Saturday, October 25, 2014

My Night with Reg, Donmar - London Sept 2014

"My Night with Reg" was a great evening out... feels weird to say this about a play that revolves for a big part about aids, but it was very funny, focussed on friendships and relationships as well as the never mentioned killing nightmare of the 80s.

Very hard to describe the plot without giving the entire thing away.

Reg is the central character that we never meet, a binding force of a circle of friends of gay men. We see 3 gatherings of friends in the flat belonging to Guy, who as far as we can tell is the complete opposite of Reg character-wise. Confidant of everybody, but somehow on the outside of the circle. The shadow of Aids hangs over all gatherings yet it is never mentioned by name. That sounds dark and gloomy, but really this play is written playful and witty, it's vibrant, full of energy and laughter yet dealing with a broad array of emotions.

The entire cast was excellent. Personally I adored Richard Cant's Bernie... billed as the most boring character but I loved him!

Kudos to the director Robert Hastie, Donmar stages it's plays with audience equally divided on 3 sides so you really need to play to them all, two guys briefly go full monty, beautiful bodies on display... it was nice to see Hastie made sure in his staging that all in the audience got the 360 view.

The play ran straight through without intermission, almost 2 hours, fully enjoyable, never boring.

Geoffrey Streatfeild (Daniel) and Jonathan Broadbent (Guy).
Photograph Johan Persson

Geoffrey Streatfeild (Daniel) and  Jullian Ovenden (John).
Photograph Johan Persson


Cast:
Jonathan Broadbent (Guy) 
Geoffrey Streatfeild (Daniel)
Julian Ovenden (John)
Lewis Reeves (Eric)
Richard Cant (Bernie)
Matt Bardock (Benny)

director: Robert Hastie
playwright: Kevin Elyot


review blurbs:

"The director Robert Hastie does the piece proud, capturing its constantly shifting moods with great elan and with the help of an outstanding cast."
Charles Spencer for Daily Telegraph
"I hope that Hastie and gang are taking pride in how this production pays the author's memory a huge and (in every respect) handsome tribute."
Paul Taylor for The Independent
"Played straight through at 110 minutes, Robert Hastie's production catches the secret fears and surface buoyancy of this group of companions and gets fine performances all round."
Michael Billington for The Guardian
"Robert Hastie’s revival triumphs through a smartly judged mixture of exuberance and delicate understatement, highlighting the cool precision of Elyot’s writing — an assured command of structure and a gift for incisive comedy."
Henry Hitchings for The Evening Standard
"A landmark production of a landmark play."
Patrick Marmion for The Daily Mail


Jonathan Broadbent (Guy) and Lewis Reeves (Eric).
Photograph Johan Persson
***

The Playwright Kevin Elyot died, aged 62, around the time this revival was going into rehearsal. It’s sad he’s not around to enjoy its success all over again.

Kevin Elyot obituary

Television scriptwriter and playwright who made his name with the smash hit tragicomedy My Night With Reg
Kevin Elyot
Kevin Elyot's attempts to 'jazz up' Agatha Christie had mixed results. But audiences loved his television adaptations
The playwright Kevin Elyot, who has died aged 62 after a long illness, is best remembered for his brilliantly written and imaginatively structured tragicomedy My Night With Reg (1994). It is often claimed as a "gay play", but although Elyot wrote often about gay relationships, his real subject was the longing for love and remembrance of loves lost.

Sunday, October 5, 2014

I'm curious - how does the selection process go as far as actors who get to choose are concerned?

how do Actors select the next play to work on... ? (when I say Actor, I mean male or female)
William Petersen in 'Dublin Carol'
at Trinity Rep (Providence RI)

I realize a majority of actors or directors do not have the luxury of really selecting their projects... but even if you are not in that position, there probably still is some level of selection in what to audition for.

Let's say you are in the position to select your next project, your time is yours and the money is of no real consideration... you made your fame and fortune in tv and movies, you did not waste your hard earned Dollars, Pounds or even Euro's on dodgy investments, the wrong fellow humans, castles, cars or drugs. You can choose to work or you can choose not to, or even retire... yet as I've been told by people who should know, acting is in your blood... an actor often keeps working, but if in this luxury position, he can do so on his own terms (must be nice, I'm jealous!).

I wonder, what makes a project interesting?

Rhys-Ifans in 'Protest Song' at The Shed
(NT) London
Is it the play itself? the challenging character available to give life to? is it the chance to work with other actors or a director already committed? or, if the project is in the early stages a chance to be involved with the selection of co-stars, director or other disciplines in the creative team?

Here's a 1981 article dealing with this same question... I imagine the situation has changed some, I think now even less plays are written with a specific actor in mind... more and more actors make their fame and fortune in tv or movies and venture (back) out to the stage, either because that is their first love, or because they have listened to their fellow actors waxing about how stage work is so different they want to experience it at least once (I haven't researched this, but I imagine that last category either falls in love or only does it once, as stage work definitely takes a different kind of dedication to the trade than tv or movie work).

a few quotes that jumped out for me (entire article included at the end of this post)


Krister Henriksson in 'Dr Glas' ,
Wyndham's Theatre, London
In the first place, say actors and producers, there just aren't that many wonderful new plays around - even for a star. And wonderful new plays suited to a particular actor's particular talents are even scarcer.

True, but I wonder if our actor who has the luxury of choice, would choose to take a risk on a new play or would choose to play that classic character he always wanted to play? The offerings of brilliant new plays might be as scarce as it was then, the library of wonderful plays that were produced before just keeps growing.

''I'm always amazed when a critic says, 'why would so-and-so pick to do this play?' '' she says.''That statement should be cut from every critic's review. It makes the assumption that actors are reading wonderful plays all the time, and that out of six, they reached out and took the wrong one. It's difficult for actors like Gerry (Page) or Julie (Harris) or G.C. (Scott) to be attacked on that level, as though they hadn't used their heads. My main reason and theirs is that we want to come back to the stage - it's what keeps you alive. ''You get to the point where you have nothing and you just want to go back to work.

Right, if you are looking for new work... on the other hand though there are a lot of wonderful plays out there that were produced before, that you can have some idea of on what might work or what not... Not that that is a guarantee for a perfect hand in picking a play... so many other things factor in, set design, sound, direction... for some plays even the sign of the time might work for or against it.

Fiona Shaw, Alan Rickman and Lindsay Duncan
in 'John Gabriel Borkman' at The Abbey Theatre in Dublin

To me the most important thing for our actor should be if he thinks he will have a good time working on the project, would the character push his buttons? make him flex his acting muscles, make him want to pull out all the stops to do it justice? does the story speak to him? of course our actor still would want the play to be a succes, draw in the audience because after all a lot of people make their living off the theater that will put up this play. But he is lucky enough to be able to wait until the right balance comes along.

William Petersen in 'Blackbird' (Victory Gardens Theater, Chicago)
There used to be a following of theater people who went to see great actors - certainly all the plays the Lunts were in were not of equal caliber. But in this town today, there are no actors with followings. If the play doesn't work, it doesn't matter who's in it.

there still is a following!

Daniel Radcliffe in 'Equus'
NOT Harry Potter
admittedly there are not enough to fill a theater no matter what. I see a few fellow followers at some plays, we go for certain actors, directors, playwrights or specific plays.

I think these days 'the followers' can be roughly divided into 2 categories, 1) the single focussed ones who are a fan of a Celebrity in another trade and follow him or her to the the theater - case in point, the Daniel Radcliffe/Harry Potter fans who flocked to "Equus" who may have left the theater in shock for not having seen Harry Potter but DR in a very different role... or the William Petersen/Grissom fans who overran the town of Providence RI when he took a break from the (then) hugely successful CSI to do a play.
William Petersen in 'Dublin Carol'
at Trinity Rep, Providence RI
NOT Grissom

Where DR took to West End and Broadway, where the celeb fans were easily absorbed, WP found a small theater in a small town where all the celeb fans pretty much stood out.

