Day twenty-five: Potted Potter

All seven books in seventy minutes! Okay, I can't really review this, it was a show for kids. I wouldn't see it again; a lot of it is annoying, but only because they drag out the bad humor for the kids' sake. But we just went for laughs, and got them, so I'm satisfied. I'd LOVE to see this show if it was done for adults, though.

I had another show to go to last night, but I heard only bad reviews about it. The most descriptive one being that it was a bunch of kids who got their hands on too much technology, so it wasn't about the story, but more what they could do with six or eight big TV screens. I wasn't up for spending an hour and a half watching it, so Potted Potter was officially my last show of the festival. Classy way to end it, I think.

Now, it's off to London, New York, then home to Seattle. Thanks for reading!

Day twenty-four: If That's All There Is / Zeitgeist

I bought a ticket to If That's All There Is on recommendation from people in my class seeing it, and coming home to say it was one of the best things to happen at the Fringe this year. Sadly, it ended up one of those circumstances where the hype overpowered the novelty of the show by the time I got around to seeing it. I am able to appreciate what it might have been like to see it for the first time without hearing anything about it, but that is not the same as experiencing it first-hand. Plus, I think if a show is really solid, you can hear everything about it before you go and still be quite moved by the performance. For me, this wasn't the case, so I'm not quite on board that it is legitimately as incredible as people discussed. That said, it was still a cute show with some great humor, and it was usually pretty enjoyable.

The play follows a man and a woman in the weeks before their wedding day. The woman struggles the whole time to have any sort of feelings about it (she shoves her face into a pile of chopped onions to try to cry, imagines her husband getting shot at the wedding, etc.) and the man is completely neurotic about it all, allowing no room to relax (he makes elaborate charts and graphs about the plan for the wedding day, and ends up bursting into song during a business meeting out of stress). There is a woman who plays both the man's psychiatrist and the woman's office assistant. Ultimately, she helps each of them find solace.

It was an interesting commentary on wedding stress, but I honestly didn't connect with it well. Maybe because I haven't experienced the anticipation of an approaching marriage, but I think also because I can't imagine myself in their position. It's the type of situation where the two don't seem to know each other or communicate very well in the first place, and that's the only cause of their weird emotional issues. So...just talk to each other! But then, I guess there would be no play if they did that.

Also, when my other classmates saw it, they said it went very smoothly, and the pacing was seamless and effective. Unfortunately, the day I saw it was clearly an off day for them. I think being overly comfortable with prep at this point in the festival, and having an earlier than normal show (they usually performed in the afternoon, but I saw it in the morning) was the cause of a few mishaps. Small things, but they affected larger parts of the show: a wheel on the woman's chair was missing, and there are a few choreographed parts with it that she struggled with, since it wouldn't roll properly. Also, there's a part where the psychiatrist gets the man to completely let go; he wears a long wig, and she brings out a big fan so he can stand in the wind and scream. It had so much potential to be completely hilarious, but the fan wasn't plugged in, so she had to say "pretend you can feel the wind!" Everyone has a day or two like that in a run of a show, and they went with it the best they could. It's just too bad I saw it on an off day.

The second show I saw, Zeitgeist, was just completely incredible and awesome (in the original sense of the word). Performed by a company based in Brisbane, Australia, it was modern dance, but a million times more enjoyable and intriguing than Inventing the Sky. So, maybe I don't have a bias against modern dance. I don't know much about dance terminology or theory, but my take on modern dance is that the point is to stray from mindless repetition, and draw more from raw emotion and impulse. With Inventing the Sky, the dancers just had me watch what they were going through. In Zeitgeist, however, they pulled me in so I, too, could experience what they were feeling. I'm not entirely sure how they did it so successfully; maybe it was more controlled modern, and not just weird twitching and showing off their bodies.

There was this one crazy part where a woman walked across the stage, dragging a small wagon full of eggs. One dancer took an egg and smashed it on his head. Then, each person took one, cracked it open, and poured it into his/her mouth. They held the yolks out on their tongues, then spit them out all over the place. Then slowly, they looked up deviously at the audience, picked up eggs, and the lights blacked out right as they threw them at us. ...Those ones were fake. It was terrifying, then hilarious.

Also, during one of the songs, I was so drawn in, I barely remember what happened. It was just beautiful, emotional music, with beautiful, emotional movement. I'm really glad, too, because in the program, they gave us the list of songs they used. Another sign that it was great, was all I wanted to do after was dance. Any dance performance that makes you want to move is doing something right.

Day twenty-three: FLOW (Fabulous, Lucky, Outrageous World) / Inventing the Sky

My word of choice for the two shows I saw today is: masturbatory.

FLOW wasn't necessarily unenjoyable because of it, but it depends on what perspective you take. Apparently the show changes every night. It's this older woman named Neel de Jong, and she kind of sticks with a theme, I think, but does whatever she feels like every night. Tonight, it was half an hour that began with her in the middle of the stage in a giant white parka, white tights, big sunglasses, and patent leather heels. She stood center stage, tangled up in about 30 large tree branches. For the first ten minutes, she untangled herself from the tree branches, and then took a box of strawberries and threw them on the branches. Next, she spoke to us about metaphors, and the revelation that she has a black hole inside of her. Finally, she read us a poem, then sang it to us as a song, with piano accompaniment.

