So long to 2011!
All in all, this has been a good year for me. My job is moving along well (I took the lead with several big projects and my career actually seems to be going somewhere). My finances are doing pretty well: much to my surprise (my bills are all getting paid each month, and I'm not finding myself scrimping).
If my ex-girlfriend has tried any crap with me, it really hasn't gone anywhere. On occasion, some friend or another mentions something she posted on some site or another, and on occasion I can tell that it's something pointed to me. The last time anyone mentioned any of that to me was after Yom Kippur. She is, according to Jewish law, required to make amends to anyone she wronged, and she most certainly wronged me. She whined on some site, how can she make amends when I've threatened her with a PFA if she contacts me again? I hope that rationalization made her feel better. I laughed at that one, because she openly violated my threat by going to see "42nd Street", when she knew I was in that play. It's the classic musical theatre vs. God's law dilemma.
She did try some crap earlier in the year. She kept bugging me for things-she-had-left-when-she-moved-out. She wasn't very subtle with this. Normally, e-mails came from a personal account, but suddenly one day the e-mail came from an account from a bank. I guess she wanted me to know that she had gotten a job. She was also hinting in these e-mails that she had gotten involved with someone. In the end, I told her: enough already! She had been gone for several months, I had thrown out a great deal of old stuff . . . whatever she has forgotten is no longer any of my concern. She tried to engage me in a fight at one point, talking about how much I loathe her parents (gee, what a shock) and talking about how I've been badmouthing her (like I've said: if she gets a death threat from things I've said about her, she can talk). I refused to play her game, and I cut that "conversation" short. I had promised to clear off some old bills that had been under her name, but I told her these would take time as I needed to get my own finances in order. She got impatient with that and hinted that she might take legal action. I went ahead and paid, as I had promised, and that was when I told her that we have no further business with each other. That was when I told her: any business between us is finished, so if she contacts me again I might have to take legal action (since, given her mental health issues, I must judge her to be a danger to my family and to me).
By the way, I discovered that a community theatre group really hated her. This was the group for whom I did "42nd Street". She and I did "Godspell" with them, and she did "Hairspray" with them. Early in the year, they mentioned her quite negatively. What the heck? They were doing "Rent" in the summer, and remarked that she had spoken about wanting to audition for that . . . to put it mildly, they didn't see a place for her in that play! They warned me that she had shown up for "42nd Street". After that, we had a chance to chat about what had happened. It wasn't simply how she and her family treated me (remember that her family threatened me during one of their shows, so naturally they took some offense to that). It turned out that she had become a bit of a diva during "Hairspray". Even though she had maybe two lines in "Godspell" and no lines at all in "Hairspray", she had quite an attitude! Apparently, she even told one of the actresses that she could have sung the actress' part better than her! Ugh!
Well, she was gone.
And then came Jen! Jen has an unfair advantage. My previous two girlfriends had an agenda with me, they wanted to move in with me. To that end, they became interested in my activities and "my world". Jen isn't moving in with me and becoming part of "my world". Jen has New York City. Spending time with Jen means going to Broadway shows, meeting people from the Trans Siberian Orchestra or the Flying Karamazov Brothers, or watching her perform with one of her bands at the Bitter End. It isn't just for me. Because of Jen, my kids saw their first Broadway show. My younger son, because of Jen, saw his second, third and fourth Broadway show. Because of Jen, my older son started playing guitar again, and jammed for 3 1/2 hours with her at a studio. Heck, one day I received an e-mail from "NintendoWorld" in Manhattan. In the past, I would have tossed the e-mail. No: because of Jen, we were able to go there!
But what about her? She's intelligent and mature. I don't feel like I'm taking care of her. She has her quirks, but she's actually interesting. She's actually exciting. She is extremely talented, and she is actually respected. The problem is me: for anyone else, saying "I fell in love with her" might elicit huge smiles and joy. But this is me: OF COURSE I fell in love with her. I guess it's also no surprise that I want to spend my life with her. The thing is that I am actually very happy with her, right here and right now.
I've whined a bit about theatre this year. Last year, theatre was so exciting. This year, I realized that I was hitting a wall. Theatre is a white man's game, and I'm not white. I've grown bored and frustrated at never ever being given a part that is challenging. I am sick and tired of nailing an audition, and finding that I'm on top of the first page of a rejection list. I'm sick and tired of, on those few times I even get a part, finding that it's a bit part, a case of "where can we fit in the brown guy". On the other hand, I'm starting to make a name for myself as a writer. Two directors with whom I have worked are preparing to put on plays I have either written or co-written, in 2012. This is, I believe, what my theatre legacy will be: I will not be remembered as an actor, but my plays do seem to be raising eyebrows.
So, in the end, this has been a good year for me. It's been a better year than I've had in quite a while! 2011 has been the Year of Jen. This is the year when, for a nice change of pace, someone else swept me away!
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
I've Made It Through A Year!
It's been a year since L moved out!
A week ago, it was a year since L announced she was leaving. She didn't waste time: she called her parents and arranged to move out a week later. She also decided that she would do whatever it took to not tell me "why?" Her approach was unfortunate: during our time together, there were two incidents of serious flareups of her mental illness (I don't know what the actual terms were). During that week, she started claiming that she was experiencing those flareups again. It came out that week that she was faking all of that, to run down the clock and avoid answering me. This made me wonder: did she fake those flareups in the first place? I was forced to conclude that yes, she had faked it.
I expected to be heart-broken. L was basically saying that she agreed with her parents, the people that had despised me from day 1 and had threatened to kill me. It was clear that L had just been using me, and that she genuinely didn't think I deserved better. I knew her well enough to know that she was not doing without the attention of men. She left me to pick up the pieces of my life ten days before Christmas.
I was expecting to be heart-broken, but that isn't what happened. I came home the day she had moved out. The house was empty except for my cat. She was gone. And I felt a huge feeling of relief. There was no more struggling with her. There was no worrying about what was happening with her. There was no more need to take care of her: she was someone else's problem. I was free of her, for the first time in five years. It actually felt good having the bed to myself!
She owed me a great deal of money, and her father left a check to cover that (actually, she owed me more than that, but given how quickly she moved, I had to put together the numbers in a hurry). That meant I could go out shopping for Christmas presents. High on my list was an iPad!
My ex-wife, seeing that I was suddenly alone, invited me to Christmas dinner with her and the kids. I had the kids for New Years, and we went to see a show together. And, a few weeks later, a month after she moved out, I met Jen.
After meeting Jen, she and I chatted online the next week. She then mentioned she would be in Pennsylvania the next weekend: would I like to get together? I mentioned on Facebook that I had a "date". So many friends came out of the woodwork, excited for me. After the date, people were anxious to know how it went, and were thrilled to see me happy. It would seem that L wasn't as well-liked as I had thought. I discovered how many people seriously disliked her!
I haven't seen L since she moved out. We conversed via e-mail. She would ask to stop by to pick up some things she had left. I would put the things in a bag and leave them on the back porch: I didn't want to see her. She did e-mail me about some of her bills from when she had moved out -- the electric bill and the cable bill were under her name. I took my time, but eventually covered them. With that, I told her: she is to not contact me or my family ever again. She agreed, but still went to see "42nd Street", knowing full well that my kids and I were in the show. None of us saw her in the audience and she left quickly. I hope to never see her ever again.
I've had my ups and downs this year, and none of it had anything to do with L. On the whole, though, I've had a fabulous year! I didn't just survive this year: I'm actually happy!
A week ago, it was a year since L announced she was leaving. She didn't waste time: she called her parents and arranged to move out a week later. She also decided that she would do whatever it took to not tell me "why?" Her approach was unfortunate: during our time together, there were two incidents of serious flareups of her mental illness (I don't know what the actual terms were). During that week, she started claiming that she was experiencing those flareups again. It came out that week that she was faking all of that, to run down the clock and avoid answering me. This made me wonder: did she fake those flareups in the first place? I was forced to conclude that yes, she had faked it.
I expected to be heart-broken. L was basically saying that she agreed with her parents, the people that had despised me from day 1 and had threatened to kill me. It was clear that L had just been using me, and that she genuinely didn't think I deserved better. I knew her well enough to know that she was not doing without the attention of men. She left me to pick up the pieces of my life ten days before Christmas.
I was expecting to be heart-broken, but that isn't what happened. I came home the day she had moved out. The house was empty except for my cat. She was gone. And I felt a huge feeling of relief. There was no more struggling with her. There was no worrying about what was happening with her. There was no more need to take care of her: she was someone else's problem. I was free of her, for the first time in five years. It actually felt good having the bed to myself!
She owed me a great deal of money, and her father left a check to cover that (actually, she owed me more than that, but given how quickly she moved, I had to put together the numbers in a hurry). That meant I could go out shopping for Christmas presents. High on my list was an iPad!
My ex-wife, seeing that I was suddenly alone, invited me to Christmas dinner with her and the kids. I had the kids for New Years, and we went to see a show together. And, a few weeks later, a month after she moved out, I met Jen.
After meeting Jen, she and I chatted online the next week. She then mentioned she would be in Pennsylvania the next weekend: would I like to get together? I mentioned on Facebook that I had a "date". So many friends came out of the woodwork, excited for me. After the date, people were anxious to know how it went, and were thrilled to see me happy. It would seem that L wasn't as well-liked as I had thought. I discovered how many people seriously disliked her!
I haven't seen L since she moved out. We conversed via e-mail. She would ask to stop by to pick up some things she had left. I would put the things in a bag and leave them on the back porch: I didn't want to see her. She did e-mail me about some of her bills from when she had moved out -- the electric bill and the cable bill were under her name. I took my time, but eventually covered them. With that, I told her: she is to not contact me or my family ever again. She agreed, but still went to see "42nd Street", knowing full well that my kids and I were in the show. None of us saw her in the audience and she left quickly. I hope to never see her ever again.
I've had my ups and downs this year, and none of it had anything to do with L. On the whole, though, I've had a fabulous year! I didn't just survive this year: I'm actually happy!
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Putting an end to my theatre involvement?
I like to keep things open. I do love the stage, but the stage doesn't love me. I realized earlier this year that I just couldn't keep on doing these meaningless bit parts. Sure, I shine for my five minutes on the stage. I command the stage during that time. I bring out the best among those around me. Whatever. I want more.
My last show really demonstrated this for me. This show was two one-acts. The first act was based on "Gift of the Magi". The second act was very loosely based on "Christmas Carol", although I felt as though that was a bit of a stretch. The second act was a minor disaster because they kept having people drop out of a lead role. Finally, the director took on that role, but she was not prepared. That came through with forgotten lines and people getting lost in dialog. As it is, the play lasted ten minutes too long: I was getting very tired. I had problems with the play based on "Gift of the Magi" as well: I just don't "get it". "Magi" is not some heartwarming tale, and adding more characters to it doesn't change that. Sure, everyone hugs at the end, but these dreadfully poor people are stuck having spent considerable money on useless gifts. Did they have a return policy? And what on earth is the theme?
I would wager that everyone that auditioned got a part. I don't know this for certain, but I'm fairly sure that very few people auditioned. That meant that they had a handful of people, and they needed to find places to fit them. Given my dark skin, they figured that I would work best as the Italian soda vendor. Cool . . . except what did that mean for the leads? We had a narrator that kept tripping over his lines and didn't seem to have a sense of vocal inflection (he did get better as the run went on, though). We had a lead man that had a pleasant voice but doesn't seem to understand that that is not the same thing as acting. At times I wanted to grab him and shake him, saying "YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE UPSET RIGHT NOW!" And the lead woman that was easily the worst actress I have ever worked with . . . and remember that I have worked with kids! It's "beautiful", not "bee you tee full"!
What did they have in common? Like the rest of the cast, they were white, of course. They had the right look for how someone-or-another imagined the parts. The rest of us might put in our 110%, but these were the leads. When people look back at the show, they will remember, first and foremost, these three. No matter how good I might have been, these three ensured that the show was at best sub-par. What was the point of putting in my 110%? I'll go further: sure, I worked hard and put in a fine job, but that's not going to translate to me getting better parts in the future. My brown skin isn't going away.
My acting teacher remarked that it takes the audience 30 seconds to get over a brown person playing a part meant for a white actor. But few community theatres are willing to give that a try, and they are losing talent as a result. Lord knows, it appears that they have lost me (I'm sure that bothers the local community theatre world to no end). Community theatre is supposed to "work with what they have". No sofa? Get a pile of boxes: that'll work. Need a throne? Get a folding metal chair and put a cloth over it. Community theatre is willing to do that and rationalize that the audience will be fine. But . . . cast a brown person in a role written for a white person? Oh no! We can't do that!
There are times when race is important to the story itself. "Hairspray", for example, deals with racial segregation: sorry, but white people have to play the white people and african americans have to play the african americans. To do otherwise would dilute the theme. But there are very few plays where race is of any importance. There are other plays where race is mentioned. Stan in "Streetcar Named Desire" is of Polish descent. This is important in one three minute exchange, but beyond that doesn't affect the plot at all. An african american Stan? Why not? Cut out those three minutes. There are TONS of plays where a person is white because "that is what they would have been", but it makes no difference to the play. Dysart in "Equus" would probably be white, but who cares if he isn't? In fact, I understand that Charles Dutton played Dysart in an all-African-American version of "Equus". And then there are the plays where it makes no difference at all: Sidney in "Deathtrap" could be any ethnicicity. Insisting on casting white people for these plays is a pure disservice.
As of right now, I have two possibilities still "out there". One theatre company is supposed to do "Farragut North" in the spring. Another theatre company is supposed to do "Macbeth", also in the spring. I have heard nothing about "Farragut North", even though I auditioned back in October. I'm fairly sure I didn't get a part, but I sent off a "say, what happned?" e-mail today. With "Macbeth", the director wants me in the play, but he still has to determine where. If the part isn't challenging to me, I will turn it down.
And that will be my year. I'll audition here and there. When -- not "if", but "when" -- I am offered "guy that comes in in scene 3 and says one line", I will turn it down. Will there be anything remaining? I don't have reason to hope. And that means that I am saying "good bye" to theatre. And I'm sure that will bother the theatre world to no end.
My last show really demonstrated this for me. This show was two one-acts. The first act was based on "Gift of the Magi". The second act was very loosely based on "Christmas Carol", although I felt as though that was a bit of a stretch. The second act was a minor disaster because they kept having people drop out of a lead role. Finally, the director took on that role, but she was not prepared. That came through with forgotten lines and people getting lost in dialog. As it is, the play lasted ten minutes too long: I was getting very tired. I had problems with the play based on "Gift of the Magi" as well: I just don't "get it". "Magi" is not some heartwarming tale, and adding more characters to it doesn't change that. Sure, everyone hugs at the end, but these dreadfully poor people are stuck having spent considerable money on useless gifts. Did they have a return policy? And what on earth is the theme?
I would wager that everyone that auditioned got a part. I don't know this for certain, but I'm fairly sure that very few people auditioned. That meant that they had a handful of people, and they needed to find places to fit them. Given my dark skin, they figured that I would work best as the Italian soda vendor. Cool . . . except what did that mean for the leads? We had a narrator that kept tripping over his lines and didn't seem to have a sense of vocal inflection (he did get better as the run went on, though). We had a lead man that had a pleasant voice but doesn't seem to understand that that is not the same thing as acting. At times I wanted to grab him and shake him, saying "YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE UPSET RIGHT NOW!" And the lead woman that was easily the worst actress I have ever worked with . . . and remember that I have worked with kids! It's "beautiful", not "bee you tee full"!
What did they have in common? Like the rest of the cast, they were white, of course. They had the right look for how someone-or-another imagined the parts. The rest of us might put in our 110%, but these were the leads. When people look back at the show, they will remember, first and foremost, these three. No matter how good I might have been, these three ensured that the show was at best sub-par. What was the point of putting in my 110%? I'll go further: sure, I worked hard and put in a fine job, but that's not going to translate to me getting better parts in the future. My brown skin isn't going away.
