• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

62       Some Thoughts About a Recent Trip to Cullowhee, etc.

6/24/2016

0 Comments

 
Not long ago my wife, Bonnie, and I made a trip back to the Cullowhee area to check up on our still unsold house, drop in at the Biltmore Estate (always a pleasant thing to do, and made more special by a chance to see the “romantic” costumes from some award-winning movies again) as well as to swing by Northern Virginia to visit our older daughter and her family.  All things considered, it was a very enjoyable trip, although there are some particular points which come to mind that may be worth a comment or two.
 
The trip was, in large part, necessitated by the rather disappointing real estate market in the Sylva/Cullowhee area.  The house (a rather nice one, in my prejudiced opinion) has been on the market for longer than we had hoped, probably due to the fact that Western is the largest employer in the area and it has been the subject of many of the “cuts” in education brought about by the current state government.  You know, the one which would ban Kaitlin Jenner from using a female bathroom, because she was born a male, so it’s entirely reasonable to assume that she would try to rape any girls she encountered in the restroom.  In any event, I don’t think that the current political climate in North Carolina has been proven to be supportive of education or business in the Twenty-First Century.  It has led to the state acquiring a bit of a reputation as a joke in much of the country and has caused a number of consequences from parts of the business community.  That certainly doesn’t contribute to a robust and expanding real estate market, especially in the more rural areas of the state (like Jackson County).  But, enough about that.
 
This was our second chance to see the “Fashionable Romance” costumes which were being displayed within the Biltmore House.  The fact that they have recently changed the rules so that it is now permissible to take pictures within the house made this exhibition even more enjoyable, as (even though I’m not a costume designer) I am interested in costuming.  The unfortunate thing about this exhibition, however, was that many of the costumes were so poorly lit as to make it virtually impossible to get a good picture, or even to see the costumes very well.  Now I AM (have been) a lighting designer and (while I realize that there are many limitations to lighting these costumes given their locations within a facility which should not be damaged by the installation of lighting equipment in the most ideal locations) it struck me very quickly on both trips that some judicious use of different (usually flood in stead of spot) lamps and/or some use of no color “frost” or “silk” gels would have gone a long way to provide more effective light on these costumes without requiring different light fixtures or much expense.  I think that some of the fixture placement could have been rethought as well.  Since many of the costumes were wedding dresses (hence white, or very light colored) the variation in brightness (often concentrated just below the waist) really didn’t contribute to the effectiveness of the display.  I can’t be sure, but I find it hard to believe that I couldn’t have improved the lighting of these costumes at little expense and, probably, not much time.
 
A most enjoyable part of this trip was a chance to see a performance of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged) [Revised].  This was put on under the sponsorship of a new program by WCU’s College of Fine and Performing Arts called “WCU Road Works.”  My understanding is that this program is an attempt to bring various sorts of arts programs to the local community at little, or no, cost as a form of outreach.  All in all, I think this is a MOST worthwhile endeavor and something which should have been started long ago.  The performance we saw was a variation of The Compleat Works of Wllm Shkspr (abridged) by The Reduced Shakespeare Co. (the other RSC).  The [Revised] reference was necessitated by the fact that the show was performed by three women, rather than the original company’s three men.  This meant that a certain amount of the humor in the original script had to be rewritten for female performers.  All things considered, I think the revision was quite successful and the performance was a lot of fun.  I confess that my memory of seeing the original cast on tour in Hoey many years ago was even more enjoyable, but that may well be the enhancement of memory.  It was a real treat to see a cast of my former students performing this script.  I enjoyed the show thoroughly, was quite pleased with the performances, and was happy to see the work of folks I had taught shortly before I retired.  I confess a certain amount of sadness that they are among the last of my students who are left at Western.  That means that I am about to have little direct connection to the program where I spent over 40 years.  Yes, there are a few faculty and staff folks left from my days and MANY memories, but the “on the ground” student connection is fast disappearing.  That’s to be expected, but it seems a bit sad at the same time, even if it is the way of the world.
 
The rest of the trip was an all too brief visit with our daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren in northern Virginia.  This was probably something only a grandparent can truly appreciate, so I won’t really try to explain it.  I’ll only say that we are both very fond (obviously) of these people, so it’s always such a treat to be able to see them in person.  It doesn’t really matter what we do, it’s the being together that’s the important thing.  After all, that’s what family is all about.
 
All things considered, the trip was long enough to enjoy being back “home” in Omaha (it’s still funny to think of Omaha as home), but not really long enough in terms of having the time to do as much as we would like in terms of the people and places to visit.  After all, almost half of the time was spent in the car going from place to place.  Still, I’m glad we went….
 
I’ll get back to more usual stuff next time.
 
LLAP
 
 

0 Comments

61       Why Study Theatre History?

6/5/2016

1 Comment

 
One of the questions which I know at least some of my former students would ask (especially, I suspect, after what they felt was a less than great grade on a Theatre History test) was “Why do I need even to pretend to learn all of this stuff anyway?  I’ll NEVER use it for anything!”  I don’t know that I was ever asked this question directly, but I did, on occasion, over hear it in the hall and I’m sure it was asked.  Heck, I even asked it myself when I was an undergrad.
 
