David Rabe's Streamers premiered at the Public a little over 30 years ago. Of course, I was both a prepubescent tike in addition to living in New Jersey at the time of the original production, but would read it many years later, in addition to the other Vietnam plays of Mr. Rabe (Pavlo Hummel and Sticks & Bones). However, having never seen it before catching the Roundabout's revival this evening, I must admit that I had long forgotten that Streamers, set in an army barracks in 1965, has very little to do with Vietnam, though Vietnam does serve as a looming-if-distant backdrop to an oblivion that Rabe's central characters would certainly like to avoid. But what is central to the play is the inner conflicts surrounding an overtly gay soldier from New York City (Richie, played by Hale Appleman), a midwesterner with a certain sensitivity to being perceived as closeted (Billy, played by Brad Fleischer) and a lower-level black soldier (Carlyle, played with intense ferocity by Ato Essandoh) who is a an open sore of disillusionment and inner torment both regarding his race and his "animalistic" sexual urges, which unfold disturbingly in the play's second act. For much of the play, the only centered character appears to be that of Roger (very well played by JD Williams), who is the third bunkmate to Richie and Billy. As a fellow black soldier, Roger ultimately serves as the unfortunate catalyst to Carlyle's eventual interaction with Richie and Billy. What is always nice to see in a play such as Streamers is that it is not a play that is stuck in time. Whereas so many current "Iraq" plays may lose out on a future beyond this specific time of war that we live in, Streamers is universal and deals with issues that will continue to be potent because it is a play, first and foremost, about men who may have to fight in a war...but not about the war itself or the surface politics that lead to it. It is also the best of Rabe's "Vietnam Plays" and, in my opinion, his best play period. The writing is extremely fluid with a great natural eloquence, nicely devoid of any didactism. Unlike his absurdedly verbose Hurlyburly, Streamers is dense while maintaining great linguistic economy.
In addition to the noted performers above are the Sergeants Rooney and Cokes (respectively played by the excellent John Sharian and Larry Clarke). In the first act, these two seemingly have the roles of intimidating jesters, exploding into the barracks like two profane cannonballs. However, they bookend the second act's tragic conclusion, particularly a both humorous and ultimately poignant speech by Mr. Clarke. My only major issue with this otherwise excellent production is the lack of explosion in a key speech by Brad Fleischer (Billy) late in the second act, which instead is delivered with a lack of urgency and at a leaden pace just when the lines should be exploding through the air like fireworks.
As another worthy revival (American Buffalo) has closed after only a week of performances, I would strongly urge you to catch this revival, as there are still many dates available through TDF. Of course, this is a sign that the play is, unfortunately, not selling particularly well. So if you are able to support a fine production of an excellent play, see this one while it's got a couple of weeks left. It's a goody.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
New John Guare Play is Postponed
Last month, I attended my first Dramatists Guild function in many years. It was John Guare interviewing Peter Shaffer (author of the newly revived Equus and, of course, Amadeus) about his life and career. Not being an overwhelming fan of eithers work, I was and still am an unequivocal admirer of the success they have both attained and, with forays into teaching and/or screenwriting aside, have been further impressed at how they have sustained their reputations as playwrights over several decades. For that reason alone, the evening was certainly not without interest. However, I must admit that I, particularly as a playwright, have always had a preconception of John Guare as being, frankly, a bit of a snob. This conclusion stemmed from articles he's written, such as one entitled "War Against the Kitchen Sink", a Forward to a collection of his plays in which he more-or-less denounced plays that are set in homes or apartments as being dull and uninspired. As if a play is not a play if it is not set in the jungles of Peru.
First, I found this thinking to be incredibly shortsighted, especially from a playwright who is also a teacher of playwriting. Secondly, playwrights should feel liberated enough to write what they know and what is within them to write just as they also have the right to write about what they have learned about or researched outside of an assumed "comfort zone". But what ultimately takes precedence is that a playwright should create from the heart work that they feel truly compelled to write, regardless of setting or style, with the only stipulation being that they dramatize their play in a way which is compelling beyond the page.
