKillin’. As if one more second was all I needed. One second could last a lifetime, you know. I’m repeating myself. That’s what dying people do. Repeat themselves. That’s me. If it wasn’t for Isaac McKillin’ I could have had one more second. One more lifetime. But I don’t. The bullet enters my brain. All noise stops. All smell dies. All sight is gone. No more feeling. Where did the taste go? Wait, how am I still narrating? I’m dead!
Play dead, Brian, play dead.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Bonnaroo Schedule
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Here comes "The Intense Cabin!" (and more!)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
'Literature Reformed' Essay
“Literature Reformed”
by Marc Hansen
As we embark on the beginning of the second decade of the century, it’s becoming abundantly clear that this really is the digital age. We are engrossed in our technology. There’s not a household without a tv and a computer, or a person without a cell phone or music player. World’s going down the toilet? Well, give me a second, I’m waiting in line for the new iPad. Still don’t have a job? Well, no need to worry, as long as you can still buy the newest, latest, greatest toy with another bank loan. These days you can’t even survive without all of your gadgets, but the truth is I hadn’t really minded until now, when it’s hit me where it hurts most: books. I suppose it’s only the natural progression that soon even books would be relegated to a digital file, but if I can help it, I’ll try and do everything in my power to make sure that society continues buying real, physical books, instead of the Kindle. That’s right: he whose name cannot be spoken. I guess, I’m not really giving the Kindle (and the iPad, for that matter, now) enough credit, but it’s time to really compare regular, old-fashioned books and the Kindle, once and for all. While physical books are for happy, faithful book-lovers, the Kindle is for aggressive, ominous killers, who want to destroy the medium, strip away everything that makes it what it is, and ultimately, gain world control. Or something.
I’ll admit that the Kindle does have some useful qualities, as it would have to have, or there would be no other way its evil creators could plant the idea that this destructive bomb is a good idea into consumer’s brains. But seriously, it does allow the reader to enlarge the print size, which is pretty helpful for the elderly, as well as anyone whose farsighted, and if you’re traveling, it’s much easier to pack a small Kindle with all of your books on it, then all of your physical books, which would take up a significant amount of space. Another positive I’ve heard is that it’s more convenient to buy books on your digital Kindle, have it directly downloaded to the machine, and be able to own the book immediately and that’s where I draw the line. (on physical paper I actually drew a line there - see reading on paper is better than reading on a computer, even though that's what you're doing right now). I love going to the bookstore. It’s like the difference of watching a movie at home or actually going to the theater to experience the film. When I get in the car to drive to the bookstore, it feels more eventful and special. I’m physically getting out of the house, instead of just staying inside, and have that anticipation on the drive over there of finally being able to get a copy of that book I’ve wanted to read. When I picture the Kindle, I think of a bunch of mole-y, shadow people, enclosed in their homes, living off of a computer, and never seeing the sun or going outside.
Not to mention that the Kindle just loses that lovable, human quality that physical books seem to possess. Reading should be intimate. Most of the joy comes from the actual story, but your surroundings affect the experience. Isn’t it always better when you’re curled up in your cozy, warm bed reading, than reading in public, when you’re surrounded by lots of people and distractions? Like I said, reading is meant to be an intimate experience, where you get so involved you can’t stop turning the real pages and even bring the book with you to the bathroom so you don’t have to put it down. One of my favorite things to do is read for hours in the jacuzzi and have the warm, miniscule, water molecules jump onto the grainy pages of my paperback. If I took a Kindle with me in the jacuzzi, I’d just get electrocuted. I like getting my books stained and looking beaten down - that’s proof that they’ve been used, whereas, on the Kindle, I could just delete the file of my book once I’m done with it. Some would say that they’d prefer not having physical books take up all that space, but I love having a stack of books I’ve yet to read, and all the books I have read on my shelf. That’s my life on those shelves.
Finally, books have a history to them that Kindles can’t obtain. You could ask me why I don’t mind that all the music I own is digital and on my iPod, but I love my iPod and I couldn’t live without my computer. The real difference is that the change from CDs to mp3 files on iPods didn’t seem all that drastic, because the way we’ve listened to music has constantly been changing. It just seemed like the next step in the process of evolution. First, we had records, then we had 8-tracks, then we had cassettes, then we had CDs, and now we have mp3 files. Every decade or so, we’d have a new way of listening to music, so an iPod just seemed like the newest way to essentially do the same thing. Books, on the other hand, have always been books. For hundreds of years, they’ve stayed in the same format, on paper, banded together. To change that would be to change what books are all about. Reading has always been a form of recreation, and I take pride in knowing that when I’m writing with pencil and paper, I’m writing the same way our greatest authors, from Shakespeare to Jane Austen to FitzGerald, wrote. I’ve held books in my hands that were published over 150 years ago, and it’s a magical feeling knowing that what you have in your hands is not only that old, but was once new. You can see the history and it’s nice to think that authors today are still publishing their works in the exact same form. Those books can survive for eternity, while with the press of a button, the books on the Kindle could be gone forever.
While some supporters of the Kindle would say that it’s the actual content of the books that count, and I agree that that is the most important thing, I still ask them this question: Was The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for example (or insert your book of choice), meant to be read on a lit-up screen? When Mark Twain was writing the words down, was he picturing his readers reading his book in this form? No, Mark Twain had never heard of a computer. That’s not how Mark Twain envisioned his book while writing it, and that’s not how it’s meant to be read. Yet that’s essentially all a Kindle is: a lifeless computer. Our species have always written on actual pieces of paper, and we always will.
Some of the jokes (like the print size) really did work better on paper, further proof of my point.