When I was doing my Master’s class work, I had the privilege of taking classes from Oscar G. Brockett, whom some have called “the leading theatre historian of the 20th Century.”  That was one of the reasons why I chose to use his theatre history text for my classes; I simply admired the man.  I was also lucky enough to have him on the committee for my Master’s thesis; a study of an original promptbook of a production of The Merry Wives of Windsor at the Theatre Royal in Birmingham, England in the mid-1800’s, which I discovered in the Lilly Library, the rare books/special collections library at Indiana University, Bloomington.  I always wished that he had been my major professor on this project, but he was too busy with his PhD students.  It’s probably from him that I acquired a certain interest in trying to figure out what might really have happened, etc., based on less that complete evidence.  I was able to pin down the possibility that the promptbook I had MIGHT be a copy of the one for the production of that play presented (on tour) by Charles Dickens and an amateur group of his friends.  I could prove that this company played in that theatre at about the right time, so the possibility that it could be a copy of their promptbook made by, or for, Mr. Simpson, the theatre manager, is not out of the realm of possibility.  Nor was it out of the realm of possibility that the copy I studied actually belonged to Dickens and was somehow acquired by Simpson, whose label is on the front cover.  Still, neither of these possibilities could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  At least they couldn’t be by me, at that time, under those circumstances.  But, I’m digressing….
 
The other day, Bonnie, Maggi and I attended a performance of The Producers at the Omaha Community Playhouse.  I have to confess that I wasn’t overly impressed, as I felt that the musical show is significantly weaker (as a script) than the original movie.  As a 90-minute movie, I love it!  As a two and a half hour musical, not terrifically well performed (not badly done, mind you, but not really what I was expecting having seen some other shows at the OCP which I though were really quite well done).  But, I’m still digressing….
 
We got to the theatre a few minutes early, to find our seats, get settled in, look over the program, etc.  In looking over the “Director’s Notes,” I ran across this paragraph:

Way back in 1968, MGM was extremely nervous about releasing Springtime for Hitler, a screwball comedy by a relatively unknown TV writer.  Even after changing the title to The Producers, the studio was not willing to spend the money required to give it a wide release.  It wasn't until Peter Sellers accidentally saw the film (the theater lost the reel for the Fellini flick he wanted to see so it substituted a copy of the still unreleased The Producers that was laying around the back room), fell in love with it and did everything in his power to promote it, including taking out full page ads in the trade papers and personally calling up studio heads and begging them to release it.  His efforts paid off.  Advertising got people into the seats for opening weekend, word of mouth and rave reviews continued to fill the seats and the film became a box office smash, won an Oscar for best screenplay and launched the careers of Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder into the stratosphere (Zero Mostel was already a rising star, but I'm sure he appreciated the bump in fame). 
Something immediately struck me as “wrong.”  Did you catch it?  No, I don’t mean the “…laying around…” problem, which I don’t think has been changed by the MLA.  It should, of course, have been “…lying around…” to be correct, at least as I learned English grammar.  No, I’m referring to the reference to Zero Mostel.  I knew this didn’t sound right because I knew that he had originated the role of Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof and I had thought he had gotten a Tony for it.  I also knew that he had done a rather famous production of Ionesco’s Rhinoceros, although I didn’t know anything about it.  Still, I KNEW that he had done Fiddler, and I KNEW that I had seen that show, in New York about 1968 with Herschel Bernardi and Martha Schlamme in the leads and a then-unknown Bette Middler playing Tzeitel.  That meant that I KNEW that Fiddler had to predate The Producers, which would suggest, at least to me, that simply referring to Mostel as “…a rising star…” seemed more than a slight understatement.
 
It didn’t take more than a couple of minutes on the web to establish that Mostel had been awarded Tonys as the lead in Rhinoceros in 1961, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum in 1963 and Fiddler on the Roof in 1965.  NOTE: all of these were BEFORE the magic 1968 date indicated in the “Director’s Notes” and suggesting that “(Zero Mostel was already a rising star, but I'm sure he appreciated the bump in fame).”  In other words, a THREE-time Tony award-winning stage and musical actor is being referred to (by a theatre person [!]) as a “rising star.”  Personally, I find that insulting to both Tony award winners and to all of those who struggle daily, doing good, solid work, but who have never gotten an award.  Is the entertainment industry so dominated by movies that Mostel can’t be considered a “star” because he never won an Oscar?  Don’t three Tonys count for something?  I think this suggests a lack of knowledge on the part of the author, as well as a lack of willingness to find out the facts before putting a statement like this in print.
 
Now, as some of you know, I’ve never been very fond of awards, in any event.  I consider them to be mostly marketing tools for producers.  I frequently think about an interview which Paul Newman and Tom Hanks gave to Time Magazine:

Time:             Paul, you usually don't go to the Oscars even when you're nominated.  Why?
[Newman makes a face like he's just taken a swig of lemon juice.]
HANKS:           I think he just answered your question.
NEWMAN:      I don't understand why competition has to exist between actors.  Some guy starts with a marvelous character, and the script is all there.  All he has to do is show up.  Another guy digs it out by the goddamn roots with a terrible director and turns in this incredible performance.  And someone says one is better than the other.  That's what's nice about car racing.  It's right to a thousandth of a second.  Your bumper is here.  That guy's bumper is there.  You win. 
Theatre is, after all a TEAM effort.  We don’t speak very often about theatre practitioners as a team, except when referring to the “production team” of the director, designers, stage manager and key technicians (sometimes).  We do talk about the “company,” but a company is, in fact, a team.  I think considerable damage is done to the creation of good theatre by folks who have too much focus on themselves and who lack a recognition that (as I’ve said many times) the best cast ever assembled, of the best script ever written, with the best designers and director you can imagine; are just a bunch of folk stumbling around in the dark until somebody turns on the lights.  We NEED each other.
 
I think that also means that we need to understand how we got to where we are as an art and a craft.  And that means that we should take the time to engage our brains before we open our mouths (even metaphorically).  All that the director had to do was a little research not to come off as a bit of a foolish jerk to at least one audience member (granted, a fairly knowledgeable one).
 
And THAT just may be the real reason to understand something about the history of the theatre—it can prevent us from looking dumb.  Of course, having someone edit our copy for stupid grammar mistakes can be useful, too.
 
LLAP

1 Comment

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly