Category Archives: Contemporary

Review: The Aliens

The production design at the SF Playhouse has been consistently remarkable this year, and “The Aliens” is no exception. The intimate space, where every facial expression is visible to the entire audience, proves the perfect venue for this slice-of-life play in which nothing really happens and yet every detail gains significance as the play unfolds.

Bill English’s set is beautifully detailed and creates a backyard hangout, with a picnic bench center stage, garbage bins on the right and a building at the back, complete with a porch, a screen door and even a hot water heater on the building’s side. Since the space is small, every aspect is up for scrutiny, and the intimate space puts us right in the backyard with the characters. Michael Palumbo’s lighting is equally effective, effortlessly alerting us to the time of day, whether it’s the warm July sun or the cool summer moonlight.

When the play opens, it’s a calm, sunny summer afternoon. Jasper (Peter O’Connor) and KJ (Haynes Thigpen) are relaxing on the picnic bench outside. We will eventually learn that they aren’t in their own backyard, but actually trespassing on a restaurant. They aren’t looking at or talking to one another, but it’s perfectly relaxed and natural. It’s also silent for minutes, allowing us to adapt to the pace and the rhythm of the play. They eventually start to speak, though not really about anything, before they are ultimately interrupted by Evan (Brian Miskell), the sixteen-year-old who has just started working at the restaurant where they are.

Read the full review at the Stanford Daily here

Review: ‘Red’

The first time I saw a Mark Rothko painting up close was at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. I liked it, though I’m pretty sure that half of my eagerness to approve was to be contrary about conventional art tastes. I’ve got a poster of one his paintings now, and the more I stare at it, the more calming I find it; it’s not just an aesthetically pleasing color swatch. But are his abstract expressionist paintings really art? This is one of the central questions of John Logan’s new play, “Red,” which introduces us to a fictitious version of Mark Rothko, born Marcus Rothkowitz, the famous Jewish-American Abstract Expressionist painter.

When you walk into the Berkeley Repertory Theater to see “Red,” you feel as though you’re walking into an artist’s studio. There are reproductions of some of Rothko’s red color field paintings, blank canvasses, working tables, a sink, a record player, a box of records, unfinished floors and a splattering of paint here and there. The thrust stage works marvelously, giving us a 270-degree view of the artist’s studio: It’s an intimate space, and the studio feels like a real-life location, not an artificial stage.

Read full review at the Stanford Daily here

The Caretaker

Harold Pinter’s plays have their charms, but they aren’t for everyone. They have a tendency to be abstruse and dialogue-heavy but place a lot of emphasis on what isn’t said, sometimes referred to as the “Pinter pause.” The San Francisco Shorenstein Hays Nederlander (SHN) production of Pinter’s first commercial success, “The Caretaker,” is no exception: it’s a faithful adaptation that will be sure to please Pinter fans but may be inaccessible to the casual viewer.

As “The Caretaker” opens, Aston (Alan Cox), the resident of the flat, brings home Davies (Jonathan Pryce), a hoary vagrant, after rescuing him from a bar fight. Aston offers to share his flat with Davies while he gets back up on his feet. Eventually, we meet Aston’s younger brother, Mick, who owns the building and the flat. Here, the two brothers both offer Davies employment as the caretaker of the building, inciting Davies to ingratiate himself with each, shifting his alliances throughout the play for strategic gain.

Read the rest of the story at the Stanford Daily

“Scorched” lights a fire under SF

Scorched” creeps up on you slowly, and before you know it, you find yourself simultaneously terrified, engrossed, impassioned and queasy. The play finds a jarring start in an elaborate set that doesn’t seem to belong in any particular place, where Simon (Babak Tafti) and Janine (Annie Purcell) make an uncomfortable visit to the notary Alphonse (David Strathairn, “Good Night and Good Luck”) to hear their mother’s will. The pair stands still for seemingly unending minutes while Alphonse, in an almost authentic Québécois accent, tries desperately to lighten the mood with desultory conversation and malapropisms. It’s disorienting, but this makes sense—losing a parent is just that—and it’s a subtle beginning to a complex build-up of stories.

The pair’s mother, Nawal, has stipulated in her will that her children must each perform Herculean tasks of delivering letters to unknown relatives in her home country. Simon must track down their father; Janine must track down their older brother. Once complete, they can engrave her name on her tombstone and receive an all-important last letter from her to them, perhaps with an explanation of why she didn’t speak a word in the five years leading up to her death.

Nawal was a Canadian immigrant from an unnamed Middle Eastern country, and her children have written her off as an anachronistic, out of touch, unloving and crazy. As we get glimpses of her past, we see how visceral and immediate their mother’s life was.