These initial feelings of annoyance aside, for much of this particular evening I rather enjoyed Guare's respectful interaction with Mr. Shaffer, as they are peers after all. But then...at the interview's conclusion, Guare opened it up to the small audience who would pose various questions to both authors, culminating in a big one; an audience member asked if Shaffer and Guare felt restrictions given the "current fiscal limitations", particularly in the theatrical community. More specifically, did they find that they needed to start conforming their writing to plays of smaller cast size being that this is a considerable issue with many professional and non-professional theatres in the US. Respectfully, Mr. Shaffer simply said no. He writes what he wants to write. Fine, and well he should. However, Mr. Guare proceeded to begin his suble rant with "What restrictions?" He would then go on to ask why playwrights (who, incidentally, were not John Guare nor Peter Shaffer) restrict themselves, and was emphatic about writing plays akin to a 20-person epic set in the jungles of Peru. The point here is not the seeming encouragement he apparently was attempting to convey to the room, but the obliviousness he had for the very real limitations that are continually being trust upon playwrights, such us "minimal set", "cast under 6", "90 minutes or less", etc. These aren't self-imposed by playwrights. These are issues that, even if theatre companies do not post these requirements specifically, are, nonetheless, very real. The average play seen in New York, aside from a massive Broadway revival or high-profile Shakespeare in the Park production, has smaller casts. The affectionately called "2 and 3-hander plays" are as ubiquitous as ever, and I firmly believe they are being produced more for cost effectiveness than for being a superior play, as I've certainly seen enough of them to judge for myself. Of course, you can do an enormous amount with small casts, and some can be quite inspired, but the bottom line is that a play from a lesser known playwright with a cast of 7 or more stands a much taller task of getting produced by a respectable theatre company...anywhere.
Of course, I held my tongue, though my preconceptions of Guare undoubtedly had resurfaced. It's fine to encourage people to write whatever they want, and I certainly do, but for someone who is ensconced in the theatrical community like he is, it would stand to reason that he would also communicate certain logistics to young writers. Yes, write what you want, but also think about what is produceable on the stage. Think about the type of theatre you see this play at. If a theatre company only has a history of doing plays like TAPE and MANUSCRIPT (both 1 set/3 handers, by the way), then maybe you shouldn't waste your postage on sending your 20-character Peruvian epic. Again, this is not to say that I restrict my creativity in writing, whether it be a 2, 3 or 10 character play (I have 2 of the latter). My God, I have a 2 1/2 hour play called Graphic Nature set in 1913 France with a cast of 10 (with doubling, though I stress "minimal setting" in the text). It's had two great readings but has not been produced thus far on the basis of its castsize. Of course, I didn't begrudge the company. They loved the play, wrote me a lovely recommendation letter, and we keep in touch. I'm aware of the logistics, how decreased funding has put a stranglehold on the ambitions of theatre companies to produce more ambitious work. Oh, the times we live in. But you know what, write we must. I know that the play will be produced at some point. When or where, I do not know, though it is on several desks as we speak. But having had this experience, and having read enough about similar occurances through the Dramatists Guild articles and letters from fellow playwrights, it is nonetheless something that playwrights do have to contend with. Therefore, at least for now, it seems to be in my interest to write what I want, yet, in the back of my mind, know what has a conceivable shot. I actually believe that many theatres never get past the cast description and, with probably a backlog of scripts, a large cast serves to be an easy way of excising a play from future consideration.
All this said, the irony, and one that I do not take a schaudenfreudian pride in, is that today in the Times it was reported that the Public Theatre (in NYC) has "due to fiscal limitations" had to pull John Guare's new seemingly epic play (A Free Man of Color) from its 2008/2009 season, in the hopes that they will be able to afford to do it the following season. The plus is that, because he is John Guare and the Public has a history with him, they still are seeking to attempt to produce it at some point. For lesser known playwrights, this same play (in these times) would probably get a nice letter after being read by an intern stating "We enjoyed reading your work, however..."
Let me just close with this; Playwriting for me is the greatest catharsis, and I truly adore the craft and take great pride in the plays I've composed, and look forward to enjoying the process of working on many future plays (including the one I'm working on right now, fittingly called Given Our Current Fiscal Crisis), with as few retrictions as possible. But as playwrights, whether we have agents or not, we are also our own best marketers. In being so, we are a freelance business and, like any business right now, things do not seem as bright as we'd prefer, but we also cannot lose sight of getting our work produced somewhere by respectable companies. This is not the same as pessimism or creative inhibition, but the logistics of the current theatrical climate. Even Mr. Guare, at this point, should acknowledge at least that much and not delude struggling playwrights into thinking that they can write an unabridged stage adaptation of War and Peace and get it produced.