My acting teacher remarked that it takes the audience 30 seconds to get over a brown person playing a part meant for a white actor. But few community theatres are willing to give that a try, and they are losing talent as a result. Lord knows, it appears that they have lost me (I'm sure that bothers the local community theatre world to no end). Community theatre is supposed to "work with what they have". No sofa? Get a pile of boxes: that'll work. Need a throne? Get a folding metal chair and put a cloth over it. Community theatre is willing to do that and rationalize that the audience will be fine. But . . . cast a brown person in a role written for a white person? Oh no! We can't do that!
There are times when race is important to the story itself. "Hairspray", for example, deals with racial segregation: sorry, but white people have to play the white people and african americans have to play the african americans. To do otherwise would dilute the theme. But there are very few plays where race is of any importance. There are other plays where race is mentioned. Stan in "Streetcar Named Desire" is of Polish descent. This is important in one three minute exchange, but beyond that doesn't affect the plot at all. An african american Stan? Why not? Cut out those three minutes. There are TONS of plays where a person is white because "that is what they would have been", but it makes no difference to the play. Dysart in "Equus" would probably be white, but who cares if he isn't? In fact, I understand that Charles Dutton played Dysart in an all-African-American version of "Equus". And then there are the plays where it makes no difference at all: Sidney in "Deathtrap" could be any ethnicicity. Insisting on casting white people for these plays is a pure disservice.
As of right now, I have two possibilities still "out there". One theatre company is supposed to do "Farragut North" in the spring. Another theatre company is supposed to do "Macbeth", also in the spring. I have heard nothing about "Farragut North", even though I auditioned back in October. I'm fairly sure I didn't get a part, but I sent off a "say, what happned?" e-mail today. With "Macbeth", the director wants me in the play, but he still has to determine where. If the part isn't challenging to me, I will turn it down.
And that will be my year. I'll audition here and there. When -- not "if", but "when" -- I am offered "guy that comes in in scene 3 and says one line", I will turn it down. Will there be anything remaining? I don't have reason to hope. And that means that I am saying "good bye" to theatre. And I'm sure that will bother the theatre world to no end.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
One Year!
The original purpose of this blog was to document how I will get my head and my life together after the breakup with my ex-girlfriend. This breakup became official last year tomorrow!
Last year yesterday (I think) I went to Leah and I said: "Your parents feel that I have been abusive to you, and that justifies their behavior. Do you agree with their belief?" Keep in mind that her parents denied their behavior, but then justified the behavior they were denying by claiming I was abusing Leah. Okay.
She answered "no".
"Well then, the fact is that you have bad-mouthed me to your friends and family until I received a death threat. What are you going to do to fix it?"
Leah avoided saying anything to me for a couple of days, and then finally gave me her solution: she was leaving. I made it clear to her that if she moves back with her parents, I must judge her a danger to me, so she will be completely cut off from my life. I will NEVER allow her back in any capacity. She was okay with that. She had scheduled the move-out date to be a week later, and had decided she would get through that week doing whatever it took to avoid answering the question "why?" The problem was that she tried to justify her behavior by claiming psychological "flare-ups" similar to those that had happened in the past. It was clear, by the end of the week, that she had made this all up in an effort to run down the clock. This made me wonder: did she make up those "flare-ups" in the first place?
And that led to the realization of just what a disgusting creature she had been. I realized that she needed a place to live, and was willing to tell me she loved me and even to sleep with me, just so I would provide that. I realized the patterns in these huge psychological "flare-ups", and how suddenly all the pieces fit in place.
Her message to me was that I should just put up with it. I didn't deserve any better. My relationship with Leah was psychologically abusive, but it was little sweet innocent and vulnerable Leah that was the abuser, not the victim.
After she moved out, on several occasions she would e-mail me. There were some things that were under her name, and needed to be put under mine. There were some old bills that she needed me to pay. She bugged me several times about things she had left in the house. At first, I would gather the things and leave them on the back porch: I didn't want her entering my home, and I never wanted to even see her again. After a point, I told her "Enough": she had been gone for several months, I'm no longer going to go out of my way to find something she had left.
When I finished paying the old bills, I told her: I consider everything "done" between us, and she is to not contact me ever again or come to any of my shows. She appeared to agree, except that she showed up during one of the "42nd Street" performances. I didn't see her in the audience and she appears to have left before we came out to mingle with the audience, so I'm fine with that. She paid full-price for the tickets, after all. I am under the impression that the people in the theatre company made her feel somewhat unwelcome. Much to my surprise, she had done this all by herself: people in this theatre company hated her even before our breakup!
I haven't followed her Facebook statuses, her blogs, or her statuses on other social sights. I don't know if she has followed mine, although one of my friends said she was whining that I was bad-mouthing her on Facebook (my response to my friend: if she receives a death threat from something I had posted about her, she has reason to talk). Once, one of my friends told me that she was complaining that she couldn't contact me at Yom Kippur to make amends, because I had demanded she never contact me again . . . so she took that seriously when dealing with one of her faith's highest commandments, but she ignored it in order to see "42nd Street". Go figure.
I'm happy to report that I've seen no sign of her and I haven't even heard her voice since the move-out. Oddly enough . . . I can't think of a single way that my life hasn't improved with her absense. Some of it makes no sense -- without her income and her cooking, how is it that my finances are in better shape now than they had been when she lived with me? I have been able to rebuild my relationship with my kids, which she badly damaged. I am, further, quite thrilled that I no longer have to be "nice" to the violent snobby obnoxious racist pricks that make up her family. So long to true rubbish!
Last year yesterday (I think) I went to Leah and I said: "Your parents feel that I have been abusive to you, and that justifies their behavior. Do you agree with their belief?" Keep in mind that her parents denied their behavior, but then justified the behavior they were denying by claiming I was abusing Leah. Okay.
She answered "no".
"Well then, the fact is that you have bad-mouthed me to your friends and family until I received a death threat. What are you going to do to fix it?"
Leah avoided saying anything to me for a couple of days, and then finally gave me her solution: she was leaving. I made it clear to her that if she moves back with her parents, I must judge her a danger to me, so she will be completely cut off from my life. I will NEVER allow her back in any capacity. She was okay with that. She had scheduled the move-out date to be a week later, and had decided she would get through that week doing whatever it took to avoid answering the question "why?" The problem was that she tried to justify her behavior by claiming psychological "flare-ups" similar to those that had happened in the past. It was clear, by the end of the week, that she had made this all up in an effort to run down the clock. This made me wonder: did she make up those "flare-ups" in the first place?
And that led to the realization of just what a disgusting creature she had been. I realized that she needed a place to live, and was willing to tell me she loved me and even to sleep with me, just so I would provide that. I realized the patterns in these huge psychological "flare-ups", and how suddenly all the pieces fit in place.
Her message to me was that I should just put up with it. I didn't deserve any better. My relationship with Leah was psychologically abusive, but it was little sweet innocent and vulnerable Leah that was the abuser, not the victim.
After she moved out, on several occasions she would e-mail me. There were some things that were under her name, and needed to be put under mine. There were some old bills that she needed me to pay. She bugged me several times about things she had left in the house. At first, I would gather the things and leave them on the back porch: I didn't want her entering my home, and I never wanted to even see her again. After a point, I told her "Enough": she had been gone for several months, I'm no longer going to go out of my way to find something she had left.
When I finished paying the old bills, I told her: I consider everything "done" between us, and she is to not contact me ever again or come to any of my shows. She appeared to agree, except that she showed up during one of the "42nd Street" performances. I didn't see her in the audience and she appears to have left before we came out to mingle with the audience, so I'm fine with that. She paid full-price for the tickets, after all. I am under the impression that the people in the theatre company made her feel somewhat unwelcome. Much to my surprise, she had done this all by herself: people in this theatre company hated her even before our breakup!
I haven't followed her Facebook statuses, her blogs, or her statuses on other social sights. I don't know if she has followed mine, although one of my friends said she was whining that I was bad-mouthing her on Facebook (my response to my friend: if she receives a death threat from something I had posted about her, she has reason to talk). Once, one of my friends told me that she was complaining that she couldn't contact me at Yom Kippur to make amends, because I had demanded she never contact me again . . . so she took that seriously when dealing with one of her faith's highest commandments, but she ignored it in order to see "42nd Street". Go figure.
I'm happy to report that I've seen no sign of her and I haven't even heard her voice since the move-out. Oddly enough . . . I can't think of a single way that my life hasn't improved with her absense. Some of it makes no sense -- without her income and her cooking, how is it that my finances are in better shape now than they had been when she lived with me? I have been able to rebuild my relationship with my kids, which she badly damaged. I am, further, quite thrilled that I no longer have to be "nice" to the violent snobby obnoxious racist pricks that make up her family. So long to true rubbish!
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
My Theatre Company Sh*t List
One of the reasons I know I have no future as a stage actor is the size of my ever-growing list of theatre companies that I won't bother with. I was thinking about an audition I went to recently (the one before "Macbeth"), and I realized two things. First, this was not a race issue, as a nice change of pace. Second, this company really screwed me over during the audition. So, *poof*, they joined this list too, bringing the number up to five!
In my list, only one company is there simply because I never seem to get parts with them. I've auditioned there three times, but I can't point to anything they did "wrong" or "bad". I was very disappointed the last time I auditioned for them: the director seemed very impressed with me, and even remarked as such in her rejection e-mail to me. The problem was that the rejection came a whole 3 1/2 hours after I left the audition. In other words, there was no "he's good . . . is there anyway we can fit him in?" deliberation. In other words, they decided against me the moment I walked through the door.
The other companies . . . well . . .
There was a Shakespeare focused company. The audition started with optional monologues. Most of the people there didn't come with a monologue, which appeared to be fine. We were called up to do small scenes from "As You Like It". Everyone in the room was called more than once . . . except me. I was called up only once. Being called only once meant that they had already decided they didn't want me, but they were still going to go through the motions. A few days later, I received a phonecall giving me the rejection (a rarety), where the woman said it was because I hadn't memorized my monologue and I was reading from a piece of paper. That is a valid complaint, but the monologue was optional and most people didn't do one. And was that experience so horrifying to them that they decided on the spot that they didn't want me? Because the fact that I was called up only once means that they had already decided.
Then, came "Noises Off". When I didn't get a part here, I assumed it was because I sucked. I can live with that. I gave them another try for "Enchanted April". Well . . . there were several women there and only two men, myself included. Two people there remarked that the other man was terrible. His reading was flat, and he didn't seem even aware of what he was reading. I was, according to them, far better than him. He did have one thing in his favor: he is white. So, guess who got the part, and guess who didn't even get a callback. Not only that, consider: they had only one man from the auditions, but they needed four for the play. After turning me away, they went out and recruited to get the other three. So, "even though we don't have enough men and we don't know if we can get enough men, we know we don't want YOU!" Thanks, buddies, but I can take a hint. Sad thing is that I have a friend who sometimes directs for them, but I won't go to one of his auditions. I won't give this group another chance.
Then, "Deathtrap". I arrived early because of a conflict. One other person was going to be auditioning with me. We came in. The director took one look at us -- he hadn't even looked at our acting resumes -- and said he wanted the other person (who, by the way, is white) to read for the lead and he wanted me to read for a bit-part. This play doesn't state that the lead is white and it doesn't affect the play at all if he isn't . . . but that is what the director wanted, and he decided accordingly. Another director said to me that I should have come out and said "hey, I want to read for the lead." But, I felt, why bother? The director already determined he didn't see me at all in that role (remember, it wouldn't have been a big deal to have us both read for the part: he didn't want to even bother to see me read for the part). Maybe I suck, maybe I'm good, but even if I'm good I'm not so good as to get him to change his mind. This group is a very prestigious community theatre in the area, and I won't even give them a second look after that.
Finally, I went to a combined audition for two plays. I was handed sides for "Farragut North", one of the two plays. They said I was too old for one of the two characters, so they wanted me to read for the other character. They gave me time to prepare for that one character. I did. I went in to the audition, and they told me to read for the other character, the one they told me I was too old to play! I went along, but when I think back at that . . . that was really, really scummy! A week later, they asked me if I would be interested in a small non-speaking part in the other play for which they were auditioning. I said "no thank you". I haven't heard anything about "Farragut North", but I fully expect I didn't get a part.
There are three "general" theatre companies that have my interest (by "general", I mean "not a Gilbert & Sullivan group": I've worked with two companies that specialize in G&S, and they've always treated me well). Viviana, Barnstormers, and Hedgerow. These companies have my loyalty. Keep in mind that this isn't based on "getting roles". Viviana gives anyone a part, but note that they did not give me the part I wanted for "42nd Street". I have been in two plays at Barnstormers, but I did get turned away from one (they tried to find a way to fit me, however . . . and in the end, the play never went on) and I will probably be turned away from "Macbeth". Hedgerow? I've only been in two of their shows, and they haven't called me in to be in any others . . . but I've taken a bunch of classes there and I've learned a lot from them. As I shift from being an actor to concentrating on playwriting, these three companies get "dibs" for my work.
My ambition, however, is to write something that everyone really, really wants to do . . . I would like to be approached by the company that turned me away from "Enchanted April" or from "Deathtrap". I want to say to them "sure, you can do my play . . . but I want minorities in the lead . . . I won't approve of this if you have an all-white cast." That's my dream.
In my list, only one company is there simply because I never seem to get parts with them. I've auditioned there three times, but I can't point to anything they did "wrong" or "bad". I was very disappointed the last time I auditioned for them: the director seemed very impressed with me, and even remarked as such in her rejection e-mail to me. The problem was that the rejection came a whole 3 1/2 hours after I left the audition. In other words, there was no "he's good . . . is there anyway we can fit him in?" deliberation. In other words, they decided against me the moment I walked through the door.
The other companies . . . well . . .
There was a Shakespeare focused company. The audition started with optional monologues. Most of the people there didn't come with a monologue, which appeared to be fine. We were called up to do small scenes from "As You Like It". Everyone in the room was called more than once . . . except me. I was called up only once. Being called only once meant that they had already decided they didn't want me, but they were still going to go through the motions. A few days later, I received a phonecall giving me the rejection (a rarety), where the woman said it was because I hadn't memorized my monologue and I was reading from a piece of paper. That is a valid complaint, but the monologue was optional and most people didn't do one. And was that experience so horrifying to them that they decided on the spot that they didn't want me? Because the fact that I was called up only once means that they had already decided.
Then, came "Noises Off". When I didn't get a part here, I assumed it was because I sucked. I can live with that. I gave them another try for "Enchanted April". Well . . . there were several women there and only two men, myself included. Two people there remarked that the other man was terrible. His reading was flat, and he didn't seem even aware of what he was reading. I was, according to them, far better than him. He did have one thing in his favor: he is white. So, guess who got the part, and guess who didn't even get a callback. Not only that, consider: they had only one man from the auditions, but they needed four for the play. After turning me away, they went out and recruited to get the other three. So, "even though we don't have enough men and we don't know if we can get enough men, we know we don't want YOU!" Thanks, buddies, but I can take a hint. Sad thing is that I have a friend who sometimes directs for them, but I won't go to one of his auditions. I won't give this group another chance.
Then, "Deathtrap". I arrived early because of a conflict. One other person was going to be auditioning with me. We came in. The director took one look at us -- he hadn't even looked at our acting resumes -- and said he wanted the other person (who, by the way, is white) to read for the lead and he wanted me to read for a bit-part. This play doesn't state that the lead is white and it doesn't affect the play at all if he isn't . . . but that is what the director wanted, and he decided accordingly. Another director said to me that I should have come out and said "hey, I want to read for the lead." But, I felt, why bother? The director already determined he didn't see me at all in that role (remember, it wouldn't have been a big deal to have us both read for the part: he didn't want to even bother to see me read for the part). Maybe I suck, maybe I'm good, but even if I'm good I'm not so good as to get him to change his mind. This group is a very prestigious community theatre in the area, and I won't even give them a second look after that.
Finally, I went to a combined audition for two plays. I was handed sides for "Farragut North", one of the two plays. They said I was too old for one of the two characters, so they wanted me to read for the other character. They gave me time to prepare for that one character. I did. I went in to the audition, and they told me to read for the other character, the one they told me I was too old to play! I went along, but when I think back at that . . . that was really, really scummy! A week later, they asked me if I would be interested in a small non-speaking part in the other play for which they were auditioning. I said "no thank you". I haven't heard anything about "Farragut North", but I fully expect I didn't get a part.
There are three "general" theatre companies that have my interest (by "general", I mean "not a Gilbert & Sullivan group": I've worked with two companies that specialize in G&S, and they've always treated me well). Viviana, Barnstormers, and Hedgerow. These companies have my loyalty. Keep in mind that this isn't based on "getting roles". Viviana gives anyone a part, but note that they did not give me the part I wanted for "42nd Street". I have been in two plays at Barnstormers, but I did get turned away from one (they tried to find a way to fit me, however . . . and in the end, the play never went on) and I will probably be turned away from "Macbeth". Hedgerow? I've only been in two of their shows, and they haven't called me in to be in any others . . . but I've taken a bunch of classes there and I've learned a lot from them. As I shift from being an actor to concentrating on playwriting, these three companies get "dibs" for my work.
My ambition, however, is to write something that everyone really, really wants to do . . . I would like to be approached by the company that turned me away from "Enchanted April" or from "Deathtrap". I want to say to them "sure, you can do my play . . . but I want minorities in the lead . . . I won't approve of this if you have an all-white cast." That's my dream.
Macbeth Auditions . . . I don't think so
My older son and I auditioned for "Macbeth" last night. I don't know how he did, but this could be a good experience for him. He's been on a Shakespeare kick -- "Henry V" in the summer, "Much Ado" in the fall.
For me, I'm not so hopeful.
Remember that I'm not interested in a bit part. My skills aren't improving, I'm not being challenged and I'm just phoning in my performances. I determined that next year, I will not take any parts where I do not feel I am challenged as an actor. The question isn't simply "am I going to be offered a part". It's "am I going to be offered an interesting part".
So, I went in to "Macbeth" auditions with a monologue prepared from "Richard III". They provided us with sides to do some scenes . . . I was surprised by their choices. One was a monologue spoken by Macbeth. But . . . that's just a speech. One was a comic speech by a porter, who appears in one scene. But that's also just a speech. One was an actual scene between Macbeth and his wife. So, only one scene involving "interaction", and you were either reading for Macbeth or reading for the porter? That seemed a bit minimal.
I went in and did my monologue. If nothing else, I'm probably the loudest person there! They then asked me to read for the porter. "Ugh!" I thought. The porter? I don't want to be the porter! But I did it, and they seemed to like my performance. Then, they said they would call me in later to do the Lady Macbeth scene. I waited, and a few minutes later they said that in interest of saving time (read: in order to get through all the people that had shown up for the audition), they weren't going to call me back in.
I have serious doubts that they will offer me the part of Macbeth if they didn't even hear me read for Macbeth! I think I can safely write off that role. If I am even going to be offered a part, the good news is that I can dig out a script pretty easily and check it. I can determine whether or not it will be a challenge for me, and then respond to the offer accordingly. If they offer me the porter, I'll just say "no". If they don't offer me a part at all . . . well, have fun then.
The last two times I auditioned for Shakespeare, we did several scenes, with different people taking different roles in a given scene. Shakespeare plays have large casts, so there are lots of places to fit people in. For some reason, I wasn't originally offered a part in "Henry V", even though the director of that play liked my work. He called me back in February and asked if I could take the part. I did, which meant I was stuck with a scene spoken entirely in French. For "As You Like It" . . . ugh! This was my first "so bad I won't audition for that group again" experience.
For me, I'm not so hopeful.
Remember that I'm not interested in a bit part. My skills aren't improving, I'm not being challenged and I'm just phoning in my performances. I determined that next year, I will not take any parts where I do not feel I am challenged as an actor. The question isn't simply "am I going to be offered a part". It's "am I going to be offered an interesting part".
So, I went in to "Macbeth" auditions with a monologue prepared from "Richard III". They provided us with sides to do some scenes . . . I was surprised by their choices. One was a monologue spoken by Macbeth. But . . . that's just a speech. One was a comic speech by a porter, who appears in one scene. But that's also just a speech. One was an actual scene between Macbeth and his wife. So, only one scene involving "interaction", and you were either reading for Macbeth or reading for the porter? That seemed a bit minimal.
I went in and did my monologue. If nothing else, I'm probably the loudest person there! They then asked me to read for the porter. "Ugh!" I thought. The porter? I don't want to be the porter! But I did it, and they seemed to like my performance. Then, they said they would call me in later to do the Lady Macbeth scene. I waited, and a few minutes later they said that in interest of saving time (read: in order to get through all the people that had shown up for the audition), they weren't going to call me back in.
I have serious doubts that they will offer me the part of Macbeth if they didn't even hear me read for Macbeth! I think I can safely write off that role. If I am even going to be offered a part, the good news is that I can dig out a script pretty easily and check it. I can determine whether or not it will be a challenge for me, and then respond to the offer accordingly. If they offer me the porter, I'll just say "no". If they don't offer me a part at all . . . well, have fun then.
The last two times I auditioned for Shakespeare, we did several scenes, with different people taking different roles in a given scene. Shakespeare plays have large casts, so there are lots of places to fit people in. For some reason, I wasn't originally offered a part in "Henry V", even though the director of that play liked my work. He called me back in February and asked if I could take the part. I did, which meant I was stuck with a scene spoken entirely in French. For "As You Like It" . . . ugh! This was my first "so bad I won't audition for that group again" experience.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Feeling a bit down about theatre, again.
This fall, I signed up for two acting classes at Hedgerow. One was taught by Tom, and I had taken his classes twice before. The other was taught by Lou, who is an old established actor and playwright. Lou tends to be a bit harsh, and I know that there were times he stopped me in my tracks. That's a good thing, however: he was able to pinpoint a skill I seriously need to work on. Lou's class is over and Tom's class ends next week.
I've been feeling a bit "eh" about the classes this time around. Nothing against the class or the teachers, it's "me". I came into the classes without any "I want to work on this" items. I see other people in the class talking about shows and audition prep, and I have none of that. I feel like I'm just along for the ride.
There's no secret to this all. Back early this year, I was seriously distressed. I realized how small and insignificant were my parts for "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" and "42nd Street". After a few more rejections, I decided to take a break. I was still committed to do "Henry V" in the August, but beyond that I didn't bother. I did audition for a few places, and it was just rejection after rejection. I did get one part, which was a silly bit-part in a silly Christmas play. I found myself wondering if I had any future in acting at all.
During "Shakespeare" and "42nd Street", I was taking another class at Hedgerow. I decided that it was in acting class where I would get a challenging monologue or scene. Who cares if community theatre never ever came through for me, when I could just take a class at Hedgerow? I went in to the classes this fall with nothing: no dreams of taking my skills to stage, no dreams that I will ever have a place in theatre. This time around, I'm seeing that the class isn't enough. I need a part that I can work on from start to finish (not just a scene picked out somewhere). I need a part that I can think about, a character I can build. And I need to work with a director. Without any of this, my skills aren't improving. I feel like I'm hitting a brick wall with my classes: to get more out of the acting classes, I need to act. And the sorts of parts I have had this year have done nothing to help my acting skills. And I'm not getting any better opportunities.
I love theatre, but theatre doesn't love me. Given my love life (Leah and Joni), this is a pretty common occurance in my life.
I've been feeling a bit "eh" about the classes this time around. Nothing against the class or the teachers, it's "me". I came into the classes without any "I want to work on this" items. I see other people in the class talking about shows and audition prep, and I have none of that. I feel like I'm just along for the ride.
There's no secret to this all. Back early this year, I was seriously distressed. I realized how small and insignificant were my parts for "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" and "42nd Street". After a few more rejections, I decided to take a break. I was still committed to do "Henry V" in the August, but beyond that I didn't bother. I did audition for a few places, and it was just rejection after rejection. I did get one part, which was a silly bit-part in a silly Christmas play. I found myself wondering if I had any future in acting at all.
During "Shakespeare" and "42nd Street", I was taking another class at Hedgerow. I decided that it was in acting class where I would get a challenging monologue or scene. Who cares if community theatre never ever came through for me, when I could just take a class at Hedgerow? I went in to the classes this fall with nothing: no dreams of taking my skills to stage, no dreams that I will ever have a place in theatre. This time around, I'm seeing that the class isn't enough. I need a part that I can work on from start to finish (not just a scene picked out somewhere). I need a part that I can think about, a character I can build. And I need to work with a director. Without any of this, my skills aren't improving. I feel like I'm hitting a brick wall with my classes: to get more out of the acting classes, I need to act. And the sorts of parts I have had this year have done nothing to help my acting skills. And I'm not getting any better opportunities.
I love theatre, but theatre doesn't love me. Given my love life (Leah and Joni), this is a pretty common occurance in my life.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Feeling a bit down
As this year comes to a close, I find myself wondering if I should just call it quits as an actor. This past weekend, I got a response from a recent audition: would I be interested in a small non-speaking part? I brushed it off and did something I never do: I turned them down. Will I hear from them again? I doubt it. As the weekend continued, I realized that this bothered me more than I had expected.
The most important skill an actor can have is to be able to take rejection. I guess I'm really lacking with that. I am now hit with a question: am I any good? Sitting in the car I can listen to the radio and I think my singing sounds good. It sounds good to me. But, anyone else that might hear me will have a different opinion. To them, I sound terrible. What if that is what it's like when I act?
What do I have to go on? The opinions of friends. The opinions of teachers of acting classes for which I pay. And, counter-balancing that, I have a ton of rejections. Maybe it is my brown skin or maybe I'm too old or maybe it's just that I suck. In any of those cases, I'm just wasting my time.
And maybe I am wasting my time.
I felt this during my acting classes on Monday. I think everyone in class could tell I was feeling down, and my heart wasn't into it. I still tried to listen and learn, so I got something out of these classes. I wonder, though, why am I bothering? I'm in these classes yet I find myself with no hope at all in taking what I am learning in these classes and applying them. What's the point?
I can hear plenty of my friends offering me reassurance, but the real reassurance I need right now is for someone in some freaking audition committee to do one of two things. First, offer me a part that's actually interesting. Second . . . if there was something I need to work on, please tell me honestly what! I don't need people telling me that I'm "good" and that I should hold on: I hear plenty of that.
In the middle of these classes, one of the students got up and performed a monologue from my play "Leia". She was good, and everyone (including the instructor) was thoroughly amazed at what I had written. I don't think I mind that. Maybe that's where my future in theatre lies. I've always suspected that would be the case.
The most important skill an actor can have is to be able to take rejection. I guess I'm really lacking with that. I am now hit with a question: am I any good? Sitting in the car I can listen to the radio and I think my singing sounds good. It sounds good to me. But, anyone else that might hear me will have a different opinion. To them, I sound terrible. What if that is what it's like when I act?
What do I have to go on? The opinions of friends. The opinions of teachers of acting classes for which I pay. And, counter-balancing that, I have a ton of rejections. Maybe it is my brown skin or maybe I'm too old or maybe it's just that I suck. In any of those cases, I'm just wasting my time.
And maybe I am wasting my time.
I felt this during my acting classes on Monday. I think everyone in class could tell I was feeling down, and my heart wasn't into it. I still tried to listen and learn, so I got something out of these classes. I wonder, though, why am I bothering? I'm in these classes yet I find myself with no hope at all in taking what I am learning in these classes and applying them. What's the point?
I can hear plenty of my friends offering me reassurance, but the real reassurance I need right now is for someone in some freaking audition committee to do one of two things. First, offer me a part that's actually interesting. Second . . . if there was something I need to work on, please tell me honestly what! I don't need people telling me that I'm "good" and that I should hold on: I hear plenty of that.
In the middle of these classes, one of the students got up and performed a monologue from my play "Leia". She was good, and everyone (including the instructor) was thoroughly amazed at what I had written. I don't think I mind that. Maybe that's where my future in theatre lies. I've always suspected that would be the case.
What was wrong with "Rent"?
The other day, my boys and I were chatting about the play "Rent". My younger son loves the play. He participated in the show when a local group performed it this past summer, and a few weeks ago he watched it off-Broadway.
I didn't particularly care for it. The movie came out the year after the movie of "Chicago", and promised to continue that tradition: a well made movie version of a very popular modern musical. It didn't. Where "Chicago" was intelligent, fascinating, and ever so entertaining . . . "Rent" wasn't. Leah loved the movie, so perhaps, I wondered, my memories were being tainted. This past summer, I watched a local community theatre company perform the play. This time, I saw a bunch of talented young people that loved the play and gave it their all. And in the end, I remarked: "I guess I really don't like the play."
So, last night we were talking a bit about that. What didn't I like about the play?
I explained that in my college days, back in the late 80's, I used to hang around with people like this. People that sat there, saying "I'm misunderstood . . . society doesn't understand me" and occasionally staring blankly ahead and saying "why are there . . . poor people?" while everyone else gasped "wow, he's so deep!" This was my social circle back in the 80's. "Rent" presented me with 2 1/2 hours of these people.
We had cool-guy-with-the-guitar, who is artistic and misunderstood. He mopes around the play because he wants to write that perfect song. The song he winds up writing, in my opinion, was the weakest song in the show (I felt the same thing about the song "Purple Rain" from the movie of that name). We had cool-guy-with-the-camera, who is artistic and misunderstood. We had girl-wearing-cat-ears, who is artistic and misunderstood, and wants people to moo. We have the philosophy professor, who is deep and misunderstood. Oh, and by the way, we have stripper-with-the-heart-of-gold, guy-that-sold-out-but-has-a-change-of-heart, and the trannie-with-the-heart-of-gold. You might say I found this boring.
I found myself thinking "will one of these people PLEASE go out and find a job?" And then one of them did, but then quit that job. Oh well. In the end, I just wanted to slap these people.
I didn't particularly care for it. The movie came out the year after the movie of "Chicago", and promised to continue that tradition: a well made movie version of a very popular modern musical. It didn't. Where "Chicago" was intelligent, fascinating, and ever so entertaining . . . "Rent" wasn't. Leah loved the movie, so perhaps, I wondered, my memories were being tainted. This past summer, I watched a local community theatre company perform the play. This time, I saw a bunch of talented young people that loved the play and gave it their all. And in the end, I remarked: "I guess I really don't like the play."
So, last night we were talking a bit about that. What didn't I like about the play?
I explained that in my college days, back in the late 80's, I used to hang around with people like this. People that sat there, saying "I'm misunderstood . . . society doesn't understand me" and occasionally staring blankly ahead and saying "why are there . . . poor people?" while everyone else gasped "wow, he's so deep!" This was my social circle back in the 80's. "Rent" presented me with 2 1/2 hours of these people.
We had cool-guy-with-the-guitar, who is artistic and misunderstood. He mopes around the play because he wants to write that perfect song. The song he winds up writing, in my opinion, was the weakest song in the show (I felt the same thing about the song "Purple Rain" from the movie of that name). We had cool-guy-with-the-camera, who is artistic and misunderstood. We had girl-wearing-cat-ears, who is artistic and misunderstood, and wants people to moo. We have the philosophy professor, who is deep and misunderstood. Oh, and by the way, we have stripper-with-the-heart-of-gold, guy-that-sold-out-but-has-a-change-of-heart, and the trannie-with-the-heart-of-gold. You might say I found this boring.
I found myself thinking "will one of these people PLEASE go out and find a job?" And then one of them did, but then quit that job. Oh well. In the end, I just wanted to slap these people.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Almost Managing My New Years Resolution?
The joke is that my New Years resolution was that I would get through this year without moving a girlfriend in with me. It's now mid-October: 2 1/2 months, and I can claim victory! In actuality, my resolution was that I would no longer stay in relationships where I question whether I value the relationship more than the other. I don't question this with Jen, so while I can claim victory, it's a bit of a hollow victory. If I hadn't met Jen, if I was in a relationship with someone like Leah, have I changed enough that I would leave? Or would I continue to hang on, hoping something would change?
