Skip to main content

Dead Certain–A Psychological Thriller at the Cartwright

By Flora Lynn Isaacson

Pictured: (l-r) Diana Brown as Elizabeth, Andrey Esterlis as Michael
Photo by Stacy Marshall

Dead Certain is an intricately plotted psychological thriller, which tells the story of Michael (Andrey Esterlis), a charismatic out of work actor who is hired for an evening by Elizabeth (Diana Brown), a wheelchair-bound ex-dancer to read a play she has written.  The plot thickens as Michael begins to realize that Elizabeth’s play is mirroring real life and that their paths may have crossed at least once before. There are many twists and turns before the play builds toward a shocking climax.

Diana Brown and Andrey Esterlis both give lively, theatrically entertaining performances throughout.  They both play off each other extremely well.  Also, as the director, Esterlis does an excellent job with the blocking as the theatre space at the Cartwright is very intimate and this makes the play even more exciting.

Dead Certain is presented by Expression Productions and continues at the Hotel Cartwright, 524 Sutter, San Francisco Thursday-Saturday at 8 p.m. with Sunday matinees at 2 p.m. through December 15, 2012.  For tickets, call Expression Productions at 415-307-0470 or email: expressionproductions@gmail.com.

Flora Lynn Isaacson

 

“La Virgen Del Tepeyac” at Mission San Juan Bautista

By David Hirzel

Here is a show that will set a mood for the upcoming holiday season that has no Christmas music, no re-creations of the nativity, no heartwarming hallmark sentimentality.  It takes not in a theatre but in a church—Mission San Juan Bautista—where the thick adobe walls have echoed for two hundred years and still resound today with voices raised in song and praise.

“La Virgen Del Tepayac” is a vibrant retelling of an old story, the miracle of the four miraculous apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe to the Aztec messenger Juan Diego in 1531.  Night has already fallen as we wait in line outside the mission, reading over the detailed synopsis of the story we are about to witness.  We’ll need this information, because the pageant is performed by El Teatro Campesino (“the peasant theatre”) entirely in Spanish.  Inside, we take our seats facing the center aisle with the altar at our right hand and the central raised stage at our left.

The lights dim; long blasts from a conch-horn echo through the darkened sanctuary, dancers clad in Aztec robes and feathers gather in the rear, and offer a song in salute and prayer to “Estrella del Oriente,” the Star of the East.  The year is 1519; enter the Spanish clergy and soldiers, a symbolic conquest, baptism of the Indios.  Appearing from the smoke and mist to our hero Juan Diego (Ruben C. Gonzalez), La Virgen is an apparition to us as well.

All this story is told with compelling music, great flashes of color and dance, moving through the mission from one end to the other and back again.  The great hall has been so built that spoken words are heard throughout with not need of amplification.  When La Virgen (Stephani Garcia Canedlaria) appears a second and third time to Juan Diego, her song captures the resonance of the great hall perfectly, a truly stunning performance.   There are turns of fine acting by the Bishop (Gustavo Mellado) and the Friars (especially Luis Juarez as Fray De Gante), some comic relief by Rosa Mari Escalante as Citlamina, a sprightly children’s dance, leading up to climactic dance and final apparition at the altar.

This show, adapted by Luis Valdez from an anonymous 18th century script, conveys all the wonder of Juan Diego’s vision and the miracle that became the seed of the Christianity to spread throughout Mexico.  As we depart into the crisp starlit night the entire ensemble sings “Vamos Caminando” and invite us to take our own journey with the true spirit, unity and essence of Christmas.

Mission San Juan Bautista, San Juan Bautista CA

Through December 16, 2012

Tickets and Information:  http://www.elteatrocampesino.com or 1-800-838-3006

I heartily encourage you to take the trip to San Juan Bautista and see this remarkable pageant this year. Look for Posada de San Juan Hotel, a perfect blend of traditional appearance with modern hospitality (http://paseodesanjuan.webs.com) in the midst of a town that seems to have changed little in the last century.

 

 

 

 

Chasing Ice — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

Chasing Ice

Directed by Jeff Orlowski

 

 

This is a film about making a film, rather than the film that should have been made.  I think a good opportunity was missed.  This film should have been about the melting ice, the retreating glaciers, and the implications this has for the world.  Instead it was a self indulgent portrayal of James Balog, the photographer in charge of the mission, the suffering hero, and the trials and tribulations of making a film in the harsh conditions of the Arctic.

What is good in the film is the spectacular photography of the glaciers, ice formations, and seascapes in the frozen worlds of Iceland, Greenland, and Alaska.  The film visually documents the dramatic retreat of the glaciers, which is accelerating with the warming of the Earth.  They placed 25 cameras set to continually photograph numerous glaciers throughout the Arctic creating a time-lapse record of the ice melt and retreat of the glaciers that is undeniable.  There is powerful footage of a massive calving from the Colombia glacier in Alaska the size of Manhattan.  One cannot help but be awed by the visual beauty and obvious, alarming decline of these unbelievably massive glaciers.

The film falls short in establishing the significance of its own report.  So what if the glaciers are melting?  Let them melt.  Who cares?  The film does not deal with this.  It does not spell out the implications of all of this melting ice for climate, the oceans, and human societies.  There is brief, passing mention that 150 million people will be affected by a sea level rise of one foot, but who, or how, and over what period of time is not described.

The problem is that too much time is spent on James Balog and the gory details of how the film was made.  All of this should be relegated to minor footnotes.   Frankly, I don’t find James Balog particularly interesting, nor his wife, his kids, his knee, nor all the different problems he had getting his cameras to work under the inhospitable conditions of the glaciers.  He is much too grandiose and masochistic for my taste.  Tramping through ice water in his bare feet to get the best shot.  Gimme a break!  He thinks he is going to save the world through his self sacrifice.  But carbon dioxide is at 391 parts per million and it is still climbing.  That is about 30% more than the maximum over the last 800,000 years.  The Earth is in for some rough sailing ahead and there is nothing we can do about it.  The only question is how extreme the catastrophe will be and how quickly it will rain down upon us.  Balog claims he wants to inform people and get the message out about global warming;  he should do that and get himself out of the way.

Much of the film is preoccupied with the petty troubles of the expedition and establishing what a great photographer James Balog is and his dedication to the project and how much he is prepared to suffer and punish his body to accomplish this noble challenge.  But the issues this film should be dealing with are far bigger than James Balog, his life, or any of the difficulties in making the film.  The dirty laundry of how the film was made should be kept well in the background.  His photographic work is stunning and incomparable.  He really is the Ansel Adams of the Arctic.  If he would put his work in the forefront instead of himself, I would go see anything he does.

This film offers some magnificent views of the glaciers of Greenland, Iceland, and Alaska, and it establishes without question that what is going on is well outside the boundaries of normal fluctuation.  Maybe the filmmakers thought that simply showing the glaciers and documenting the severity of their melting would be too boring, and therefore they felt they needed this human interest aspect to draw people in and hold their interest.  Actually it is the other way around.  I found myself getting impatient watching them figure out the best way to mount a camera on the side of a mountain.  I want to see the pictures they took with that camera once they finally got it to work.  So the film is worth seeing, but it gets a little tiresome and falls far short of its potential.

 

PRIDE & PREJUDICE

By Joe Cillo

PRIDE & PREJUDICE

Reviewed by Jeffrey R Smith of the San Francisco Bay Area Theatre Critics Circle

The Encinal Drama Department, never one to back away from a challenge, has successfully taken on Jane Austen’s PRIDE & PREJUDICE.

In a theatrical context, there exists a continuum of risk taking ranging from informed confidence, to ungrounded hubris and on to reckless abandon.

Director Gene Kahane may have hugged the shore of hubris on this one, but at the same time he signaled his unflagging trust and confidence in the cast and crew.

As they set sail across the proscenium, he obviously set the yardarm high, proclaiming that success would be their only port of call.

Imagine the odds of an amateur production company taking on a major opus—which required five hour-long episodes when performed for public television—and compressing it into a two act play that would not exceed the attention span of a high school audience nor be reduced to a dramatic narrative.

An adequate plot synopsis of the play alone is over 1200 words, and such a summary is so skeletal that it provides for little character development.

As is a director’s prerogative, MR Kahane rightfully pared the script down to the essentials, leaving enough meat on the bones so that his earnest troupe had plenty of opportunity to showcase their thespian talents.

As the curtain rises . . . wait . . . what curtain?

The set design was so expansively spacious—yet intimate with the audience—that the need for a curtain was obviated.

As the Klieg Lights came up, we were greeted by the tempered strains of violin music provided by Marquise Robinson, first violin and concert master of the Encinal Drama Department.

What? Is this FIDDLER ON THE ROOF?

By coincidence the play parallels TEVYE THE DAIRYMAN by Sholem Aleichem.

In Aleichem’s tale, Tevye, the father is trying to marry his daughters into advantaged positions within Anatevka; in Austen’s book it is the over-reaching, meddling, manipulating mother—MRS Bennet—who is the match-maker of Longbourn.

Just as our planet has two poles, the true north pole and the magnetic north pole, so too does this excellent production.

One pole, consistent with Jane Austin’s original intent, is Elizabeth Bennet, perhaps the true pole.

Elizabeth is the protagonist, the second eldest of the Bennet brood; twenty years old, with character, confidence, intelligence and willfulness cantilevered well beyond her easily measured years.

But alas Lizzy is saddled with the proclivity to judge on first impression.

She reinforces her opinions, engaging in confirmational psychology, sifting through a conflicting body of evidence discarding all that argues against her conceits and embracing all that supports her predilections.

Hence Elizabeth single handedly accounts for the “prejudice” of the title.

Kinga Vasicek is simply stunning as Elizabeth Bennet.

Like an overzealous district attorney she argues with biased passion, unsubstantiated conviction, blanket condemnation and compulsion.

When she finishes dressing down Mister Darcy, the jury i.e. the audience is ready to drag Darcy to either the pillory, the confession booth or to the scaffold.

Miss Kinga’s persuasive and powerfully delivered misguided indictments are augmented by her stern and roiled countenance; one wonders how does she get her face to flush and the veins to standout on her temples when expresses stage anger and mock ire?

Miss Kinga’s role as Elizabeth afforded her opportunities to square off with, dress-down and dismantle nearly every character in the play; by the final curtain the audience is convinced that Miss Kinga’s next stop should be Berkeley’s Boalt Hall.

One also wonders if the character Miss Kinga unleashes could ever be able to shelve her contentiousness for the sake of a domestic tranquility with Mister Darcy.

In the absence of an epilogue, we will never know the answer.

The other pole, perhaps the magnetic pole—although to set the record straight, no one is confirming nor denying allegations of up-staging—is the tremendous performance of Tina Burgdorf as Mrs. Bennet.

Miss Burgdorf’s character—perhaps based loosely on Austen’s Mrs. Bennet—is absolutely a riot; every development in the Bennet family fortunes becomes a melodrama catapulting Burgdorf’s Mrs. Bennet on a soaring, hyperbolic emotional arc.

True Austen’s matriarchal Mrs. Bennet is frivolous, excitable and narrow-minded, and her manners and unbridled social climbing are an embarrassment to Jane and Elizabeth but Burgdorf exaggerates these minor character flaws into hilarious parodies reminiscent of Saturday Night Live comedy sketches.

As the stage adage has it, “there are no small roles in theatre.”

Great acting and a willingness to run with a character—indeed hijack a character—succeeded in inflating Miss Burgdorf’s Mrs. Bennet into a Macy’s Parade Float; she elevated a romantic gothic novel into highly enjoyable modern entertainment.

Almost as ballast for the unmoored Mrs. Bennet, Zachary Bailey plays Mr. Bennet; a character described as a patriarchal gentleman commanding a sarcastic and cynical sense of humor that he uses to irritate and neutralize his wife.

Given our Mrs. Bennet, can we fault Mr. Bennet if he prefers to withdraw from the never-ending marriage concerns of the women around him rather than offer up constructive help?

True to his character, Zachary delivers his well measured lines with low modulation and steady inflection as if to avoid igniting his highly volatile wife; in this respect Burgdorf and Bailey are a perfect pairing for the stage.

Beatriz Algranti plays the pivotal role of Jane Bennet, the catalyst that breaks the Bennet family out of its provincial doldrums and lurches it forward into the vagaries of matrimonial dice rolls.

As is revealed later into the play Darcy tried to scotch Bingley’s plan to marry Jane because he observed “no reciprocal interest in Jane” for Bingley.

Here may lie a glitch in the script.

Contrary to Darcy’s observations, Miss Algranti’s radiant, effulgent and sustained smile for Bingley—as played by Chase Lee—dismantles Darcy’s credibility as a witness.

Miss Algranti’s Jane is a veritably beacon of luminous infatuation; every time she is within eyeshot of Mr. Bingley she radiates romantic love.

Chase Lee is the love smitten, handsome counterpart to Miss Algranti’s Jane; to his acting credit Mr. Lee achieves a certain blissful obliviousness that only Eros and young love can perpetrate on the uninitiated.

Austen’s Jane is arguably the most beautiful young lady in Netherfield; her character—which Miss Algranti has captured with precision—contrasts sharply with Elizabeth’s; Jane is sweetly demure.

Jane too is prejudiced; only she strains to see only the good in others.

Another Klieg Light in this show is Lizzy Duncan; she superbly plays Lydia Bennet, the youngest and most wayward of the Bennet sisters.

Miss Duncan is arguably the best piece of casting in the entire play.

Her character Lydia, is barely 16, is frivolous and headstrong; she enjoys socializing, especially flirting with the officers of the local militia.

Miss Duncan, possibly coasting on the elfin enchantment of her twinkling eyes, signals her character’s casual disregard for the strictures of convention and . . . ahem . . . the moral code of her society.

Lizzy’s blithe smile, lithe gait and insouciant expression collectively signal the audience that her Lydia is devoid of any inkling of remorse for the disgrace she causes her Victorian family.

As Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy, Mario Jimenez is the master of ambiguity and transformation.

Faithfully portraying Mr. Darcy’s initial arrogance, contemptus mundi and haughty pride, Mario deludes the audience in to believing every accusation and invective launched by rush-to-judgment Elizabeth and the perfidious Mr. Wickham.

Mr. Darcy’s aloof decorum, dislike of dancing and small talk, and exacting rectitude are understandably construed as excessive pride.

Darcy makes a poor impression on strangers—particularly Elizabeth—yet he is respected by those who know him well.

Mr. Jimenez’s acting provides for a certain transparency that reveals to his audience that Darcy has more than one dimension and that the true Mr. Darcy is in fact a noble being.

As Darcy and Elizabeth are forced to be in each other’s company, Mr. Jimenez begins to effuse a certain romantic glow, signaling an expanding romantic interest in the naively and forgivably prejudiced Elizabeth.

Ryan Borashan is delightful as the nefarious Mr. Wickham, pouring his perfidious venom into the eager ear of Elizabeth.

Wickham was a childhood friend of Mr. Darcy and now, as an officer in the militia, he is superficially charming and smarmy; just as Elizabeth is wrong about Darcy so too does she misjudge Wickham.

For all the wrong reasons Wickham and Lizzy form an erroneous alliance.

Mr. Borashan’s Wickham displays a convincing, yet duplicitous, charm that earns him the privilege of running off with the bright-eyed Lydia and marrying her.

Again, no epilogue informs us on the outcome of that union.

Several frosty characters, like large monolithic hailstones, litter Netherfield Park and its environs; chiefly amongst them are Caroline Bingley and Lady Catherine.

Caroline Bingley is played with cryogenic frigidity by Caroline Campbell.

Miss Bingley is the snobbish sister of Charles Bingley—Charles, along with Mary and Kitty Bennet all suffered a horrific accident when the director’s hedge trimmers, which he used to hew down the prolix script, went amuck excising poor Charles, Mary and Kitty from the play entirely; they are now known as the desaparecidos.

Miss Bingley has a dowry of twenty thousand pounds and harbors hopelessly misplaced romantic intentions for Mr. Darcy; she is viciously jealous of Darcy’s growing attachment to Elizabeth and is disdainful and rude to Elizabeth.

Miss Campbell is so convincing when performing the condescending snobbishness and vile jealously of the rich, that we eagerly await tax increases for anyone who earns more than we do.

Even more chilling is Cienna Johnson’s portrayal of Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

We learned that several people in the orchestra section had frost bitten toes due to their proximity to the set and Miss Johnson.

As Miss Johnson veritably hissed her threatening lines to Elizabeth, one could imagine icy vapors billowing with her every vituperation.

Lady Catherine, as personified by Miss Johnson, reinforces stereotypes of the wealthy leisure class and those with inherited social standing.

Thanks to Miss Johnson’s glacial performance, we are now psychologically prepared to boost taxes on inheritances and tax the daylights out of the trust funds of haughty, domineering dowagers like Lady Catherine de Bourgh and her ilk.

Rarely when actors are double cast do they appear on stage simultaneously as both characters, but Assistant Director Tait Adams breaks that taboo; she played both Mr. and Mrs. Gardner at once.

While Mrs. Gardner was three-dimensional, poor Mr. Gardner was merely two-dimensional, was always forced about by his wife and never spoke without Mrs. Gardner speaking first.

Tait Adams exuded a degree of stage confidence rarely evidenced in amateur productions; her delivery was well chiseled and clearly articulated.

There were several times that the quality of the acting in this play was indistinguishable from professional stage acting—certainly Miss Vasicek’s heated denouncements and Miss Burgdorf’s high blown histrionics—Miss Adams indisputably reached that plane.

Necessity or resourcefulness placed Laura Gomez in the androgynous role of Mr. Collins: an obsequious boot-licker to his employer: her haughty highness the Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

Miss Gomez ably transmitted Mr. Collins’ exaggerated sense of self-important and even more vividly Mr. Collins’ pedantic nature—Miss Gomez should consider public education someday.

Supporting actors of this thoroughly enjoyable production included Linnea Arneson, Jess Vicman, Skye Chandler, Megan Jones, Gabe Lima, Brad Barna and Alexandra Barajas.

While this reviewer approached the marquee with a certain amount of misplaced trepidation, he was delighted by the creative spontaneity and vitality of the show.

You may have missed Hendrix at Monterey, Janis at the Fillmore West, Bob at Newport, the Stones at Altamont, hopefully you did not miss a superlative PRIDE & PREJUDICE at Encinal nor will you miss the upcoming DINING ROOM and HAIR, THE MUSICAL.

Make the Most of Life–You Can’t Take It With You

By Flora Lynn Isaacson

Wood Lockhart as Martin Vanderhof.  Photo by Robin Jackson

You Can’t Take It With You by the beloved team of George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart just opened as the second show of Ross Valley Players’ 83rd season. At the helm is James Dunn, renowned Marin director.  The original production of the play opened the Booth Theatre on December 14, 1936.  The play won the 1937 Pulitzer Prize for Drama.

This timeless classic relates the humorous encounter between a conservative family and the lunatic household of Martin Vanderhof.  The play takes place in the Vanderhof home in New York City, mid-1930’s on a magnificently detailed set by Ken Rowland.  “Grandpa” Martin Vanderhof (Wood Lockhart) was once part of the competitive business world. However, one day he realized he was unhappy, so he stopped working and is doing whatever he wants to do.  His daughter Penny (Maureen O’Donoghue) writes plays simply because a few years ago a typewriter was accidently delivered to her house.  She also paints.  She is easily distracted and never finishes a single project. Her son-in-law, Paul Sycamore (Richard Kerrigan) spends hours in the basement making illegal fireworks and playing with erector sets.  His granddaughter Essie (LeAnne Rumbel) sells candy and has been clumsily attempting ballet for over eight years.  His grandson-in-law, Ed (Ross Berger) plays the xylophone (or tries to) and innocently distributes Marxist propaganda.  In addition to the family, many “odd ball” friends come and go from the Vanderhof house.  Some never leave.  Mr. DePinna (Bob Wison), the man who used to deliver ice, now helps out with the fireworks and dresses in a Greek toga to pose for Penny’s portraits.

In contrast to these delightful people are the unhappy Kirby’s.  Tony (Isaac Islas), the attractive son of the Kirby’s, falls in love with Alice Sycamore (Robyn Grahn) and brings his parents to dine at the Sycamore home on the wrong evening.  The shock sustained by Mr. and Mrs. Kirby (Stephen Dietz and Robyn Wiley), who are indignant from the cheap food offered, shows Alice that marriage with Tony is out of the question. The Sycamores find it hard to understand Alice’s view.  Tony knows the Sycamores live the right way with love and care for each other, while his own family is the one that is crazy.  In the end, Mr. Kirby is converted to the happy madness of the Sycamores after he happens to drop in during a visit by the Grand Duchess of Russia, Olga Katrina (Christina Jacqua) who is currently earning her living as a waitress at Child’s Restaurant.

Under the careful direction of James Dunn, the Vanderhof household is filled with activity, all of it chosen and purposeful to the person doing it. In addition to the wonderful cast ideally selected by James Dunn, there are delightful cameos by Kim Bromley as Reba, the Vanderhof’s maid and Donald (Javier Alarcon), the Vanderhof’s chef and Kolenkhov (John Starr), Essie’s ballet teacher. This play is delightful fun for the entire family.

You Can’t Take It With You runs at Ross Valley Players November 15-December 16, 2012.  Thursday performances are at 7:30 p.m., Friday-Saturday at 8 p.m. and Sunday at 2 p.m. The venue is Ross Valley Players Barn Theatre at the Marin Art and Garden Center, 30 Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ross. For reservations, call 415-456-9555, ext. 1 or go online at www.rossvalleyplayers.com.

Coming up next at Ross Valley Players will be Pack of Lies by Hugh Whitemore and directed by Molly Noble, January 18-February 17, 2013.

Flora Lynn Isaacson

BUZZIN – LEE HARTGRAVE

By Lee Hartgrave

Daniel Day Lewis in the movie “Lincoln”

HEADLINERS: “The Submission” – “Lincoln” – “Superior Donuts” – “Another Way Home

New Conservatory Theatre: The Submission:  DIRECTED BY: BEN RANDLE. “Superb!”

This pulse pounding play brings out thrilling storytelling, and bravura performances. The story is all about backstage hi-jinks on the Broadway stage. Danny (Eric Kerr) has just finished a play. He is overwhelmed by his play. Will it work? He’s a flighty gay playwright. Why is he so tense? Well, here is the reason. He wrote the play using a female as the author of his play. Danny submits his play, using the pen name of Sheleeha G’ntamobi. Yes it’s catchy, but not easy to say. Sheleeha is African American and Danny is a neurotic young playwright. Everything seems to be working between the two, until the female begins to make changes to the script without Danny’s permission. He says: “F—ck it – she starts to reuse the words in the play!”

Here’s the deal. This play within a play is very explosive. More than explosive – it’s leading the play to the edge of the cliff. There is a lot going on between Danny and his boyfriend and Emilie as they sort out themes of racism and identity. Then, there is the friend (Chris) who likes Danny, but is more interested in the black actress. He agrees to not agree about many issues in the play, and off the stage.

The story is profoundly intense – and erotic. I didn’t just sit through this show – I was on the edge of the seat. There is no doubt about it – “The Submission” (the play) is spectacularly compelling and smart.

My only letdown is at the very end. After all the energy in the play – it deflates in the final scene. I think it needs a stronger ending. But I still recommend that you see it. The Actors are great!

They take us on a fascinating journey. Here they are: Sam Jackson (Emilie), Eric Kerr (Danny), Alex Kirschner (Pete) and Chris Morrell (Trevor).

NOW PLAYING AT THE NEW CONSERVATORY THEATRE

RATING: FOUR GLASSES OF CHAMPAGNE!!!! (highest rating) –trademarked-

(((Lee Hartgrave has contributed many articles to the San Francisco Chronicle Sunday Datebook and produced a long-running Arts Segment On PBS KQED)))

DANIEL DAY LEWIS IS LINCOLN (Courtesy Photo at top of Column)

This movie is probably one of the most impressive movies that you will see about politics. Thanks to Daniel Day Lewis (Lincoln), Sally Field (Mary Todd Lincoln), David Strathairn, Hal Holbroook, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Michael Stuhlbarg. Take down the confederate flags for these guys.

Daniel Day Lewis is mesmerizing. Never does he overplay in this role. Everyone is glued to his face as he talks to fascinated individuals who cherish every word. I dare you to look away.

However there is two and a half hours of talk from Lincoln and other characters who give their vision of what the USA should be. This is a political movie that should be introduced to High Schools and College kids. The political keenness will reel them in with Lincoln’s brilliant words. It’s a History lesson for the ages.

RATING: FOUR BOXES OF POPCORN!!!! (Highest Rating) – trademarked-

Now playing at Theaters around the world. “A Triumph in every Word!”

SUPERIOR DONUTS – YUMMIE!! TRACY LETTS IS TRULY A GREAT WRITER.

But as smart and clever as usual. This time around, no one gets killed, but he does remind us that our lives are mixed with several variables. This time Tracy Letts story is not as talky, but it sure is colorful. As usual, the casting and the performers are still humorous on one hand and on the other it is Real and Heart Wrenching. This story is about a rundown Coffee shop in its last days. Sure a few people still stop by – but that brand new Coffee Shop (Starbucks) down the street looks good to them. And that’s why the business at Superior Donuts is running out of patrons.

This is a very simple play with down to earth language. There is a constant homeless lady – who seems to not ever pay for a cup of coffee and donut. There is a female cop that drops by to make sure that everything is all right. She is sweet on the owner. He wants to sell the tiny coffee place – and the lady cop wants to hug him. It’s as simple as that.

There is a young man who really needs a job. He gets it at Superior Donuts – but the hippie like owner wants to put limits on the kid. The boy wants to spice up the place a little. You know, just to make it more enticing. Well, the owner (who is quite sexy himself) agrees to let the boy move a few things around. You might think that the play will drag you down into the gutter – but no – there is comedy, and there is also sadness.

A strong fight starts in the Donut shop. Yeh – it is pretty amazing that no one really gets hurt. This all happens near the end.

I felt near the end that I was emotionally satisfied. You can’t be half a mean person all your life. And I think that Tracy Letts knows that. So to compensate – there is plenty of humor in his play. All together – including the phenomenal! I dare you to resist one donut with a Glaze on it. They are Superior!

THE ACTORS ARE TERRIFIC! Here they are: Don Wood, Chris Marsol, Dave Sikula, Shane Rhoades, Vicki Siegel, Ariane Owens, Emmanuel Lee, Shane Fahy and Rob Dario.

ALL TOGHETHER NOW – GRAB THOSE OSCARS!

Now Playing at the Custom Made Theatre

Rating: Four Glasses of Champagne!!!! (highest rating) – trademarked-

ANOTHER WAY HOME – MAGIC THEATRE

Finding your way home is not always easy. The play is 80 minutes long with no intermission. I for one like intermissions. It’s not good for your arteries. But, I did manage to move my legs now and then to keep the circulation going.

This is a story about a wayward son. It all takes place in a summer sleep over camp. The son Joseph (prefers Joey is at Camp Kickapoo. Well, Joey is a very difficult young man. He is in depression, has anxiety disorder. Yes, the young 17-year-old boy is a handful. Joey is one of those boys that don’t like to be bear hugged at Camp or anywhere. He’s basically angry about everything.

A 20-year-old camp counselor takes a liking to Joey. You may want to feel sorry for Joey, and I suppose that I would also – but could not put up with him. The drama does end on a somewhat happy ending – at least Joey seems to be much better. Or maybe it was just a way to end the story. I was relieved when it was over. I didn’t care much for the talking at the audience thing. Seen it before in other plays and never fell in love with that gimmick.

Good acting by everyone. THEY ARE: Mark Pinter – Kim Martin-Cotton- Daniel Petzoid – Jeremy Kahn – and Riley Krull

Now playing at the Magic Theatre

RATING: THREE GLASSES OF CHAMPAGNE!!! –trademarked-

 

The Game by Don Samson Wins 1st Place Honors at 30th Anniversary Fringe of Marin Awards Ceremony

By Flora Lynn Isaacson

With grateful thanks to Dr. Annette Lust, Artistic Director and Festival Coordinator, The Dominican University Players and the Fringe of Marin just celebrated their 30th anniversary.  Pamela Rand opened the ceremony by presenting Dr. Lust with a beautiful plaque with the masks of comedy and tragedy and inscribed to her in honor of her fine work as well as some lovely flowers and a bottle of champagne.

Bay Area Theatre Critics Circle Awards for Best Play, Director and Actors were announced Sunday, November 18, 2012 at Meadowlands Assembly Hall at Dominican University in San Rafael.

The first awards presented were for Best Play. The pride of 1st Place went to Don Samson for The Game. The 2nd Place winner was a tie between Get A Date Show by Stacy Lapin and Pamela Rand, and The Trouble At Table 23 by Charley Lerrigo.  3rd Place honors went to Michael Ferguson for Sharp Edges.  Nominations went to Carol Sheldon for On With The Wind, George Dykstra for Mysterious Ways, George Freek for She Has A Plan, Ollie Mae Trost Welch for Shaw and G. Randy Kasten for Supplementing.

Next up were awards for Best Director. There was a 1st Place tie between Carol Eggers for The Game and Paoli Lacy for Get A Date Show.  Peter Hsieh won 2nd Place honors for Sunday Sundays.  Nominations went to Pamela Rand for How Salt and Pepper Got Put Into Shakers, Amy Crumpacker for The Trouble At Table 23, Carol Sheldon for On With The Wind, Jim Colgan for She Has A Plan and Harold Delinsky for Mysterious Ways.

There was a tie for 1st Place as Best Actor between Kevin Copps for Shaw and Manik Bahl for The Trouble At Table 23.  There was also a 2nd Place tie for Best Actor between George Dykstra for Mysterious Ways and David Louis Klein for Sharp Edges.  3rd Place honors for Best Actor went to Rick Roitinger for The Game. Nominations went to George Doerr for She Has A Plan and Ross Travis for Get A Date Show.

The last of the Critics Circle Awards went to the Best Actress.  1st Place honors went to Emily Soleil for The Game. Roberta Maloy won 2nd Place for On With The Wind.  Nominations went to Jean Davis for The Trouble at Table 23, Joan Mankin for Get A Date Show, Tristan Cunningham for Get A Date Show, Jennifer Cedar-Kraft for Sharp Edges, Terri Barker for How Salt and Pepper Got Put Into Shakers, Lauren Arrow for Minerva and Melrose and Melissa Schepers for One Time At The Zoo.

For the 11th consecutive time, the Audience Awards took place. Here are the results.

The Trouble At Table 23 by Charley Lerrigo won Best Play.  One Time At The Zoo by William O. Chessman III won 2nd Place.  There was a three way tie for 3rd Place between Get A Date Show by Stacy Lapin and Pamela Rand, On With the Wind by Carol Sheldon and The Game by Don Samson.  4th Place honors went to Minerva and Melrose by Martin A. David. There was a tie for 5th Place between Shaw by Ollie Mae Trost Welch and How Salt and Pepper Got Put Into Shakers by Annette Lust. There was a tie for 6th Place between Arrangements by Claire J. Baker and Sunday Sundays by Peter Hsieh.  There was a three way tie for 7th Place between Supplementing by G. Randy Kasten, Sharp Edges by Michael Ferguson and She Has A Plan by George Freek.  George Dykstra won 8th Place honors for Mysterious Ways. A Nomination went to Hollywood Confidential by Shirley King.

Amy Crumpacker won 1st Place as Best Director for The Trouble at Table 23. There was a tie for 2nd Place between Carol Sheldon for On With The Wind and William O. Chessman III for One Time At The Zoo.  3rd Place for Best Director went to Pamela Rand for How Salt and Pepper Got Put Into Shakers.  4th Place honors went to Paoli Lacy for Get A Date Show.  There was a three way tie for 5th Place between Martin A. David for Minerva and Melrose, Carol Eggers and Peter Hsieh for Sunday Sundays.  There was a tie for 7th Place between G. Randy Kasten for Supplementing and Ollie Mae Trost Welch for Shaw.  Robin Schild won 8th Place as Best Director for Hollywood Confidential.  Nominations went to Harold Delinsky for Mysterious Ways, Michael Ferguson for Sharp Edges and Gina Pandiani for Arrangements.

Manik Bahl won the audience vote for Best Actor for The Trouble At Table 23.  George Dykstra won 2nd Place as Best Actor for Mysterious Ways.  3rd Place went to George Doerr for She Has A Plan. Rick Roitinger won 4th Place as Best Actor for The Game.  There was a tie for 5th Place between Kevin Copps for Shaw and Jon Zax for Minerva and Melrose.  There was a four way tie for 6th Place Best Actor between Ken Sollazzo for One Time At The Zoo, Michael A. O’Brien for One Time At The Zoo, David Rodrigues for Supplementing and David Louis Klein for Sharp Edges.  7th Place for Best Actor went to Ross Travis for Get A Date Show. There was a tie for 8th Place for Best Actor between Randy Craig for Get A Date Show and Jerrund Bojest for Shaw.  Nominations for Best Actor went to Michael Collins for On With The Wind, Charles Grant for How Salt and Pepper Got Put Into Shakers and also for Arrangements, Everado Leon for Sunday Sunday, Monty Paulson for Hollywood Confidential, John Ferreira for The Trouble At Table 23 and Simon Patton for She Has A Plan.

Lauren Arrow won 1st Place as Best Actress for Minerva and Melrose.  2nd Place honors went to Jean Davis for The Trouble at Table 23.  Emily Soleil came in 3rd Place for The Game.  There was tie for 4th Place between Diane Rodrigues for Supplementing and Susan Amacker for One Time At The Zoo. There was a three way tie between Pamela Rand for Get A Date Show, Kathy Holly for On With The Wind and Terri Barker for Arrangements.  There was a tie for 6th Place Best Actress between Donna Andrews for On With The Wind and Jennifer Cedar-Kraft for Sharp Edges.  There was a tie for 7th Place between Cynthia Sims for How Salt And Pepper Got Put Into Shakers and Ayelette Robinson for She Has A Plan.  There was a tie for 8th Place between Flora Lynn Isaacson for On With The Wind and Melissa Schepers for One Time At The Zoo. Nominations went to Gigi Benson for Hollywood Confidential, Terri Barker for How Salt and Pepper Got Put Into Shakers, Cynthia Sims for She Has A Plan and Joan Mankin for Get A Date Show.

Bravo to Dr. Annette Lust for maintaining the Fringe of Marin Festival for 30 Seasons!

Flora Lynn Isaacson

A Late Quartet — Film Review

By Joe Cillo

A Late Quartet

Directed by Yaron Zilberman

 

 

This is the story of a classical string quartet in crisis due to the illness and departure of its cellist and senior member, Peter Mitchell (Christopher Walken).  It is a powerful, moving story, but I doubt that it will have a wide audience.  The audience for this film is devotees of classical music, students in music conservatories, and fusty old conservatives with very conventional ideas about music, sex, and relationships.

It is a film for mature audiences.  When I say “mature audience” I don’t mean that it has sexual content and is therefore not suitable for young people.  On the contrary, I think sexual content is especially appropriate for young people because they are most curious and preoccupied with sexual feelings and issues, and should therefore be taking every opportunity to learn about it in any way they can.  “Mature audience,” for me, means an audience that has lived long enough to grasp the complexities and layers of personal relationships that have continued over a long period of time.  “Mature” means having perspective, being able to see the context in which passions and longings are played out, understanding the limitations and trade-offs, and ambivalences that are inevitable in human relations.  Being able to see that things change and evolve, and what is true today, may not be true tomorrow, and what was true yesterday may no longer be true today however much we might wish it to be.  It means being able to face up to what we are as people defined by what we have done or not done, rather than by what we have wished or strived for.  Young people can grasp these things intellectually, but they don’t know, and can’t know, what it feels like and looks like to a much older person.  That is just the nature of being younger or older.  That is the meaning of “maturity.”   So when I say that this film is for a mature audience, this is what I am talking about.  The issues are mature and the themes are mature.  I don’t mean to say that young people should not see it.  They absolutely should, because it will help them understand older people.  But the issues of the film are not their issues, with the exception of the sexual affairs between the younger girls and the older men, which the film treats very badly, trivializing them, and dismissing them in a rather callous, nonsensical fashion.

I like the subject matter, and the film is very well made, but I have a number of problems with the script.  The female characters are not well drawn, and I think, given short shrift.  The most promising character in the whole film, Alexandra (Imogen Poots), is turned into a confused, spineless, simpering jellyfish.  Juliette, (Catherine Keener) the violist and wife of the second violinist, Robert (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and the mother of Alexandra, is not fleshed out at all.  She becomes a very conventional and inadequate housewife and mother whose only asset seems to be her role as violist in the quartet.  She fails as a wife and she fails as a mother, and is rather problematic throughout the saga.  She seems to want to keep everything the way it has been, but she is not very effective in anything she attempts and we do not see who she is in any depth.

Although sex plays a major role in the story line, the film upholds very conventional middle class attitudes toward sex and relationships, which have nothing to offer but disappointment, defeat, and failure, and you’re supposed to just live with that.  Robert, the second violinist, whose dissatisfaction with his role in the quartet and his marriage is one of the dynamic forces in the film, ends up being defeated in all his attempts to shake things up and alter his position vis-a-vis the others in the group.  He starts an affair with a young flamenco dancer (Liraz Charhi) that gets nipped in the bud by his wife after their first night together, and the very appealing girl is rudely dismissed.  He should have fought harder for her, but he was a total wimp and caved in to his wife with hardly a protest.  The incident did prompt them to hash out some of the issues in their marriage, which are of long standing, as such things usually are, but they don’t really get anywhere.  Juliette takes the typical attitude of the American middle class woman and is prepared to trash the whole marriage because her husband fucked a young dancer one time.  It’s so idiotic.  I’ve seen people blow up twenty year marriages, sell houses, move long distances, fight bitterly over kids and money, all on account of a little bit of outside fucking.  Americans are crazy.  So while the film panders to conventional attitudes, it fails to offer anything constructive or insightful.  It doesn’t raise any questions.  It just proffers pat answers that it takes for granted.

Similarly with the affair between Daniel (Mark Ivanir), the first violinist, and Alexandra, the daughter of Robert and Juliette.  Daniel and Alexandra have probably known each other since she was born.  The first question you have to ask yourself is why this affair even happened?  As the film presents it — which I don’t quite believe — Robert recommends Alexandra to Daniel for violin lessons.  Daniel treats her like a child and belittles her.  He tells her she is not ready to tackle Beethoven’s Opus 131.  I suspect that is something music students often hear from their teachers, that certain pieces are beyond their understanding and they should wait until they are older or more mature before they tackle them.  What a lot of quatch!  So what if you make mistakes?  So what if you don’t understand it fully?  Go ahead and plunge into it, if you feel a strong urge beckoning you!  Defy them!  I mean it!  Of course you’ll play it better when you’re fifty.  You better hope you will.  But you have to start where you are, when you feel the desire and enthusiasm to tackle the challenging new project.  If you wait for a bunch of old people to bless you and tell you you’re ready, you’ll never do anything.  She should have ripped the music book in half and stormed out.  Instead she seduces him.  She is the aggressor and the initiator of the affair.  She seemed to be seeking his approval, and she wasn’t getting it through her violin playing, so she had another way of getting it that she knew would work for sure.  OK, so once you get him, what do you do with him?  Here the film reaches its low point of nonsense.  The affair is quickly discovered by the others in the group, in particular, by her parents, and they go into apoplexy.  Why?  Why is it so objectionable to them?  The film treats their disapproval as something self evident and unproblematic.  But the affair is quite natural and almost predictable.  Robert, in the most dramatic moment of the film –, and very much out of character for a string quartet — punches Daniel in the face and knocks him off his chair during rehearsal — a punch that will probably be applauded by every second violinist around the world.  But it is total nonsense.   Robert becomes a ridiculous figure, flailing about violently, out of control, completely helpless and totally ineffective.   Alexandra stands up very admirably to her mother, but then turns around and inexplicably dismisses Daniel and ends the affair that she just started, although Daniel is firm in his resolve to continue with it in the face of all the opposition — the only one in the film with any real character.  But this makes Alexandra look like a weak, confused, immature idiot.  This is why I think this film treats the women with pronounced hostility.  All of the sexual affairs — which are initiated by the young women — are quickly and definitively crushed, but for no good reason.  The film is simply hostile to sexual relationships that don’t fit into the mold of conventional middle class marriage.  This gives the film an atmosphere of mundane conservatism.  It is very ordinary.  Nothing like Beethoven.

I should probably say something about the Beethoven Quartet Opus 131 in C# minor that plays a thematic role in the film.   The choice of this particular quartet as a centerweight to this film is very appropriate because of the broad emotional range found throughout the quartet from anguish, contention, and turmoil, to relaxed, airy, lighthearted fun, as well as some enigmatic aspects that are difficult to penetrate.  This quartet is rather unusual.  It is in seven movements instead of the usual four, and Beethoven wanted them played without the usual pauses between the movements.  So it makes for a rather long, continuous piece that is demanding for both performers and audience.  Beethoven expected people to have long attention spans.  He should have lived in America for a while.  The piece is somber and anguished.  The first movement is painful.  It is a fugue that stabs at your heart.  The second and fifth movements are much more upbeat, especially the fifth movement, which is essentially a scherzo.   It is somewhat repetitious, but vigorous and lively.  The second movement is bright and almost lilting.  The third and sixth movements are very short and seem to serve as introductions to the longer, more substantial movements that follow.  The sixth movement is a somber, mournful dirge that segues into the vigorous final movement.  The fourth movement is quite long, nearly fifteen minutes.  I found it difficult to relate to.  I couldn’t seem to get a fix on it, emotionally.  There seems to be a longing that is not well defined.  The anguish is there, but it is subdued, almost below the surface, threatening to break through in points but never quite taking over.  Some of the good cheer fleetingly appears and then vanishes just as suddenly.  I don’t get it, and I think it is the heart of the quartet.  It seems to be the center of gravity of the whole piece.  The last movement is rough, contentious, and full of struggle and drama.  This quartet is a mature piece that challenges both the listener and the performer.  It is very fitting to the issues besetting this group of people.

The film has a lot to say about music and performance that will be of keen interest to musicians.  I found it to be very touching and moving.  It could have been a great movie if it had not taken such a conventional, mediocre attitude toward the story line.  At the end of the film the cellist is replaced by a new member, who has worked with the group before, and is judged to be a good fit that will maintain the established character of the group.  So everything stays the way it was.  The quartet continues on playing the same music with the same character and style.  The sexual affairs with the young girls are ended.  The marriage seems to be limping along as it had before.  Everything ends up pretty close to the way it was at the beginning.  Only the cellist is replaced.  And that is supposed to be a happy, harmonious ending.  What a crock!  It makes a mockery of the whole film.  What was all the contention and struggle about if we end up with essentially the same quartet, playing in the same style, in the same personal relationships?  Does the mere presence of a stable cellist subdue all the conflict and dissatisfaction that was afflicting this group from long before this movie started?  This film should be titled “The Triumph of Conservatism and Conventionality in Classical Music and in Life.”

This quartet should have broken up like the Beatles.  I thought about that as I was watching it.  The married couple should have separated or divorced.  The daughter should have moved in with the first violinist.  The second violinist should have left, founded his own quartet and been very successful, and the flamenco dancer should have gotten pregnant with the second violinist’s child.  Now that would have been a good movie.

YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU hits a home run at Ross Valley Players

By Kedar K. Adour

(l to r) Wood Lockhart, LeAnne Rumbel, Isaac Islas, G- man, Richard Kerrigan, Maureen O’Donoghe, G-man in You Can’t Take it With You at RVP)

YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU: Comedy by Moss Hart and George S. Kaufman. Directed by Jim Dunn. Ross Valley Players (RVP) Barn Theater, Marin Art & Garden Center, 30 Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ross. 415-456-9555, ext. 1 or www.rossvalleyplayers.com.  November 16 – December 2, 2012

YOU CAN’T TAKE IT WITH YOU hits a home run at Ross Valley Players

Since our San Francisco Giants won the World Series it seems appropriate to use a couple of baseball analogies to describe the home run hit of You Can’t Take It With You ‘trotting’ the boards at RVP. ‘Trotting’ is a misnomer since the evening races by in little over two hours with two intermissions. Yes, director Jim Dunn keeps the three act format intact. He also reduces the number of characters from 17 to 14 with some doing double duty. A major change is casting Reba (delightful Kim Bromley), the cook and Donald (Javier Alarcon) her paramour as white. I guess it is a concession to political correctness since they are described in the original play as “The two of them are really cute together, something like Porgy and Bess.” The other noticeable change is the deleting of the drunken actress from Act two. The big hitters, and excellent supporting cast, make these changes somewhat superfluous.

 

Keith Lockhart, LeAnne Rumbel and John Starr (See Text)

The first big hitter is director James Dunn who dedicates the play to his step-grandmother who instilled the love of movies, and particularly the movie You Can’t Take it With You, during Big Depression of the 1930s. The other big hitters (I dare not call them old-timers?) are Wood Lockhart (Grandpa Martin Vanderhof), Bob Wilson (Mr. DePinna), Stephen Dietz (Mr. Kirby), Maureen O’Donoghue (Penny Sycamore) and set designer Ken Roland. The supporting cast holds their own amongst these luminaries.

The play was written in 1931 and the scene of the action is the Vanderhof home in New York City in the midst of the Depression. Kaufman was an established writer but Moss Hart was brought along for his ability to write comedic dialog. It was a highly successful pairing since the play had a long Broadway run winning the Pulitzer Prize. It became a hit movie with Lionel Barrymore, Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in the lead roles winning two Academy Awards from seven nominations: Best Picture and Best Director for Frank Capra.

Written about eccentric characters, it would be easy for the director to turn the actors loose allowing them to exaggerate their roles. With the exception of John Starr appropriately playing the mad Russian ballet instructor with broad strokes, the actors are kept in tight ensemble form by director Dunn with each complimenting the others. You will find two or three who are more appealing and this reviewer’s favorites are the four big hitters and a perfect Robyn Grahn as Alice Sycamore, the only non-eccentric member of Grandpa Vanderhof’s home

There are three related generations living in the house who have taken on the patriarch’s philosophy of living an enjoyable life because, as he mentions in the final scene to the uptight Wall Street maven Mr. Kirby “you can’t take it with you.” Before we get to that dénouement many things must happen and they do.

