The Cards-Rangers sit tied as I type: 1 win apiece. The series heads to Arlington, TX with the momentum pendulum well in the Rangers’ favor. A series billed as an offensive explosion waiting to happen has featured pitching more than bats. Last night was no different. The home town team came up on the short end, but what drama getting there.

The starting pitching was very good. From innings 1-8, only a single run was scored. This run came off of the bat of pinch hitter Allen Craig. In the 9th, the fun began (for the bad guys).

The old baseball adage goes that it is a game of inches. I am not sure if I have ever seen that adage played out more than the top of the 9th inning in Game 2 of the 2011 World Series. Leadoff hitter Ian Kinsler bloops what looked to be a routine flyball in no man’s land. Usually, only ground balls are referred to as “seeing eye singles” but this was the exception. The outfielders were playing what is called “no doubles” defense…a little deeper than normal. Kinsler’s shallow pop gets him a ticket to first base. If Holliday or Jay were playing in one step (or less), that’s out number one….a game of inches.

Next up: Elvis Andrus. He was looking to bunt, but no need. Kinsler swiped 2nd off of Jason Motte’s slow delivery. The canon of Yadi was about an inch shy. The tag of Furcal, an inch shy…..a game of inches.

Andrus lines a single into RF off of the man who has been nearly unhittable for three months (Motte). Kinsler takes 3rd. Andrus nabs 2nd off of a misplay by the best player of the last decade (Albert Pujols). Had Albert’s glove been an inch closer to 3rd, Andrus stays on 1st….game of inches.

Eventually, both Kinsler and Andrus scored on sacrifice flies. The Cards couldn’t get the run back in the 9th and lost 2-1. That is awesome October drama in the game of inches.

Share/Bookmark

First, I explored the initial character analysis. I try to do this as early as possible in the process. However, remember that this is a process. Character analysis should be continuing until final curtain.

Second, we explored some of the early goings on of acting. Most notably, I discussed my process in regards to learning lines of dialogue.

Finally, we have reached “tech” week or “hell” week…whatever you want to call it. The character has been analyzed, the lines learned. You are now playing a character on stage and saying a bunch of lines.

I don’t think that adding bits and pieces to the character during the final week of rehearsal is necessarily advisable. However, I include this late in the run for a specific reason: it includes both rehearsal and performance processes.

During the first and second parts, we have figured out ways to identify the emotional, philosophical, and mental states of the character. We have found a casual, natural, and comfortable way to manipulate the dialogue to meet the demands of the show’s logistics and the character’s identity.

Now, we have to do it. We have to secure the character’s physical identity. We have to convince the audience that the movements are authentic.

This is an interesting step in the process. It is certainly the most superficial part of the process, but perhaps the most important. While the audience may not be able to FEEL the character’s emotion, they will be able to SEE his physical movement. Thus, extraordinarily superficial but also important. This is what makes Michael Keaton a crowd-pleaser (see: eye brow acting).

Now in this character, I have to start out as a lazy lawyer that turns into a go-getter. I start as nervous around certain characters (Jessep, courtroom), condescending towards others (Jo, Dawson), and too casual around others (Jack, Sam). Some physical subtleties can be integral in portraying the changes in behavior.

Arm Crossing: I start with a lot of arm crossing. This signifies a tightness and guarded nature (around Jessep and courtroom). It also shows condescending (Jo). As the show progresses, this should progressively subside.

Eye Contact: With Jo, this should increase as the show progresses, generally. Also, it should be uneven with Dawson and Jessep.

Feet and Hands: As emotions grow, the limbs will become more active. It happens in life. It should happen on stage. Kaffee has a flamboyant sureness about him that might be expressed through wild arm movement. This will be evident with the Jessep scene at the show’s climax and with Jo during a couple of different scene.

Other Physical Characteristics:

Drunkenness: I have to be drunk in one scene. This is a challenge since it comes directly after a non-drunk scene. Generally with a scene like that, I would actually do something offstage to reach a different state (ie-run around the building to get tired). This is not an option in this show. Really, I am not sure at this point how to reach the state. Wild arms and legs might come into play.

Tension: A few times, physical tension has to come into play. Another word for this might be overpowered. Being as tall as I am, it is hard to look defeated on stage. At times, Jo and Jessep defeat Kaffee. Little things like standing up or sitting down, moving upstage or downstage, or dropping the shoulders can help reach the emotional level that the actor is seeking.

These are just a few examples of how I plan to reach the character of Daniel Kaffee in A Few Good Men over the next couple of weeks. There are plenty of different ways to get there and everyone is different.

Hopefully, I can emotionally, philosophically, mentally, and physically accomplish my goals and get my message from point A (Me) to point B (The Audience).

Share/Bookmark

*Musical versions available

The Sting

Much Ado About Nothing

Father of the Bride

Noises Off

Bleacher Bums

Harvey

It’s a wonderful life*

Arsenic & old lace

A Christmas Carol*

The Philadelphia Story

Of mice and men

Inherit the Wind

Miracle on 34^th Street

Hamlet

Death of a Salesman

On Golden Pond

One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest

To Kill a Mockingbird

Musicals

The Little Mermaid

Schoolhouse Rock

Camp Rock

SweeneyTodd

Back to the 80’s

The Producers

Sound of Music

Chicago

Nunset Boulevard (Nunsense Sequel)

Rent

Evita

Mamma Mia

Annie

Cinderella

Guys & Dolls

Grease

South Pacific

Little shop of horrors

1776

Wedding singer

Jesus Christ Superstar

Happy Days

Oklahoma

Legally Blonde

Rocky horror

Aladdin Jr

Hank WIlliams Lost Highway

Ring of Fire (Johnny Cash)

Application below

Dear Prospective Director,

CCS is seeking directors for the 2012-2013 production season. Some adjustments have been made from years prior. They are listed below. The 2^nd page is devoted to the actual application.

Dates have not been set for any of the shows. However, we will proceed with the usual time slots in mind. Although these are not necessarily set it stone, the general format to the season is as follows:

1. July:  Youth Musical (16 and under)
2. August: Large Scale Musical
3. September: Play or Musical
4. October: Play or Musical
5. December: Play or Musical
6. February: Play or Musical
7. April: Play or Musical

Additional Guidelines and Notes

• All directors must be CCS members. Non-members who show interest will have the opportunity to become members at any time before putting in for a show.

• All submissions must include a 2^nd available time slot.

• The expanded stage space and backstage space at the Avon Theater allows (nearly) all shows to be performed within the theater. Large-scale musicals are included.

Name

Contact Information:

Previous Directorial Experience:

Issues experienced as a director:

Show Submission:

Preferred Timeslot:

Alternate Timeslot:

Production Staff:

Why should this show appear on the CCS stage?

Challenges that accompany this show:

Additional Comments:

Share/Bookmark

I think the best way to do a show would be never having to open up the script book. Let me elaborate. When we memorize lines, study lines, and practice lines, we are formulating a delivery and cadence that will become standardized. I try to do this with limitations. Ideally, we don’t want these lines to sound rehearsed. Obviously, rehearsal is a necessity. Therefore, I take a non-conforming approach that, while criticized, works for me.

I try to learn my lines not as written but rather as material to use for suggestion. I think the dialogue will be much more natural if not calculated word by word to spoon-feed the audience the writer’s message. This forces me to learn the meanings of each line rather than the words. If the president simply reads words off of a teleprompter, the audience can generally see that it is rehearsed, same old same old, political jargon….rhetoric. There is no authenticity to the dialogue.

Authenticity is the end game: the goal. On stage and in theater, we operate in a hypocritical nature. We want to portray authenticity, but we practice ad nauseum in a rehearsal setting. Thus, a synthetic performance is promoted.

Memorizing the meaning of the lines rather than the words also enables me to be malleable when necessary. If I forget the word that was supposed to come next in an exchange, hopefully my vocabulary allows for me to input a synonym with ease. Memorizing meaning rather than the words tends to leave less to chance and allows your brain to focus on different portions of the performance rather than scrambling for a word for word sequence.

Obviously, saying many of the lines word for word will happen by happenstance if nothing else. Great! Your fellow actors appreciate their cue lines.

Past the lines, I try to get into a character by reaching back through emotions in my own background. To me, this is definitely the most challenging part of acting: obtaining a character that not only the actor but the audience can feel and relate to. Buzz words abound…”understanding a character”. I wouldn’t necessarily call it nonsense, but it is a personal achievement that can often get lost on an audience.

More will be on this later….

Next up: Show Time

Share/Bookmark

This methodology is certainly a work in progress. Not all of the letters of the acronym are all that useful, but acronyms are fun….thus, I use the acronym.