Her children are a stark contrast to her. Simon is a boxer, uninterested in family history or woes, concerned only about the advancement of his own career; Janine is a cold mathematician. The contrast is important: it’s the difference between the luxury of the West, the wars in the Middle East and the difference between the new and old generations. So we can forgive the playwright Wajdi Mouawad for the ridiculous mathematics talk, which reduces Janine to someone only capable of thinking in alienating mathematical metaphors—graph theory is haphazardly thrown in to little effect—and is insulting to any intellectual in the sciences with an aptitude for social interaction.

Their mission sends them off on a long trek trying to unravel the mystery of who and where their father and brother are. In the process, they uncover their mother’s history: her life in the war-torn Middle East, her ascent from poverty and despair, her revolutionary ideas and the horrors she faced because of them.

It’s a play about methodically retracing steps. We watch stories—all related to their mother’s—from years past unfold on stage alongside the current journey of our characters. Janine and Simon retread their mother’s path: visiting relevant places and retelling her story. We watch Simon and Janine retread the same ground physically, and in so doing, revise their own notion of history and of their own story. Director Carey Perloff’s blocking is deliberate, meticulous and so natural that you can easily miss all the meaning contained therein.

The set is beautifully designed by Scott Bradley to be an abstract piece: evoking all kinds of emotions and seamlessly doubling for contradictory places. It works just as well as a peaceful Canadian city, a quaint small Middle-Eastern town and the streets of a war-torn nation. As the play progresses, the audience is forced to revise their notion of what the set represents and what it means to be in different parts of the stage. There are obstacles across the set—rocks, trellises, etc.—to help create the illusion of trekking as the characters weave between them.

The journey takes on a mythic quality, like something out of Greek tragedy. The pair meets a wizened, wise old man (Apollo Dukakis) who talks about people with monikers like “The Woman Who Sings.” The same actor plays Nawal’s aged grandmother, whose invaluable love and advice set the course for her life’s journey. The children and their mother work towards achieving catharsis, every event taking on new meaning as the story unravels. And we have Alphonse, the fool and the Westerner prattling on at intervals to lighten the mood and provide comic relief, which also becomes increasingly meaningful.

“Scorched” is so rich in themes, characters and plot threads that you can imagine people dubbing the play as representative of “life” itself. It’s about the stories we tell and the ones we can’t; about family, connection and disconnection; about the futility of war and the impossibility of fighting it; about love; about finding your place within the world and between cultures that often times clash. Wajdi Mouawad’s play is ambitious but unassuming. It’s been translated from the French “Incendies” (which was also made into an Academy-Award-winning film), and no meaning was lost in the process. “Scorched” is the kind of play that will change on you with repeat viewings because there’s so much information you could keep unpacking—thanks to the script, the nuanced acting, the thoughtful blocking and the wonderful set design.

This review was originally published in the Stanford Daily here.

Review of “Higher” at ACT


Carey Perloff’s new play, “Higher”, is at its best when its leading lady, Elena Constantine (René Augesen) is the focus of attention. Elena is a successful architect dealing realistically with the vicissitudes of being a successful career woman. She is middle-aged, childless, unmarried and in a relationship with another successful but egotistical architect, Michael (Andrew Polk). This, of course, makes Elena insecure, constantly seeking his approval without being able to admit it. They find themselves in competition for the same job to build a memorial, unaware that they are each other’s opposition. It’s gender politics at its best, even though Michael is such a scumbag and thus a somewhat unfair example of a man.

Perloff has also crafted some great scenes, emotionally, between father and son Michael and Isaac (Ben Kahre). They have the kind of tension that can only be built up through a lifetime of disappointments, when Michael chose his work and his ego over his family and Isaac. Isaac isn’t meek or weak; he’s an independent, grown man. Kahre beautifully bares the scars that Isaac carries from this relationship, which tend to surface through sarcasm. When Isaac and Elena are together onstage, both having been hurt by the same man, their shared damage makes them dynamite together.

Read the rest at the Stanford Daily here.

“Becky Shaw” lights up the SF Playhouse

Photo by Jessica Palopoli

The following article was originally published in the “Stanford Daily” here.
Gina Gionfriddo’s recent work displayed at the SF Playhouse, Pulitzer Prize finalist “Becky Shaw,” is the best piece of theatre in San Francisco at the moment, and indeed, in the last few months. Gionfriddo’s script is trenchant and clever, with enough laugh-out-loud epigrams to fill an Oscar Wilde play. But the play has more in common with early Woody Allen movies like “Annie Hall” that mix pathos with comedy than with “The Importance of Being Earnest.”

The death of Suzanna’s father has left the family penniless – not broke, but without savings. Her mother, Susan (Lorri Holt), who has multiple sclerosis, has taken a younger lover, her house painter, which disgusts Suzanna (Liz Sklar). Her cynical, adopted brother Max (Brian Robert Burns), on the other hand, sees this as a reasonable business deal; she simply can’t afford to hire help to deal with her illness. It has also left Suzanna severely depressed, unable to get off the couch and glued to trashy television stories about prostitutes. As Max puts it, “She has too much free time” to be depressed; Suzanna replies, “I’m a graduate student!”

Becky Shaw is the MacGuffin of the play, which is really a study of relationships and their forms – platonic, romantic and familial – that can sometimes bleed together. Becky (Lauren English), a temp at Andrew’s (Lee Dolson) office, is the seemingly unfortunate recipient of a blind date with Max, a cold-blooded New York finance guy. Max is judgmental, and when Becky shows up by taxi without a cell phone, he asks if she’s Amish or just one of those crazy environmental freaks. Unsurprisingly, their date goes badly: they get mugged, have bad sex and he kicks her out prematurely.

What transpires is the unraveling of every relationship in the play. Suzanna’s husband, Andrew, who saved her from depression after her father’s death, feels responsible for Becky’s post-date trauma and is drawn to nurse yet another sick puppy to health. Is he legitimately and harmlessly kind? Or is this kind of damage something he gets off on? As Max notes to Suzanna, Andrew married the last helpless woman he met. Meanwhile, Suzanna and Max’s semi-incestuous tryst and her dependency on him – which her mother claims he cultivated starting at a young age – start to interfere with her marriage. Do they have a relationship? Is it altogether okay that Susan uses her boyfriend with the understanding that he’s using her, too?

The play is rife with moral ambiguity and asks many questions without really passing judgment on any of its flawed, richly drawn characters. The SF Playhouse proves a wonderful space for this intimate family comedy of “middle-class manners,” as it has been called. Wherever you’re sitting, you get a clear view of all of the actors’ faces and movements. The stage is small, too, which adds a level of claustrophobia to their interactions: the discomfiture within the family is exacerbated by the lack of space to flee from one another. There is a lot of talent onstage: great comedic timing, motivated blocking with seamless movement on the stage and the ability of all the actors to play the gamut of emotions, from fear to joy to dismissive insecurity. But too often did the actors stumble over their lines, jumbling them up; the play needs to run for a couple more weeks to become fully polished. Soon, it will be not just a wonderful piece of theatre, but a masterful one.

Read the article here at the Stanford Daily, where it was originally published.

‘Humor Abuse’ fails to deliver laughs

Photo by Chris Bennion

W. C. Fields once said, “Comedy is a serious business.” Perhaps that’s why comedies like “The Trip” or the play “Humor Abuse” have such dark underbellies despite the seemingly light subject matter. While “The Trip” was a film rife with laugh-out-loud impressions, it was also a meditation on loneliness and middle age. “Humor Abuse” is more about both the excitement and loneliness of having a clown for a father; it’s humorous but not all that funny.

“Humor Abuse” is a one-man show starring Lorenzo Pisoni as himself, a professional clown since the tender age of two. Lorenzo informs us that during childhood, he suffered from “humor abuse.” In his family, making people laugh was valued above all else, and Lorenzo suffered for these laughs. To get a second scoop of ice cream, he had to do a double take routine with his father. Also, Lorenzo learned to juggle fiberglass batons without lessons, and because his hands were too small to grip them, they’d often fall, break and cut up his hands. Years later, he discovered that kid-sized batons existed, but his parents never bothered to mention these to him.

By age five, Lorenzo had signed a contract to tour with the circus and was officially his father’s partner. At 12, he toured without his parents. In “Humor Abuse,” you really get the sense of just how much Lorenzo loved being in the circus. He loved that his father treated him as an equal because they were partners. He loved that he got to see his father in action at work, enjoying himself and being amazing. But it also meant he grew up fast; Lorenzo discovered his father wasn’t really infallible early on, a fact that was difficult to reconcile with his idolized image of his father. It was fun being in the circus, but it was hard work, too.

The production does a marvelous job of balancing the story, showing us the good and the bad in the circus life and why Lorenzo is so conflicted about being a clown. The result is a very honest and poignant story of the difficulties of grappling with childhood, made all the more exciting by the fact that Lorenzo’s experience involved professional clowning.

Director Erica Schmidt succeeds at keeping the action going in the play; it never feels like a series of static monologues. And we never tire of Lorenzo, despite the fact that he is the only person ever on stage. Lorenzo gives a nuanced performance not only as himself but also as his father, re-enacting scenes and routines from his childhood with clowning skill and genuine emotion. He may not be able to make us laugh much while he falls down the stairs, but he can fall down them expertly. His performance is enriched by period photographs of him and his father projected onto a red, circus-like curtain at the back of the stage. The set design and props evoke the circus perfectly, creating an inviting atmosphere that works both for circus re-enactments and as a story-telling environment.