I was thinking about my older son the other day. A few years ago, he was very lonely and wanted a girlfriend. He got involved with a girl named Annie. Annie is very manipulative and knows how to "play" people. She was very controlling to my son, making very clear her agenda to separate him from his friends, his family, and anything he loved. My son went along with this, doing things like giving up theatre or pretending to like the "Twilight" series because she insisted he do so. But one day it just went too far. He came home and told me they had broken up. It was like an on/off switch had been flicked, and he had no more feelings for Annie. She was hurting and I wanted him to talk to her, make her understand what had happened . . . he refused. It was over. She was gone from his life.
At first, I thought he was being quite heartless. I later speculated: given my crappy record with breakups, perhaps I'm not one to talk. Perhaps my son was doing this correctly?
The other day, I found myself thinking about what my son has seen in relationships. He has watched me in two bad relationships, first Joni and then Leah. He watched me being patient, giving second and third and fourth chances, and hoping that something would change. He watched how I kept getting disappointed and hurt, and he watched how ironically the woman wound up leaving me. What kind of lesson was I teaching him? At least he learned that this was not the way he should proceed! At least, he learned that in the end.
That's the tough part for me. Have I even taught myself my own lessons? Last year, Leah's parents threatened me. I watched Leah that day run outside and put on a pouty face, even though she claimed she didn't know what had happened. I believed her. She demanded that I not talk about it. I didn't follow that, but I understood. She said she didn't believe me, that "other sources" (which turned out to be her mother) claimed a very different story. Here, I told her it was over between us, but I didn't follow through. When she came back the next day and said she realized I was telling the truth, I accepted her back into my life with open arms. Was she really acting like someone that had a change of heart? She stopped talking to her mother, but there were other reasons for that . . . her father was a part of this incident, and she was exchanging cat pictures with him. Again, I understood. When it became clear that she had done absolutely nothing, I understood and I made excuses for her. What did she have to do to make me see?
The answer was that she had to take her parents' side, deny their racism and make up an incident between her and me to justify their behavior. And she had to leave. In her absence, I finally connected the dots. I realized that she had a habit of pissing me off, saying whatever it took to calm me, and NOT fixing anything. I realized that she, very likely, knew her parents' plan to threaten me, and did nothing about it. This all came to me when she was gone. Gee, that was useful.
Is there another Leah out there in my future? I can sit here and say that I am with Jen now, so the answer is "no". Right now, Jen seems a good person that cares about me. If I am right about her, maybe I will never know. Maybe it's just a question that will stay in the back of my mind. I hope so.
I was thinking about my older son the other day. A few years ago, he was very lonely and wanted a girlfriend. He got involved with a girl named Annie. Annie is very manipulative and knows how to "play" people. She was very controlling to my son, making very clear her agenda to separate him from his friends, his family, and anything he loved. My son went along with this, doing things like giving up theatre or pretending to like the "Twilight" series because she insisted he do so. But one day it just went too far. He came home and told me they had broken up. It was like an on/off switch had been flicked, and he had no more feelings for Annie. She was hurting and I wanted him to talk to her, make her understand what had happened . . . he refused. It was over. She was gone from his life.
At first, I thought he was being quite heartless. I later speculated: given my crappy record with breakups, perhaps I'm not one to talk. Perhaps my son was doing this correctly?
The other day, I found myself thinking about what my son has seen in relationships. He has watched me in two bad relationships, first Joni and then Leah. He watched me being patient, giving second and third and fourth chances, and hoping that something would change. He watched how I kept getting disappointed and hurt, and he watched how ironically the woman wound up leaving me. What kind of lesson was I teaching him? At least he learned that this was not the way he should proceed! At least, he learned that in the end.
That's the tough part for me. Have I even taught myself my own lessons? Last year, Leah's parents threatened me. I watched Leah that day run outside and put on a pouty face, even though she claimed she didn't know what had happened. I believed her. She demanded that I not talk about it. I didn't follow that, but I understood. She said she didn't believe me, that "other sources" (which turned out to be her mother) claimed a very different story. Here, I told her it was over between us, but I didn't follow through. When she came back the next day and said she realized I was telling the truth, I accepted her back into my life with open arms. Was she really acting like someone that had a change of heart? She stopped talking to her mother, but there were other reasons for that . . . her father was a part of this incident, and she was exchanging cat pictures with him. Again, I understood. When it became clear that she had done absolutely nothing, I understood and I made excuses for her. What did she have to do to make me see?
The answer was that she had to take her parents' side, deny their racism and make up an incident between her and me to justify their behavior. And she had to leave. In her absence, I finally connected the dots. I realized that she had a habit of pissing me off, saying whatever it took to calm me, and NOT fixing anything. I realized that she, very likely, knew her parents' plan to threaten me, and did nothing about it. This all came to me when she was gone. Gee, that was useful.
Is there another Leah out there in my future? I can sit here and say that I am with Jen now, so the answer is "no". Right now, Jen seems a good person that cares about me. If I am right about her, maybe I will never know. Maybe it's just a question that will stay in the back of my mind. I hope so.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
What was wrong with "42nd Street"?
I was chatting with a work-friend recently. He noticed that I wore a lot of t-shirts for musicals. Mainly, these are for shows either I have been in or I have been connected to. He mentioned that "42nd Street" was one of the few musicals he liked. I tried to hold off on going in to my "42nd Street" rant.
True, I was in "42nd Street", and I felt that the performance was lacking in many ways. I felt that we bit off a bit too much. One of the strengths of this theatre group is that it has several directors working together, but this time three of the four directors were in the show. Further, there was a huge emphasis on teaching the cast tap dance for the large musical numbers. Something had to "give" and something did: the acting. I noticed that I received a grand total of two "notes" for the entire production ("could he be a little more Texan?" and "Don't cross in front of those people, cross behind them"). I decided that at a crucial scene for my character, rather than play it over-the-top for laughs, I was going to play it straight. My character was going to have a broken heart. NO ONE plays this scene this way. And . . . none of the directors had any notes about that? Most of the cast did a fine job with the acting, but some people were positively dreadful.
I am hoping this theatre group knows that this was too much, that the directing staff needs to stick with directing.
But that is neither here nor there. One big problem was the source material.
When I first read the script for "42nd Street", I thought "um . . . okay." The play didn't quite work for me. Later, I realized what was going on. I noticed that songs like "Lullaby of Broadway" and "We're In The Money" weren't in the movie "42nd Street". The play was written in the 80's, but I knew those songs were much older than that. I looked for the source of the songs and I discovered they were in other musicals made by the director of the "42nd Street" movie, Busby Berkeley. Okay, it made sense now! The play "42nd Street" was actually a tribute to the works of Busby Berkeley! And the "play" part was just a few scenes thrown in to stitch it all together.
And that, of course, is a problem for me. One of my sayings, to which no one seems to agree, is that there are these wonderful things called "concerts". If your emphasis is going to be on singing and dancing, throw a concert. A play is about drama, a play is about acting. A friend once told me that Gilbert, from Gilbert & Sullivan, used to say that he wanted "actors that sing", not "singers that act". If "42nd Street" was just going to be a pageant of big Berkeley-esque musical numbers, more power to them. But, they tried to put a play in there, and the play was . . . dreadful!
Now, I'm not going to criticize the fact that 90% of the cast are only there for musical numbers. I must confess that I did the same thing in my musical, "Vampe", although I think I did a better job. Unfortunately, this is true of one of the leads, Billy Lawler. What can we say about Billy? He is full of himself, a little over-dramatic, and has fallen for Peggy. And that amounts to maybe 10 minutes of stage time. He's there to do the big "We're In The Money" dance! "Anytime Annie", even with an actress that didn't slur her lines . . . was there to say two lines and take part in some musical numbers. Burt? Maggie? All were just a bunch of blank characters, with about as much personality as "Man With Clipboard".
And what about Peggy? She's a great dancer, she's pretty, and she's dumb. And that's about it. She's thrust into stardom (note that she is thrust into it: from the moment she shows up, she doesn't actually do anything to become a star, it all just sort of happens), and in the end she's a great dancer, she's pretty, and she's dumb. True, part of the theme is that stardom doesn't change her . . . but would it be a crime if her character could grow just a little bit?
Julian, the director, gets some great speech, but is literally "nothing" as a character. Nothing. The sad thing is that the movie really gave us some source material, that was forgotten in the play. In the movie, Julian was very ill, and there were hints that he was dying. Also, there was a hint in the movie that Julian was gay. All of these were stripped out of the play for some reason (it would have added maybe 5 minutes to the play if they were kept in), and with that it turned Julian into a barking piece of cardboard.
My character, Abner, was only a little more interesting. There is supposed to be a love triangle. Abner is daffily unaware that his love, Dorothy, is seeing Pat behind his back. Dorothy is just using Abner . . . doesn't this bother anyone? For a nice change of pace, Pat isn't there to take part in a bunch of musical numbers. He's . . . just . . . there. At least the movie hinted that he was also falling for Peggy.
Dorothy was the most interesting character. She goes through most of the play as a bitch, using her rich boyfriend to fund a play to make her a star again. She's apparently not very good, though. She gets injured, thus ending her performing career, and has a change of heart. She marries Pat and becomes nice. This transformation, the most interesting part of the story . . . is not onstage! We're too busy watching Peggy rehearse for the final show.
My big scene, as Abner, is when he tells off Dorothy. She splashes wine on his face and storms off to call Pat. This is meant to be played for laughs. Abner declares that Dorothy is out of the play. Everyone protests, and Julian sends to dancers to flirt with Abner to convince him to not pull the plug. Finally, Maggie flashes her shoulder at Abner. Despite Dorothy's behavior, the show goes on with her as the lead. But, she winds up slipping and injuring herself (and blaming Peggy), thus having her removed from the show twice. This was not a well-structured plot point! In particular, I found Julian and Maggie's actions despicable. Abner is just realizing that he was being used by Dorothy, so their solution is to . . . use him a little more? I decided to play this moment "straight". Abner has been suspicious of Dorothy all through the play, and now he's had enough. She is drunk and rude to him, and he yells at her. When she storms off, he stands there heartbroken. The rest of the cast picked up on this, and instead of dancing girls and Maggie seducing Abner, we played things differently. Abner couldn't bring himself to end the show and put everyone out of work. And Maggie wasn't trying to seduce him, she was just being a friend. Of course, this huge change in the scene was completely forgotten: it was followed by several amazing dance sequences, so no one remembered my performance. Oh well.
I think "42nd Street" reflects something I dislike in so many musicals. It was nothing more than a pageant, a concert. It was a dreadful play, but no one seemed to mind because of the great musical numbers. I keep reminding myself that, like 99% of the musicals out there, this will be forgotten a century from now. And our performance of it is probably still forgotten.
True, I was in "42nd Street", and I felt that the performance was lacking in many ways. I felt that we bit off a bit too much. One of the strengths of this theatre group is that it has several directors working together, but this time three of the four directors were in the show. Further, there was a huge emphasis on teaching the cast tap dance for the large musical numbers. Something had to "give" and something did: the acting. I noticed that I received a grand total of two "notes" for the entire production ("could he be a little more Texan?" and "Don't cross in front of those people, cross behind them"). I decided that at a crucial scene for my character, rather than play it over-the-top for laughs, I was going to play it straight. My character was going to have a broken heart. NO ONE plays this scene this way. And . . . none of the directors had any notes about that? Most of the cast did a fine job with the acting, but some people were positively dreadful.
I am hoping this theatre group knows that this was too much, that the directing staff needs to stick with directing.
But that is neither here nor there. One big problem was the source material.
When I first read the script for "42nd Street", I thought "um . . . okay." The play didn't quite work for me. Later, I realized what was going on. I noticed that songs like "Lullaby of Broadway" and "We're In The Money" weren't in the movie "42nd Street". The play was written in the 80's, but I knew those songs were much older than that. I looked for the source of the songs and I discovered they were in other musicals made by the director of the "42nd Street" movie, Busby Berkeley. Okay, it made sense now! The play "42nd Street" was actually a tribute to the works of Busby Berkeley! And the "play" part was just a few scenes thrown in to stitch it all together.
And that, of course, is a problem for me. One of my sayings, to which no one seems to agree, is that there are these wonderful things called "concerts". If your emphasis is going to be on singing and dancing, throw a concert. A play is about drama, a play is about acting. A friend once told me that Gilbert, from Gilbert & Sullivan, used to say that he wanted "actors that sing", not "singers that act". If "42nd Street" was just going to be a pageant of big Berkeley-esque musical numbers, more power to them. But, they tried to put a play in there, and the play was . . . dreadful!
Now, I'm not going to criticize the fact that 90% of the cast are only there for musical numbers. I must confess that I did the same thing in my musical, "Vampe", although I think I did a better job. Unfortunately, this is true of one of the leads, Billy Lawler. What can we say about Billy? He is full of himself, a little over-dramatic, and has fallen for Peggy. And that amounts to maybe 10 minutes of stage time. He's there to do the big "We're In The Money" dance! "Anytime Annie", even with an actress that didn't slur her lines . . . was there to say two lines and take part in some musical numbers. Burt? Maggie? All were just a bunch of blank characters, with about as much personality as "Man With Clipboard".
And what about Peggy? She's a great dancer, she's pretty, and she's dumb. And that's about it. She's thrust into stardom (note that she is thrust into it: from the moment she shows up, she doesn't actually do anything to become a star, it all just sort of happens), and in the end she's a great dancer, she's pretty, and she's dumb. True, part of the theme is that stardom doesn't change her . . . but would it be a crime if her character could grow just a little bit?
Julian, the director, gets some great speech, but is literally "nothing" as a character. Nothing. The sad thing is that the movie really gave us some source material, that was forgotten in the play. In the movie, Julian was very ill, and there were hints that he was dying. Also, there was a hint in the movie that Julian was gay. All of these were stripped out of the play for some reason (it would have added maybe 5 minutes to the play if they were kept in), and with that it turned Julian into a barking piece of cardboard.
My character, Abner, was only a little more interesting. There is supposed to be a love triangle. Abner is daffily unaware that his love, Dorothy, is seeing Pat behind his back. Dorothy is just using Abner . . . doesn't this bother anyone? For a nice change of pace, Pat isn't there to take part in a bunch of musical numbers. He's . . . just . . . there. At least the movie hinted that he was also falling for Peggy.
Dorothy was the most interesting character. She goes through most of the play as a bitch, using her rich boyfriend to fund a play to make her a star again. She's apparently not very good, though. She gets injured, thus ending her performing career, and has a change of heart. She marries Pat and becomes nice. This transformation, the most interesting part of the story . . . is not onstage! We're too busy watching Peggy rehearse for the final show.
My big scene, as Abner, is when he tells off Dorothy. She splashes wine on his face and storms off to call Pat. This is meant to be played for laughs. Abner declares that Dorothy is out of the play. Everyone protests, and Julian sends to dancers to flirt with Abner to convince him to not pull the plug. Finally, Maggie flashes her shoulder at Abner. Despite Dorothy's behavior, the show goes on with her as the lead. But, she winds up slipping and injuring herself (and blaming Peggy), thus having her removed from the show twice. This was not a well-structured plot point! In particular, I found Julian and Maggie's actions despicable. Abner is just realizing that he was being used by Dorothy, so their solution is to . . . use him a little more? I decided to play this moment "straight". Abner has been suspicious of Dorothy all through the play, and now he's had enough. She is drunk and rude to him, and he yells at her. When she storms off, he stands there heartbroken. The rest of the cast picked up on this, and instead of dancing girls and Maggie seducing Abner, we played things differently. Abner couldn't bring himself to end the show and put everyone out of work. And Maggie wasn't trying to seduce him, she was just being a friend. Of course, this huge change in the scene was completely forgotten: it was followed by several amazing dance sequences, so no one remembered my performance. Oh well.
I think "42nd Street" reflects something I dislike in so many musicals. It was nothing more than a pageant, a concert. It was a dreadful play, but no one seemed to mind because of the great musical numbers. I keep reminding myself that, like 99% of the musicals out there, this will be forgotten a century from now. And our performance of it is probably still forgotten.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Writing For Myself?