.
And 2) there is the category of followers who fell in love with the theater at some point in their lives and will go to any play if it has certain cast members in it - usually following a number of actors who have proven themselves to have captivating stage presence, but will also go to great lengths to see plays by a certain playwright or director or sometimes even a venue or a production company (the Michael Grandage Company comes to mind), who keep an eye out on Fringe Festivals to see the new gems before they get discovered by the rest of the world... yes, we are not a club of millions, but we are here!

For the theater community, I'd say both categories are good, it would be a bonus if the Celeb fans who may find themselves in a theater for the first time following their celeb, like it enough to come back for other plays. I remember Timothy Dalton once saying during the press run for his first James Bond movie where he got criticized for doing a Bond movie while he was a 'serious' stage actor, 'wasn't he afraid now that people would come to the theater to see James Bond and not whatever Shakespeare character he was playing at the time?' his reply: of course it was a different thing to do, but if going to see his movie made a few of those people go to the theater, even if it was to see James Bond he would be happy... those people would NOT get to see James Bond (like many CSI fans were aiming to see Grissom at Triniy Rep in Providence RI), but they might see something they liked and come back for more...if not, at least a few more tickets were sold for that play, if they came back, more tickets! win win.

Judi Dench in 'Peter and Alice'
Michael Grandage Company, London
Celebs will draw people to the theater, I'm undecided on the whole issue of stunt casting, but at least it gets people to the theater... and more people, means more money and more money in theater world means more chances for other productions, for other actors and other playwrights.

The 2nd categorie of followers are not so many that they make much of a difference as far as 'butts in seats' are concerned, but they are more vocal about their passion... they take to social media, blogs and in that small way contribute to the theater buzz.

Clearly most actors in these days of movies and television do not appear in the theater for money. Instead, many stars including Colleen Dewhurst, Ruth Gordon, Jason Robards, Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, and Geraldine Page have used Hollywood as a means of financing their stage careers. By making the occasional picture - often a picture chosen with an eye toward making substantial money - they can be more selective when it comes to choosing shows.
very true, and I am grateful that this is happening...  keep funding the theater opportunities Hollywood!

There are a few directors such as Harold Prince and Mike Nichols whose reputation alone is enough to win over a reluctant actor. ''Actors will frequently go with Hal on faith,'' says Mr. Prince's casting director Joanna Merlin. ''Sometimes we won't have a final draft and the score's not completed, but they're willing to take a chance because they know his work.''
What's more often the case is that an actor develops a special working relationship with a particular director or producer, and feelings of loyalty and trust persist.

My money is on the joy in collaboration being #1 consideration for our actor, with the Character on offer a close second. I'm thinking not even collaborating with friends or heroes will make up for a character that is a wrong fit. Of course the message of a play can also be so powerful our actor would want to work on it no matter the rest of the cast or creative team. It seems to be rare though to make a choice solely on the message of the play.

to illustrate, from a recent interview (2014)
(Bill Nighy, Carey Mulligan, Matthew Beard: interview The stars of David Hare's Skylight in the West End talk to Sarah Crompton about theatre, ideals - and cooking on stage)
SaraCrompton: So what’s the bit that pulls you back? 
BillNighy: I don’t know, I’ve been trying to work it out. [He half-laughs] It’s more than usually possible that I won’t do a play again. But Skylight is one of the great plays in the English language. I was lucky enough to be a part of it at one point in its life, and it’s a timely thing to deliver it again in the modern world. We haven’t attempted to contemporise it or anything. It’s set firmly when it was written, in the Nineties, and to see how it resonates now is quite extraordinary. 
When you are in something that you’re proud of and it’s funny and it’s a good night out and all of those things, there’s nothing quite like it. The rewards are proportionate to the amount of alarm and distress it causes you.

Bill Nighy in 'Skylight' at Wyndham's Theatre, London

WHAT MAKES AN ACTOR CHOOSE A CERTAIN ROLE?