The problem with “Humor Abuse” is that so much time in the play is dedicated to gags that just aren’t funny, although the rest of the audience was laughing heartily. Lorenzo always plays the straight man to his father’s clown, and as he warns us at the beginning, he really isn’t very funny. Whether he’s doing a routine of falling down stairs or failing to climb a ladder while wearing diving fins, it only made me smile and think, as his father would have commented, “That’s funny,” but no laughter would occur. It’s a story about comedy, but it isn’t comedy: it’s dark and rarely hilarious.

This story was originally published in the Stanford Daily here.

‘Race’ provokes but falls at the finish line

Review of David Mamet’s play, Race, for the Stanford Daily

Come Fly Away enchants with phenomenal dancing

Where: Four Seasons Centre
When:  Tuesday-Saturday @ 7:30PM; Wednesday, Saturday, & Sunday @ 2PM; Until August 28th
Tickets:  DanCap Tickets  & see blogUT’s summer theatre guide for tips on cheap tickets

Twyla Tharp’s Come Fly Away is an eighty-minute Broadway show of phenomenal dancing and choreography, set to standards sung by Frank Sinatra, with a live big band on stage. It’s the kind of show that can have the nerve to do “Pick Yourself Up” — a famous song-and-dance number from Swing Time with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers — and actually manage to compete with Astaire and Rogers. The choreography is more modern than the 1930s film, but it’s right up there, as are the dancers.

The show plays like a series of music videos for a long list of songs Sinatra popularized, from “Luck Be a Lady” to “Fly Me to the Moon” to “Learnin’ the Blues”, where Tharp’s choreography tells a short story within the song and brings the music to life. It’s great music from another time, and the choreography makes a nod to the past while giving the music a present relevance. The musical takes place during one long night at a night club where couples meet, court, and much more. But the story isn’t the point and barely exists. We get to dispense with what is usually the worst part of a musical: lame dialogue. This means the casting is based solely on dancing ability; Sinatra sings and there isn’t much acting to do. So the dancers aren’t just good Broadway dancers. They’re fantastic dancers even for Broadway.

And Tharp pulls it off like a dream. Every dance number is strong and every dancer is very strong. It’s not just that they are all impressively athletic — which they are — but they are able to do incredibly complicated dance moves, precisely in time, even when moving from one fast-paced complicated maneuver to another. The dancing is a celebration of the music and the dancers move to accentuate the rhythms in the pieces. The biggest rhythmic challenge is probably when the cast takes on dancing to Brubeck’s “Take Five”, famous for its 5/4 time signature. Almost all dances are based on 3/4 or 4/4 time, and 5/4 time is awkward for musicians; now imagine trying to keep time and dance to that with complex choreography that requires being constantly in time. It works.

My only real complaint is that the lack of the story means that the dancing is less meaningful. If you think back to great musicals like Swing Time, the singing and dancing are a culmination of all the emotions and action: they’re a triumphant climax. Without a story to propel it, the dancing is still highly entertaining to watch, but it doesn’t have the same emotional staying power. By the end of the show, I had trouble remembering what choreography went with what song; they all blurred together. The one exception was the couple, Marty and Betsy, whose courtship had a bit of an arc throughout: from the gracefully clumsy new lovers in “Let’s Fall in Love” to the self-assured powerhouse dancers in “The Way You Look Tonight/My Funny Valentine”. Of course, since the stories in musicals are usually just the MacGuffin, I’m glad that Come Fly Away was a show of non-stop entertainment, that didn’t get dragged down by a flimsy storyline.

Come Fly Away does have some provocative choreography, which is but one of several reasons for its seeming modernity. This sexy choreography is great and well-executed. But I can’t help complaining that sexy choreography has become a trend in the modern musical not just to prove its modernity but to provide gratuitous sexiness. It’s not exactly a new trend; it goes back as far as Cabaret, if not earlier. But in Cabaret, the provocative choreography, as in Sam Mendes’s 1990s West End production, was all about the characters’ attempts to hide from the dark themes happening around them. In shows like Chicago and even Come Fly Away, it just seems like an excuse to get men and women down to their knickers. Of course, even the provocative choreography in Come Fly Away is expert, fresh, and downright fabulously executed. So how can I complain really? I can’t.

Come Fly Away is a brilliantly choreographed and brilliantly executed show. So whatever it lacks in story or substance, it makes up for tenfold with style, grace, and a talented cast.

—-

Originally published on BlogUT