I find myself wondering about next year's New Years resolution. Last year's big event was my breakup with Leah. That came at the tail end of a very difficult year, where we almost broke up several times. Naturally, this led to this year's resolution: to never again be in a relationship where I questioned if I valued the relationship more than the other . . . and to go through the whole year without moving a girlfriend in with me. With Jen, it appears that I have managed both.
Last year and this year, theatre has really occupied my times. Where last year I was still hopeful, this year that is all gone. I am sick and tired of bit parts, sick of roles that don't challenge me and that I essentially "phone in", and sick and tired of the color of my skin disqualifying me from part after part. It's natural that next year, my resolution should relate to this.
One resolution could be that I will no longer take bit parts. For original works, this would be difficult to manage: I don't know the size of the part until I see the script, and that typically is at the first rehearsal. I would become that person that comes to the first rehearsal, sees the size of my part, and says "no, sorry, I'm too good for that part." It also means potentially that I give up acting completely: if no one will give me any more than a bit part, that means I'm done with acting.
The thing is that I don't have a problem with bit parts. The problem I have is when that is the only thing I get, when I see that I am much better than people that have the better parts, and when that bit part still requires a ton of preparation. All three were true with my two big plays in the spring, "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" and "42nd Street". Of the two, I think "42nd Street" was the worst. My part was so insignificant that I received no direction, and I wound up spending a substantial amount of money on my own costume when I realized, a week before opening, that no one had bothered getting my costume.
I think a better resolution is the positive form: next year, I will have at least one performance that challenges me and that I can be proud of. The problem here is that my resolution is essentially taking this out of my hands. I don't decide what parts I get. If audition committees can't look past my brown skin, I won't get a part that will allow me to succeed in my resolution. It turns out that there are two solutions.
First, Hedgerow showcase classes. I pay $250 (which was much less than I spent on "42nd Street", between fees, fundraising, supplies, and costumes), and I get to do something challenging. This past Monday, for example, I performed a scene from Ibsen's "A Doll's House". It was a great scene and I really enjoyed it. Will I ever be able to play that part "for real"? Probably not. But the showcase class counts. After all, I performed it on Hedgerow's stage!
Second, there is the matter of my writing. I do not write a play for myself to perform. In "Leia", "Vampe", or even "Prisoner" (which two people in my class on Monday performed on Hedgerow's stage), I don't see myself in the play. It seems almost like cheating to write a play intending that I have the starring role. Besides, if I am in a play I have written, I would be driving myself nuts trying to rewrite it.
But, maybe I should start thinking in those terms. Next year, I am hoping "Leia" and "Vampe" will be performed. "Vampe" is a big musical and so far the songs seem very challenging, so maybe that isn't for me. But maybe I can play a part in "Leia". And maybe I should push myself to finish my modernization of "Tosca". If "Leia" and "Vampe" go somewhere, there might be interest in at least a staged reading of the "Tosca" play.
Maybe I should be thinking in these terms.
Last year and this year, theatre has really occupied my times. Where last year I was still hopeful, this year that is all gone. I am sick and tired of bit parts, sick of roles that don't challenge me and that I essentially "phone in", and sick and tired of the color of my skin disqualifying me from part after part. It's natural that next year, my resolution should relate to this.
One resolution could be that I will no longer take bit parts. For original works, this would be difficult to manage: I don't know the size of the part until I see the script, and that typically is at the first rehearsal. I would become that person that comes to the first rehearsal, sees the size of my part, and says "no, sorry, I'm too good for that part." It also means potentially that I give up acting completely: if no one will give me any more than a bit part, that means I'm done with acting.
The thing is that I don't have a problem with bit parts. The problem I have is when that is the only thing I get, when I see that I am much better than people that have the better parts, and when that bit part still requires a ton of preparation. All three were true with my two big plays in the spring, "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" and "42nd Street". Of the two, I think "42nd Street" was the worst. My part was so insignificant that I received no direction, and I wound up spending a substantial amount of money on my own costume when I realized, a week before opening, that no one had bothered getting my costume.
I think a better resolution is the positive form: next year, I will have at least one performance that challenges me and that I can be proud of. The problem here is that my resolution is essentially taking this out of my hands. I don't decide what parts I get. If audition committees can't look past my brown skin, I won't get a part that will allow me to succeed in my resolution. It turns out that there are two solutions.
First, Hedgerow showcase classes. I pay $250 (which was much less than I spent on "42nd Street", between fees, fundraising, supplies, and costumes), and I get to do something challenging. This past Monday, for example, I performed a scene from Ibsen's "A Doll's House". It was a great scene and I really enjoyed it. Will I ever be able to play that part "for real"? Probably not. But the showcase class counts. After all, I performed it on Hedgerow's stage!
Second, there is the matter of my writing. I do not write a play for myself to perform. In "Leia", "Vampe", or even "Prisoner" (which two people in my class on Monday performed on Hedgerow's stage), I don't see myself in the play. It seems almost like cheating to write a play intending that I have the starring role. Besides, if I am in a play I have written, I would be driving myself nuts trying to rewrite it.
But, maybe I should start thinking in those terms. Next year, I am hoping "Leia" and "Vampe" will be performed. "Vampe" is a big musical and so far the songs seem very challenging, so maybe that isn't for me. But maybe I can play a part in "Leia". And maybe I should push myself to finish my modernization of "Tosca". If "Leia" and "Vampe" go somewhere, there might be interest in at least a staged reading of the "Tosca" play.
Maybe I should be thinking in these terms.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Sometimes it's a little jealousy
Maybe a year ago, I went to an audition. At the audition, I ran in to a dear friend. I've known her for several years through a Gilbert & Sullivan group and I even had a chance to perform with her once for a Christmas play. I know she's really good, and she appears to think highly of my work.
Neither of us got parts. Later, I ran in to her and she was wondering who they had gotten for that show: the people that auditioned with us were, in her words, terrible. As it is, I knew two people that weren't at the auditions but were going to be in the show, and I knew they were both very good. After the auditions and after sending out the "we don't want you" e-mails, they went recruiting to fill out the cast.
I had auditioned for this group (the group holding the audition) once before and now they went to my "I'm not going to bother with them" list. Sure, I will audition with them . . . if they asked me, and if the audition was extremely convenient. They're not worth wasting my time. Meanwhile, what about my friend?
She got a great lead part in another play (with another group that, by the way, is on my "I'm not going to bother with them" list). Her career has exploded since then, rightfully so. Her performance was so good that it actually brought tears to my eyes. The group that turned us both down now has her in their next show: I wonder if they are thinking "maybe we should have given her a chance?" The other day, she was asked to audition for a professional theatre company. One big break was all she needed!
I'm really happy for her, she deserves this. I'm jealous, too. I love to act, I love the stage, but the most I get are bit parts and I'm not going to get anywhere doing bit parts. To be perfectly blunt, I don't really even know if I'm good. Maybe I might get known for my writing, but I'll never be known for my acting, and that's just reality.
In any case, I'm looking at my future. The theatre company that did "42nd Street" is going to do something called "Nutcracker Fusion", a dance show. I decided that I will not audition for it. This theatre company specializes in musicals and specializes in their young cast, so I'll never have more than a bit part in one of their shows. Today, there are auditions for a Christmas show at the theatre company that did "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" and that hopes to do my play, "Leia". I've had my fill of Christmas shows: I'll probably change my mind before tonight, but right this moment I think it would be for the best if I didn't audition for that. I've put my name in for a general audition in October. They will see where (and if) I am a fit, and if it is a part that doesn't challenge me, I will turn it down.
Meanwhile, on Monday, my acting classes start. They're a bit expensive, but I think I will go for it. I have a strange feeling, though. When I feel almost as though it's best to bite the bullet and walk away from acting altogether, why am I taking the class? It's no longer "take an acting class, build my skills, and get a great part." It's "take an acting class because this is the only place where I can perform a part with any substance."
Neither of us got parts. Later, I ran in to her and she was wondering who they had gotten for that show: the people that auditioned with us were, in her words, terrible. As it is, I knew two people that weren't at the auditions but were going to be in the show, and I knew they were both very good. After the auditions and after sending out the "we don't want you" e-mails, they went recruiting to fill out the cast.
I had auditioned for this group (the group holding the audition) once before and now they went to my "I'm not going to bother with them" list. Sure, I will audition with them . . . if they asked me, and if the audition was extremely convenient. They're not worth wasting my time. Meanwhile, what about my friend?
She got a great lead part in another play (with another group that, by the way, is on my "I'm not going to bother with them" list). Her career has exploded since then, rightfully so. Her performance was so good that it actually brought tears to my eyes. The group that turned us both down now has her in their next show: I wonder if they are thinking "maybe we should have given her a chance?" The other day, she was asked to audition for a professional theatre company. One big break was all she needed!
I'm really happy for her, she deserves this. I'm jealous, too. I love to act, I love the stage, but the most I get are bit parts and I'm not going to get anywhere doing bit parts. To be perfectly blunt, I don't really even know if I'm good. Maybe I might get known for my writing, but I'll never be known for my acting, and that's just reality.
In any case, I'm looking at my future. The theatre company that did "42nd Street" is going to do something called "Nutcracker Fusion", a dance show. I decided that I will not audition for it. This theatre company specializes in musicals and specializes in their young cast, so I'll never have more than a bit part in one of their shows. Today, there are auditions for a Christmas show at the theatre company that did "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" and that hopes to do my play, "Leia". I've had my fill of Christmas shows: I'll probably change my mind before tonight, but right this moment I think it would be for the best if I didn't audition for that. I've put my name in for a general audition in October. They will see where (and if) I am a fit, and if it is a part that doesn't challenge me, I will turn it down.
Meanwhile, on Monday, my acting classes start. They're a bit expensive, but I think I will go for it. I have a strange feeling, though. When I feel almost as though it's best to bite the bullet and walk away from acting altogether, why am I taking the class? It's no longer "take an acting class, build my skills, and get a great part." It's "take an acting class because this is the only place where I can perform a part with any substance."
Monday, August 29, 2011
Am I Ready To Audition Again?
A few weeks ago (or was it a month?) I went to the Colonial Playhouse and I auditioned for a play. They liked my audition, and after what I'm sure was a heart-wrenching three and a half hours, they sent me the "sorry" e-mail. Again, not only did I not get a part, I was on the first page of people getting turned down. The Colonial Playhouse joined the ranks of Marple Newtown Players, as theatre companies for which I won't go out of my way. The Players Club of Swarthmore is teetering on the edge of joining that list, but I must be fair to them. True, I had a very bad experience auditioning for them, but it was only one time. Maybe the director was a jerk.
On Friday, I auditioned for a short film. They said that I would hear back from them that evening, but I've heard nothing. Maybe I didn't get a part; maybe all the impending-hurricane warnings might have thrown off the schedule. This was just a lark on my end. I knew nothing about the film, and when I arrived for the audition I saw that the cast was almost entirely African American women!
Those -- the Colonial Playhouse play and the short film -- were the only times I auditioned this past summer. Consider that I'm not involved in any play right now, so my schedule is wide open and ready. Hedgerow hasn't made any audition announcements (last summer they had two auditions), and I'm not sure if I would be interested anyway: last year I committed something like ten or eleven weeks for a bit-part in "Murder on the Nile". I'm not interested in doing that again, for another bit-part. I have received audition announcements for other groups, but nothing has really grabbed me. Last year, if I was available, I auditioned for everything. This year, after subsequently getting rejected for everything, I'm a bit less enthusiastic.
Viviana has been my "old reliable". They would find a part for me, if I wanted it. Their next show is a ballet. Sure, they would find a part for me, but I'm really not interested. Viviana specializes in musicals, which by definition means I will never get a part of any substance. I also have a bad taste in my mouth from "42nd Street". It was one thing to have a bit part. It was quite another to have a bit part that, truly, no one cared about. I received almost no direction. Perhaps they trusted that I would do a good job; more likely, they were too busy with the musical numbers. No one even bothered putting together my costume, and a week before opening night I spent a ton of my own money buying my own costume. And, after each night of the show, I had the wonderful joy of coming out to the audience and knowing no one gave a damn about my performance. "42nd Street" is, after all, all about the musical numbers. The head of Viviana has been working with me on writing a play, and I think that's as far as I'm willing to go.
The biggie with Hedgerow has been the classes. This is where I get my chance to perform with parts of any substance. With "Laramie Project", I had some wonderful monologues and I was really able to stretch myself and challenge myself. This past spring, in the middle of a bit-part in "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" and a bit-part in "42nd Street", at a Hedgerow class I was able to perform a scene from "Angels in America" and a monologue by Harold Pinter. Still, there's something about taking these classes, putting out a lot of money to get a moment on the stage, knowing that nothing will come of this. I'll impress the people that come for the one-night free showcase, but that won't translate to me getting any parts. A Hedgerow class gave me the opportunity to perform in "Laramie Project", but I know that if some company was holding auditions for it right now they would not cast me.
In a few days, it will be a new month. I should see a bunch of audition announcements for the fall. Before deciding whether or not I'm ready to audition again, I must first see if there are any plays that interest me. THEN I can ask myself if I am ready.
On Friday, I auditioned for a short film. They said that I would hear back from them that evening, but I've heard nothing. Maybe I didn't get a part; maybe all the impending-hurricane warnings might have thrown off the schedule. This was just a lark on my end. I knew nothing about the film, and when I arrived for the audition I saw that the cast was almost entirely African American women!
Those -- the Colonial Playhouse play and the short film -- were the only times I auditioned this past summer. Consider that I'm not involved in any play right now, so my schedule is wide open and ready. Hedgerow hasn't made any audition announcements (last summer they had two auditions), and I'm not sure if I would be interested anyway: last year I committed something like ten or eleven weeks for a bit-part in "Murder on the Nile". I'm not interested in doing that again, for another bit-part. I have received audition announcements for other groups, but nothing has really grabbed me. Last year, if I was available, I auditioned for everything. This year, after subsequently getting rejected for everything, I'm a bit less enthusiastic.
Viviana has been my "old reliable". They would find a part for me, if I wanted it. Their next show is a ballet. Sure, they would find a part for me, but I'm really not interested. Viviana specializes in musicals, which by definition means I will never get a part of any substance. I also have a bad taste in my mouth from "42nd Street". It was one thing to have a bit part. It was quite another to have a bit part that, truly, no one cared about. I received almost no direction. Perhaps they trusted that I would do a good job; more likely, they were too busy with the musical numbers. No one even bothered putting together my costume, and a week before opening night I spent a ton of my own money buying my own costume. And, after each night of the show, I had the wonderful joy of coming out to the audience and knowing no one gave a damn about my performance. "42nd Street" is, after all, all about the musical numbers. The head of Viviana has been working with me on writing a play, and I think that's as far as I'm willing to go.
The biggie with Hedgerow has been the classes. This is where I get my chance to perform with parts of any substance. With "Laramie Project", I had some wonderful monologues and I was really able to stretch myself and challenge myself. This past spring, in the middle of a bit-part in "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" and a bit-part in "42nd Street", at a Hedgerow class I was able to perform a scene from "Angels in America" and a monologue by Harold Pinter. Still, there's something about taking these classes, putting out a lot of money to get a moment on the stage, knowing that nothing will come of this. I'll impress the people that come for the one-night free showcase, but that won't translate to me getting any parts. A Hedgerow class gave me the opportunity to perform in "Laramie Project", but I know that if some company was holding auditions for it right now they would not cast me.
In a few days, it will be a new month. I should see a bunch of audition announcements for the fall. Before deciding whether or not I'm ready to audition again, I must first see if there are any plays that interest me. THEN I can ask myself if I am ready.
Monday, August 22, 2011
7 Months With Jen!
I was thinking about the seven-month mark. With Joni, by seven months what did we have? She had already moved in with me, I had already discovered that her older son was not what she had claimed, and we had uncovered that everything she had told me had been a lie. With Leah, by seven months we already had an "episode" (I'm not sure what to call it) where she was convinced she had been possessed by an ex-boyfriend. In both cases, their agenda was very clear by this point. Joni's agenda was to convince me to let her and her family move in, and she had succeeded. With Leah, her agenda was to convince me to let her move in, and while she hadn't moved in yet we were already making plans for that.