Consider that Granpa is a dropout for 35 years from the business rat race and has not, for (in his mind) good reasons not paid income taxes and has received many unopened letters about this oversight. You know and I know that the IRS isn’t going to put up with that and along comes Henderson the income tax man (Frederick Lein) with a warning that is unheeded. Penny, Grandpas daughter is married to child-like Paul Sycamore who manufactures fireworks in the basement and loves to make toys. Paul is helped by Mr. DePinna, an ice man who came inside to speak to Paul eight years before, and never left.  He also moonlights as a model in Mrs. Sycamore’s paintings, especially on called “The Discus Player.”

Then there is Essie wife of Ed, daughter of Penny and Paul Sycamore and sister to Alice. Essie makes candies in the kitchen and Ed sells them, inserting his beloved printed notes in the boxes. Essie who has practicing ballet for eight years is accompanied on the xylophone by Ed. Alice is in love with her boss Tony Kirby and they get engaged. It just happens that Tony’s parents are uptight rich nabobs.

All hell breaks loose when the Kirby’s arrive on the wrong day to have dinner. This includes a word association game that is hilarious. Robyn Wiley as elegant Mrs. Kirby exudes haughtiness.  Kolenkhove offers Mr. Kirby a wrestling lesson that goes awry. Then there is exploding fireworks, FBI agents, who have been following Ed for his innocuous but subversive printing.  They are all hustled off to jail. End of Act two but all gets resolved in act three.

Lockhart was born to play the lead and as he underplays the role to perfection, scene stealer Bob Wilson shows his ability and . . . (horrors) a bit of his red tartan plaid shorts in his brief stint to model as the discus player.  Handsome Isaac Islas begins hesitantly but picks up the pace in his later scenes. Ross Berger as Ed expertly dovetails his secondary role into the evening’s proceedings. LeAnne Rumbel  playing Essie is marvelous in her ineptitude as a budding Ballerina.

Once again, Ken Rowland has created a set with furniture, props and décor that reflects the 1930s . Michael A. Berg’s authentic costume designs add to ambiance.

Kedar K. Adour, MD

Courtesy of www.theatreworldintermagazine.com

A BEAUTIFUL PRODUCTION AT THE SHELTON THEATER

By Joe Cillo

The Shelton Theater presents……

THE RAINMAKER

By

Richard Nash

Directed by Julie Dimas-Lockfeld

Starring Amanda Gerard-Shelton & Matt Shelton

Magic is believing in yourself.

If you can do that, you can make anything happen.

Goethe

Part of the mission of the Shelton Theater is “to communicate what it means to be human in the world” and Richard Nash’s classic play does just that.  “This poetic story has touched us with its quirky nature and courage to embrace the unknown,” says Director Julie Dimas-Lockfeld.  “It only takes a sliver of hope…to step into the grandeur of a larger and even more real perspective.”

 

Lockfeld worked with actors who have studied at The Shelton Studios.  Together, they created a moving tale of hope, love and beauty “The story for me becomes a romance between the elements of earth and sky – caring and dreaming,” says Lockfeld.  “The heart of the story is about opening up our closed minds and valuing what is right here. Funny thing is that what is here is so much more than what we imagined.”

 

For those of you who do not know the story of The Rainmaker, it is set in rural depression America during a drought that is destroying livestock, crops and hope.  Lizzie (Amanda Gerard-Shelton) is farmer H.C (Phillip Estrin)’s only daughter.  She is single, lonely and as big a source of worry to her father and two brothers as the lack of rain.

 

Noah, her older brother sees her for what she really is, a plan, quiet girl whose prospects diminish with each passing year, but her father sees the beauty that is beneath the surface: her goodness, her honesty and her compassion for others.  He loves her and wants her to find love and companionship, security and comfort.  The younger brother, Jim (John Kiernan) is a bit of a lush and a dreamer and does not realize that while he squanders money and time womanizing and drinking, his family needs him at home to help with the farm.

 

Into this quagmire of starving cattle, failing crops, spinsterhood and frustration comes Starbuck (Matt Shelton) a con man whose real name is Smith.  Shelton has created a character so charming and charismatic that his chicanery only adds to his appeal.  He burst into the kitchen and his appeal mesmerizes both the audience and the family on stage.  “I woke up this morning and I said to the world, this world is going at it all wrong” he says.  The family is so hungry for hope that Starbuck manages to convince H.C. and Jim to give him $100 to make it rain.  Both Lizzie and Noah doubt the rainmaker, but he reassures them: “Maybe God whispered a special word in my ear.”  He goes on to say, “Faith is believing you see white when your eyes tell you black.”

 

This is an ensemble piece and all the actors support one another beautifully, but it is Amanda Gerard-Shelton’s professionally accurate and sensitive performance that carries the play.  We not only hear her need in her speech, we see it in her eyes and her every movement.  She is lonely and she has accepted that all those hopes she once had will never come true.   “I’m sick and tired of being me,” she tells Starbuck and she goes out to the tack room where he is sleeping to find out if there can ever be something more in life for her.   Starbuck convinces her that beauty begins in the mind.  Sometimes, he says, it is a good thing to ignore what seems real, and believe that life is the way you want it to be.

 

When the brothers realize their spinster sister has spent the night with a crazy man they hardly know, they are scandalized. But H.C, knows the importance of love even if it is only for a moment.  He tells Noah,” You are so full or what right you can’t see what’s good.”

 

And indeed that is the point of this play.  We so often let our minds get in the way of our hearts that we keep ourselves from living the lives we could have if we but reached for the stars.

 

The set designed by Steve Coleman is a perfect replica of the time and place.  It sustains the mood of the play and yet looks as if it were plucked out of an American farmhouse from long ago.   Lockfeld uses the magic strains of the violin and artistic lighting to bring the audience into the world they see on stage.

 

The first thing we see is Lizzie in her bunk bed sleeping and we know that she is the fulcrum of the story.  “I just thought that this story is actually more of a fable. It’s more like elements in the psyche and I had the idea to style the production as a storybook tale. I wanted the experience of the actors to be real and personal and we keep working to grow that truth of experience in our work,” said Lockfeld. “Then maybe our modern sophistication and political correctness could be suspended a bit and we could enjoy the old fashioned family love, living close to the land, keeping faith in your heart qualities of The Rainmaker.”

 

The story, sentimental as it is, touches on important truths that transcend generations.  Only we can live our lives and only we can make those lives magic.  Lizzie says to Starbuck, “Maybe if you’d keep company with the world…if you saw it real.”

But the truth is that if we can believe in miracles, they will comfort us. As T. S. Elliot once said, “Mankind cannot stand too much reality.”

 

This is a beautiful production, understated and real.  It lasts an hour and 35 minutes without intermission and in that short space of time, you will be transported into a charming world where thinking makes it so.

Where there is great love
There are always miracles.
 Willa Cather

IF YOU GO….

WHERE: The Shelton Theater, 533 Sutter, San Francisco

WHEN: Now through December 22, 2012,

Fridays and Saturdays, 8 PM

TICKETS: $38 GENERAL ADMISSION

WWW SHELTONTHEATER.ORG

1 800 838 3006