Remember when a play reminded me of movies Ariel and I used to make? That's why I laughed almost the whole time. It reminded me of parts in our movies where we'd just drag things on that weren't even that funny, but they were so ridiculous we'd laugh ourselves to tears. Also, the woman looked somewhat like my grandmother Ro-Ro, which made it even more totally absurd and hilarious to watch.

The other perspective that I saw it from half the time was that of "this is completely for yourself, so why should I sit through it?" I guess it wasn't completely for herself, because she interacted with us, and genuinely seemed to want us to understand the thoughts (and occasionally relatable insanity) going through her head. But I have to say I'm pretty glad I didn't directly pay the 6 pounds for a ticket, as it was one of the shows bought for us in advance. (Even though I technically did pay for it in the program fee...)

I don't know. I'm undecided about the show. When I relaxed and went with it, I enjoyed it. But when I thought about self-expression vs. theater, I got annoyed.

The other show I saw tonight I fell into going to, because someone here had a ticket and couldn't go. This one, I'm very glad I didn't pay for (in any way). Inventing the Sky was a bunch of young dancers trying to act. Ugh, modern dance. To be fair, I haven't seen much modern dance, but I did go with someone who dances, and she agrees with me. So if anything, I'm probably not crazy. It was an hour and a half, and there was barely a minute when I was content to be there. The most painful thing about it for me was that these four young people clearly have incredible potential to move and dance like not many people can, but they filled the show with uncomfortable, jerky movements and awkwardly over-the-top facial expressions and miming.

One thing I love about this festival is that it helps me further understand my theatrical palette. And something I realized I cannot stand is the kind of miming where the people mouth words or use intricate facial expressions; then it just seems obvious that they're doing everything but speak. If they use movement and committed gestures instead, it seems like the alternative to speaking, not just the absence of it.

I realized about halfway through that if these people were older (they're probably about my age), I might like it more. But at the age they are, this kind of modern dance just makes them look like they wanted to be up on stage, so they are, and they're young, so it should be weird.

To generalize quite a bit, I feel like there are two reasons people end up doing theater. 1) They want to be onstage because they express emotions externally, and/or 2) they want to explore and help others figure out relationships and human nature. Each is a legitimate reason, and I know many people who simultaneously fit into both categories. However, I tend to think that some of the people who fit only into the 1st category are not self-aware enough to make theater effective for the audience. At least two of the four actors tonight seemed like those types, and it really grated on me. Almost the whole time they were up there, I read "hey, look at me" on their faces, along with whatever else they were trying to express.

But hey, if nothing else, I had a ton of realizations about theater while watching it.

Day twenty-two: The Rebel Cell

Not the best, but it was entertaining. Its self-description was "8 Mile meets 1984." Pretty appropriate, actually. It takes place in 2013, and is about a British guy who calls himself Dizraeli, who's in prison for starting riots in England and is suspected of bombing the 2012 London Olympics. He's interviewed by a journalist from Vancouver, B.C., who we later find out used to be his friend that he rapped with about problems with the world. A lot of the show is flashbacks (that take place in 2009...hey, clever) to when they did shows together. They had a lot of audience participation; it was kind of funny and pretty fun to watch. Unfortunately, the guy who plays the friend from Vancouver is tragically bad at rapping, and not much better at acting. I'm not really sure why he was cast in that role. Actually, he was supposed to be a pretty bad rapper in the show, but since he lacked much presence onstage in general, it didn't seem funny, just...bad. The other guy was pretty good, though. Not something I'd see again, but I did laugh a fair amount, so not a wasted ticket.

Day twenty-one: Orphans

This play was so, so interesting to watch. I don't mean interesting like it was kind of okay and sometimes funny. I mean that it was nonstop intriguing, I-can't-stop-watching-the-wheels-turn-in-these-characters'-heads kind of interesting. I heard a few people comment about how the play needed to get moving, because it was slow to pick up. But to me, it was gripping the whole time. Wow, it is so well-written. Yes, the characters spend a lot of time skirting around issues and trying to get their points across, but it's because that's who they are; they're feeling each other out, and trying to communicate without digging themselves into deeper holes.

I'll back up. The play follows a couple, Helen and Danny, and Helen's brother, Liam. It opens as Liam bursts in on the couple having dinner, and he is covered in blood. The story continues from there as tensions arise from Helen's protectiveness over Liam (their parents died when they were young, so she essentially raised him), and her attempts at loyalty to Danny (she loves him dearly, but isn't satisfied with their marriage). The couple becomes inextricably involved with Liam's actions and borderline innocent mistakes, which turn out to be more and more deeply twisted as the play continues. It sounds like an intense drama, which sometimes it is, but a lot of it is actually hilarious. The humor is dark, well-placed and finely-tuned, so it is never disruptive and only adds to the experience.

The acting was solid, too. The actors were so deep into it, and more dedicated than most I've seen here so far. And to think they've been performing this for weeks.

We actually went to this panel a few weeks ago with five playwrights who have shows here at the festival, and one of them was Dennis Kelly, who wrote this play. Unfortunately, I can't remember anything specific he said about it, except that it began just from the idea of someone bursting into someone's dinner covered in blood.

They're selling the script at the theater, and I think I'm going to get it; most of all I want to see how it all translates on paper. I have a suspicion that if Americans performed it in the U.S., the humor would be lost. I think our instinct would be to read it as completely dramatic, or the audience may be afraid to laugh if we did employ the humor.

Seriously dynamic play, and incredibly written. Also, the set was mouthwatering.

Day twenty: Precious Little Talent

I originally had a ticket for Chekov's Ivanov, which was done in a pool, and was apparently horrible. I guess it was only about "hey, we're in a pool!" and they relied on that to carry them through the rest. Kind of like a Hugh Grant movie ("hey, it's Hugh Grant!"). So, I skipped that and went to Precious Little Talent, which many people recommended to me. It was a sweet play about Joey, a 23-year-old English (not British, she specifies) girl who goes to New York to stay with her father over the holidays (and potentially beyond), and meets Sam, a 19-year-old American boy, who is her father's caretaker. On the surface, it is a romantic comedy, but that title does not do it justice. There is a significant amount of depth, from the once brilliant father's waning brain functionality to Joey resisting and then embracing the American ideals of hope and change.

As an American, it was interesting to a) catch the boy's slip-ups in his accent and b) listen to the banter between the two people regarding each other's culture (or lack thereof). There was a solid theme throughout of Joey having lost her job, not having much of a path, and not wanting to be forgotten. Meanwhile, her father is in the process of forgetting her, as his brain deteriorates at a relatively young age. Sam essentially plays her hero, with an endearing innocence and persevering optimism. They compare the English ideas that things are how they are, and you deal with it and enjoy what you have, to the American idea that anything is possible if you set your mind to it. Each has its place, and the argument was not biased until the end, when Joey decides (in her words) that it takes more balls to be as idealistic as Sam than it does to simply accept what's in front of you.

It was refreshing to see the U.S. in a positive light overseas. Not because I felt proud, necessarily, but because what the play represents seems like a step toward the direction we want to be going in; people see each other as individuals seeking the same important thing, rather than as masses creating a country with one mind behind everything. Also, I don't know how many plays Obama has been mentioned in yet, but I suspect this is one of the first.

That said, it wasn't overwhelmingly political. The play maintains a balanced sprinkling of humor, and societal and personal depth throughout. The characters were all pretty convincing, aside from the boy being a little too fidgety (he was trying to play nervous). Regardless, it was definitely enjoyable until the end.

Day nineteen: Mong Yeon (A Love in Dream)

There have been about two shows that left me feeling like I was hit over the head (emotionally speaking), and this was one of them. This was a stunningly beautiful Korean story about losing love. Three women played instruments for the music far downstage, and two other women on the sides with a piano and a cello played occasionally, too. For some reason I have this thing for white sheets, and they had a huge one in the back that they sometimes dropped and pulled up to separate characters, use shadows, and play with light. Movement and dance in the piece heightened the emotions ten-fold, whether they were positive or painful. They simply did an incredible job of expressing yearning and what it can make a person do. I can't really say more about it, other than that it was totally beautiful, captivating, and emotionally enveloping.

Evening walk and KITTIES

I went on a walk this evening and came across almost as many cats as I do in Palo Alto. Got pictures of two of them. The first one lives in the apartment at the bottom of our building. Despite his perpetual facial expression, he's super friendly. He's supposed to be a lot fluffier, but it looks like his owner trims his fur (aside from his head and tail). The second one was a sweetie, too. He's tiny, but SO pudgy. Unfortunately, they don't meow with an accent.

Day eighteen: Mind Out / In A Thousand Pieces

First, family: thanks for all the thoughtful discussion on my last post! I really enjoyed reading it. I love the interpretations from all your different backgrounds. I had no idea you all were so interested in this.....exciting!

As for today, it was a two-play day after a 9 am class. Probably staying in tonight to binge on 30-Rock re-runs.

The first play was called Mind Out. It was definitely interesting, and sometimes insightful. It was kind of like watching a big acting exercise for 75 minutes, with a brief musical interlude three-quarters of the way through. Each of the five actors (three women, two men) had one other person to verbally direct what to do. So, basically, the dialogue would be something like:

Person 1: You pick up a chair. (Person 2 picks up a chair)

3: You take the chair to the table. (Person 1 takes the chair to the table)

2: You sit in the chair. (Person 3 sits in the chair.)

Etc., etc. Okay, that example sounds really boring. It was actually how they started the play, so at first, it was kind of boring. But since the style is so interesting, I remained intrigued. They switched who was directing who every once in a while, too, but it never got confusing. It was a lot funnier than I expected, like when one person would start pouring tea, and another would have to run across the room to stop pouring it. (I know, totally ingenious humor. But it still works!) One of the main points of the play was to create commentary about when people get too caught up in trying to act according to what they assume other people are thinking. I know I've been guilty of that many-a-time. They got that across, but I do think it could have been about 20 minutes shorter.

They had this fantastic, seemingly random musical interlude, where 3 men came in from offstage playing a catchy song on a trombone, a trumpet, and a base drum (? a huge one around his neck). The guy with the drum was dressed in a penguin suit. Needless to say, it was fun to watch.

The program says "devised and performed by....", not "written," so I assume they all collaborated and just started improvising this type of performance in rehearsal, until they found a somewhat cohesive story line that stuck. I like that way of going about it; the product nearly always ends up pretty (forgive me) organic.

The second show I saw was unquestionably more serious. It's called In A Thousand Pieces, and it's a commentary on sex trade in the UK. This show, too, was definitely interesting. At the start, they had a lot of choreographed movement, that wasn't exactly dance, but wasn't just walking around. It got a little repetitive. The three women also mimed being raped, and that lasted a long time and was difficult to watch. But I think the point of all of that being repetitive may have been to give us a very, very mild version of the frustration and anxiety that comes from something being repeated over and over. Overall, they (The Paper Birds theater company) experimentally and artistically expressed quite a few of the emotions and facts surrounding sex slavery.

I don't know much about the subject, so it was definitely informative. Some parts of it were a lot like a PSA, but I think that's part of what they were going for, so I didn't mind. They used a projector for a lot of it, too, with short clips of interviews of all sorts of people who were asked about the issue. (But the women would usually be doing the voices of the people shown in the videos.) It was mostly to demonstrate the amount of ignorance that surrounds the subject.

It's an intense subject, and they dealt with it pretty well. Something interesting was that the three women are British, but they were portraying all kinds of women from other countries, who were moving to the UK for the first time. Their investment in the issue seemed genuine and admirable, though, and not self-righteous. Overall, the whole experience was moving and well-performed. They also had a man onstage the whole time playing piano music when needed. I'm still not sure if there were supposed to be any implications about a man being so present in this story about women. The theater company is comprised of only women, too. He didn't do anything but play the piano, but still...they chose to place him onstage, so I don't know.

In other news, I got to see Andrew Bird in concert last night. It was incredible. Absolutely the best concert I've seen, ever. We got to go to one of his few acoustic shows, where his band isn't there and he mixes all of the music onstage, himself. That sounds like, "oh hey, that's neat," but that's not even close. I mean, yes, neat. But I was totally blown away, far more than I expected (and I expected a lot). He starts playing one part of the melody on his violin, and uses recording pedals to get that down and put it on repeat. Then he plucks the violin for a different part of the song. He layers that on top, adds whistling, guitar, clapping, whatever he wants, etc. etc. Finally, he pieces it all together for the whole song and adds his clear, perfect voice (no exaggeration) and beautiful lyrics. I mean, that is performance! Honestly, I don't even want to write about it because I'm doing it no justice. He also used this cool, spinning double gramophone. Go, go, go see him!! I think he's touring some parts of the U.S. later this year.

Reasons I think reviews are crap

I've really enjoyed almost all the shows I've seen. Part of it, I think, is because I've gotten lucky with the tickets I chose. But I'm pretty sure it's mostly because my critical eye is skewed toward the positive.

As soon as I became more seriously interested in drama, I felt like there was something wrong with that. But after seeing so many shows in the past two weeks, I've come to appreciate my skewed eye. I think I so often sound forgiving of shows because when I go into one, I immediately try to figure out how the director/company wants me to see it. And honestly, once I have a grasp on that, how could I not enjoy it? It's the act of trying to understand a different perspective that I love, not just the story line of the play; so, it is rarely a bad experience. I notice the intricacies, I understand the symbolism, and I slip easily into the characters' heads. I guess that when I don't enjoy a show, like Catch or The Fall of Man, it's because I just can't align myself with the director's way of thinking.

I got to thinking about this because I've seen a few shows recently with people who react very strongly one way or the other. Most of the time, it seems like they were watching with the sole intent of finding aspects about it that would make them sound intelligently critical after the show. I understand that; I've done that before, too. Sometimes I wish I were able to watch a show from an intensely critical standpoint. But now, I prefer to sit back and watch the show for what it is, and I'll be able to trust my gut on whether or not I liked it.

Day fifteen: Icarus 2.0

One of my favorites. I can't get over how endearing the whole thing was (definitely not to be confused with cutesy). I say endearing mostly because the guy playing the child was so convincing as a young boy, even though he's probably twenty-four. And also because the relationship between the boy and the father was sweet and needy, and entirely convincing.

The story, as you might have guessed, is inspired by the Greek myth about Icarus: his father makes him wax wings, but he flies too close to the sun (can't not think about Buster when I say that), so they melt and he falls into the sea. In Icarus 2.0, a father and son, Icarus, live in a flat in London. The father never leaves, and Icarus only leaves to get food for them. The father has been working on training the boy to fly, since the day he left his wife and took the child with him. I'm not sure what age the boy is supposed to be, but they make it evident that he is more dependent on his father than he should be.