Jen has joked about me moving up to New York, but so far I'm not seeing any sign of an agenda from her.
Part of the reason things have gone so well with Jen is that there is very little pressure in our relationship: I'm not here to save her from anything. Most of the time, our relationship is on weekends, and that has been fine for us. This allowed us to maintain the fact that our lives are separate. The distance means that we don't go to the movies together all that often, and that also means that we don't need to be interested in the same sorts of movies. She doesn't like all of my friends and I don't like all of her friends, but we don't need to. This summer, she has spent a great deal of time with me, essentially "moving in", but this has just been for the summer. This has led to us ponder living together. That would intertwine our lives far more, and that introduces a ton of bridges that we would have to cross when the time comes.
Consider this past weekend. I headed up on Friday to New York City. Jen picked me up, and from that point on I didn't have to do anything but enjoy myself. Two of her friends had birthday parties that weekend. We went to one on Friday Night. On Saturday, we headed up to Woodstock, and then went to another of her friend's parties. I had to arrange to get myself up to New York City, and beyond that . . . nothing. After Leah, I find myself wondering if there was something important I was supposed to be doing. I found myself wondering why I wasn't feeling stressed. If I wasn't stressed . . . was I doing something wrong?
Jen initially didn't want anything to do with my kids, and seven months later she is actually quite nuts about them. She is especially close to Jay. For Joni, getting close to my kids was part of her agenda: she was trying to arrange things so that I felt like I needed her. Leah, on the other hand, pretended to love my kids just until she felt she could count on being able to move in with me. Once she had what she wanted, she didn't need to pretend to like them. The kids also love Jen. They loved Joni, but saw that Joni made tons of promises and never followed through with anything. They gave Leah a chance, but seriously did not like her. As for Jen? Jen welcomed them to stay at her apartment (Jay was going on about that for quite a while). Jen took them to Broadway. And they find that they really enjoy spending time with her.
We did have one issue early on. Jen does not share, and that led to some issues early on. Five years ago, this would have been a show-stopper, as I insisted on open relationships. Now, I'm at a place where that wasn't working for me and I didn't find myself wanting it. I decided to give "monogamy" a try, and with Jen I'm actually enjoying myself. This might be a sign that I'm getting old, but I don't mind that.
So, seven months and no red flags. We're happy and we're enjoying time with each other. And we can see eight and nine and ten months ahead of us! And we are pondering plans for next summer, thinking we will still be together. I'm not going to jinx things by saying "maybe my time has finally come", but maybe it has.
Jen has joked about me moving up to New York, but so far I'm not seeing any sign of an agenda from her.
Part of the reason things have gone so well with Jen is that there is very little pressure in our relationship: I'm not here to save her from anything. Most of the time, our relationship is on weekends, and that has been fine for us. This allowed us to maintain the fact that our lives are separate. The distance means that we don't go to the movies together all that often, and that also means that we don't need to be interested in the same sorts of movies. She doesn't like all of my friends and I don't like all of her friends, but we don't need to. This summer, she has spent a great deal of time with me, essentially "moving in", but this has just been for the summer. This has led to us ponder living together. That would intertwine our lives far more, and that introduces a ton of bridges that we would have to cross when the time comes.
Consider this past weekend. I headed up on Friday to New York City. Jen picked me up, and from that point on I didn't have to do anything but enjoy myself. Two of her friends had birthday parties that weekend. We went to one on Friday Night. On Saturday, we headed up to Woodstock, and then went to another of her friend's parties. I had to arrange to get myself up to New York City, and beyond that . . . nothing. After Leah, I find myself wondering if there was something important I was supposed to be doing. I found myself wondering why I wasn't feeling stressed. If I wasn't stressed . . . was I doing something wrong?
Jen initially didn't want anything to do with my kids, and seven months later she is actually quite nuts about them. She is especially close to Jay. For Joni, getting close to my kids was part of her agenda: she was trying to arrange things so that I felt like I needed her. Leah, on the other hand, pretended to love my kids just until she felt she could count on being able to move in with me. Once she had what she wanted, she didn't need to pretend to like them. The kids also love Jen. They loved Joni, but saw that Joni made tons of promises and never followed through with anything. They gave Leah a chance, but seriously did not like her. As for Jen? Jen welcomed them to stay at her apartment (Jay was going on about that for quite a while). Jen took them to Broadway. And they find that they really enjoy spending time with her.
We did have one issue early on. Jen does not share, and that led to some issues early on. Five years ago, this would have been a show-stopper, as I insisted on open relationships. Now, I'm at a place where that wasn't working for me and I didn't find myself wanting it. I decided to give "monogamy" a try, and with Jen I'm actually enjoying myself. This might be a sign that I'm getting old, but I don't mind that.
So, seven months and no red flags. We're happy and we're enjoying time with each other. And we can see eight and nine and ten months ahead of us! And we are pondering plans for next summer, thinking we will still be together. I'm not going to jinx things by saying "maybe my time has finally come", but maybe it has.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Am I Done With Acting?
A few months ago, I went on an audition, and as usual I didn't get a part. This led me to some soul searching. In 2010, what did I see? I was in two Hedgerow class showcases, so there was no audition. I was in "Godspell", but that was with a group that finds everyone a part, so that didn't count. I was in "A Man For All Seasons", but I auditioned for that in 2008. I was asked to audition for "Murder on the Nile", but it was pretty much pre-determined that they wanted me. I don't recall auditioning for "Tiny Tim's Christmas" at all. I had one and only one successful audition that year, and that resulted in a bit-part in "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park". I auditioned a LOT last year, and that was my one and only success. That was only audition where it wasn't a given that I would get the part.
In 2011, I had one more Hedgerow class showcase and I was in two more plays. One was "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park", and the other was "42nd Street". With "42nd Street", again it was pre-determined. I was also in a student film, which had no audition. Oh, and I was asked to be in "Henry V" . . . after I had initially been turned down for a part.
I went to two auditions in the winter and spring. One was for "Streetcar Named Desire", and I didn't get a part. My heart really wasn't in it, though: I was in the middle of tap dance classes to prepare for "42nd Street", and I liked the idea of performing with my friends and my boys. I think the director was considering me for a smaller part, and that didn't interest me at all. I wasn't offered a part, but I felt better when I saw their final cast: this was an amazing show, and the person that got the part I wanted was a much better fit for the part.
The second audition was for "Angels in America". The audition committee went "wow" at my monologue, but I didn't get a part. At that point, I decided it was time to take a break. The world of acting just didn't want me, and I was tired of banging my head against a wall.
I was very cranky during "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park", and I was glad when it was over. Then, I felt, I could concentrate on "42nd Street". Unfortunately, all the focus was put on the musical numbers and the dances, and I realized that my character was basically being ignored. After all of that, I was happy with my performance (since no one was directing me, I did the part the way I wanted), but literally not one single person (other than Jen) seemed to notice. When we went out at the end of the show to mingle with the audience, I gave a mandatory minute-and-a-half, which was enough time to notice that not one single person in the audience cared about my performance. I was glad and relieved when it was over. I realized that I was in ten performances in less than a year, so perhaps that was why I was so cranky.
Last night, I decided to try auditioning again. Three and a half hours later, I received a rejection e-mail. And I find myself wondering: why am I even trying? Three and a half hours means I was literally on the first page of rejections, even though the director said that she "liked" my reading. That's a little detail: I never get called for a callback. I am consistently on that first page of rejections. People don't need time to think when they say "no" to me.
Here's the part that bothers me most, though. Jen has a friend that thinks of himself as quite a singer. He auditions and is rejected, but he keeps on going. He posts videos of himself performing and he even has a newsletter. It doesn't dawn on him that he is terrible! This leads me to a question: am I actually any good? Biased people like Jen say that I am. Tom, who has taught two of my acting classes at Hedgerow, says that I am, but I paid $250 a shot for his classes. I hear from all of these sources that I am good, and yet I keep getting turned down from audition to audition. Maybe it's race, but even if it is my brown skin . . . I'm not so good that people are willing to look past the brown skin. If it's my brown skin that prevents me from getting roles, I would like it to be a difficult decision to say "no", and that doesn't appear to be the case.
Maybe it's time to quit.
This year, I co-wrote "Vampe", and my writing has drawn considerable praise. I also wrote "Leia", a play that has the interest of a director and will likely be staged soon. That means that I am officially having more luck as a writer than as an actor. Maybe that is where my future lies.
In 2011, I had one more Hedgerow class showcase and I was in two more plays. One was "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park", and the other was "42nd Street". With "42nd Street", again it was pre-determined. I was also in a student film, which had no audition. Oh, and I was asked to be in "Henry V" . . . after I had initially been turned down for a part.
I went to two auditions in the winter and spring. One was for "Streetcar Named Desire", and I didn't get a part. My heart really wasn't in it, though: I was in the middle of tap dance classes to prepare for "42nd Street", and I liked the idea of performing with my friends and my boys. I think the director was considering me for a smaller part, and that didn't interest me at all. I wasn't offered a part, but I felt better when I saw their final cast: this was an amazing show, and the person that got the part I wanted was a much better fit for the part.
The second audition was for "Angels in America". The audition committee went "wow" at my monologue, but I didn't get a part. At that point, I decided it was time to take a break. The world of acting just didn't want me, and I was tired of banging my head against a wall.
I was very cranky during "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park", and I was glad when it was over. Then, I felt, I could concentrate on "42nd Street". Unfortunately, all the focus was put on the musical numbers and the dances, and I realized that my character was basically being ignored. After all of that, I was happy with my performance (since no one was directing me, I did the part the way I wanted), but literally not one single person (other than Jen) seemed to notice. When we went out at the end of the show to mingle with the audience, I gave a mandatory minute-and-a-half, which was enough time to notice that not one single person in the audience cared about my performance. I was glad and relieved when it was over. I realized that I was in ten performances in less than a year, so perhaps that was why I was so cranky.
Last night, I decided to try auditioning again. Three and a half hours later, I received a rejection e-mail. And I find myself wondering: why am I even trying? Three and a half hours means I was literally on the first page of rejections, even though the director said that she "liked" my reading. That's a little detail: I never get called for a callback. I am consistently on that first page of rejections. People don't need time to think when they say "no" to me.
Here's the part that bothers me most, though. Jen has a friend that thinks of himself as quite a singer. He auditions and is rejected, but he keeps on going. He posts videos of himself performing and he even has a newsletter. It doesn't dawn on him that he is terrible! This leads me to a question: am I actually any good? Biased people like Jen say that I am. Tom, who has taught two of my acting classes at Hedgerow, says that I am, but I paid $250 a shot for his classes. I hear from all of these sources that I am good, and yet I keep getting turned down from audition to audition. Maybe it's race, but even if it is my brown skin . . . I'm not so good that people are willing to look past the brown skin. If it's my brown skin that prevents me from getting roles, I would like it to be a difficult decision to say "no", and that doesn't appear to be the case.
Maybe it's time to quit.
This year, I co-wrote "Vampe", and my writing has drawn considerable praise. I also wrote "Leia", a play that has the interest of a director and will likely be staged soon. That means that I am officially having more luck as a writer than as an actor. Maybe that is where my future lies.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Thinking About My Next Year
Two years ago was interesting. I had a difficult summer. That fall and winter, while struggling with finances, my older son's lack of interest and motivation with college applications, and a particularly bad winter, I performed in a Christmas play. With the new year, I thought about how much I enjoyed acting . . . maybe that next year, I should be in more plays?
The next year, I was literally a theatre whore. I went to just about every audition and I took just about any part. My reasoning was that I wanted to make sure my name was known, that theatre groups knew I was available. In less than a year, I was in ten performances. Four of these were one-day performances, one of them was a movie shoot that took place in one day, and five were performances that ranged from one weekend to seven weeks. This was a lot. It meant I had a great many frustrations, but I also had some great experiences as well.
So, what about this year? This springtime, I was incredibly frustrated about theatre. I was routinely turned down for parts, and it hit the point where I was going in to auditions knowing I would not get a part. I looked back at my favorite plays and I saw that there were no parts for me. I knew I was good, yet I found that the only substantive parts I would get were from acting classes. I had been in two major plays, and I hated both of them. Then, I realized something: I had been in ten performances in less than a year . . . I seriously needed to take a break! No wonder I was so crabby and frustrated!
Right now, I really miss the stage, but I haven't wanted to go back to the auditioning process. I will start auditioning again after Pennsic, but this time I will be a bit more selective of plays. I already know that my two major theatre companies have nothing to offer me in terms of performances. One will be doing a version of "Nutcracker", which will mix ballet with modern dances: not for me. After that, they will be doing "Cats": again, not for me. The other specializes in Gilbert & Sullivan, and I'm just not interested. But, it looks like I will be quite busy!
One director with whom I have worked wants to put on my play "Leia". She is toying with the idea of February. I won't actually be in the play, but I have a feeling I will be pretty active with script modifications as they find things. I am hoping that next year at this time, "Vampe" will be in full swing. This past weekend, I was able to hear some more of the music for "Vampe", and even watched as my collaborator composed music for songs I had written . . . this is going to be a fantastic play! I have a feeling, though, that between now and then, we will need to take the painful step of cutting things from the play!
These two things, if they work out, will be a big priority for me this next year. But what about acting? Like I said, I will be auditioning again soon enough. I saw two acting classes that interest me, so that should keep me occupied in the fall. I am also hoping that my idea of a "Staged Readings Workshop" will happen . . . it it goes like I hope, I might finally be able to perform in "Angels in America"! One thing I must watch for, however, is a long run, like I had last fall. "Murder on the Nile" ran for seven weeks . . . for seven weeks, my weekends were taken. Sorry, with Jen in my life, I can't and I won't do that!
The next year, I was literally a theatre whore. I went to just about every audition and I took just about any part. My reasoning was that I wanted to make sure my name was known, that theatre groups knew I was available. In less than a year, I was in ten performances. Four of these were one-day performances, one of them was a movie shoot that took place in one day, and five were performances that ranged from one weekend to seven weeks. This was a lot. It meant I had a great many frustrations, but I also had some great experiences as well.
So, what about this year? This springtime, I was incredibly frustrated about theatre. I was routinely turned down for parts, and it hit the point where I was going in to auditions knowing I would not get a part. I looked back at my favorite plays and I saw that there were no parts for me. I knew I was good, yet I found that the only substantive parts I would get were from acting classes. I had been in two major plays, and I hated both of them. Then, I realized something: I had been in ten performances in less than a year . . . I seriously needed to take a break! No wonder I was so crabby and frustrated!
Right now, I really miss the stage, but I haven't wanted to go back to the auditioning process. I will start auditioning again after Pennsic, but this time I will be a bit more selective of plays. I already know that my two major theatre companies have nothing to offer me in terms of performances. One will be doing a version of "Nutcracker", which will mix ballet with modern dances: not for me. After that, they will be doing "Cats": again, not for me. The other specializes in Gilbert & Sullivan, and I'm just not interested. But, it looks like I will be quite busy!
One director with whom I have worked wants to put on my play "Leia". She is toying with the idea of February. I won't actually be in the play, but I have a feeling I will be pretty active with script modifications as they find things. I am hoping that next year at this time, "Vampe" will be in full swing. This past weekend, I was able to hear some more of the music for "Vampe", and even watched as my collaborator composed music for songs I had written . . . this is going to be a fantastic play! I have a feeling, though, that between now and then, we will need to take the painful step of cutting things from the play!
These two things, if they work out, will be a big priority for me this next year. But what about acting? Like I said, I will be auditioning again soon enough. I saw two acting classes that interest me, so that should keep me occupied in the fall. I am also hoping that my idea of a "Staged Readings Workshop" will happen . . . it it goes like I hope, I might finally be able to perform in "Angels in America"! One thing I must watch for, however, is a long run, like I had last fall. "Murder on the Nile" ran for seven weeks . . . for seven weeks, my weekends were taken. Sorry, with Jen in my life, I can't and I won't do that!
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Where am I now?
There are several threads going on in my life.
