Staged Reading at CPT

Had the staged reading of my play last night at CPT. It went very well and I truly appreciate the thought and artistry that Cassie Neumann put into the directing of the piece as she added the appropriate level of energy and “over-the-top”-ness to the piece.

Andrew Jackson

Audience Feedback

There was an audience feedback session afterwards during which some things of interest were stated. I found it interesting that some people did not get the intentionally reflexive nature of the commentary on dominant cultural attitudes represented by certain “white” characters shooting off their mouths. I know that’s a rather convoluted thought, but it’s a long way of saying: “when a man says something stupid, it’s often more a reflection of him than the person/people he’s talking about”–hence the farce.

Writing it

The notion of the racial element appeared as an undercurrent in the piece, which is to say that I didn’t write it intentionally as a piece on race. So, when it came time for several people to point out that I only “picked” on certain races–or gender orientations–this is to say that I didn’t intend to pick on any race/orientation when I wrote it. As well, after I read and edited it several times, I resisted the temptation to “balance it” as I felt that I would be forcing the piece to be about race, which wasn’t my intent, and further, that by “balancing it” I would be making it fake. Another comment that I found interesting is that given the abrasive nature of the topics and language throughout, that at a certain point one audience member, or several, simply became numb to it. That they were de-sensitized, which is fascinating in and of itself.

Thoughts

Raymond offered some interesting thoughts in the post, post discussion, including that I increase the number of bus scenes and make the play about bus scenes, which I might do. I might actually make more than one play out of it, as I also like the mix of genres when the historical characters and musical pieces are mixed in–which makes it more farcical to my mind. I’ll have to go back and check my Brecht to see how to design the piece, wholly, to be more effective in it’s direction toward audience response and to examine or evolve a through-line.

Conclusion

The actors were great and I truly appreciate the time each put into the play as well, again, as Cassie, who did marvelously for a piece that received three rehearsals and then hit the stage.

The Boys in the Band

convergence-continuum

Saw The Boys in the Band last Friday at convergence and enjoyed myself thoroughly.

Overview

The play, written by [amazon_link id=”1593501463″ target=”_blank” ]Mart Crowley[/amazon_link], first appeared in 1968 and in some ways you can tell that it is dated–and not in the more obvious aspects–set, exposition, etc., but in the real concerns confronting the characters. This is not to say that it is not very powerful: it is. And powerful in ways you might not expect. Although the issue of homosexuality concerning the men might not be as biting today as it was once, the other fears and concerns that the men express certainly resonate: aging and the heart rending realization that your best years are not only behind you, but lost forever and only memories; finding meaning and value in one’s life, accepting who you are and learning to move forward in the best possible way. For these characters, though, in 1968, there was piled on top of these more “common” concerns, the very real stigma and abuse associated with being homosexual.

Description

[amazon_link id=”B001CQONPE” target=”_blank” ]The Boys in the Band[/amazon_link], in essence, is about a group of gay men coming together to throw a birthday party. As the party goes along, and the men drink more and more, it becomes apparent that the life-long battle with the social stigma that has been attached to their sexual orientation has brutalized many of the men’s self image and, coupled with the issues I mentioned above, leads to scathing and terrible personal attacks as self-hatred and loathing is projected (by some men) and returned, and volleyed around like a tennis ball. It is important, I think, to note that the men are each representative of a certain type and not all of the men hates himself.

The play gets off to a slow start at the apartment of the host, Michael, (Curt Arnold) who is getting dressed and preparing the apartment for the party. His lover, Donald, (Zac Hudak) arrives (he’s a librarian) and through a rather lengthy stretch of exposition we receive the information that will drive most of the rest of the play: the disillusion that Donald and Michael have with the gay scene, the fact that each is seeing a shrink, that Michael has always had a difficult time with this parents, his identity, and has recently stopped smoking and drinking. The final piece of the expositional puzzle is a telephone call to Michael from Alan (Jim Jarrell) an old college chum (conceited, supercilious, pretentious) who is also straight–perhaps. Alan is drunkenly weeping into the phone and has something to tell Michael; he will only tell Michael in person, and insists on coming over to Michael’s apartment. One-by-one the guests arrive and the play really picks up steam and energy: Emory (Clyde Simon) is the quintessential fairy who lightly floats about making snarky, often lascivious, comments; Bernard (Bobby Williams) the only black gay man in the group; Larry (Scott Zolkowski), a truly lascivious gay man who cannot abide monogamy, much to the chagrin of his lover Hank (Dan Kilbane) the token “married” gay man in the group; a gay prostitute/midnight cowboy (Benjamin Gregg); and finally, there is Harold (Jonathan Wilhelm) in whose honor the party is being thrown.

With the party in full gear the drunkenness and back-talking begins. All is well until Alan shows up forcing Michael to request that the gay men all behave and pretend to be what they are not, culminating at the end of act one with Alan punching Emory for one-too-many snide comments and Michael falling off the wagon and chugging vodka or scotch from a carafe.

The second act builds on the first with drunken boisterousness rising and rising alongside the anger and self-loathing of Michael who now takes careful target at virtually everyone in the room–with only Harold, the star party guest, showing the capacity to match Michael’s sparring.

Conclusion

I’ll not bore everyone with a book report of the play, but suffice it to say the play becomes very raw and dangerous at this point, exposing what I can only imagine to be the circa 1960s/70s psychological damage that was done by the constant degradation of these men by the societal and cultural attitudes toward who they in their very being were. Despite the lightness, the airs, the joking; one can see that the damage and relentlessness of it on the psyche and health of these men was severe and Crowley’s play does an excellent job of laying bare this reality.

Production Notes

Douglas Tyson-Rand does a very good job directing and keeping the pace of this play up and driving constantly forward; Cory Molnar designed a great circa-1960s set for the play that, as always, is comfy cozy in the close-up world of The Liminis theater space.

If you haven’t seen this play, do yourself a favor and check it out. It runs through Saturday, October 29th at convergence.