I said the story is endearing, but I don't necessarily mean that it is light-hearted. They employ a lot of symbolism that nods to the myth, but fits into the modern day. For example, the father keeps listening to recordings of pilots communicating with ground control. As the project to get Icarus to fly seems less and less possible, the father begins to realize his mistake in keeping Icarus from the real world as he grows up. Simultaneously, the recordings he listens to become more frightening. Finally, after the father tricks Icarus into leaving (for his own good), the recording is of the final minute of a plane crash.

And in Icarus 2.0, the father had set up a large ball of string attached to a table in the flat, so Icarus could carry the end of the string whenever he went out to get food, and then find his way back without trouble. And something I just read (thanks Wikipedia) about the myth of Icarus is that his father, Daedalus, was the one who gave Theseus the string to help him find his way back out of the labyrinth (in the myth about killing the minotaur). Clever reference!

Anyway, I enjoyed it the whole time, which makes it a solid show, in my opinion.

Day fourteen: Horse

This woman is insane. She's great. She's insane.

Another one-person show. She had this hilarious, infectious presence. Basically, she performed a bunch of things revolving around the theme of horses, and had a GREAT time doing it. So, we had a great time, too. She sang, she acted like a horse dancing, she read a horse-riding manual like it was porn, she danced with a guy from the audience, she acted like a horse in a race, she acted like an acrobat on a horse, she used a saddle as a trapeze........all, obviously, without a horse.

I really have no idea how to explain this show, except that it kind of reminded me of movies my friend Ariel and I used to make in middle school. If only we had made one about horses. So hopefully those of you who know what that means can understand better. For those of you that don't...that just means, of course, that it was genius. (And more importantly, funny because the actress just totally let herself go.)

I did hear people call it fringe-y, too. Hmm.

This woman is great. (Her name is Flick Ferdinando, production company was Company FZ.)

Day thirteen: The 14th Tale

I almost missed this play, and I'm glad I didn't. I love this city for how walkable it is, but sometimes a zip line would be nice to get through all the crowds when I'm almost late for a show.

It's a one-man show written and performed by a 25-year-old man named Inua Ellams, a poet and graphic artist. He's originally from Nigeria, moved to England as a kid, and currently lives in London. It's an autobiographical show about his friendships and schooling growing up. Simple, but the way he writes and speaks about it is lyrical and beautiful to listen to.

Something I appreciated was that it was often lighthearted. That's not to say it was shallow, by any means. He just seems like the kind of guy who brings people together with his sense of humor, and uses it to maintain his own perspective on things.

It was just enjoyable to listen to him speak, and watch him act out the different people in his life who mean the most to him. The title is a reference to one of his published books of poems (I think it's poems) called Thirteen Fairy Negro Tales. So, this is the 14th. I'm really interested in finding more of his stuff to read...he has such an intriguing voice (both written and spoken).

Day twelve continued

Don't mind if I do!

Creative sign for Pleasance Gardens, a venue

Amazing, amazing pot pies and sweet pies. One pie + one drink = under 2 pounds. In other words, I'm there all the time.

Day twelve: The Fall of Man

By Jonathan Holloway and John Milton (in the sense that they used lines from Paradise Lost). This story was about cheating. I hate stories about cheating, because they're relentlessly painful to watch. This one was no exception. To make it worse, hardly any of it was legitimately captivating. Just gross or depressing. The story follows an older man who cheats on his wife to have a lusty affair with his younger housekeeper. You've probably seen this play. Or movie. Or read this book.

Naturally, we're against the characters at the outset, because, well, they're actively and consciously betraying someone who we assume to be innocent. With that in mind, the two biggest flaws of the story are: 1) we never meet or hear much about the wife, so we can neither completely sympathize with her, nor develop resentment for her, if there is reason to. And 2) because we don't meet the wife and because of a lack of character development, we are given no reason to emotionally support the two characters. As a result, it's nearly impossible to maintain interest in what happens to them.

Since it's lacking in those two aspects, they decided to throw in a bunch of nudity and sex to shamelessly grab our attention.

The director is one of the two writers of the script, which can sometimes contribute to a jumbled or dissatisfying production, since he may confuse his vision as the playwright with his vision as the director. ALSO — I thought this was gross — the actor who plays the husband was the co-director. In a way, it makes it a little more interesting, because of all the things his character makes the girl do and go through, both sexually and emotionally. Since he was one of the directors, then...he was telling her to do those things outside of his character, as well. An interesting twist on the whole thing, but more than anything it just creeped me out.

One thing the show had going for it: it was only 35 minutes.

Day eleven

On Friday, we went (along with the production group) to have a class from Richard DeMarco, a 79-year-old, enormously influential theater person, who was born in Edinburgh and has been to every Fringe Festival since it started in 1947. He's worked with people like Joseph Beuys and Tadeusz Kantor, and knows pretty much all there is to know about the festival.

He's a very lively, interesting man, and spoke to us in a complete stream-of-consciousness about the festival and his thoughts on theater. He was very interested in all of us, too. He wasn't just being friendly; instead, he recognized that we are all genuinely interested in theater, and he clearly wanted to know our take on everything, as well. He openly recognized that there's always a chance we could be the next T.S. Eliots or Katharine Hepburns (both people he casually met at the festival or elsewhere). He gave us a series of questions to answer and send to him. Questions like: Why are you studying theater? Why do you think you have the right to say you understand what the Fringe Festival is about? Why come to the festival? Are your parents proud of you for studying theater?

We're meeting up with him again tomorrow, and he's going to hold a class on Kantor, who I mentioned above, and who was the brain behind the style of theater emulated by the play we saw last week on the island. I am really looking forward to talking to DeMarco about it, because Kantor's style, to me, feels like the way theater should be done, not simply an alternative method. The basis of it is that a company first finds a space to work with. They spend time (a week, two weeks) just exploring the space during rehearsal. Then, they begin to form ideas of what the space means to them. They begin to bring props into rehearsal that relate to how they individually see the space. Their ideas of the space may change, as they see other people interacting with it in different ways. They begin to develop their characters that way. The director will then start telling individuals to interact with others in certain ways. One action will spark a reaction, will spark a reaction, will spark a reaction. Text comes last in this process, rather than first, because just like in regular life, words are used to give more specificity and meaning to action. The story develops from there. Shows like this cannot be performed as meaningfully in spaces other than the original one they chose to explore, which I imagine keeps many modern companies from making them. But when seen in the original space, the play is intuitively cohesive and dynamic, unlike a show that can be done in just any performance space.

Ingenious, right?!! Maybe I'm overly-excited about it. Regardless, I know I want to use that style sometime to make a show.

Tonight, we have tickets for a literary pub tour, which I assume is going around to different pubs/cafes where famous writers have written or done cool things. MAYBE WE'LL SEE JK ROWLING. Probably not. BUT MAYBE. She is in town, actually.

Day nine: Loch Ness

Yesterday was a day where the phrase, "travel like you're going to come back" totally applied. What I thought was going to be a quiet, 3 1/2 hour bus ride through the Highlands to Loch Ness where we would then get out and explore the area on our own for a while, turned out to be 12 hours of a bus tour. Aaaahhhhhhh, bus tours. On a list of things I really can't stand, bus tours are honestly in the top three. (Unless it's an open-top bus, because then at least you feel like you're a little closer to what you're seeing.) And then twelve hours of a bus tour? Jesus.

We kept stopping at those places that pay the bus companies to bring their passengers there for $5 coffee and $12 fish and chips. And then we got to the castle near Loch Ness, and had about half an hour to explore...only, you had to pay to get down to the castle itself, otherwise you could just look at it from the parking lot. Once we got to Loch Ness, we had twenty minutes to explore and take cheesy pictures in front of a few different fake Nessies. Then, it was a 3 1/2 hour ride back with the bus driver talking the whole way, just like the first leg.

Bleeehhhh.

The good part was the scenery was beautiful, and next time I'm in Scotland I definitely plan to go explore the area myself. It looks like there is some great hiking and camping up in the Highlands. Also, we saw a bridge where they filmed the Hogwarts Express for part of Harry Potter.

Here are a few pictures!

Day eight: East 10th Street: Self Portrait with Empty House

My first one-man (or woman) show here! I love to see one-person shows, because sometimes they're AWFUL and sometimes they're incredible. This one was definitely more toward the incredible side of the spectrum, although I wouldn't use that extreme of a word to describe it. Instead, I'll say...engaging, humorous, thoughtful.

It's written and performed by this man who lives in New York, Edgar Oliver, and it seems almost completely autobiographical. All it is really is he walks into the middle of the stage, and 8-10 uplights shine on him the whole time as he tells the story about how he came to living in his apartment on E. 10th St., and what it's like to live there. I think that's why I liked it. It wasn't one of those one-person shows where they're awkwardly miming or talking on the phone...things that you might as well just cast other people to get across. (I know some work, but not the ones I've seen.) Instead, it's just this probably mid-sixties man who clearly wants to share his story, so he does. Really simple, and as a result, engaging almost the whole time.

His whole play could absolutely be read as a book. In fact, I'd probably rather read it as a book if it was anyone else but him performing it. There were a few times I got distracted and didn't pay attention to parts of his story, but it wasn't like I was itching to get out of there. I was simply relaxed in the moment, and the next time he said something funny, I'd snap back into it.

I'm not positive exactly how much is autobiographical (and I wonder how much he's sure of that, himself), but at the bottom of the program, he dedicates the show to all the characters he mentioned in his story, so I suspect it's at least based on truth. But something tells me it's more than just that. The show had the refreshing feeling of a man who is not hung up on anything he's experienced, but who simply takes great enjoyment in recounting it all. Part of the story revolves around a young man he was in love with. He describes it artfully, in that this part does not take over the show as love stories often do, but the audience can still begin to comprehend the gravity of the experience.

When I was in the bathroom after the show, I heard a woman say to another, "That really wasn't your kind of show, was it?" That seemed weird for her to say, and I couldn't figure out why. But then I realized, since the performance was so open and genuine (and clearly about his life), it seemed like it couldn't be judged by anyone other than himself. It's like me telling you about my day yesterday, and you saying, "I really don't like how you told that." It's legitimate, but it just doesn't matter. Moreover, judgment about the way I told it probably wouldn't be the first thing you'd jump to. In the woman's defense, I wouldn't necessarily call East 10th Street a play, exactly, but that ended up not mattering much to me after the first two minutes.

Also, the song that played at the beginning and the end was beautiful. I'm going to email them to find out what it was...I'll put it here if I figure it out.

Day six: The Controlled Falling Project; Day seven: Detaining Mr. K

Yesterday, I saw some awesome acrobatics, at a show called The Controlled Falling Project. Today, I saw a show called Detaining Mr. K that was full of one-note acting, and less than intriguing dialogue. I'm just posting some pictures instead of talking about the shows, because acrobatics = amazing, which speaks for itself, and Detaining Mr. K = not-so-great, and I'm too tired to discuss it.

Day five: Chronicles of Long Kesh and Hou Hou Shahou's Chorus of Descent

Two plays today. The first, Chronicles of Long Kesh by Martin Lynch, is about Northern Ireland's prison, and the people kept there, working there, and visiting there. I don't know much, if anything, about Irish history, so it was a little hard to follow. After the first act, though, it picked up for me, and I understood it better without needing much background. I don't feel like writing much about it, because it was a long show and I don't have much to say other than I ended up really enjoying it, and it seems like it would be highly significant and touching to an Irish audience. Lynch sprinkles a good amount of humor in the otherwise dramatic play. Also, there was a lot of singing and stomping that was 98% successful and moving, and 2% cheesy and awkward.

Hou Hou Shahou's Chorus of Descent, written by Richard Fredman, was GREAT. It was put on by Babolin Theatre, a company from Cambridge made up of people who can't be much older than I am, if older at all. I don't know how to describe the show, other than: an explosion of energy with captivating music, movement, and a simple but poignant story line. The story investigates human nature, following a young woman with two kids. She has a drunk husband who leaves her, so she moves and meets another man, who is a reformed alcoholic (which we realize and she doesn't). They get married, she gets pregnant, he starts drinking again, ultimately leading her to drink, too. The whole community is just as significant to the story as the woman and her husbands, making it truly an ensemble cast. The costumes were colorful and intriguing, and every actor was spot on with his/her movement and singing. It wasn't a musical, just more a play with the actors singing to add to the overall feeling. It was all very theatrical, beautiful, and plain fun to watch. A couple reviews I read described it as "seamless" and "carnivalesque." Both fit perfectly. It's completely a kind of theater I love and hope to make, but I don't think I specifically realized that until seeing it.

Day four: The Bitter Belief of Cotrone the Magician

Wow. Awesome play. No idea what happened.

We took a bus from the city out to a dock on the bay (with a bridge that looks suspiciously like the Bay Bridge, and apparently may also be in the sixth Harry Potter movie), then got on a boat to take us to "Mystery Island," where the play would be held. Beautiful guitar music played through speakers the whole ride over, which had what can only be described as an "I'm sailing out to sea to find Mystery Island" feel. Honestly.

Twenty minutes later, we begin to approach a small island with big hills and cliffs. The sky is completely cloudy except, somehow, for a break in the clouds directly over the island. The grass and cliffs are covered in 6:30 pm sunlight. (Seriously, what? You can't plan this.) As we drift around the island to the dock, we can make out four figures standing stoically on top of one of the hills, watching our boat.

Once we're on the island, we're directed along a path to a small, run-down castle-looking thing. We sit on hay bales outside of it, in front of a raised grassy area that will be used for the stage. It's windy, but the sun breaks perfectly through the clouds, spilling deep gold light over the castle and stage.

Again. What? We just took a boat to an island to watch a play. This is completely ridiculous. But also totally beautiful.

The play ends up being this mix of dance, puppetry, fantasy, and poetry. I almost feel like I drifted into meditation at some point. The whole thing was much more an experience than a play. A lot, a lot of plays try to do that these days, but often don't succeed. This, though, was well-executed and just beautiful to watch. My only complaint is that it seemed a little slow toward the end. That, though, was mostly a result of being in the cold wind for too long once the sun started to set, and I made up for that with hot chocolate on the boat ride back.

Day three: Catch

Today, our group decided to start a three-word digest of the shows we see. Particularly, the less than great ones. For this show, Catch, I decided on "non-committal, tentative man-women."

Actually, the show itself was okay, and I'd say it has potential, it just wasn't very well done. It's about men finding Russian wives on the internet. It's a pretty modern play, so it doesn't have a super defined arc, but it does leave a lot of room for artistic interpretation. If done right, it would be intriguing.

The company I saw perform it today was close to having a grasp on it, but I think they took it too far to the fringe-y side. The play revolves around two men, but they were both played by women. That didn't make much sense to me, because they never used that for any sort of commentary (or at least it never came across). They decided to get at a lot of the themes and symbolism through movement, but the movements were sloppy, without enough unison where there was supposed to be. Also, the actresses were often too aware of being onstage, so there was a clear separation between the women as actors and as characters. One of the actresses was significantly more committed than the other, which was enjoyable to watch when it happened, but it was still distracting to have such a gap between the two. The other always tried too hard to have male characteristics, and she came across almost clown-like because of how much she pushed it. The one part I liked her in, though, was when she played the daughter of one of the older men (played by the other woman), and I suspect that's because she was more in tune in her own life with that type of person. I could be wrong with my interpretation; maybe they were going for clown-like, but if that's what they intended, they didn't push it hard enough. And if they weren't going for that, the actresses weren't natural in their roles. Instead, they tended to sit at an awkward, indecisive middle-ground for the majority of the show.