I am currently playing a role in the upcoming show A Few Good Men. I began to work on this character analysis shortly after being cast in the role. Hopefully, I have comprehended the part of Daniel Kaffee in a correct, useful, and understandable manner.

Personality (why do they say a line in a certain manner)

–Cynical about the US military: He does believe that the military exists to serve a certain function in terms of national security, but he is not necessarily sold on the methodology. Basically, Kaffee is not sure that the ends justifies the means.

–Sarcastic: His sarcastic, and sometimes condescending, behavior suggests a man that thinks too highly of himself.

–Guarded: His refusal of entering the courtroom and his initial intimidation from Jessep suggests a young lawyer that, although good professionally, is unsure of himself.

Conclusion: The character is an ironic dichotomy in and of himself. Although relatively smooth and fast-talking like a prototypical/stereotypical lawyer, Kaffee is rather guarded given his history of plea bargain and his father’s ghost.

Role (in the story)

–Protagonist….probably. Although he is defending 2 young men on murder charges (that may be right or wrong), he is also the primary antagonist against the US military

Conclusion: Each member of an audience will bring with them unique experiences. While a more liberal audience member might see Kaffee as a beacon of hope, a more conservative member might see him as the problem with society. In the end, he is a law man that is truly in search of right and wrong while maintaining his position as the defense attorney. In this particular case, it is hard to identify right and wrong similar to the Milgram Experiment. Kaffee knows this. He searches for truth in a muddled agenda that he struggles to comprehend.

Interaction (with other characters)

Jessep: There is a father/son dynamic that co-exists within the context of his father’s shadow. Eventually, he must face both the man (Jessep) and the ghost (his father…the courtroom)

Jo:  She feels like an older sister to him that pushes him to do the dishes. He doesn’t want to admit that this older sister (whom he is more talented then) may be right from time to time. The older sister (Jo) convinces the younger brother (Danny) to stand up to the father (Jessep)

Sam: They are co-workers and drinking buddies. They have an emotionally detached relationship that must become emotionally attached in order to understand the case. While Sam knows Danny’s background, he would just as soon not discuss the demons of Danny’s past.

Dawson: Throughout, he sees Dawson as a weak-minded Marine that simply can’t think for himself. He sees little “honor” in this. It evolves into a respect for a man that values the code. While he doesn’t believe that Dawson is necessarily right in following the order, he has a devotion to Dawson. He also slowly gains a respect for the devotion Dawson has towards the Marine Corps.

Conclusion: Danny’s background as the son of a great man seems to creep up in many of his interactions. He talks about it at least once to 3 of the 4 characters above. The fear of Jessep symbolizes a fear of his past and . Jo knows this and imposes her opinion upon Danny. Sam tries to avoid the obvious conclusion. Dawson, while not directly mentioning Danny’s father, re-iterates that Danny is not a “great” man…whereas his father was. Upon the final act, Dawson salutes Danny showing that he has reached a level that dad would be proud of.

Development (growth, change, flat, round)

–Mostly round/Dynamic:

Although his cynicism is not entirely “healed”, Kaffee manages to adapt to the idea of honor, code, etc. When Dawson salutes him at the show’s conclusion, this is most evident. Kaffee has learned what honor means to him and attempts to further educate Dawson on the term ‘honor”

He gets past the haunting ghost of his father and the shadow of what must have been a great man. Stepping into the courtroom is exhibit A. Taking on Jessep is exhibit B. The dialogue where Kaffee tells Jessep to respect him and not call him “son” personifies this detail.

Conclusion: Daniel Kaffee is a dynamic character. He accepts his place as a Naval officer, albeit reluctantly. He has begun to understand not only the meaning of honor but fighting for a cause and justice. His father’s shadow no longer casts such a heavy load upon him. Kaffee begins to build his own shadow.

Emotion (background/history shaping behavior)

Father’s shadow and his opinion shapes much of the character’s emotion…makes him unsure of himself against the backdrop of high expectations

Conclusion: His ironic, sarcastic demeanor is a front for a soul stuck between fear and brilliance. If Daniel Kaffee can only escape from a shadow brought on by a great father, he could become a great man himself.

Communicating this message to the audience is the next challenge…

Share/Bookmark

More or less at least.