I am frustrated at my older son regarding the rather relaxed attitude he has over financial aid for his next school year, and with getting a job. I think he's seeing that I'm annoyed and is picking up the slack, but it might be too little too late.
For the past few months, I've been enjoying having some savings and being able to pay all of my bills on-time without a fuss, and I'd like to be able to continue doing that. But, if he doesn't start contributing to his college (he's 19, so this is not unreasonable), that will come to a grinding halt. I am left with doing like last year -- struggling to pay everything myself -- or telling him that, because he didn't do anything to help, he's skipping a semester. The latter is the "tough love" approach, but I know him well enough to know that it WILL backfire.
I haven't gone to any theatre auditions since January. I decided I would take a break, and I've stuck with that. I have some other threads at work, however. I am trying to form a "Staged Reading" group, an "Acting Workshop" so to speak. If Viviana agrees to put me under their banner (so that I can use their liability insurance to rent a venue), this will become a reality. I'm thinking that the first "staged reading" will be my play, "Leia". That way, we can try this out (measure interest, evaluate the venue, etc.), without paying the expense of royalty fees.
Jen and I are having fun together. She is spending this week with me, and I'm hoping that spending so much "familiar time" with me won't drive her nuts. We're still very much in the "we get together and do something special and big" mode, so this is almost another stage (where we don't necessarily have anything interesting planned).
I am frustrated at my older son regarding the rather relaxed attitude he has over financial aid for his next school year, and with getting a job. I think he's seeing that I'm annoyed and is picking up the slack, but it might be too little too late.
For the past few months, I've been enjoying having some savings and being able to pay all of my bills on-time without a fuss, and I'd like to be able to continue doing that. But, if he doesn't start contributing to his college (he's 19, so this is not unreasonable), that will come to a grinding halt. I am left with doing like last year -- struggling to pay everything myself -- or telling him that, because he didn't do anything to help, he's skipping a semester. The latter is the "tough love" approach, but I know him well enough to know that it WILL backfire.
I haven't gone to any theatre auditions since January. I decided I would take a break, and I've stuck with that. I have some other threads at work, however. I am trying to form a "Staged Reading" group, an "Acting Workshop" so to speak. If Viviana agrees to put me under their banner (so that I can use their liability insurance to rent a venue), this will become a reality. I'm thinking that the first "staged reading" will be my play, "Leia". That way, we can try this out (measure interest, evaluate the venue, etc.), without paying the expense of royalty fees.
Jen and I are having fun together. She is spending this week with me, and I'm hoping that spending so much "familiar time" with me won't drive her nuts. We're still very much in the "we get together and do something special and big" mode, so this is almost another stage (where we don't necessarily have anything interesting planned).
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Singing again.
Back in January, my younger son and I had a voice lesson. I proudly managed matching four notes. Unfortunately, acting took away time, and we haven't been able to get back to voice lessons. I look at singing in much the same way other people look at many of the things I can do so effortlessly. I feel like there is some sort of barrier that is surrounding me in every direction. I can't escape it and I can't ignore it, because it is everywhere. And the problem is that I can't get past it. I'm on "this side" of the barrier, this thing called "music" is on the other side of the barrier. And everyone else is on that side of the barrier. It seems so easy to all of them. There is something crucial that eludes me, that everyone else in the entire world seems to "get".
This is the problem with being "gifted", and something I see with my own kids. When so many things come easy to me, the things that don't become ten times more difficult and ten times more intimidating.
I had a father that declared that 8th grade chorus was a waste of time. I have an ex-wife that would go "OH PLEASE" any time I tried to sing anything. I had everyone laughing when my older son, just a toddler, would loudly shriek any time I tried to sing anything. I had L, an ever loving girlfriend, declaring with all authority in her voice, that I was tone deaf and would never, ever be able to sing. Put it all together and I'm backwards with auditions. Everyone gets stressed about monologues, except me. Monologue? No problem. Song? Now I'm stressed.
A great deal of theatre is musicals. I don't like musicals, but I can't avoid them. When I get a part in a musical, I get to be a "bit part", because leads have to sing. I get to watch the leads and think "I can act circles around this guy . . . but I'm person-six-row-three because I can't sing."
Jen will help me until I can get back to voice lessons. I don't plan on being "good" at this, just "good enough" for an occasional musical. Actually, just "good enough" that I can get through an audition without being stressed.
This is the problem with being "gifted", and something I see with my own kids. When so many things come easy to me, the things that don't become ten times more difficult and ten times more intimidating.
I had a father that declared that 8th grade chorus was a waste of time. I have an ex-wife that would go "OH PLEASE" any time I tried to sing anything. I had everyone laughing when my older son, just a toddler, would loudly shriek any time I tried to sing anything. I had L, an ever loving girlfriend, declaring with all authority in her voice, that I was tone deaf and would never, ever be able to sing. Put it all together and I'm backwards with auditions. Everyone gets stressed about monologues, except me. Monologue? No problem. Song? Now I'm stressed.
A great deal of theatre is musicals. I don't like musicals, but I can't avoid them. When I get a part in a musical, I get to be a "bit part", because leads have to sing. I get to watch the leads and think "I can act circles around this guy . . . but I'm person-six-row-three because I can't sing."
Jen will help me until I can get back to voice lessons. I don't plan on being "good" at this, just "good enough" for an occasional musical. Actually, just "good enough" that I can get through an audition without being stressed.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Maybe . . . maybe . . .
Here is my current plan . . .
Tomorrow, "42nd Street" closes. Tomorrow night, we start taking things down. On Sunday, we finish taking things down and we have the cast party. After that, my younger son is starting on the summer youth program shows "Annie" and "Cinderella". My older son and I will be performing in "Henry V" in August, and we need to get off-book for that (rehearsal for that doesn't start until August, so we have some time free). In September, Viviana is planning on having dance classes to prepare for their fall/winter show, a version of "The Nutcracker". I plan on attending that, even though I don't plan on being in "The Nutcracker".
I was poking around some sites for who-manages-the-rights for "Angels in America". It turns out that for amateur groups, their royalties appear to be very cheap (10%). But I noticed something: if I will have fewer than 100 people in the audience, do not charge, don't make any money off this, and only perform this on one night, there are no fees at all!
So, I find myself thinking. What if I got a group together to do a "staged reading" of "Angels in America, part 1"? We would rehearse for a week, use minimal sets and no real costuming, and then perform (with scripts in hand) in front of an audience? If we did this at "Stage One", a weeklong rental would cost around $150. If I managed a group of, say, ten people, that comes to $15 per person. This is quite doable!
What are the complications?
First, "Stage One" requires that I get some sort of liability insurance. Um . . . how the heck do I do that for this one (not-really-even-a) show? I sent an e-mail to the people that manage "Stage One" to ask about that.
Since I don't plan on charging the audience or making money, I don't need to incorporate anything or start a bank account or any of that fun stuff. If this moves forward and evolves into a company, I would need to do that. I'll worry about that later. The moment I start charging an audience, we get the immediate question of "where does that ticket money go?" I seriously don't want to be bothered!
I will need to put out feelers. Can I even find ten people that would be interested in a staged reading? I need to figure out a date with "Stage One". I need to find out if I can even get a license to perform this play (a community theatre in south Jersey will be performing "Angels in America" in August, so they won't give me a license then!).
Depending on liability insurance, this seems quite doable.
I think I would like to first offer Viviana to put this under their banner. From my end, I suspect Viviana has some sort of liability insurance, so I could latch on to that. From Viviana's end, this opens a whole new avenue to them. Essentially, this would allow Viviana to offer an educational opportunity, a smaller version of Hedgerow's acting class. Because no one needs to be off-book for this and this only requires commitment for a week, and because this will be quite inexpensive, this would provide a nice place for people that want to "try" acting.
Of course, if Viviana doesn't want to do this, I think I might want to do this myself.
If this works out, I have a few more plays in mind. I'm thinking of "Angels in America part 1", but if people are willing we can extend this to two weeks and offer "Angels in America part 1" in one week and "Angels in America part 2" the next week. This whole thing started with the idea of performing "Laramie Project". Maybe we can also do "Equus". "Laramie" and "Equus", however, have fees even for free performances, but we're talking about $75/night for "Laramie" and $100/night for "Equus": it's not going to be so bad.
Now, as the person organizing this, I need to be generous regarding parts. In "Angels in America", as much as I might want to play Prior Walter, I will have to step back and let someone else do that role. This isn't a vanity project for me, after all! But, if we do "Equus", I don't care . . . I'm playing Dysart!
Tomorrow, "42nd Street" closes. Tomorrow night, we start taking things down. On Sunday, we finish taking things down and we have the cast party. After that, my younger son is starting on the summer youth program shows "Annie" and "Cinderella". My older son and I will be performing in "Henry V" in August, and we need to get off-book for that (rehearsal for that doesn't start until August, so we have some time free). In September, Viviana is planning on having dance classes to prepare for their fall/winter show, a version of "The Nutcracker". I plan on attending that, even though I don't plan on being in "The Nutcracker".
I was poking around some sites for who-manages-the-rights for "Angels in America". It turns out that for amateur groups, their royalties appear to be very cheap (10%). But I noticed something: if I will have fewer than 100 people in the audience, do not charge, don't make any money off this, and only perform this on one night, there are no fees at all!
So, I find myself thinking. What if I got a group together to do a "staged reading" of "Angels in America, part 1"? We would rehearse for a week, use minimal sets and no real costuming, and then perform (with scripts in hand) in front of an audience? If we did this at "Stage One", a weeklong rental would cost around $150. If I managed a group of, say, ten people, that comes to $15 per person. This is quite doable!
What are the complications?
First, "Stage One" requires that I get some sort of liability insurance. Um . . . how the heck do I do that for this one (not-really-even-a) show? I sent an e-mail to the people that manage "Stage One" to ask about that.
Since I don't plan on charging the audience or making money, I don't need to incorporate anything or start a bank account or any of that fun stuff. If this moves forward and evolves into a company, I would need to do that. I'll worry about that later. The moment I start charging an audience, we get the immediate question of "where does that ticket money go?" I seriously don't want to be bothered!
I will need to put out feelers. Can I even find ten people that would be interested in a staged reading? I need to figure out a date with "Stage One". I need to find out if I can even get a license to perform this play (a community theatre in south Jersey will be performing "Angels in America" in August, so they won't give me a license then!).
Depending on liability insurance, this seems quite doable.
I think I would like to first offer Viviana to put this under their banner. From my end, I suspect Viviana has some sort of liability insurance, so I could latch on to that. From Viviana's end, this opens a whole new avenue to them. Essentially, this would allow Viviana to offer an educational opportunity, a smaller version of Hedgerow's acting class. Because no one needs to be off-book for this and this only requires commitment for a week, and because this will be quite inexpensive, this would provide a nice place for people that want to "try" acting.
Of course, if Viviana doesn't want to do this, I think I might want to do this myself.
If this works out, I have a few more plays in mind. I'm thinking of "Angels in America part 1", but if people are willing we can extend this to two weeks and offer "Angels in America part 1" in one week and "Angels in America part 2" the next week. This whole thing started with the idea of performing "Laramie Project". Maybe we can also do "Equus". "Laramie" and "Equus", however, have fees even for free performances, but we're talking about $75/night for "Laramie" and $100/night for "Equus": it's not going to be so bad.
Now, as the person organizing this, I need to be generous regarding parts. In "Angels in America", as much as I might want to play Prior Walter, I will have to step back and let someone else do that role. This isn't a vanity project for me, after all! But, if we do "Equus", I don't care . . . I'm playing Dysart!
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Laramie Project?
Over this past year, I have been very disappointed with the theatre world. I am told that I am a very good actor, yet I cant seem to get good roles. I never even get call-backs (I either get the role right away or, most of the time, I am one of the first told "sorry"). Of my auditions last year, five of my rejections I can point to something very tangible: my skin is brown.
A few months ago, the thought occurred to me: why don't I start my own theatre group? With my own theatre group, I can take the time to look for plays with minorities in lead positions. With my own theatre group, I can take the time to change plays so to give more opportunities to minorities (it would take only a handful of changes, for example, to stage "A Streetcar Named Desire" with an all-minority cast). But, the prospect of doing this is so daunting. Of course, I would be so busy with running the group that I would likely not be able to act. My girlfriend suggested something, however: what if I tried just producing one show.
I found a web site called "Dramatists", where I saw information for licensing a play for performance. For "The Laramie Project", it would cost $75 per performance. That seemed strangely doable. Three performances per week, three week run . . . $675. If tickets cost $12, seven people per performance would mean we get a profit.
My first thought is to propose this to Viviana. Viviana does musicals, which require costumes, sets, sound systems, and lighting. I don't know their financial situation, but I get the impression that these expensive shows mean that they don't make a whole lot of money. I plan on writing a proposal: "Laramie Project" can have a cast ranging from five people to twenty or thirty people. Costumes? Don't worry about it. Sets? I performed it with a bunch of chairs and not a whole lot else. Props? Bare minimums to suggest characters (a doctor might carry a stethescope). Lighting? Bare minimum. Sound system? If the cast can project well, we don't even need that. With appropriate outreach to high schools (bullying gay and lesbian students is very much in the news now) and to GLBT groups, it should get an audience. This play will generate revenue with very little overhead.
I don't actually know how Viviana will respond to this. So far, looking at the plays they have performed, "Laramie Project" is everything they don't do! Also, Viviana has its own board of directors that determine performances . . . would they be open to an "outsider" proposing they do something very different?
If Viviana rejects my proposal, maybe I might want to do this myself. And that would require finding my own venue.
Last night, I went to an SCA social at a place called "Stage One". This is a fairly generic hall, but it has a green room, chairs, and parking. It also wasn't all that difficult to locate. It's price? $30 per night, $150 per week, $550 per month. Same price for performances/showcases.
So, my estimation? "Laramie Project" royalties will cost $675 for a three week run. Two months of rehearsal plus nine performances, comes to $1370. $2045 to put on the show. If I can get a cast of, say, 15 people willing to pay $50 fee, this gives me $750. Of course, I need to put out "feelers" to see if people would be interested in putting out $50 fee! This leaves $1295. At $12 per ticket, we would break even if we manage to get 12 people per show.
That all seems very doable. I wonder if I could get some of my uncles and aunts to invest in this.
By the way, I found the group that handles the royalties for "Angels in America". They don't have a fixed per-performance price, but my estimation of royalties (assuming we only get $12 per show and tickets are $12) is $130. The price, then, for "Angels in America" would be $1500, but "Angels in America" has a smaller cast and will require sets. Of course, I could do a "staged reading" of "Angels in America" for no royalties, so long as it was one performance only and we didn't charge anything. That would mean paying for "Stage One" for the performance and for the rehearsal time (for a "staged reading", that could be as little as a week).
This sounds very doable. I need to come up with excuses for why I won't do it!!!
A few months ago, the thought occurred to me: why don't I start my own theatre group? With my own theatre group, I can take the time to look for plays with minorities in lead positions. With my own theatre group, I can take the time to change plays so to give more opportunities to minorities (it would take only a handful of changes, for example, to stage "A Streetcar Named Desire" with an all-minority cast). But, the prospect of doing this is so daunting. Of course, I would be so busy with running the group that I would likely not be able to act. My girlfriend suggested something, however: what if I tried just producing one show.
I found a web site called "Dramatists", where I saw information for licensing a play for performance. For "The Laramie Project", it would cost $75 per performance. That seemed strangely doable. Three performances per week, three week run . . . $675. If tickets cost $12, seven people per performance would mean we get a profit.
My first thought is to propose this to Viviana. Viviana does musicals, which require costumes, sets, sound systems, and lighting. I don't know their financial situation, but I get the impression that these expensive shows mean that they don't make a whole lot of money. I plan on writing a proposal: "Laramie Project" can have a cast ranging from five people to twenty or thirty people. Costumes? Don't worry about it. Sets? I performed it with a bunch of chairs and not a whole lot else. Props? Bare minimums to suggest characters (a doctor might carry a stethescope). Lighting? Bare minimum. Sound system? If the cast can project well, we don't even need that. With appropriate outreach to high schools (bullying gay and lesbian students is very much in the news now) and to GLBT groups, it should get an audience. This play will generate revenue with very little overhead.