The actresses did, however, seem have a great time doing the show, which made it much more enjoyable to watch than if it had simply been poorly done. I will definitely give them props for their energy. And the movement and symbolism had potential to be really cool, they may even just need some time to sink into it. Also, the program references a show called Skolka that I gather relates to this one, saying that the brides from that are telling the men's story in this. I know nothing about that play, so it could be that I'm just missing a connection that relates to women playing the men.

Other side notes:

- I bought a scarf today.

- It was overcast all day like Seattle, but when it rained, it rained like the Bay Area. (Hard rain, not spit-in-your-face Seattle rain.) I loved it. Felt right at home!

- The picture above is the view from my room. I haven't yet figured out what that Parthenon-looking thing is, but I plan to hike up to it on a day off.

- I have barely taken any pictures. I only have my big camera and I walk everywhere, so it's hard to commit to carrying something heavy. But I'll definitely bust out the fancy-pants camera soon.

House pet

What has eight legs, is 2 - 2 1/2 inches in diameter, and lives in our bathtub?

Day one: Art House

And so it begins. We each have tickets to 25 different shows, and will probably be seeing more.

Today, I went with another girl in our group to see a show called Art House. It was my first one of the festival, so I wasn't necessarily expecting anything great, but I was really impressed. I can't figure out who wrote it, but the program says it's from "Australia's brightest new playwright." So.....? The cast is just two women. They're sisters; one's a painter (Charlie), and one's a non-artist (Viva). The play starts after they've faked Charlie's death in order to make her work famous (and so she can paint in solitude), and Viva is the only one who knows and can keep her company. Coming from such a relatively simple idea (just that people often become famous after they die) both the playwright and the company putting it on (Tangram Theatre Company) really creatively explored the depths of what that would actually entail. The sisterly tension was believable, revolving around them needing each other too much out of loneliness (from being fake-dead) and insecurity (from being the non-artsy little sister). The actresses were very relaxed in their roles, too, which always makes the audience relaxed. Actually, the actress playing Viva reminded me a ton of Samantha Cole from last year's PATP graduating class. She would do that role so well.

Honestly, I was pretty skeptical of the show as it started, mostly because of the set. As the audience sits down, Charlie is sitting in a comfortable chair in an implied studio apartment (or something close to it). Her art stuff is scattered haphazardly (all "I don't care, I'm an artist") on the floor next to her, and there are a few large picture frames leaning against some poles (that represented walls). Across the room is a table with a mini stove, some scattered food/books, and a bottle of vodka with shot glasses front and center. One of my biggest pet peeves in theater is when an actor relies too much on "blaaahhhhh I drink alcohol to drown my sorrows" without actually getting in touch with the mind of an alcoholic. So in the beginning, when she started taking shots while blasting Tainted Love and wearing layered baggy shirts, I assumed the worst. But she handled it really well. (Also, she wasn't playing an alcoholic, she just happened to be drinking then.) Again, the actress' comfort in her role kept her actions from seeming contrived, which was refreshing.

The theme that you really can't live without human connection may be pretty overdone in...everything, but I think it's overdone because so often it's intriguing to watch the ways a character comes to that realization. I just loved how all the sisterly tensions between the two women intermingled with the tensions that resulted from the situation. It's beautifully written; the dialogue is simple and realistic, so the few poetic lines mixed in are thoughtful, rather than in-your-face artistic.

Anyway. See it! Or read it! Not sure how out there it is yet, but I really liked it, and I don't think it's just because it's the first show I saw.

As for everything else, Edinburgh is great. We went to a great cafe near our apartment today, where apparently there's a guy working there who's from Seattle. Needless to say, the coffee was delicious. The coffee shop itself was very Seattle, too, although I doubt that's because of their one employee. My favorite part was a sign near the door that said: "JK Rowling never wrote here."

Alright, we're off to find a pub with some good live music. It's the first Friday of the festival, so everything's open until 5 am. Luckily, nothing to do tomorrow until the afternoon.

Almost there

I'm sitting in my hostel in London, barely two blocks away from King's Cross station (!! still excited about it) where I'm boarding the train tomorrow to go up to Edinburgh for the Fringe Festival. For those who don't know, I'm doing a month-long study abroad through UW (for my drama major), where we see a million shows and have class 3 days/week to discuss what we've seen, and how it all relates to concepts in theater.

I'm going to use this blog primarily to write about all (or most of) the shows I see. I'll probably write about a variety of things, though, so if you don't like theater but you like me (or vice versa) you may still enjoy this, or at least find it a good means of procrastination.

For quick reference! A few things I enjoy (so, there's a 15-100% chance they'll come up):

- theater

- cats

- picnics

- scarves

- the ocean

- the words "counterintuitive" and "naturally"

- taking photos

- olives

- Seattle

Annnnd, time to get to finishing (starting.......?) 2 books for class next week.