I found this article fascinating in that applies to so many things in life. In leadership roles, wording can mean a lot. Having the right words to express a point might mean an actor (employee) is either on your side or not.

http://www.businessweek.com/management/ten-things-only-bad-managers-say-09232011.html

This article breaks down 10 things that bosses (directors) shouldn’t say. Points 1, 4, and 5 seem to be the most applicable to the director/actor relationship.

Point 1: Ultimatums are silly. It is a director’s job to get the most out of the cast that they put in place.

Point 4: As a director, be straightforward. You are in charge. You are supposed to make the decisions. Just be frank and tactful in the manner in which you turn down ideas. There is always that one (or 10) actors that think they know best. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. Make sure they know who is in charge, but maintain tact in your delivery.

Point 5: The answer to the question…in short…is I did. I, the director, gave that permission. Honor it. Value the contribution. Give the actor ownership. It will pay off in the end.

Check out the article. It might help you as a director, leader, manager, human being….

Share/Bookmark

1-Promotion of the arts in all aspects through the organized efforts of its members in the community of Clinton County and the surrounding area through active, constructive, artistic projects.

2-It shall be the further purpose of this organization to provide to the men and women of Clinton County and the surrounding area educational experiences through art related projects, seminars, and workshops.

The simple premise of this blog post is “How can we better achieve these goals?”

A number of suggestions are made frequently. Some are even executed. Sometimes, the ideas (and executions) fizzle out over time. Still,ideas are better than no idea at all.

Going back to the objectives…..
1-Promotion of the arts in all aspects through the organized efforts of its members in the community of Clinton County and the surrounding area through active, constructive, artistic projects.

I think that this is an objective that is met fairly consistently and thoroughly. Seven shows are produced each year. One is specifically intended for children. Others try to incorporate children’s participation as well. Still, aside from the seven annual productions might there be other ways to utilize the Avon Theater and/or the resources that are available to produce other artistic projects? What might some of those projects include? An orchestra? A book club? Poetry club? Woodworking society? There are still people out there in Clinton County and the surrounding area that are interested in the arts….they just don’t know it yet.

2-It shall be the further purpose of this organization to provide to the men and women of Clinton County and the surrounding area educational experiences through art related projects, seminars, and workshops.

I think this is an area that needs improvement. We have in the past had workshops. Often, this item becomes super-ceded by the necessities of item 1. How can this improve? What sorts of seminars are needed and/or wanted?

Clinton County Showcase has a lot of things going for it. Many people have worked tirelessly to accomplish what has come to be a heck of an artistic outlet over the course of nearly twenty one years. The facility (Avon Theater) is becoming more and more equipped every day to meet the needs of the group. Still, there is certainly room for improvement. Post here or tell a member of the Board of Directors ways in which you think CCS can be enhanced AND how CCS can go about enhancing it.

Share/Bookmark

If you didn’t watch the Emmys….you’d be like the majority of human beings on Planet Earth. However, you would have also missed the shellacking that Modern Family put on the rest of the field. If you have not checked this show out, do ASAP. I would hate to see it meet the same fate as another great, under appreciated show like Arrested Development. Coincidentally, they’re pretty similar.

Another critical darling, Mad Men, won on the dramatic side. Here is one that I just don’t quite get. It’s like a Martin Scorsese movie. They always look distinctive and interesting, but they lack plot. Mad Men is somewhat comparable. Yes, they are smoking cigarettes on TV…how taboo….although the basic architecture of the story is interesting. Please, check this one out too.

Speaking of TV….has anyone noticed how movies suck? TV is the new film. Even a decade ago (or 15 years), film was the forum where art was being created not TV. HBO has changed the game. Now AMC is changing it more.

Finally….another show to watch…The Sing Off. This is on NBC (remember when NBC was BMOC?) and is very cool (see: Ben Folds). A bunch of different all vocal singing groups “sing off” for some sort of prize. The competition is secondary. The performances are primary. And they are top notch. Even the bad ones (relatively speaking) are very cool to hear. Please—watch it!