I don't actually know how Viviana will respond to this. So far, looking at the plays they have performed, "Laramie Project" is everything they don't do! Also, Viviana has its own board of directors that determine performances . . . would they be open to an "outsider" proposing they do something very different?
If Viviana rejects my proposal, maybe I might want to do this myself. And that would require finding my own venue.
Last night, I went to an SCA social at a place called "Stage One". This is a fairly generic hall, but it has a green room, chairs, and parking. It also wasn't all that difficult to locate. It's price? $30 per night, $150 per week, $550 per month. Same price for performances/showcases.
So, my estimation? "Laramie Project" royalties will cost $675 for a three week run. Two months of rehearsal plus nine performances, comes to $1370. $2045 to put on the show. If I can get a cast of, say, 15 people willing to pay $50 fee, this gives me $750. Of course, I need to put out "feelers" to see if people would be interested in putting out $50 fee! This leaves $1295. At $12 per ticket, we would break even if we manage to get 12 people per show.
That all seems very doable. I wonder if I could get some of my uncles and aunts to invest in this.
By the way, I found the group that handles the royalties for "Angels in America". They don't have a fixed per-performance price, but my estimation of royalties (assuming we only get $12 per show and tickets are $12) is $130. The price, then, for "Angels in America" would be $1500, but "Angels in America" has a smaller cast and will require sets. Of course, I could do a "staged reading" of "Angels in America" for no royalties, so long as it was one performance only and we didn't charge anything. That would mean paying for "Stage One" for the performance and for the rehearsal time (for a "staged reading", that could be as little as a week).
This sounds very doable. I need to come up with excuses for why I won't do it!!!
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
When I decide to Start Again With Theatre
This Friday is the final performance of "42nd Street". This Sunday is the cast party, and to be perfectly blunt, I seriously don't want to go. I still love the theatre company, but I am incredibly dissatisfied with this show. In the past, one of the things I loved doing was, after the show, mingling with the audience. With this show, I find myself not wanting to bother. I go out for a minute, see if there is anyone I know, and then I leave. I am very much ready for a break.
A little while ago, I decided that I will take a break from acting. I've earned it: 10 shows in 12 months! But when I am ready to restart, I have a few thoughts.
(1) No more plays that I don't like. I thought "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" wasn't a very good play. And "42nd Street" was pretty bad, too. Sure, everyone loves "42nd Street". "42nd Street" had some great musical numbers, but in between the musical numbers -- the actual play itself -- it sucked. I've had a philosophy of "getting my name out": auditioning everywhere and taking whatever role was offered to me. Well, no! If I don't like the play, I won't even bother. I haven't come up with a strategy for original plays ("Shakespeare in the Trailer Park" was an original work, so I couldn't go to the book store and look it up).
(2) I have nothing against small parts, so long as I am building my skills and learning something. I have nothing against a small part so long as the part is interesting. No more "phoning in" my performance! The beadseller in "Murder on the Nile" was a small part, but I learned so much from the director and from working with the theatre company. On the other hand, my part in "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park"? Nothing. My part in "42nd Street"? Nothing. These parts didn't challenge me. I didn't learn anything, and I didn't improve my skill-set one bit. Why bother?
(3) If I don't feel like people care about the part, it's not for me. For all the problems with "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park", I never felt like people didn't care about my character, small as it was. The directors gave me direction. They got me costumes. And I heard several times from the audience that I was one of the favorite parts of the play. For my part in "42nd Street"? Well, not so much. The directors spent so much time and energy on the huge dance numbers that they didn't seem to think about the "play" itself. I saw signs of that with the performances of the other actors and some of the staging. From my own end, I received little to no stage direction. Was it because I am so amazing that I knocked the ball out of the ballpark from the very start? Or was it because the directors were so involved with the dance numbers that they didn't have time for anything else? I had the flexibility of reworking my character the way I wanted, portraying him differently from how anyone has ever portrayed him. What did the directors think? I have no idea. I don't think they even noticed. A week and a half before opening night, I realized that they had no costumes for me, so I had to buy the costumes myself. Why? Because my character wasn't in most of the dance numbers, so no one cared. As for the audience? Maybe I did an amazing performance that wow'd everyone, but by the ending everyone has forgotten about that because of the dance numbers. This is incredibly dissatisfying. If no one cares about a role, then it's not for me.
(4) Multiple performances at the same time? Let's limit that. Starting at the end of January, I had rehearsal for "42nd Street" and "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park", and I had my acting class. One day, I was asked to be in a one-day filming of a student film. This was all a bit too much! I need to drop back, to perhaps one play and one class at most. I'll still be open to things like that student film, but that will be all. When I think back to the fact that in less than 12 months, I was in 10 plays, I must wonder whether or not I am insane!
(5) Let's hold off on musicals for a while. Simple fact: I don't like musicals. Also, I don't sing particularly well, which by definition means I will not have a major part in a musical (since, presumably, a major part will require singing a solo or a duet). Also, many musicals are severely lacking in interesting characters and dramatic opportunity. In "Godspell", the "acting" was essentially just fooling around. In "42nd Street", most of the cast are just there to be in a dance number . . . they don't even have personalities. Sure, I have never been turned down from a musical (I suspect this is because most musical productions badly need men), but I don't enjoy them either.
(4) Multiple performances at the same time? Let's limit that. Starting at the end of January, I had rehearsal for "42nd Street" and "Shakespeare in the Trailer Park", and I had my acting class. One day, I was asked to be in a one-day filming of a student film. This was all a bit too much! I need to drop back, to perhaps one play and one class at most. I'll still be open to things like that student film, but that will be all. When I think back to the fact that in less than 12 months, I was in 10 plays, I must wonder whether or not I am insane!
(5) Let's hold off on musicals for a while. Simple fact: I don't like musicals. Also, I don't sing particularly well, which by definition means I will not have a major part in a musical (since, presumably, a major part will require singing a solo or a duet). Also, many musicals are severely lacking in interesting characters and dramatic opportunity. In "Godspell", the "acting" was essentially just fooling around. In "42nd Street", most of the cast are just there to be in a dance number . . . they don't even have personalities. Sure, I have never been turned down from a musical (I suspect this is because most musical productions badly need men), but I don't enjoy them either.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Drawing Lines in the Sand
I wrote about this the other day in a different site, and hopefully this will last a little longer than my usual turn-a-page-and-start-again scheme. In no small part, one of the things bothering me is that in a few days, my PFA against my ex-ex, Joni, is over. I'm hoping she is finally done with me and I won't be hearing from her any more, but now I have no idea what to expect.
And meanwhile, a few weeks ago, I had to put the PFA threat against Leah.
I've seen a lot of women over the years: some as lover and some as friend/confidant. I've touched a lot of lives, and in the end I have some dear friends out of the deal. But I've had a lot more hurt. And there are some out there for whom I still hold out some hope. Hope that they will show me that they are worth some place in my heart. Many of these people do not deserve it.
A while ago, I got over my hope that Joni would come to me one day and say that she has gone through years of therapy and is sorry for how horribly she treated me. I had it hammered into my head that this would not happen, and that even harboring that hope somewhere in my mind gave her something she could hook into. I needed to do more of that.
Leah will never come to me and apologize for how she acted. I'll go further: she will never be held accountable for how she acted. She is making up stories about me and telling these stories freely. She is surrounded by people that shake their heads and say "wow, how terrible!" And there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop that. Leah is a horrible person and she is gone from my life, and if there was a part of my mind that hoped that something good could come from that ordeal I endured with her . . . it's time to stop.
And one other friend: it's been clear to me for a couple of years that she has been treating me like crap. In her case, cutting her out of my life means losing something very precious to me. But that's just the way it is.
These are hooks in me, places where horrible people could hold on with their claws even if they don't know they are. It's one thing to remember them, it's one thing to tell stories about them, it's another thing to live in those memories. And it's time that stopped. Stories should be just stories.
And meanwhile, a few weeks ago, I had to put the PFA threat against Leah.
I've seen a lot of women over the years: some as lover and some as friend/confidant. I've touched a lot of lives, and in the end I have some dear friends out of the deal. But I've had a lot more hurt. And there are some out there for whom I still hold out some hope. Hope that they will show me that they are worth some place in my heart. Many of these people do not deserve it.
A while ago, I got over my hope that Joni would come to me one day and say that she has gone through years of therapy and is sorry for how horribly she treated me. I had it hammered into my head that this would not happen, and that even harboring that hope somewhere in my mind gave her something she could hook into. I needed to do more of that.
Leah will never come to me and apologize for how she acted. I'll go further: she will never be held accountable for how she acted. She is making up stories about me and telling these stories freely. She is surrounded by people that shake their heads and say "wow, how terrible!" And there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop that. Leah is a horrible person and she is gone from my life, and if there was a part of my mind that hoped that something good could come from that ordeal I endured with her . . . it's time to stop.
And one other friend: it's been clear to me for a couple of years that she has been treating me like crap. In her case, cutting her out of my life means losing something very precious to me. But that's just the way it is.
These are hooks in me, places where horrible people could hold on with their claws even if they don't know they are. It's one thing to remember them, it's one thing to tell stories about them, it's another thing to live in those memories. And it's time that stopped. Stories should be just stories.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
So, what to do about theatre?
Back in February or March, I decided to take a break from theatre. Specifically, from auditioning. I still have "42nd Street" in late-May/early-June. I still have "Henry V" at Pennsic, in early August. Beyond that, I have nothing planned. After "Angels in America", I haven't auditioned for anything. I toyed with the idea of auditioning for "Our Town" and "Arsenic and Old Lace", but those didn't happen.
I did spend some time with the script for "Vamp" (or "Vampe", the current working title), with Matt from Viviana. The play text is complete at this point, although we are tweaking it according to some suggestions from a play reading we had in April. Matt still has to write a few songs, and he has two hours of music to compose. He has entered the play in a contest. If we get past the first part of the contest, we will have until the beginning of September to finish the entire play, for the second part of the contest. If we win, the play will be produced off-Broadway! If we don't win, I guess we continue with our original plan of finding a venue in Philadelphia. Matt is serious about staging this play!
After "42nd Street", Matt will be working on a production of "Rent". My younger son will be in two "youth productions", "Cinderella" and "Annie". That means I'll probably wind up getting involved somehow. I'm sure Matt will find the time to work on the music!
So, what about my idea of starting up my own theatre company? I'm not thinking about anything until after "42nd Street". Jen's idea is to start smaller: just put on one show, rather than start a whole company. This means finding a venue, finding a script, finding a director, holding auditions, figuring out how much this will cost, and figuring out fundraising. This is very intimidating for me! My stated goal is to reach out to minorities for lead roles . . . how the heck do I do that?
I had a thought of doing something even smaller. I need to look in to copyright rules and royalties. I was reading "Equus" the other day, and I started wondering: what if a couple of us got together and performed this script in front of a microphone? And what if we took the sound recording of this and uploaded it to Youtube (the visual part might be nothing more than the word "Equus")? I should contact the people that own the rights to "Equus" to see if this is even allowed. Certainly, if they were going to charge money for this, I couldn't do it (I'll need to find a different script). Basically, I'm thinking about using Youtube as a venue to perform the equivalent of radio plays. Maybe, if I did enough of these, eventually someone would watch one!
It looks like this summer, I should have time to play around with these ideas.
I did spend some time with the script for "Vamp" (or "Vampe", the current working title), with Matt from Viviana. The play text is complete at this point, although we are tweaking it according to some suggestions from a play reading we had in April. Matt still has to write a few songs, and he has two hours of music to compose. He has entered the play in a contest. If we get past the first part of the contest, we will have until the beginning of September to finish the entire play, for the second part of the contest. If we win, the play will be produced off-Broadway! If we don't win, I guess we continue with our original plan of finding a venue in Philadelphia. Matt is serious about staging this play!
After "42nd Street", Matt will be working on a production of "Rent". My younger son will be in two "youth productions", "Cinderella" and "Annie". That means I'll probably wind up getting involved somehow. I'm sure Matt will find the time to work on the music!
So, what about my idea of starting up my own theatre company? I'm not thinking about anything until after "42nd Street". Jen's idea is to start smaller: just put on one show, rather than start a whole company. This means finding a venue, finding a script, finding a director, holding auditions, figuring out how much this will cost, and figuring out fundraising. This is very intimidating for me! My stated goal is to reach out to minorities for lead roles . . . how the heck do I do that?
I had a thought of doing something even smaller. I need to look in to copyright rules and royalties. I was reading "Equus" the other day, and I started wondering: what if a couple of us got together and performed this script in front of a microphone? And what if we took the sound recording of this and uploaded it to Youtube (the visual part might be nothing more than the word "Equus")? I should contact the people that own the rights to "Equus" to see if this is even allowed. Certainly, if they were going to charge money for this, I couldn't do it (I'll need to find a different script). Basically, I'm thinking about using Youtube as a venue to perform the equivalent of radio plays. Maybe, if I did enough of these, eventually someone would watch one!
It looks like this summer, I should have time to play around with these ideas.
Being Neglectful
I believe I'm falling for the old trap, the "I've got a nice new girlfriend, so I'm all over what my horrid old girlfriend did to me" bit. I don't think about Leah all that much. Things have been going well with Jen.
Jen was apprehensive about meeting my kids, but she did eventually meet them. And she was won over by them. The kids really like her as well. How much do they like her? In April, Jen was going to go to visit some friends in Ohio. That wound up falling through, so she was "available". I came up with an insane idea: the boys and I took a bus up to New York City and spent the weekend with her. Oh, by the way, we went to see "Phantom of the Opera" on Broadway. The weekend went amazingly well, to put it mildly!
I thought back to some of my lovers. Maryann was going to move in with me and we were all going to be a family. That's how she spoke, but she never followed through. Joni made promise after promise to the kids, but they were all lies. Heck, she never even took my younger son fishing! Leah made smaller scale promises -- teaching my younger son to cook, for example -- but she never followed through. Jen promised to take my kids to a Broadway show, and she kept her promise. I think this might be a first for us!
This weekend, I'm heading up to New York City again. On Friday night, I'll be watching Jen perform. On Saturday, we will be spending the whole day at an SCA event (Jen's first SCA event). Unfortunately, I'll be leaving early on Sunday, in order to get back in time for "42nd Street" rehearsal. We might be spending the next few weeks apart, which is always difficult for us. Jen has the summers off work (she's a teacher), so she promises to visit so much that I'll be sick of her! My only issue with that? I can only imagine that New York City is a little more interesting than some suburb of Philadelphia! Maybe we would rather be "there" than have her "here"!
Jen was apprehensive about meeting my kids, but she did eventually meet them. And she was won over by them. The kids really like her as well. How much do they like her? In April, Jen was going to go to visit some friends in Ohio. That wound up falling through, so she was "available". I came up with an insane idea: the boys and I took a bus up to New York City and spent the weekend with her. Oh, by the way, we went to see "Phantom of the Opera" on Broadway. The weekend went amazingly well, to put it mildly!
I thought back to some of my lovers. Maryann was going to move in with me and we were all going to be a family. That's how she spoke, but she never followed through. Joni made promise after promise to the kids, but they were all lies. Heck, she never even took my younger son fishing! Leah made smaller scale promises -- teaching my younger son to cook, for example -- but she never followed through. Jen promised to take my kids to a Broadway show, and she kept her promise. I think this might be a first for us!
This weekend, I'm heading up to New York City again. On Friday night, I'll be watching Jen perform. On Saturday, we will be spending the whole day at an SCA event (Jen's first SCA event). Unfortunately, I'll be leaving early on Sunday, in order to get back in time for "42nd Street" rehearsal. We might be spending the next few weeks apart, which is always difficult for us. Jen has the summers off work (she's a teacher), so she promises to visit so much that I'll be sick of her! My only issue with that? I can only imagine that New York City is a little more interesting than some suburb of Philadelphia! Maybe we would rather be "there" than have her "here"!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)