First, I found this thinking to be incredibly shortsighted, especially from a playwright who is also a teacher of playwriting. Secondly, playwrights should feel liberated enough to write what they know and what is within them to write just as they also have the right to write about what they have learned about or researched outside of an assumed "comfort zone". But what ultimately takes precedence is that a playwright should create from the heart work that they feel truly compelled to write, regardless of setting or style, with the only stipulation being that they dramatize their play in a way which is compelling beyond the page.
These initial feelings of annoyance aside, for much of this particular evening I rather enjoyed Guare's respectful interaction with Mr. Shaffer, as they are peers after all. But then...at the interview's conclusion, Guare opened it up to the small audience who would pose various questions to both authors, culminating in a big one; an audience member asked if Shaffer and Guare felt restrictions given the "current fiscal limitations", particularly in the theatrical community. More specifically, did they find that they needed to start conforming their writing to plays of smaller cast size being that this is a considerable issue with many professional and non-professional theatres in the US. Respectfully, Mr. Shaffer simply said no. He writes what he wants to write. Fine, and well he should. However, Mr. Guare proceeded to begin his suble rant with "What restrictions?" He would then go on to ask why playwrights (who, incidentally, were not John Guare nor Peter Shaffer) restrict themselves, and was emphatic about writing plays akin to a 20-person epic set in the jungles of Peru. The point here is not the seeming encouragement he apparently was attempting to convey to the room, but the obliviousness he had for the very real limitations that are continually being trust upon playwrights, such us "minimal set", "cast under 6", "90 minutes or less", etc. These aren't self-imposed by playwrights. These are issues that, even if theatre companies do not post these requirements specifically, are, nonetheless, very real. The average play seen in New York, aside from a massive Broadway revival or high-profile Shakespeare in the Park production, has smaller casts. The affectionately called "2 and 3-hander plays" are as ubiquitous as ever, and I firmly believe they are being produced more for cost effectiveness than for being a superior play, as I've certainly seen enough of them to judge for myself. Of course, you can do an enormous amount with small casts, and some can be quite inspired, but the bottom line is that a play from a lesser known playwright with a cast of 7 or more stands a much taller task of getting produced by a respectable theatre company...anywhere.
Of course, I held my tongue, though my preconceptions of Guare undoubtedly had resurfaced. It's fine to encourage people to write whatever they want, and I certainly do, but for someone who is ensconced in the theatrical community like he is, it would stand to reason that he would also communicate certain logistics to young writers. Yes, write what you want, but also think about what is produceable on the stage. Think about the type of theatre you see this play at. If a theatre company only has a history of doing plays like TAPE and MANUSCRIPT (both 1 set/3 handers, by the way), then maybe you shouldn't waste your postage on sending your 20-character Peruvian epic. Again, this is not to say that I restrict my creativity in writing, whether it be a 2, 3 or 10 character play (I have 2 of the latter). My God, I have a 2 1/2 hour play called Graphic Nature set in 1913 France with a cast of 10 (with doubling, though I stress "minimal setting" in the text). It's had two great readings but has not been produced thus far on the basis of its castsize. Of course, I didn't begrudge the company. They loved the play, wrote me a lovely recommendation letter, and we keep in touch. I'm aware of the logistics, how decreased funding has put a stranglehold on the ambitions of theatre companies to produce more ambitious work. Oh, the times we live in. But you know what, write we must. I know that the play will be produced at some point. When or where, I do not know, though it is on several desks as we speak. But having had this experience, and having read enough about similar occurances through the Dramatists Guild articles and letters from fellow playwrights, it is nonetheless something that playwrights do have to contend with. Therefore, at least for now, it seems to be in my interest to write what I want, yet, in the back of my mind, know what has a conceivable shot. I actually believe that many theatres never get past the cast description and, with probably a backlog of scripts, a large cast serves to be an easy way of excising a play from future consideration.
All this said, the irony, and one that I do not take a schaudenfreudian pride in, is that today in the Times it was reported that the Public Theatre (in NYC) has "due to fiscal limitations" had to pull John Guare's new seemingly epic play (A Free Man of Color) from its 2008/2009 season, in the hopes that they will be able to afford to do it the following season. The plus is that, because he is John Guare and the Public has a history with him, they still are seeking to attempt to produce it at some point. For lesser known playwrights, this same play (in these times) would probably get a nice letter after being read by an intern stating "We enjoyed reading your work, however..."