REGEN KAKUTANI By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
The theater has always been a whimsical business, and in no respect do things seem more whimsical than in casting. Why, for instance, is Richard Burton turning his back on King Lear, a role he's always wanted to play, just to tour the provinces in ''Camelot,'' a show he did 20 years ago?

Friday, October 3, 2014

Celebrity stunt casting - Lindsay Lohan's failed mission of taking away attention from being a celebrity name and draw attention to the fact that she's an actress

Casting Lindsay Lohan in Mamet's 'Speed the Plow' at London's West End I thought was a bold move... acting abilities aside if I were a producer the not-so-reliable reputation alone would make me nervous.

Lindsay Lohan as Karen and Nigel Lindsay as Charlie Fox in Speed-the-Plow.
Photograph: Tristram Kenton
That same reputation made many people expect a train wreck... even before rehearsals started rumors made it to Playbill.com saying Lohan was already "final warning" for her behavior during rehearsals for the upcoming London revival of Speed-the-Plow.

I've not seen the play, I will not see it because I'll not get to London during its run,  if I were I'd probably go see it, if not to see how this stunt casting worked out but because I was a huge fan of The West Wing - casting the accomplished Richard Schiff would have been enough reason for me to bag myself a ticket.

Because stunt casting this is...
‘I’m at a point when I want a diligent routine and I really want to get back into work. And I wanted to do something different: people have certain perceptions of me and I wanted to change them by doing something like a Mamet play,"she told Time Out London.
She went on to say: "I’m hoping it’ll take away attention from me as a celebrity name and draw attention to the fact that I’m an actress."
Really? A Mamet Play in London's West End is your idea of a good opportunity to get your toe in the water? and even more interesting, it's your attempt to draw away from being a celebrity name and going back to being an actress first?

I think the producer had a different idea and cast you because of the celebrity rep... but hey, who cares why you were cast, go for it!

First opinions were...  terrible:

Lindsay Lohan defends Speed-the-Plow West End debut after messing up lines
The Independent 

but honestly, this was after the first preview... and it's called previews for a reason. Yes I'd expect the cast to be off book even in the first preview, but they might still be tweaking, the show has not openend yet, you have no real expectation to the finished product...

Lohan going on the defense though... maybe not a great idea if the thought really was to shed celebrity and return to the basic of being an actress. Defense draws attention.

All in all what that first wave of critisism did was make me curious on the professional reviews... the critics that head to protocol and wait for opening night to watch the finished product and judge that.

To be honest I was surprised... the reviews are a bit of a mixed bag... my go-to critic is The Guardian's Michael Billington:  Speed-the-Plow review - Lindsay Lohan brings unusual naivety to tame revival... sure, he only gives it 2 stars (aka it's a bomb imo) but Lohan gets off pretty good, it's Schiff that amazingly apparently fell flat.

Lindsay Lohan (Karen) and Richard Schiff (Bobby Gould) in Speed-The-Plow. Photograph: Tristram Kenton

the Independent's headline:  Speed-the-Plow, theatre review: What a turn up! Lindsay Lohan silences the doubters with a deft performance

Paul Taylor gave it three stars, but ended his review with
A good but by no means a great night out whose value does not depend on the swirl of publicity occasioned by the female lead.
his headline is really all the positive he has to say about Lohan, both Schiff and Nigel Lindsay did work out well for him:
Richard Schiff and Nigel Lindsay are in fine, darkly frisky form as the pair of producers whose longstanding friendship she threatens to sunder.
Lindsay Lohan with Richard Schiff in rehearsal for 'Speed-the-Plow'
I would have liked to have seen this, to form my own opinion, but going by the peoples reactions to the previews and after reading the mixed bag of professional reviews, I think it's not a huge miss... I'll survive I think.

Kudos for the producers to take a chance, I hope it works well for them and their celebrity name doesn't fall back but sticks to her intention to leave her more troubled past behind at least for the entire planned run. Kudos to Lindsay Lohan for trying something new, stage work takes more bravery than movies or tv I think. The decision to do a play may have been easier than actually going out there and do it.  Great, good or bad, I'll never know for myself, but according to the critics... not too bad to say the least.