pjk

Share/Bookmark

Theater artists – which I’ll define here as directors, actors, set designers, costume designers, and lighting designers – are some of the most courageous people on earth. They put their art on display for an audience of strangers to hopefully enjoy, knowing the risk that they may not. Occasionally, the audience is completely apathetic toward your work. And sometimes they actually hate it.
COMMUNITY THEATER ARTISTS define an entirely new category of bravery. While professional theater artists get paid a little (sometimes very little), community theater artists are unpaid volunteers who devote hours, weeks, and even months of their lives to a particular show. Yet, “everyone’s a critic.” Theater artists know this when they accept a project, and they know their work will rarely please everyone.
I am not suggesting that critics should be silenced. Without feedback, we cannot improve. My plea to our critics is to provide honest feedback with an appreciation for the time devoted to bring a show to life. For example, I dislike the Nunsense shows. They’re just not my cup of tea. However, I’ve never seen one of our casts give a bad performance of a Nunsense show. The costumes have always been good; the lighting has always been good; the sets have always been good. The majority of our audiences LOVE the silly scripts, but in my mind, they too often cross the boundary between silly and stupid. Yes, that’s an unabashed criticism at the playwright Dan Goggin, but we’ve sent him a lot of checks, so I’ll bet he’ll accept my harshness with a grain of salt.
The adage “one person’s trash is another person’s treasure” is absolutely true. Can you believe there are people out there who didn’t like the movie “Forrest Gump?” Opinions will differ. It’s ART. By definition, true art won’t please everyone. Even when we produce a not-so-well-received show, our audiences are thankfully large enough that we guarantee ourselves that SOMEONE will appreciate our work.
I applaud the set-builder who works tirelessly in his garage until midnight for weeks and weeks, building pieces of scenery guaranteed to have absolutely no useful life beyond a handful of performances on our stage. I applaud the costumer who turns her dining room table into a holding pen for sewing machines, piles of fabric, and tools of the seamstress trade for weeks and weeks before a show, creating and altering unique costume pieces for a variety of oddly shaped actors. I applaud the tech crew who sets up the equipment, resets the equipment, tears down the equipment, fixes the equipment when it doesn’t work, protects the equipment when it starts to rain, and somehow finds the courage to do it all again the next night. I applaud the director who eats, sleeps, and breathes the show for months, juggling the demands of the other artists involved, rarely receiving acknowledgement for the effort. And I applaud the actors… Hell with the actors – the audience applauds them at the end of the show. We might “armchair quarterback” your volunteerism, but it is not without appreciation.
In closing, I leave you with my favorite speech featured in the lexicon of Disney-Pixar films, Anton Ego’s analysis of CRITICS in “Ratatouille:”
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.”

Share/Bookmark

1. SAFETY

Safety is the #1 priority at all Disney parks. You can’t compromise on safety. Safety trumps everything else. If you don’t ensure a safe environment for your guests, they probably won’t come back. A safe environment helps avoid lawsuits too. For readers who visit Disney World and wonder why the Haunted Mansion “breaks down” frequently, it is usually because a child or elderly guest cannot coordinate boarding a doom buggy while simultaneously walking on a moving floor conveyor. This system is an EFFICIENT way to board guests, but it’s not always the safest way. Frequent ride stoppages are necessary. Yes, it takes away from the SHOW a bit for on-board guests, but it’s a worthwhile compromise in the eyes of the Disney folks.

2. COURTESEY

Courtesey is about first impressions. Is your facility neat, clean, and inviting? Is there any clutter or trash laying around? And most importantly, are your people friendly and helpful?

For Disney World, this means “cast members” smiling and wishing you a “magical day.” It means they don’t point somewhere when giving directions, but rather use an open-handed gesture. It means they stoop down to a child’s eye-level when talking to the younger guests. For CCS, this means friendly ushers, attentive concessions workers, and charming 50-50 sellers.

3. SHOW

This is the purpose of the organization, what the organization “does.” For Disney World, it’s assembilng the best collection of attractions and amusement rides in the world. For CCS it’s the theatrical stage shows it produces.

It might seem strange to include this objective as #3 on the list of 4. Without achieving excellence in the other two, however, you might as well be mediocre on SHOW as well. Of course, the SHOW has to be outstanding; it’s what guests expect. Just don’t ignore SAFETY and COURTESEY.

#4. EFFICIENCY

Nobody ever walked out of Disney World saying “My, what an efficient vacation!” And hopefully, no one walks out of the Avon Theater saying, “That was certainly an efficient show.” Yet, achieving efficiency is important for all organizations. Without it, you have bankruptcy.

Efficiency in the wonderful world of Disney means its shareholders are happy. It means they turned a profit. Efficiency for CCS means we’ve stayed on budget and maximized our resources to bring the audience the best possible theatrical experience. With a little luck, it also means the organization has funds to re-invest into its facilities, equipment, or back into its shows.

Have a magical day!

Share/Bookmark