Let me just close with this; Playwriting for me is the greatest catharsis, and I truly adore the craft and take great pride in the plays I've composed, and look forward to enjoying the process of working on many future plays (including the one I'm working on right now, fittingly called Given Our Current Fiscal Crisis), with as few retrictions as possible. But as playwrights, whether we have agents or not, we are also our own best marketers. In being so, we are a freelance business and, like any business right now, things do not seem as bright as we'd prefer, but we also cannot lose sight of getting our work produced somewhere by respectable companies. This is not the same as pessimism or creative inhibition, but the logistics of the current theatrical climate. Even Mr. Guare, at this point, should acknowledge at least that much and not delude struggling playwrights into thinking that they can write an unabridged stage adaptation of War and Peace and get it produced.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Fearless (A poem)
It matters most
when the butterflies come out,
and you can barely fathom a breath
or speak a word
or swallow,
yet you manage
because it matters,
to face the daunting,
beyond the norm,
haunting,
until you surpass the dread,
arrive where you’ve been led
from something that’s taken you over
that knows no fear
but uses it like a cannon,
releasing you over the landmines of your mind,
which you now look down upon
like a fearless bird
eagerly about to enter somewhere you’ve never been
…and can’t wait to be.
- Daniel Damiano, 2008.
when the butterflies come out,
and you can barely fathom a breath
or speak a word
or swallow,
yet you manage
because it matters,
to face the daunting,
beyond the norm,
haunting,
until you surpass the dread,
arrive where you’ve been led
from something that’s taken you over
that knows no fear
but uses it like a cannon,
releasing you over the landmines of your mind,
which you now look down upon
like a fearless bird
eagerly about to enter somewhere you’ve never been
…and can’t wait to be.
- Daniel Damiano, 2008.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
American Buffalo Review
Oh, the times we live in. Producers of the worthy revival of David Mamet's American Buffalo (now at the Belasco theatre) are, as of this writing, in the process of deciding it's future. This comes after the announcement (via playbill.com) that the play needs a ticket buying spurt, in no uncertain terms. Of course, like any quality theatrical production, it is most unfortunate that a play's life is cut short by lack of interest and, therefore, lack of income. That said, whatever the future of this revival may be, it is a good one. American Buffalo, like it or not, has proved to have a great influence on theatrical writing since it premiered, particularly in its revivals. The '82-83 revival with Al Pacino, in particular, served to catapult the play over the fence and, in combination with the '84 premier of Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross, firmly ensconced Mamet as one of America's premier playwrights.
What remains vivid about Buffalo (as play, not as a film) is that it has no ambitions loftier than the interactions of 3 low-level scrubs and how their gravitation to each other can, on any given day, spawn boredom, impatience, hostility and rage. On this particular day, however, all of these emotions come into play with very precise tempo and rhythms. Therein lies the essence of how to succeed when performing American Buffalo, and Robert Falls and his cast understand this. On a wonderfully cluttered set (by the great Santo Loquasto) , John Leguizamo bursts on as Teach, and embues him with all the required ferocity, vulnerability and humor. As should be, his Teach is the engine that clearly drives the evening. However, Cedric the Entertainer, in a role that has the potential of being lost amidst the junk in his store, makes a clear stamp as storeowner Donny, in both his paternal relationship to Bobby (Osment) and in his more tenuous one with Teach. Osment does not fail to make an impression, though his wholesomeness certainly works against that of Bobby, and is likely to be a quality that Osment may have a difficult time shaking in general. Still, all the actors serve the play's tempo and pacing well, and have gotten the production down to what has now become a well-oiled machine.
What remains vivid about Buffalo (as play, not as a film) is that it has no ambitions loftier than the interactions of 3 low-level scrubs and how their gravitation to each other can, on any given day, spawn boredom, impatience, hostility and rage. On this particular day, however, all of these emotions come into play with very precise tempo and rhythms. Therein lies the essence of how to succeed when performing American Buffalo, and Robert Falls and his cast understand this. On a wonderfully cluttered set (by the great Santo Loquasto) , John Leguizamo bursts on as Teach, and embues him with all the required ferocity, vulnerability and humor. As should be, his Teach is the engine that clearly drives the evening. However, Cedric the Entertainer, in a role that has the potential of being lost amidst the junk in his store, makes a clear stamp as storeowner Donny, in both his paternal relationship to Bobby (Osment) and in his more tenuous one with Teach. Osment does not fail to make an impression, though his wholesomeness certainly works against that of Bobby, and is likely to be a quality that Osment may have a difficult time shaking in general. Still, all the actors serve the play's tempo and pacing well, and have gotten the production down to what has now become a well-oiled machine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)